Tilting at Windmills

New Jersey could have windpower generating enough electricity to power 50,000 homes within 3 years, but environmental groups are split over whether an offshore generating facility would be good for the state.

The state's first land-based "wind farm," which is being built in Atlantic City, is a joint effort by the Atlantic County Utilities Authority and a private developer. But despite growing interest from private wind developers, the state put its breezy ocean waters off-limits two years ago, in response to complaints from local residents and coastal advocates.

The moratorium has split environmental activists in New Jersey: Coastal groups worry massive wind farms could harm marine and bird life and drive away tourists; others say the state has to find alternatives to fossil-fuel power and the air pollution and global warming it produces.

"We think the outcome is a positive because we need to fill in that data gap," Jeff Tittel, director of the state Sierra Club, said Tuesday. "We see wind as having tremendous potential for a clean, renewable future."

If they follow the lead of past recommendations, the turbines would likely be built three to six miles offshore and stand 10 to 20 stories high, with 100-foot-long blades.

The wind panel said the test field should go forward only after an extensive survey of environmental conditions along the shore, energy needs and tourists' opinions of wind farms, so the state has a "baseline" to measure the effects of wind development. The panel gave few suggestions, however, on how the cash-strapped state should fund the studies or how long they might take.

In a separate minority report, panel member Tim Dillingham criticized the idea as "poorly supported and premature."

Because there's no guarantee the state will do the proper studies, a test field could do little more than open the door for wind developers, warned Dillingham, executive director of the American Littoral Society. "Given the fiscal times facing the state, this is likely to render these recommendations meaningless," he wrote.

The panel report, nonetheless, said a trial run could be the only way to answer questions about how wind power would affect marine mammals, migratory birds and the fishing industry, among other factors.

There's too little research on existing offshore wind farms to reach conclusions, the panel said.

Are you kidding me? They're worried about whether the windmills, sited 3-6 miles offshore would adversely affect tourism and bird populations. Considering the opposition to building new gas or coal fired power stations that release noxious gases and particulates into the air, wind power is renewable, doesn't rely on supplies of oil or gas that might have to be imported from unstable regions around the world, or dug out of the ground in mines that have seen a spike in deaths this year (think of the WV Sago mine tragedy).

The fact is that the windmills could be seen as an incentive, letting people know that wind power is generating electricity in the communities that rely on tourism dollars - not only increasing awareness, but promoting clean renewable sources of energy that doesn't require OPEC, mining, or despoiling and polluting large areas of land.

What the opponents are doing is nothing more than NIMBY wrapped up in some scientific sounding arguments. The same environmentalists who oppose the windmills are the same ones who complain about greenhouse gases and the damage it causes to the environment. What they are really trying to do is impose zero-growth strategies on the state, which is what happens when you limit energy production, push for additional regulations making it more difficult for businesses to try and provide power to the state to meet demand, and otherwise force businesses to look elsewhere.