Connect with us

Opinion

Exciting that Red Deer may take the lead in Solar Power discussions on March 6 2017

Published

10 minute read

I am excited to hear that the city of Red Deer is considering a plan to retrofit homes to solar energy. To fully outfit a home with solar energy would cost 25,000 dollars and at 3% interest it would cost $242 per month for 10 years. The city would consider loaning the money, putting a lien on your home, and collect it back through property taxes, for example. The debt stays with the home. Your electric bills go down, your property value goes up.
The city puts in utilities sidewalks etc. that we all pay for through our property taxes. New builds would be less expensive and would be easier and the city should consider the option at all times.
Another benefit to the city as a whole would be eco-friendly, would create jobs and could take advantage of economy of scale. Taking the lead in this could push other levels of governments to participate. I am glad to see the city addressing this issue on March 6 2017. I would suggest everyone offer communication to our city. You could e-mail legislative [email protected]

Past blogs are included;
May I ask a stupid question or 2 or 3 or 11?
I hear a lot about solar panels, solar power, solar heating, and passive solar heating.
Solar panels produce electricity and could charge batteries for later use or to keep batteries charged. Electric cars and busses run on batteries that get recharged, after use, when they are plugged in. Why do we not see solar panels on electric cars and busses? You plug them in power supplies that are often times coal generated to charge up your batteries. Would the solar panels on the cars and busses lessen the time and power requirements? A bus can be 40 feet long and over 8 feet wide, offering a large roof area for solar panels.
We talk about solar panels being less efficient in the cold, under snow and ice. Why not incorporate solar heating panels to keep your solar panels warm, and ice and snow free?
Could we put a magnifying glass or lens in front of a solar panel to increase light intensity?
What about a mirror behind the solar panel?
How about a parabolic mirror?
What is that, you ask?
A parabolic mirror is a curved mirror, like a satellite dish.
According to Wikipedia;
“The parabolic reflector functions due to the geometric properties of the paraboloidal shape: any incoming ray that is parallel to the axis of the dish will be reflected to a central point, or “focus”. Because many types of energy can be reflected in this way, parabolic reflectors can be used to collect and concentrate energy entering the reflector at a particular angle.”
We have all seen satellite dishes being used for tv signals focused on receiver so why not use a polished reflective satellite dish to focus sunlight on a solar receiver, possibly a solar panel or a solar sphere? Like the TV dishes they started huge and got smaller and more efficient.
Could we not place a magnifying lens in front, and also incorporate passive solar heating for year round use? Could we not use a portion of the power created to ensure optimal aiming?
Solar panels are getting more powerful, more efficient and less expensive. Instead of spending billions on big projects could we not focus on smaller ones?
These may be stupid questions, but I just had to ask.

Is it time to have or implement a National Electrical Strategy?
I live in Red Deer, a small city in Central Alberta. My electrical bill last month was $95.
The average household, according to Google, in Canada uses 972 KWHs monthly, but I used 848 KWHs last month, so if I had been an average user then my bill would have been $109.
My electrical bill shows that my electrical use cost only $32.40 while administration cost $6.99, distribution cost $25.90 transmission fees cost $23.86, include access fees, rate riders and balancing pool allocations and GST and my bill came to $95.
Talk of carbon taxes, green energy would increase my energy costs. Fine, increasing my energy costs by 10% would mean an increase of only $3.24 because all the other charges should not go up. Changing fuel or supply should not affect administrators, power lines, poles or switches.
I started requesting electric bills from homes in other parts of Alberta and the costs varied from 3.75/ kwh to 5.99/kwh and the other costs varied in name and amount for varying total costs per kwh from 11.7 to 15.75/kwh. So at 848 kwh my bill would go from $95 up to $133.56 depending on location.
Alberta is deregulated and you have options of providers. Floating and fixed rates, but the other fees are always added.
A home in Vancouver showed an average 11.37/kwh so my bill would be $96.50, very similar to my Alberta bill. Vancouver is vastly different and denser market. Vancouver has 5,249 people per km. or 2100 homes per square km.
Alberta has a population of 4,252,879 people in 640,081.87 sq. kms. For a density of 6.7 people per square km. or 2.7 homes per square km. So you would think that the costs would be astronomically higher to compensate for the vast distances, and the increased wiring, poles, and installation of such, but apparently not.
So I thought about Ontario. Population of 13,982.984 in 908,607 square kms of land. 15.4 people or 6.2 homes per square kms. More than twice the density of Alberta. The transmission and distribution costs should be equal to or less than sparsely populated Alberta. I started requesting power bills from home owners in Ontario, especially in rural Ontario.
The first bill came from Winchester, 40 kms. from Ottawa. It showed a monthly usage of 661.24 KWHs. Energy costs varied from 8.7/kwh of low peak to 18/kwh during high peak for energy cost of $79.06. Add in delivery charge of $65.41, regulatory fees and HST and the bill comes to $164.96. Or 25/kwh. My current bill would now be $211.55 if I lived in Winchester.
The second bill came from a family outside Chesterville. It showed higher usage, perhaps because of location, age of appliances or lifestyle. Energy use of 1281 KWHs for a bill of $278.93 or 22/kwh. My bill would then be $184.65 if I lived outside Chesterville.
Albertans get their power from natural gas (44%), coal (39%) and even hydro (6%) while Ontario get their power from Nuclear, (66%) and Hydro (22%) But in Alberta, we are expecting increases in our power bills due to carbon taxes, green initiatives and the new power lines being built to the southern border. Paid for by current users to provide power south of the border. Ontario has some similar changes and challenges ahead to incur expectations of increased costs. Is this proper?
Alberta is only 70% the size of Ontario, our population is only 30% of Ontario, yet Alberta power bills are substantially lower. Capitalists will tell you that larger markets like Ontario, means lower costs, as one would also expect with increased density as in this case, Ontario.
Alberta deregulated the electrical sector increasing competition. Would that help or exasperate the problem in Ontario? Should the vast majority of urban homes subsidize the rural users? Should a standard rate be applied to all in Ontario?
To recap with averages of 972 KWHs per home per month it would cost $110.61 in Vancouver B.C., $108.90 in Red Deer Ab., $242.48 in Winchester Ont. And $211.65 in Chesterville Ont. Definitely not a level playing field, is it?
Is it time for the Federal Government to create a National Electrical Strategy? We could at least study on it.
What do you think?

