Opinion
Red Deer gets $49.2 million to design and expand wastewater treatment plant for 2026. Could we look at options?

The province of Alberta is giving the city of Red Deer $49.2 million to upgrade their wastewater treatment plant. To handle the wastewater created throughout the region.
This is a multi-year multi-faceted project that will culminate in treating 72,000 cubic metres of waste daily in 2026. That is a lot of water being pumped into the river in one spot.
There will be years in the planning and designing stage before construction begins. Is there any room in that schedule to contemplate a small turbine or two to produce electricity? Is it at all possible to ask experts if it is possible to divert some of that water to run a hydro-electric turbine to produce electricity to some extent, possibly enough to run a pump or a few lights?
Turbines are about 8 times more efficient now than they were a few years ago, how efficient could they be in 7 years?
Portland installed turbines in their water pipes to produce electricity, so I am sure they asked the experts, got a feasibility study, studied the cost/benefit analysis before proceeding.
Will Red Deer even consider asking the experts? No, they asked once, years ago, it wasn’t feasible then so it is not feasible now, no matter how far they have come in efficiencies and costs. End of story. How sad.
I just thought the city could look at future cost savings, perhaps reduce their reliance on non-renewable resources, and look at possible options to get the greatest return on this generous gift from the province. That may be too much to ask.
But I am asking. What do you say?
Duane Rolheiser
Team Canada is driving us right into the arms of The Donald

Some day in the near future those of us who fondly remember the Canada that stretched from sea to sea, will look back to see how the best country in the world (at least for a while) fell apart. In the end our love for national sporting endeavors and our multicultural charm couldn’t hold us together anymore. Sure we may not have been able to define what a Canadian was, but for the longest time at least we could all agree we weren’t American.
At some point the country of Canada simply couldn’t support a decent living for the average citizen anymore. Fiscally, it became inevitable that Canada would splinter and fall apart as desperate citizens made desperate political moves to do what immigrants have always done, uproot their lives in search of safety and financial security.
A number of serious academics will point to the first NAFTA agreement as the starting point for all this turmoil. They might indicate NAFTA was Canada’s first Great Mistake. Tough to avoid even in hindsight. Free Trade Agreements swept the planet and it would have been expensive and maybe even impossible to avoid that route. Problem is, we were a small country surrounded by oceans and the biggest market in the world. At first it looked like we were in the most enviable position of any country. Eventually we came to depend entirely on Big Brother next door and we didn’t aggressively pursue development and trade relationships with other countries and regions with the gusto that we could have and surely would have with better hindsight / foresight / intelligence.
It only took a few decades for our country to become entirely dependent. One day Canadians woke up and realized we completely relied upon not just the US market, but the good graces of successive US governments who were perfectly happy to throw us a bone periodically to ensure at least limited success… until they weren’t.
The day we woke up and realized the water was rising all around us was very early on in the Trump 47 Presidency. That’s when US voters decided their economy was off the rails. Their tax burdens were unsustainable. They were buying manufactured goods, including necessities like food, energy, microchips, and medicines from everywhere except the US. They were supporting economies actively engaged in the military / financial destruction of the US. They spent far too much on their military and their bureaucracy, and funding for necessities at home were at risk. In the end their reasons weren’t as important as their actions. Their actions compelled Canada to do something and quick.
We didn’t. Instead of fighting like mad to build pipelines and move energy, to swiftly develop minerals the world needed stat, to immediately erase interprovincial trade and employment barriers, Canada fought the US. Too many politicians and too many voters reacted the way most people do when they’re punched. They punched back without stopping to think.
In retrospect it would have been a great time for someone with a wider view, someone that could have seen the world in 20 or 30 years time. Instead our politicians were focused on the oncoming political campaign. Just like we could have used someone with foresight when we entered into NAFTA, it would have been incredibly helpful for the sea to sea version of Canada if politicians would have been leaders instead of vote collectors. They might say this was Canada’s second Great Mistake. We entered into a fight against a much larger and more powerful opponent. It was a fight we had no chance in winning. But our leaders weren’t interested in “saving” Canada so much as in “fighting for” Canada. Turned out there was a big difference between “saving” Canada and “fighting for” Canada. Who knew? Retrospect.
