Does wind power blow?

Alternate energy sources like wind and solar can't possibly meet our needs. But is nuclear energy the answer?

The answer to Canada's energy needs might be found blowing in the wind or in controversial nuclear technology -- or a combination of both. Sun Media's Lorrie Goldstein, a proponent of nuclear energy, and national comment editor Paul Berton, who says Canada is lagging in development of alternate sources of power, recently engaged in an energetic debate.

GOLDSTEIN: It's nice to pretend that we'll be able to meet Canada's future energy needs via windmills, solar power and the like, but it's a pipe dream. Surely, you understand that?
BERTON: Only one thing is for sure: we cannot meet Canada's future energy needs with traditional methods alone.

GOLDSTEIN: What's certain is that if we try to rely too much on wind and solar power in the name of going green, we'll go broke in the dark. Renewables are absurdly expensive compared to fossil fuels. Plus, the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, so there are major concerns about availability and reliability as well.

BERTON: Last time I checked, fossil fuels are a limited resource, and they're dirty. Sun and wind are renewable, and clean. Compared to the various unforeseen, hidden or ignored costs of burning fossil fuels and creating nuclear energy, the price of wind and solar energy will look like a bargain in the future. Meanwhile, when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, the energy created can reduce our dependence on other sources.

GOLDSTEIN: Wait a minute. Are you serious about stopping global warming or not? If you are, then you should not be dismissing nuclear power, the only realistic form of energy we have that does not emit greenhouse gases. My authorities? Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace and James Lovelock the grandfather of the world-wide green movement, who criticizes today's "Greens" for raising the alarm about climate change and then hypocritically campaigning against the peaceful use of nuclear power.

BERTON: I'm not dismissing nuclear power. I'm saying if we do more to encourage wind and solar energy we won't need as much of it.

GOLDSTEIN: Fair point, but the Greens can't have it both ways. They can't on the one hand argue we are facing catastrophic, irreversible climate change within the next few decades and then dismiss, as they do, nuclear power. If we rely solely or excessively on wind, solar and tidal power along with biomass and geothermal, which are all decades away from practical, mainstream use, it will end very badly. I'm not against developing renewable power. I'm saying we have to be realistic about what it can do.

BERTON: I'm not sure the term excessive can ever apply here. Canada has a big wind resource, and we're not using it. We're way behind the Europeans, the United States, India and China in terms of the energy we produce.

GOLDSTEIN: Canada's biggest wind resource is the House of Commons, whenever the braying jackasses in it start yelling at each other about global warming. And China? You seriously think China has any lessons to teach Canada about how not to pollute? China is building 562 new coal-fired energy plants over the next few years, the dirtiest form of fossil fuel energy there is. The only thing windmills in China will do is blow the smog around.

BERTON: Oh please. Spare me the theatrics. It's up to us to lead the way and show others how it can be done. Even if it costs more money now, it will save money down the road. It's just simple common sense.

GOLDSTEIN: Theatrics? You mean like Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth? The reality is that throwing money indiscriminately at renewable energy resources -- especially wind power by the way, since the serious investment after nuclear should go into solar (read Lovelock) is a huge mistake. Canadian politicians, of all parties, are trying to fool the public into thinking the "boutique" little renewable energy projects they're trotting out right now are a painless solution to smog and climate change. They're not.

BERTON: You call it indiscriminate money throwing; I call it investment. Wind energy was worth over $25 billion worldwide in 2005. And the industry is doubling in size every three years. Denmark gets 20% of its electricity from wind. Yes, solar and wind development will cost taxpayers' money, but it will pay off economically and environmentally, and it will create lots of jobs.

GOLDSTEIN: Why can't you take "yes" for an answer? I'm not saying there should be no public investment in renewables. Tell you what, let's take all the tax money our government now gives to oil companies to find oil -- like they're not already making enough profit -- and use it to fund Canadian research into renewable energy. We can debate which renewables later. Presto! We create high-value R&D jobs in Canada and develop new clean technologies to sell abroad, while reducing our own greenhouse gas emission targets back home. Happy? Just don't pretend we can scrap our nuclear plants or stop building new ones.

BERTON: Unfortunately not, but the fact is we're not working fast enough to harness the wind and the sun. You almost sound like a politician with this "fund Canadian research into renewable energy" business. What government needs to do more of is help speed up the process for wind (or sun) developers, increase subsidies and legislate demand for it.

GOLDSTEIN: Am I in the Twilight Zone here? If you stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and direct that funding to renewable energy research, you ARE "speeding up the process" plus increasing public subsidies for research. What our politicians are doing instead -- like Premier Dalton McGuinty in Ontario -- is committing us to pay outrageous energy prices for "boutique" renewable projects that aren't anywhere near ready for mass use, just so they can announce they're "doing something." As for "legislating demand," yikes! Remember the former Soviet Union's "five-year plans for the production of tin?" How well did that turn out?

BERTON: Ah, nothing like invoking the memory of the evil Soviet Union to bolster an argument. Fine, we stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. But "outrageous energy prices" may be a good thing (if all the hidden costs for nuclear and fossil fuels are factored in) in terms of both conservation and research and development.

GOLDSTEIN: Actually, that would be telling people the truth. For all the nice, comforting, politically correct green/bafflegab talk about solar panels, windmills, hybrid cars and florescent light bulbs, the only way to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada is to charge outrageous prices for fossil fuels. That's the real discussion we haven't even started yet. If you seriously want to reduce greenhouse gases, windmills aren't going to do it for you -- $5 a litre gas will. That's the inconvenient truth our politicians won't talk about. Don't say you weren't warned.

BERTON: Now we're talking.