Follow Author

conflict

Colonel Macgregor warns of world war, urges Trump to ‘tell the truth’ about Ukraine, Israel

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Colonel Douglas Macgregor has warned that Biden’s authorization of long-range missile attacks by Ukraine has resulted in ‘the highest state of nuclear alert’ in Russia and that the U.S. faces ‘the storm of the century’ in the Middle East.

In a powerful, sobering appraisal of the escalating danger of world war, Colonel Douglas Macgregor has warned that Biden’s authorization of long-range missile attacks by Ukraine has already resulted in “the highest state of nuclear alert” in Russia, and that the U.S. faces “the storm of the century” in a direct conflict with Iran.

Following months of pressure by the U.K. government to permit the firing of NATO-guided and supplied missiles “deep into Russian territory,” outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden green-lit the strikes on Monday.

The following day, the U.S.-guided and supplied ATACMS missiles were fired 70 miles into Russia. Following this, despite U.K. government ambiguity on the issue, U.K.-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles were also launched into pre-2014 Russian territory for the first time.

Described as sign that “the West wants escalation” by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the strikes were followed by the use of a novel Russian hypersonic missile known as “Oreshnik” (“Hazelnut”). The previously unseen weapon delivered multiple warheads on its Ukrainian target and “cannot be countered” – as Russian President Vladimir Putin explained.

Putin has repeatedly warned that Russia will strike any military installation from which strikes on its territory originate, promising a “mirror-like” response to future attacks.

Putin also updated Russian nuclear doctrine following the Biden authorization. The revised doctrine now includes the use of nuclear weapons in response to an attack on Russia by a non-nuclear power – but “backed by a nuclear power” – like Ukraine.

Macgregor said the moves by the U.S. were reckless and had resulted in the “highest state of nuclear alert” in the Russian military. He condemned a statement made by U.S. Rear Admiral Thomas Buchanan, which claimed the U.S. was prepared to fight – and even win – a nuclear war with Russia.

Such remarks “convince the Russians we are preparing for nuclear war,” said Macgregor, stressing that this U.S. officer could not have made this irresponsible and dangerous remark if his senior officer did not support it.

“Generals do not make policy,” he said, as he bemoaned the absence of visible leadership in the U.S. at a time of mounting crisis. “Who is in charge?” he asked, arguing that the Department of State – whose brief includes foreign and war policy – appears to be itself being led by “generals who act like Caesars.”

With NATO faced with a drawdown of U.S. commitments to European security under Donald Trump, moves towards war hysteria is one means of securing its future.

The entire liberal-global order faces a hard reckoning following defeat in Ukraine, as this promises to reveal the deep corruption, money laundering, human trafficking, and immense damage to the European economy partnered with the “hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians,” which Macgregor says the media is simply refusing to report.

“The media have never told the truth,” Macgregor said angrily.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on November 11 that “corporate media is a propaganda vessel for Big Pharma and the war machine,” summarizing his long-held position that the Ukraine war is a vast “money laundering scheme” involving the military industrial complex – and companies like BlackRock.

