Wind: The new nuclear

Most of all, the agent of change that ignores the economics of the technology, that downplays its environmental and health risks, and that foists a hated technology onto communities without giving them their day in court, is a bullying remote government, acting out of some sort of ideology. The public protests are pushback against government overreach and heavy-handedness.

By Lawrence Solomon  Financial Post
In the 1980s, citizens in countries throughout the world organized to fight the nuclear plants that were being proposed for their communities. It would become the largest environmental protest movement in history, and a successful one, with nuclear expansion plans all but killed throughout the Western world. Nuclear plants were not only ruinously expensive, the leaders of the campaigns argued, but environmentally risky, unlike conservation and renewable technologies such as wind power. The environmentalists’ success was all the more striking given nuclear power’s popularity before the protests — its public approval exceeded 90%.

In the 2000s, citizens throughout the world are again organizing, this time in possibly greater numbers and against wind power, the very technology that many saw as a desirable alternative to nuclear. Like nuclear in its early days, wind power enjoys great popular support — it is typically the public’s most popular form of electricity generation. Also like nuclear power, that support is likely to quickly collapse, and for many of the same reasons.

The underlying reasons for the opposition to wind are surprisingly similar to those for nuclear. Wind, too, is ruinously expensive for ratepayers, it is unwanted as a neighbour by property owners, and it comes with health and environmental worries. Like nuclear, which was exempted from environmental reviews and received exemptions from liability in the event of a catastrophic accident, wind, too, needs the rules to be bent or broken to seem viable. Not only does wind escape public environmental hearings to assess its slaughter of birds or the long-distance transmission corridors it requires, but, to facilitate wind developments, municipalities are often stripped of their traditional rights to control developments within their boundaries.

Most of all, the agent of change that ignores the economics of the technology, that downplays its environmental and health risks, and that foists a hated technology onto communities without giving them their day in court, is a bullying remote government, acting out of some sort of ideology. The public protests are pushback against government overreach and heavy-handedness.

Neither technology is inherently undesirable, of course. Both represent, in fact, impressive technologies with promising futures. But they are immature technologies, prematurely brought to market. Massive subsidies designed to kick-start a wind power industry and foster economies of scale have failed, just as they failed in the case of nuclear: The subsidies instead bought higher taxes and higher rates.

In the case of nuclear, the fault lies with the U.S. government in the 1950s. Rather than letting the private sector nurture nuclear technology and introduce it into the marketplace gradually, as a demand for it materialized, the U.S. government began a crash program on foreign policy grounds — Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program was designed to proliferate civilian nuclear technology abroad but with strings attached, to prevent military applications.

In the case of wind, the blame falls on Canada and other Western governments as well as on the United States. Their motivation here was not in preventing a nuclear Armageddon but an environmental holocaust, in the form of a presumed global warming catastrophe. Communities would just have to accept windmills for governments to meet their aggressive carbon dioxide reduction targets, the governments determined, meaning that wind farms would need to be imposed, full blown, on the countryside.

The governments’ global warming strategy is failing, and with it so is the popularity of the governments promoting it. In the U.K., where climate change policies have caused energy prices to soar — five million Britons now suffer from fuel poverty — the global warming alarmist Labour government has fallen. In the United States, where the Democrats are expected to lose at least one house of Congress to the Republicans, the populace has turned decisively against the notion that global warming is primarily man-made. “With one exception, none of the Republicans running for the Senate — including the 20 or so with a serious chance of winning — accept the scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for global warming,” stated a New York Times editorial this week.

In Canada, the leader of the opposition federal Liberal Party is a critic of his party’s previous advocacy of a carbon tax — an advocacy that ended the career of his predecessor and gave his party its worst electoral showing since Confederation. And in Ontario, the provincial Liberals are facing an election loss next year largely over power rates that could double or triple due to green policies.

The role of wind farms in the soaring power bills is not yet widely understood, just as the role of nuclear reactors in the rising power bills of two decades ago wasn’t initially understood. As this understanding takes hold, and as wind’s environmental costs become better known, the pushback will grow and wind will come to symbolize out-of-scale technology and arrogance — the new nuclear.

5 thoughts on “Wind: The new nuclear

  1. I believe that your history of nuclear power is a little slanted. I also believe that nuclear power must play a part if we are going to take global warming seriously since nuclear power is the only reliable generation available at this time that addresses this issue. As far as wind is concerned, it is precariously close to spending big dollars for nothing.

  2. Mr Solomon:

    Whereas nuclear energy can in fact be done in a safe, efficient and environmentally benign manner
    [Integral Fast Breeder Reactors] and thereby supplant all other forms of energy combined including fossil fuels forever! Wind cannot be done much better than it is now and is unlikely to replace any other form of electrical generation -EVER!

    Strangely enough, science has known how to do nuclear energy safely and efficiency since energy from atoms was first visited more than half a century ago.

    As with wind, nuclear became a problem not because of science but because of politics!

    Ironically, where the science in support of nuclear is vast, the science in support of wind quite simply
    doesn’t exist!

    Sean Holt.

  3. David Robinson, I am having trouble finding a recent comment of yours. The jist was “never has so much harm been done for so little gain.”

    Can you direct me to where I can find it? I found this comment to be so clear and succinct that I would like to be able to quote you – if that’s OK with you.

  4. Under the article about Meaford. 10/24/2010 Still on the front page…

    “Never in the history of Canada have so few people done so much environmental damage to so much territory and harmed the lives of so many people and so many animals for so little gain.

    The installation of all these wind turbines must stop everywhere in every part of Ontario.

    It is time to replace every politician in Queens Park!

    It is time to insist that political parties recruit candidates with an understanding not only of energy policy but the science and technology of energy generation and distribution. If we do not insist on this policy we will face this problem for the foreseeable future.”

Comments are closed.