Check out the cost of these "clean" powerplants:

For the same amount of money ($1.26 Billion), Californians could
purchase

- 21,000 GWh/yr from one new nuclear power plant
- 25,200 GWh/yr from 575 new biomass burners
- 21,000 GWh/yr from 39 new geothermal plants
- 25,200 GWh/yr from 214 new hydroelectric dams
- 4,200 GWh/yr from 53,760 new utility-scale photovoltaic parks
- 7,412 GWh/yr from 37 new solar-thermal plants
- 18,000 GWh/yr from 630 new wind-turbine farms

Note that this is for California, and according to the US Dept. of Energy the wind energy potential of California is miniscule compared to the Canadian Gulf of St. Lawrence:

I am certain that offshore wind turbines in Canada would produce much larger annual electrical output than what is shown above for California - perhaps even greater than all the other "clean" technologies.

Even in wind-starved California wind turbines produce a comparable amount of power for the cost. Fuel is obtained non-destructively and they produce zero pollution. Also the taller the turbines get the greater the untapped reserves get. Wind speed increases from zero at ground level to 120 km/hr in the jet stream, altitude 10,000 meters. Building a bigger turbine is equivalent to oil companies "discovering" a huge new oilfield, since it increases altitude and the potential untapped "reserves". Enron Wind is developing a 3.6 megawatt offshore wind turbine that is twice the size of previous turbines. Note also that wind is less turbulent and more reliable at offshore locations.