Patrick Moore, the former Greenpeace member and co-founder, was quick to write a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star following a column I wrote in which I argued that more attention needs to be paid to the potential of geothermal heat and power in the oil sands, particularly before we head down a path that includes nuclear. Now, we all know Moore is a nuclear convert who spends most of his time promoting the technology as a solution to global warming. While I don’t always agree with his point of view, I certainly respect his belief — and the reasoning behind it — that only widespread acceptance of nuclear, where no large-scale “clean” alternatives exist, can help us manage climate change. But by jumping so quickly to dismiss my column and the potential of geothermal, I question whether he truly is a nuclear gun for hire who attacks any suggestion of a reasonable alternative.

In his letter, he writes “we know that nuclear energy can deliver clean, safe and affordable energy to Alberta’s oil sands,” using “we” as if this claim is accepted without question by the general public. He goes on to write that “the harnessing of deep geothermal energy from the Earth’s molten core has yet to be proven effective on a large scale at the depths that would be required in Alberta.”

The thing is, you don’t need unproven depths to tap heat in the oil sands. Those studying geothermal as an option are looking at depths of between 2 and 5 kilometres, which is quite common in the area. The reason greater depths are not needed is because geothermal in the context of oil sands production isn’t necessarily for power generation, which requires high temperatures. It’s the heat they need, and only between 80 C and 100 C. Mind you, if they wanted to they could drill deeper to build centralized geothermal power plants, and there again this is not unproven — it’s happening everywhere around the world and at an accelerated pace. And nobody knows better than the oil industry, which continues to drill wells at record depths as part of everyday oil exploration.

The fact is, oil sands companies are seriously considering geothermal, because they know how expensive nuclear can be and how long it can take to build it. MIT, in a recent study, concluded that geothermal facilities could be up and providing clean power much more quickly than nuclear. If the oil sands companies are taking a hard looking, who is Moore to suggest they simply abandon reason and go directly to nuclear?

All I argued in my column is that geothermal be part of the discussion before jumping blindfolded into nuclear. He seems to want to stifle that discussion.

This is where I think Moore has lost credibility. If he was a true environmentalist, he would be someone who is open to different options where alternatives make sense. By so quickly dismissing geothermal as something that should be part of the oil sands debate, even as the oil companies themselves explore the option, he exposes himself for what he appears to be: a nuclear pitchman riding on a fading reputation as an environmentalist.

At the mayor’s summit in New York City, Toronto Mayor David Miller is expected to announce today details of an advanced carbon calculator available to anybody on the Internet wanting to get a sense of their environmental footprint. The online calculator was designed by Toronto-based Zerofootprint, a non-profit group trying to promote renewable energy use and the purchase of carbon offsets. The New York Times has some details here.

I first heard of this calculator during a lunch last month with Zerofootprint founder and CEO Ron Dembo, who has become quite a passionate advocate of renewable technologies and approaches to battling climate change. Dembo, a former Yale scientist and well-regarded risk management expert, explained that the calculator was first designed with business intelligence software maker BusinessObjects for their internal employee use, but they soon realized the application could be expanded universally to other companies, municipalities and the larger general public.

According to NYT: “On the interactive climate site, people will be able to enter data, see the carbon effect and how their carbon footprint compares with averages in their city and in cities worldwide. They will also be able to do what-if simulations, to see how changes in their activities affect carbon emissions. The anonymous data will be collected for analysis by climate change scientists and others.”

On Zerofootprint’s Web site, the company has just announced a partnership with the City of Toronto, which will have municipal employees use the carbon calculator to establish a baseline carbon footprint by which progress on emission reductions can be compared. Phase II of the partnership will make the calculator accessible to all Torontonians, “enabling the city to devise the right programs and incentives for its citizens to live more sustainably.”

The best environmental engineering science enables Zerofootprint Toronto to compute the environmental impact of transportation, food, energy, water use, and waste production. This platform enables a first-of-its-kind community engagement initiative providing individuals, neighborhoods, businesses, and other groups in Toronto a network to take action on climate change. Zerofootprint Toronto aims to be the model for other communities. To demonstrate the influential role of cities in achieving climate goals, Mayor David Miller has challenged his peers at the Large Cities Climate Initiative in New York to also Zerofootprint their cities. The underlying vision is to aggregate results of all participating cities, create joint initiatives, measure their achievements, and celebrate their successes. By joining forces, cities can have as much impact on the environment as an entire country.

I certainly hope the other mayors take Toronto up on this challenge, because it will be nice to be on the same page, using the same methods to calculate our progress over the years. Schools and corporations should also get involved. There are definitely other carbon calculators on the market, but this one appears poised to stand out. Not only is it more advanced, but Dembo, as a man who designed risk-management software used today by a majority of the world’s banks, brings much-needed credibility to the online tool.

