Opinion

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

Published

8 years ago

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

State of federal finances make NATO spending target very challenging

Business / 4 hours ago

Trump’s executive orders represent massive threat to Canadian competitiveness

International / 7 hours ago

RFK Jr. fires back in defense of vaccine stance amid heated Senate confirmation hearing

armed forces

State of federal finances make NATO spending target very challenging

Published on January 29, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Defence Minister Bill Blair recently claimed the federal government could “absolutely” achieve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) defence spending target of 2.0 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP—a measure of the size of the economy) by 2027. However, the dismal state of Canada’s finances makes this accelerated timeline very costly to Canadians.

First, some background. In 2014, Canada (along with the other NATO members) formally pledged to increase spending on defence up to a target of 2.0 per cent of GDP by 2024. At the time, Canada spent 1.01 per cent of GDP on defence. A decade has passed and Canada has failed to fulfill that pledge. Indeed, based on the current defence spending plan and the latest GDP projections, Canada’s defence spending is expected to reach just 1.34 per cent of GDP ($41.0 billion) in 2024/25.

Based on the latest spending estimates from NATO, Canada is one of only eight NATO members (out of 31 in total) to spend less than 2.0 per cent of GDP on defence. As the large majority of the alliance has now met the spending target, and President Donald Trump has called for the target to be raised even further to 5 per cent of GDP, Canada will have to dramatically increase defence spending (lest we be at complete odds with our allies).

However, meeting the NATO 2.0 per cent target by 2027/28 would require billions more in annual federal spending (see the following figure).Over the next three years, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), the federal government will increase defence spending from a projected $41.0 billion in 2024/25 to $53.5 billion in 2027/28—with the majority of this increase occurring in the first year. This means, based on the current plan, Canada’s defence spending would only reach 1.55 per cent of GDP by 2027/28.

To reach 2.0 per cent of GDP in 2027/28, the government would need to spend $68.8 billion on defence during that fiscal year. Assuming the initial jump remains the same, this implies the government would need to increase annual defence spending by $16.5 billion from 2025/26 to 2027/28—$15.3 billion more than currently planned.

The federal government plans to run four consecutive budget deficits from 2024/25 to 2027/28 that add up to $151.9 billion in expected borrowing. In other words, the government already plans to spend more than it collects in revenues. Assuming the government adopts the spending plan shown in the above figure, reaching the NATO target by 2027/28 would require an additional $22.7 billion in borrowing.

Increasing the amount borrowed will impose substantial costs on Canadians. In the near-term it results in higher debt interest payments. Government must pay interest on its debt—same as a family with a mortgage—and rising interest costs leave less money available for programs and services. For perspective, largely due to past borrowing under the Trudeau government, federal debt interest payments are expected to equal all Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenues (and then some) in 2024/25. Longer-term, an increase in borrowed money will also burden future generations of taxpayers who will likely face higher taxes to pay for today’s spending.

Clearly, borrowing money to fund higher defence spending will only worsen the state of federal finances, meaning Canada is in a lose-lose situation when it comes to meeting the NATO 2.0 per cent target—risk the consequences of further disappointing our allies or take on billions more in debt.

Instead, Ottawa should identify and cut wasteful spending and use those savings for national defence. Simply put, smaller and smarter government spending could help get Canada out of this lose-lose situation.

Business

Trump’s executive orders represent massive threat to Canadian competitiveness

Published on January 29, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Donald Trump had a busy first day back on the job. From his desk in the Oval Office, President Trump signed a suite of executive orders including on energy and regulation, with major implications for Canada. He’s clearly rejected the primacy of a regulatory state (in favour of the legislative state), put a lock on the growth of U.S. regulation, and launched regulatory and cost controls. Essentially this means the U.S. will systemically deregulate while Canada is regulating its economy ever more heavily and broadly, making our economy even less competitive with the U.S.

Trump has also put paid to the fallacy of the great electric vehicle (EV) transition by pulling the plug on the U.S. EV mandate and federal consumer subsidies for EVs. Of course, now that the U.S. will not mandate EVs in large numbers, the massive investments Canada has made in EV and battery technology and manufacturing—on the expectation of selling EV parts and vehicles in the U.S. market—will likely see little return.

Trump’s withdrawal (for a second time) from the Paris climate agreement also puts U.S. policy further at odds with Canada. While Canada will spend huge amounts of money to attempt to comply with its climate commitments under the agreement, and hurt its energy and natural resource sectors in the process, the U.S. will not. In fact, the Trump administration will likely undo many of the things that have been done in the name of implementing the Paris agreement.

Trump‘s declaration of an energy emergency and his call for a massive increase in energy production by is also a direct threat to Canada’s energy economy. As we have seen in the past, the Americans can move very quickly to increase the supply of oil and natural gas when they put their mind to it and when regulations don’t stand in the way. A U.S. energy surge could lead to a flood of oil and gas production pretty quickly, leading the U.S. to need less and less Canadian oil and gas (as Trump has flamboyantly proclaimed).

Trump also wants to expedite energy project reviews and approvals, the exact opposite to the Trudeau government’s approach, which has frustrated the building of new pipelines and other projects. This will facilitate the U.S. ability to increase energy and natural resource production at a pace Canada cannot hope to match.

Simply put, setting aside Trump’s threatened tariffs, his day-one executive orders pose a serious threat to Canada’s energy and natural resource sectors, which remain a vital source of prosperity and revenue, and merit an immediate response from our federal government.

In an ideal world, Canada would harmonize its policy approach to the U.S. on energy and natural resources, which has, in fact, been a historical norm. But unfortunately for Canadians, the Trudeau government will likely reject Trump’s policy reforms and continue its pro-administrative state, anti-energy, anti-resource economic philosophy. And given Prime Minister Trudeau’s recent actions to prorogue Parliament, President Trump’s executive-order barrage won’t face a meaningful Canadian response for months, letting the U.S. steal a massive march on energy, natural resource and regulatory policy reforms over a Canada sitting on its hands.