“The big military contractors want to expand NATO. Why? Because nations have to conform their military purchases to NATO,” he said.

Kennedy recalls Senator Mitch McConnell’s stunning response to the question of whether the U.S. can afford sending “$113 billion to Ukraine.” Kennedy explained, “He said, ‘Don’t worry,’” and then showed McConnell saying, “It’s going to American defense manufacturers.”

Kennedy’s claim that the media runs advertisements for the war machine is not a “conspiracy theory.” It is a matter of congressional record.

Kennedy has also stated that the United States blew up the Nordstream pipelines, destroying German gas supplies – and resulting in the destruction of the economy of the former powerhouse of Europe.

He said in March 2024, “It’s amazing how some refuse to admit that we sabotaged Nordstream even after Biden stated on camera that if Russia invades Ukraine, ‘there will no longer be a Nordstream 2. We will bring an end to it.’ This is a matter of public record.”

“There is indeed propaganda at play here. But it isn’t Russian and it isn’t coming from me. It’s the war propaganda of our own government and their collaborators in the media.”

This propaganda machine is now pushing the West towards a war with Russia which cannot be won. A nuclear exchange, as Putin, Macgregor, and Trump have said, would produce no winners. Conventionally, European nations have spent so little on defense that they have no effective counter-force to a Russian land invasion – which Macgregor says the Russians “have no intention” of launching anyway.

Dr. Sumantra Maitra, the author of the “dormant NATO” policy behind Trump’s move to scale down U.S. commitments, yesterday said the result is “a very, very risky moment,” saying “Putin argues that the line of ‘strict or qualified neutrality’ is now blurred” by the authorized NATO weapon strikes.

President Putin announced on November 21st that “we reserve the right to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities.”

“In the event of escalating aggression, we will deliver a decisive mirror-like response.”

 

Why is the regime escalating to a “blurred” line between proxy conflict and nuclear war?

It is an insane gamble to prevent the U.S. from drawing down from NATO in Europe, and to prolong a war whose end would reveal the deep corruption in and around the proxy war in Ukraine. Peace would spell doom for the liberal-global order.

Nuclear war for Israel?

Hopes for another payday for the war machine are still alive, however, in the strong U.S. backing of Israel.

In his November 21 appearance on “Judging Freedom,” Macgregor describes continuing U.S. support for a nation whose leaders are now named in arrest warrants linked to genocide as a “tragedy,” saying of the announcement of arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court for Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant, “It’s a sad and tragic day for Israel and I think for the United States because we are complicit” in the charges made against both men.

Israel is another example of a leadership whose tenure can only be secured if the wars never end. Benjamin Netanyahu is accused by many, including his fellow Israelis, of keeping the wars going to avoid jail. Even Joe Biden agreed with this assessment.

With Netanyahu urging the U.S. into a war with Iran that Israel cannot win alone, Macgregor asks “four questions on Iran,” namely how such a disastrous war could ever be argued to be serving the interests of the United States.

It would, Macgregor said, see the “U.S. sleepwalking into disaster” so colossal as to be “the storm of the century” – and all to keep a criminal out of prison.

Macgregor has stated that all Trump has to do to stop the war in Ukraine is “tell the truth” about the corruption, lies, and reckless escalation which have sold this war to the West. On the grave matter of human losses, he said:

“We don’t know how many have died. The media have never told the truth. It’s 600,000, 700,000 dead Ukrainians at least and hundreds of thousands more wounded who will never recover. No one is telling the truth. It’s time for the truth. If President Trump does anything he’s got to tell the truth – and throw out anyone who doesn’t provide him with the truth.”

The same can be said of Netanyahu himself. If Trump were to tell even some of the truth about this man, neither Americans nor anyone else outside his influence would be willing to stand with him.

Netanyahu has urged all of the “regime change” wars which have driven mass migration into the West. The war in Iraq killed “a million historic Christians,” as J.D. Vance has said, adding that if Americans had been told this instead of WMD lies, they would never have supported Netanyahu’s call for the U.S. to go to war in Iraq.

Netanyahu has pushed the false line of Iraqi WMDs since 1990. He called for the overthrow of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, whose demise smashed open the floodgates of African mass migration.

Regime change is the business model of neocons whom Trump vowed in February 2023 to remove from the U.S. government, and Netanyahu is the man who has urged regime change on the U.S. for at least 20 years. Trump made this statement almost two years ago in a video recently recirculated as if it were current news. It is to be hoped that Trump’s resolve on clearing out the “Deep State neocons …who seek confrontation” has not weakened.