My Clean Break feature this week is a story about a Toronto company called WhalePower Corp. that has designed a new type of wind-turbine blade that dramatically improves turbine efficiency. What’s unique about the design is that it mimics the aerodynamic feature of a humpback whale’s flipper, which has bumps or “tubercles” along its leading edge. Scientists have found that the tubercles reduce the drag and increase the lift on the flipper, having the effect of delaying stall. Earlier studies have attempted to apply this principle to airplane wings and rudders on boats, but WhalePower is adapting it to blades for wind turbines, fans — essentially anything with a rotating blade that moves through air or fluid. The co-founders of WhalePower claim their blade captures more of the wind’s energy at lower speeds where conventional turbines tend to stall. For example, a turbine equipped with WhalePower blades could produce the same amount of electricity from 5 metre-per-second winds as a conventional turbine tends to produce with winds blowing at 8 metres per second. This means the humpback-designed turbines could allow wind farms to produce more kilowatt-hours a year, improving the business case for wind farms.

The big question is: Even if this is a superior blade design, would the industry be willing to change? Given turbine manufacturers are already having a tough time keeping up with demand, there’s not much incentive in radically changing the design of their product for the benefit of customers. And while WhalePower says it has a way to retrofit existing turbine blades, there’s the question of voiding the warranty — something most wind-farm operators are reluctant to do.

All that said, it’s a neat company that’s bound to attract further attention from investors and the media. And the approach could represent a way for a newcomer to the wind-turbine manufacturing market to distinguish itself from the competitive pack.

My podcast this week is with Gordon Shields, executive director of the Net-Zero Energy Home Coalition, which is promoting the idea of homes that produce just as much energy as they consume — i.e. keeping their overall energy footprint at zero. This is an extremely interesting area, one that doesn’t get much coverage but which represents an important long-term goal as we try to minimize greenhouse gas emissions from the residential sector. So far we’ve only seen pilot demonstrations and a target of 1,500 net-zero homes in Canada, but over time the idea is to develop standards that make the construction of sustainable net-zero homes part of mainstream homebuilding.

A bunch of things need to happen over time to make this work. Home builders need to buy in. Banks need to buy in and offer “green” mortgages. The real estate industry needs to become educated and search capability on the MLS system needs to expand to include “green” home features such as annual energy consumption and use of renewables such as solar or geothermal. This contributes to the idea that home energy efficiency and renewables add resale value to a home, similar to adding a new bathroom or putting in a new kitchen with granite countertops. (Actually, it’s ridiculous that we place more value on that granite countertop than the solar thermal system that provides your hot water). Once the resale value is calculated, purchasing a geoexchange or solar PV system becomes more affordable — not just because it lowers your homes energy costs, but because you’ll recoup some or all of that investment in the resale of the home.

The good news is that more and more homebuyers are considering the operating cost of a home and factoring that into their purchasing decisions. Given that energy costs represent a majority of those operating costs, it’s only a matter of time — sooner, let’s hope, rather than later — that homebuyers start demanding EnergyStar rated homes and renewable systems, and start penalizing those homes that fail to meet these standards.

On the real estate front, I have to say I’m encouraged that there are a few agents trying to make change in this regard. One agent from London, Ontario, has started a grassroots e-mail campaign hoping to create awareness amongst his peers and put pressure on local real estate boards to embrace the greening of the real estate industry.

Wind expert and overall renewables guru Paul Gipe pointed out to me this weekend a new report from the Geothermal Energy Association, which has assessed worldwide growth of geothermal development since 2000 and expected growth to 2010. It found a significant increase in the number of megawatts expected to be produced and the number of countries producing them from geothermal heat resources. “The number of countries producing geothermal power and total worldwide geothermal capacity under development appear to be increasing significantly in the first decade of the 21st century,” according to the report. “The number of countries producing power from geothermal resources could increase 120 per cent, from 21 in 2000 to as many as 46 in 2010. Total geothermal capacity online could increase over 55 per cent, from 8,661 megawatts in 2000 to 13,500 megawatts or more.”

The report, which provides a snapshot of geothermal activities on a country-by-country basis, concludes that overall geothermal development appears to be accelerating, and that this is a reversal compared to the slowdowns that were seen in international markets in the late 1990s. No doubt, more countries are seriously exploring geothermal as a clean alternative to power generation as concern about climate change grows. As mentioned previously, this resource is a prime candidate for replacing natural gas in the Alberta oil sands, and perhaps down the road in providing power in other provinces (I know at least one serious developer who has scouted a couple of potential sights in Ontario). “It is worth noting,” the report continues, “that in numerous cases discussed in this report, the success of development in a country is linked to government policies and initiatives. The extent of future geothermal project development would appear to depend more upon adequate funding and sustained policy support than geologic factors.”

My emphasis added. This is exactly why the public and our elected politicians need to put pressure on our federal and provincial governments to seriously study the geothermal option and craft policies that would optimize its use in Canada. Ignoring this valuable resource is irresponsible, to say the least.