As a side note, there were a couple of political leaders pushing for the longer view. Alberta’s Danielle Smith had some momentum, at least at first, in taking the fork toward resource development and even dealing with interprovincial trade barriers. Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe was on side, but they were drowned out by Team Canada and were unable to form the political coalitions they needed to sway the fighting camp into the saving camp. Federally there was one leader who took this route as well. Max Bernier made the right calls, but unfortunately for his People’s Party only a couple of voters picked up the phone when he called. He was more less completely ignored. It’s his own fault. He called for immigration limits about 10 years too early and he was written off as a racist lunatic. Remember those days? That’s what we did to just about everyone who stuck their necks up.
The problem for the “saving” Canada crew was that the “fighting for” Canada crew had all the major national political parties, all the corporate media (remember them?) and almost all the academics (or at least the ones the corporate media talked to). Team Canada was at war and they acted like it. Even Canada’s greatest sporting hero of all time, Wayne Gretzky, fell to their blades. When The Great One was sentenced to a lifetime of golfing in sunny Arizona / California / Florida and banished from visiting his national non-profit head office in wintery Ontario, well that was Canada’s third Great Mistake. Those who saw the influence of Team Canada knew if they can cancel The Great One, they won’t think twice about your silly arguments for saving their nation.
So, Canadians voted to fight The Donald. Early losses suffered by Ontario’s newly elected (to fight the tariffs with greater tariffs) Premier Doug Ford were not analyzed the way an intelligent individual might who was looking toward the future. Not a surprise as this forward looking type could not be found since the dawn of that NAFTA Agreement. Canadian voters voted to follow the politicians who hated The Donald as much as they did. Ironic because a lot of those voters ended up trying to continue that fight by joining the Democrat party a couple of years later.
In the end it wasn’t the tariff war that sunk the sea to sea Canada. Canadians eventually got around to lowering trade barriers and even signed some significant deals with other nations that hated The Donald as much as they did. In the end though, the nations we wanted to deal with the most had no interest in what Canada has most to offer.
Do I need to say it? Oil and Gas? Cheap, reliable energy. It still hurts to talk about it. Sure the Canadians who held on to the name of that formerly great country held a big party when they decided they were the world’s first Net Zero Nation. They used paper cups and paper straws and paper plates and wooden forks to eat their organic cake. All the public news services covered it. People in the US might have even noticed if the remaining Canadians hadn’t decided to hold their event on July 4 so they could go head to head with.. oh forget it.
No it wasn’t the tariffs in the end. The tariffs were one of the battles in the war. The war ended for all intents and purposes when the people running sea to see Canada decided to take their longer vision of the future and apply it to the entire earth instead of the country they loved. After all there would be no Canada at all if the world was too hot for life to continue. So they continued to use reams of the dwindling supply of taxpayer dollars to subsidize what they were sure would be a world wide move to renewable energy sources. Problem is, they’re still looking for affordable battery technology. Some say the greedy Americans actually discovered the science behind it but the oil and gas people bought it and buried it. They’re going to be sorry when their coastal properties sink some day soon. Rich pricks.
At least the remaining Canadians can feel good about saving the planet.
PS. Of course most of this can be avoided. Canadians can still decide they love their country even more than they hate The Donald. We could still direct ALL of our efforts into becoming as economically viable as possible. But that would mean ending years of climate change crisis planning. It would mean cutting the size and the scope of our bureaucracy to counter the wild advantages investors and businesses are building in the US. It would mean we’d come to the understanding that Saving Canada and Fighting For Canada have become 2 separate ideas. It would mean taking this blow from the US on the cheek and turning that cheek to accept more blows while we focus ALL our attention on building a stronger nation as quickly as possible. Not bloody likely, eh?
Energy
Next federal government should close widening gap between Canadian and U.S. energy policy

From the Fraser Institute
After accounting for backup, energy storage and associated indirect costs—estimated solar power costs skyrocket from US$36 per megawatt hour (MWh) to as high as US$1,548, and wind generation costs increase from US$40 to up to US$504 per MWh.