Regime change has ruined the West, changing regimes at home into a permanent state of emergency governed by censorship and lawfare against critics of godless liberal-globalism. As a result, we are now morally and financially bankrupt, our isolation sealed by steadfast support of a nation whose leadership is now credibly accused of obvious war crimes.

At home, Netanyahu is accused of having backed Hamas for years, of ignoring precise warnings of the October 7 attacks, of relentlessly blocking every hostage deal – to prolong the wars which keep him in office.

His former defense minister Avigdor Lieberman also warned that “Israel will not exist in 2026” if Netanyahu remains in power, saying in June that the Netanyahu government is “only concerned with its political survival.”

Israelis themselves recognize that Netanyahu cannot survive the outbreak of peace, and “has never wanted peace,” as Donald Trump said of him in 2021. Netanyahu’s entire career is based on permanent war. He now wishes to drag Americans – and the rest of the world – into another.

To tell this shocking truth to Americans could not only save Israel from a coalition the former head of Mossad warned in 2022 was “leading Israel to self-destruction” – but also save us all from a devastating global conflict, which Macgregor says would be sparked by attacking Iran.

The U.S. faces a stark choice between oblivion and restoration. It cannot have both, as others have pointed out. So far, Trump has remained silent on Israel while Putin has signaled he is open to Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine.

With war being the lifeline of the Deep State that Trump has vowed to defeat, is he willing to tell Americans the truth to keep their dreams – and themselves – alive?

Continue Reading

Energy

Global fossil fuel use rising despite UN proclamations

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades… the first global energy transition—from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels—started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about 7 per cent of the world’s energy supply (as of 2020).

At the Conference of the Parties (COP29) in Azerbaijan, António Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, last week called for a global net-zero carbon footprint by 2050, which requires a “fossil fuel phase-out” and “deep decarbonization across the entire value chain.”

Yet despite the trillions of dollars already spent globally pursuing this target—and the additional trillions projected as necessary to “end the era of fossil fuels”—the world’s dependence on fossil fuels has remained largely unchanged.

So, how realistic is a “net-zero” emissions world—which means either eliminating fossil fuel generation or offsetting carbon emissions with activities such as planting trees—by 2050?

The journey began in 1995 when the UN hosted the first COP conference in Berlin, launching a global effort to drive energy transition and decarbonization. That year, global investment in renewable energy reached US$7 billion, according to some estimates. Since then, an extraordinary amount of money and resources have been allocated to the transition away from fossil fuels.

According to the International Energy Agency, between 2015 and 2023 alone, governments and industry worldwide spent US$12.3 trillion (inflation-adjusted) on clean energy. For context, that’s over six times the value of the entire Canadian economy in 2023.

Despite this spending, between 1995 and 2023, global fossil fuel consumption increased by 62 per cent, with oil consumption rising by 38 per cent, coal by 66 per cent and natural gas by 90 per cent.

And during that same 28-year period, despite the trillions spent on energy alternatives, the share of global energy provided by fossil fuels declined by only four percentage points, from 85.6 per cent to 81.5 per cent.

This should come as no surprise. Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades. According to a recent study by renowned scholar Vaclav Smil, the first global energy transition—from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels—started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about 7 per cent of the world’s energy supply (as of 2020).

Moreover, coal only surpassed wood as the main energy source worldwide around 1900. It took more than 150 years from oil’s first commercial extraction for oil to reach 25 per cent of all fossil fuels consumed worldwide. Natural gas didn’t reach this threshold until the end of the 20th century, after 130 years of industry development.

Now, consider the current push by governments to force an energy transition via regulation and spending. In Canada, the Trudeau government has set a target to fully decarbonize electricity generation by 2035 so all electricity is derived from renewable power sources such as wind and solar. But merely replacing Canada’s existing fossil fuel-based electricity with clean energy sources within the next decade would require building the equivalent of 23 major hydro projects (like British Columbia’s Site C) or 2.3 large-scale nuclear power plants (like Ontario’s Bruce Power). The planning and construction of significant electricity generation infrastructure in Canada is a complex and time-consuming process, often plagued by delays, regulatory hurdles and substantial cost overruns.

The Site C project took around 43 years from initial feasibility studies in 1971 to securing environmental certification in 2014. Construction began on the Peace River in northern B.C. in 2015, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of at least $16 billion. Similarly, Ontario’s Bruce Power plant took nearly two decades to complete, with billions in cost overruns. Given these immense practical, financial and regulatory challenges, achieving the government’s 2035 target is highly improbable.

As politicians gather at high-profile conferences and set ambitious targets for a swift energy transition, global reliance on fossil fuels has continued to increase. As things stand, achieving net-zero by 2050 appears neither realistic nor feasible.

Continue Reading

Trending

X