In the absence of a state energy master plan defining how much real energy Corzine believes will come from offshore wind, a hard look at it in relation to overall energy demand and the ability to replace fossil fuel sources or address global climate change is needed. Offshore wind farms are not the answer to our energy problems. Industrial wind farms are expensive and inefficient: They cost hundreds of millions of dollars (much of it public money) and need thousands of turbines to produce relatively small amounts of electricity in relation to New Jersey's overall demand. Even then, they will have only a minimal impact on emissions that contribute to global cli mate change, and won't affect sea level rise at the Jersey Shore. A realistic look at the environmental benefits of expensive offshore wind facilities leads one to conclude that we should invest scarce public resources in more effective means of reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions -- which is absolutely necessary in the face of global warming and its effects on New Jersey.

With its editorial "Tilting toward windmills" (Aug. 31), The Times has highlighted an important issue. The editorial's arguments and conclusion were good, except that it doesn't recognize that the Corzine administration is already moving forward on the "test" project of 80 windmills prior to the completion of the environmental and economic im pact studies the editorial suggests are the appropriate course of action. They have already dismissed any "cautious approach and mak[ing] sure that the environmental and economic questions are answered before we allow the giant windmills to sprout along our coast." Additionally, plans are to line up a project developer before the state energy plan (which would lay out a rational justification for offshore wind) is done, and before the developing federal regulatory program is in place. This will result in locating the facility into state waters (three miles or less offshore), because no federal permits are available for farther offshore, if the administration pursues awarding contracts in the next year.

Baseline ecological and economic studies, risk analysis and comprehensive siting evaluations prior to construction reflect an approach broadly acknowledged as critical to any offshore development process with integrity. Simply put, the administration's approach rejects important safeguards necessary in light of a lack of scientific understanding of effects and potential for serious harm from offshore wind development to New Jersey's coast, living resources and existing uses of the ocean.

Even pro-wind advocates have supported the need for resource studies and protective criteria to guide the evaluation of overall policy and siting of facilities; European programs, held up as evidence of no harm to offshore and coastal resources or as demonstrations that the technology is "proven," were built on extensive, comprehensive studies preceding any proposals to site facilities -- test or otherwise. The need for such preliminary work is also considered fundamental to the overall success of offshore wind programs and legitimate, reasoned policy by a variety of environmental groups.

The New Jersey Blue Ribbon Panel on Offshore Wind Turbines created by Gov. Richard Codey concluded that "New Jersey's need to address its energy problems must be carefully balanced with the need to protect the vibrant economy and wildlife and natural resources that make this state an ideal place to live, work and vaca tion." By pursuing the construction of an offshore facility without these assessments, the Corzine administration is rejecting this appropriately cautious position.

Corzine has returned to the approach advocated by the Board of Public Utilities prior to the Blue Ribbon Panel on Offshore Wind Turbines (BRP) -- choosing to develop offshore wind turbines without appropriate consideration of the risks inherent in developing an untested technology off of New Jersey's coast. The governor seems to reject the need to assess and avoid unacceptable and irreversible harm to the state's economic interests or wildlife and natural resources in pursuit of offshore wind turbines. While the administration has funded some future studies, it is working to build the windmills be fore the studies are complete.

The ocean view from New Jersey's beaches is one of the few vistas clear of industrial and manmade structures in the state -- in that sense, it provides an irreplaceable open space experience to beachgoers in this most urban of states. Photo simulations of proposed industrial wind farms show the massive turbines (as tall as the Statue of Liberty) to be the dominant structure on the seascape. A survey of beach visitors done by the New Jersey Commerce Department last year identified the scenic impacts as the primary negative issue in the public's mind regarding offshore wind.

In the absence of a state energy master plan defining how much real energy Corzine believes will come from offshore wind, a hard look at it in relation to overall energy demand and the ability to replace fossil fuel sources or address global climate change is needed. Offshore wind farms are not the answer to our energy problems. Industrial wind farms are expensive and inefficient: They cost hundreds of millions of dollars (much of it public money) and need thousands of turbines to produce relatively small amounts of electricity in relation to New Jersey's overall demand. Even then, they will have only a minimal impact on emissions that contribute to global cli mate change, and won't affect sea level rise at the Jersey Shore. A realistic look at the environmental benefits of expensive offshore wind facilities leads one to conclude that we should invest scarce public resources in more effective means of reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions -- which is absolutely necessary in the face of global warming and its effects on New Jersey.

Tim Dillingham is executive di rector of the American Littoral Society.

Web link: http://www.nj.com/opinion/times/editorials/index.s...