At a recent energy conference in Houston, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the Trump administration will end the Biden administration’s “irrational, quasi-religious policies on climate change that imposed endless sacrifices on our citizens.” He added that “Natural gas is responsible for 43 per cent of U.S. electricity production,” and beyond the obvious scale and cost problems, there’s “simply no physical way that wind, solar and batteries could replace the myriad uses of natural gas.”
In other words, as a federal election looms, once again the United States is diverging from Canada when it comes to energy policy.
Indeed, wind power is particularly unattractive to Wright because of its “incredibly high prices,” “incredibly huge investment” and “large footprint on the local communities,” which make it unattractive to people living nearby. Globally, Wright observes, “Natural gas currently supplies 25 per cent of raw energy globally, before it is converted into electricity or some other use. Wind and solar only supply about 3 per cent.”
And he’s right. Renewables are likely unable, physically or economically, to replace natural gas power production to meet current or future needs for affordable, abundant and reliable energy.
In a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, for example, we observed that meeting Canada’s predicted electricity demand through 2050 using only wind power (with natural gas discouraged under current Canadian climate policies) would require the construction of approximately 575 wind-power installations, each the size of Quebec’s Seigneurie de Beaupré wind farm, over 25 years. However, with a construction timeline of two years per project, this would equate to 1,150 construction years. This would also require more than one million hectares of land—an area nearly 14.5 times the size of Calgary.
Solar power did not fare much better. According to the study, to meet Canada’s predicted electricity demand through 2050 with solar-power generation would require the construction of 840 solar-power generation stations the size of Alberta’s Travers Solar Project. At a two-year construction time per facility, this adds up to 1,680 construction years to accomplish.
And at what cost? While proponents often claim that wind and solar sources are cheaper than fossil fuels, they ignore the costs of maintaining backup power to counter the unreliability of wind and solar power generation. A recent study published in Energy, a peer-reviewed energy and engineering journal, found that—after accounting for backup, energy storage and associated indirect costs—estimated solar power costs skyrocket from US$36 per megawatt hour (MWh) to as high as US$1,548, and wind generation costs increase from US$40 to up to US$504 per MWh.
The outlook for Canada’s switch to renewables is also dire. TD Bank estimated that replacing existing gas generators with renewables (such as solar and wind) in Ontario could increase average electricity costs by 20 per cent by 2035 (compared to 2021 costs). In Alberta, electricity prices would increase by up to 66 per cent by 2035 compared to a scenario without changes.
Under Canada’s current greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory regime, natural gas is heavily disfavoured as a potential fuel for electricity production. The Trudeau government’s Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) would begin curtailing the use of natural gas beginning in 2035, leading largely to a cessation of natural gas power generation by 2050. Under CER and Ottawa’s “net-zero 2050” GHG emission framework, Canada will be wedded to a quixotic mission to displace affordable reliable natural gas power-generation with expensive unreliable renewables that are likely unable to meet expected future electricity demand.
With a federal election looming, Canada’s policymakers should pay attention to new U.S. energy policy on natural gas, and pull back from our headlong rush into renewable power. To avoid calamity, the next federal government should scrap the Trudeau-era CER and reconsider the entire “net-zero 2050” agenda.
-
National2 days ago
Mark Carney’s new chief of staff was caught lying about Emergencies Act use
-
International2 days ago
‘Democracy is now a farce’: How the EU-NATO axis abolished freedom in Romania
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
Fatal Mistake? Disaffected Millennials, Not Trump, Are Canada’s Biggest Challenge
-
Business1 day ago
Brookfield’s Deep Ties to Chinese Land, Loans, and Green Deals—And a Real Estate Tycoon With CCP Links—Raise Questions as Carney Takes Over from Trudeau
-
National2 days ago
Two Liberal ministers suggest Mark Carney will call election after being sworn in as PM
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta power outages and higher costs on the way with new federal electricity regulations, AESO says
-
International2 days ago
Trump rejects globalist Agenda 2030 and its climate emphasis as inconsistent with US sovereignty
-
International2 days ago
United Nations Judge Convicted For Having A Slave