In my opinion, it’s quite clear that wind power and solar power, though not ideal (then again, what is?), are superior to fossil fuels and nuclear from a sustainability standpoint.

Even though solar and wind do disrupt the land, need metals, minerals and other elements (just like fossil fuel and nuclear plants do), they have significant advantages to fossil fuels and nuclear plants.

Unlike fossil fuels, wind and solar have very few emissions and air pollution.  Unlike nuclear, they don’t create nuclear waste.  And unlike both, there is no need to mine the fuel, disrupting the land and other collateral damage that comes with mining.

But what about the economics?  A common argument is that conventional sources are much more economically sound than these newer renewable technologies.

To properly compare the economics goes far beyond the scope that this post can provide, but a recent Globe and Mail article underlines how fossil fuels are becoming less and less economically sound.  The article states that oil sands are among riskiest energy play in the world.

Unlike sun and wind, which are continuously renewing, fossil fuels are a finite.  In fact, because of the high consumption and demand of oil, we are now beginning to extract oil from more treacherous and difficult places such as deep sea drilling and the oil sands.  Because of the high cost of extracting from these areas, the oil is only profitable if oil prices remain high.

If oil prices drop too much, that’s a lot of stranded capital.

Is this less risky than wind and solar – especially considering renewable energy costs are dropping while fossil fuel extraction increases?