Habib Dagher and Governor King make compelling arguments for offshore wind energy. However, I am very skeptical about the continued use of taxpayer money to fund energy experiments like ethanol and off shore wind. Off-shore wind energy, like ethanol before it, has the potential to gobble up billions in taxpayer money and provide very little in return.

Your article makes a misleading reference regarding the efficiency of nuclear power to offshore wind power. Mr. Dagher suggests that offshore wind energy could provide 5,000 MW where as nuclear could only deliver 1,000 MW. Mr. Dagher omits one very important question: "What are the costs to develop 5000 MW of offshore wind energy versus 5000 MW of nuclear?"

The answer is overwhelmingly obvious - nuclear is a much cheaper and much more efficient source of energy. If it is cheaper and just as clean to produce 5000 MW of nuclear shouldn't we pursue that as opposed to throwing billions of taxpayer money toward a technology that is unproven?

Power plant construction (wind, nuclear, solar, biomass, etc.) is solely project finance. Project finance is the method by which plants get built and paid for. Developers (or the taxpayers in this instance) consider the development and construction costs associated with such a project over time. They then superimpose the returns they will receive selling the electricity over time as well as any tax credits. In short, the delta is the associated value of a power project. Subsequently, investors in energy projects are looking for lower risks and high return. Ironically, the taxpayer should use this same math to determine the most economical energy path moving forward. Offshore wind energy is an enormously high risk and has a very low return for the taxpayers and the people of Maine.

Left to the project finance crowd, our future would be a combination of nuclear, natural gas and onshore wind energy production. Furthermore, the technology for nuclear, natural gas and onshore wind is available TODAY. I was always taught "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush." Well, in this case we have three very viable birds in hand and one offshore.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, the science experiment in the gulf of Maine does nothing to solve Maine's potential Katrina-like disaster. Putting up offshore, experimental wind turbines and the billions of dollars that will go toward it does nothing for those people who need to replace their oil burners with an alternative heat source. Each year we spend tens of millions on Low Income Heating Assistance for the Elderly and the Poor (LIHEAP). Last year we were braced for the worst as oil prices surged and winter approached. Offshore wind energy and the billions being gobbled up by it does NOTHING to resolve what could be a terrible humanitarian catastrophe for Mainers. Failure by our elected officials to fix the gaping hole in the roof while spending taxpayer dollars on expensive experiments is irresponsible. Approximately 85 percent of Maine homes heat with oil compared to the national average of 9 percent. We have tremendous natural gas reserves. With natural gas-based, combined heat and power technology we can produce both electricity and heat - today!

In fact, the billions that will be spent on offshore wind energy we could be using to replace our state wide oil infrastructure with natural gas and geothermal pumps, but instead we are choosing this science experiment.

Dean P. Scontras is vice president of business development for Ra Power Solutions in Cape Neddick. He ran for U.S Congress in 2008.