Connect with us

Business

Solar and wind power make electricity more expensive—that’s a fact

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

As a new year dawns and winter takes hold, it’s worth considering the cost of energy. After a meeting in Italy last spring, the G7 countries (including Canada) pledged to triple renewable energy sources (e.g. wind, solar) globally to ensure an “affordable” energy future. But while direct costs for wind and solar are dropping, they remain expensive due in part to the backup energy sources required when renewables are not available.

In short, an “affordable” energy future is incompatible with increased reliance on renewables. Here’s why.

Wind and solar energy are intermittent, meaning they aren’t consistently available, so we need an alternative power source when there’s no sunlight or wind given the current limited ability to store energy from solar and wind. So we must maintain enough energy capacity in a parallel system, typically powered by natural gas. Constructing and upkeeping a secondary energy source results in higher overall energy costs because two energy systems cost more than one. Therefore, when evaluating the costs of renewables, we must consider the costs of backup energy.

Often, when proponents claim that wind and solar sources are cheaper than fossil fuels, they ignore these costs. 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—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.

Which is why when governments phase out fossil fuels to expand the role of renewable sources in the electricity grid, electricity become more expensive. In fact, a study by University of Chicago economists showed that between 1990 and 2015, U.S. states that mandated minimum renewable power sources experienced significant electricity price increases after accounting for backup infrastructure and other costs. Specifically, in those states electricity prices increased by an average of 11 per cent, costing consumers an additional $30 billion annually. The study also found that electricity prices grew more expensive over time, and by the twelfth year, electricity prices were 17 per cent higher (on average).

Europe is another case in point. Between 2006 and 2019, solar and wind sources went from representing around 5 per cent of Germany’s electricity generation to almost 30 per cent in 2019. During that same period, German households experienced an increase in electricity prices from 19.46 cents to 30.46 cents per kilowatt hour—a rise of more than 56 per cent. This surge in prices occurred before the war in Ukraine, which led to an unprecedented price spike in 2022.

For Canada, the outlook is also dire. In a recent report, 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. In Alberta, electricity prices would  increase by up to 66 per cent by 2035 compared to an scenario without changes. These increases are on top of the 15 to 20 per cent increase in average generation costs expected by 2035 under current government policies.

Clearly, when accounting for backup costs, renewable-powered electricity is more expensive than fossil fuels. Policymakers in Ottawa and across Canada must recognize that integrating renewables into electricity grids can lead to significant price increases for consumers, and they should be honest about that fact with Canadians in 2025 and beyond.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst
Elmira Aliakbari

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Essential goods shouldn’t be taxed

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Jay Goldberg 

The Trudeau government’s two-month GST holiday on certain items has been called many things.

Former finance minister Chrystia Freeland resignation letter suggests she thinks it’s a “gimmick.”

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has called it a “tax trick.”

But here’s a more fundamental question: If the government thinks Canadians needs a sales tax holiday on certain items, why are those basics taxed in the first place?

Items like car seats, diapers, and pre-prepared foods are all taxed by the feds. They’re all also subject to the federal government’s sales tax holiday, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says was triggered because Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet.

“Our government can’t set prices, but we can give Canadians, and especially working Canadians, more money back in their pocket,” said Trudeau at his GST holiday announcement.

At least Trudeau seems to know it’s bad for governments to set prices. But the government does raise prices by adding sales tax on top of goods Canadians have to buy.

And you don’t need to be a parent to know that car seats and diapers are among the most essential goods on a parent’s shopping list.

Take a car seat. A mid-tier car seat costs around $250. The federal sales tax, which is currently at five per cent, adds $12.50 to the final cost of that car seat.

Parents across the country are no doubt asking why things like car seats and diapers were taxed by the feds in November, will be taxed again by the feds in March, but aren’t being taxed right now.

What justification can the government possibly give to parents on Feb. 16, 2025 – the day this sales tax holiday ends – for once again taxing things like car seats and diapers?

The same goes for pre-prepared meals. Many Canadians buy pre-prepared food at grocery stores to bring to work for lunch or to eat on the go. Why are the ingredients for that pre-prepared meal not taxed but the final meal is? And why take the tax off a grocery store deli sandwich now but not a few months from now?

There’s even more of an argument to be made on this front because many provinces don’t tax a lot of the items that are part of the feds’ sales tax holiday.

Take Ontario as an example.

Canada’s most populous province doesn’t tax things like books, children’s clothing, car seats, and diapers. Some pre-prepared foods aren’t taxed either.

If provinces don’t tax these items, why do the feds?

The Trudeau government took inspiration from the NDP when it comes to the GST break. It ought to also take inspiration from the party’s call to make relief permanent.

Trudeau’s GST announcement came just days after NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh called for the permanent removal of the federal sales tax on items like pre-prepared meals, diapers, and car seats. Singh’s proposal actually went much further, and included ending the GST on home heating, as well as internet and phone bills.

In touting his proposal, Singh argued that “those taxes never should have been there in the first place.”

Singh is right. Essential goods shouldn’t be subject to the GST. Period.

Just days after Singh’s announcement, Trudeau played copycat with one of his own.

But a two-month reprieve pales in comparison to permanent relief.

If the Trudeau government wants to deliver real relief to struggling Canadian families, essential items that most provinces already don’t tax, such as diapers, car seats, and pre-prepared meals, should be permanently exempt from the GST.

Permanent sales tax relief is more than doable. The feds could deliver on it without hiking the deficit by taking a sledgehammer to the more than $40 billion a year they hand out in corporate welfare.

Anything less than a permanent sales tax break simply won’t cut it when it comes to cutting costs for Canadians.

Continue Reading

Business

US Expands Biometric Technology in Airports Despite Privacy Concerns

Published on

 

 

By

Biometric systems promise efficiency at airports, but concerns over data security and transparency persist.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Biometric technology is being rolled out at US airports at an unprecedented pace, with plans to extend these systems to hundreds more locations in the coming years. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is driving a significant push toward facial recognition and other biometric tools, claiming improved efficiency and security. However, the expansion has sparked growing concerns, with privacy advocates and lawmakers voicing concerns about data security, transparency, and the potential for misuse of such technology.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has already implemented its Biometric Facial Comparison system at 238 airports, including 14 international locations. This includes all CBP Preclearance sites and several major departure hubs. CBP says its Biometric Exit program is rapidly gaining traction, with new airport partners joining monthly and positive feedback reported from passengers.

Meanwhile, the TSA has equipped nearly 84 airports with its next-generation Credential Authentication Technology (CAT-2) scanners, which incorporate facial recognition. This rollout is part of a broader effort to bring biometrics to over 400 airports nationwide. These advancements are detailed in a TSA fact sheet aimed at building public awareness of the initiative.

Opposition and Privacy Concerns

Despite assurances from TSA and CBP, critics remain skeptical. Some lawmakers, led by Senator Jeff Merkley, argue that the TSA has yet to justify the need for biometric systems when previous technologies already authenticated IDs effectively. Privacy advocates warn that the widespread use of facial recognition could set a dangerous precedent, normalizing surveillance and threatening individual freedoms.

The debate is closely tied to the federal REAL ID Act, introduced two decades ago to standardize identification requirements for air travel. As of now, many states have failed to fully implement REAL ID standards, and only a portion of Americans have acquired compliant credentials. Reports indicate that fewer than half of Ohio residents and just 32 percent of Kentuckians have updated their IDs, even as the May 7, 2025, deadline approaches.

Biometric Adoption on the Global Stage

Beyond the US, biometric systems are gaining momentum worldwide. India’s Digi Yatra program has attracted 9 million active users, adding 30,000 new downloads daily. The program processes millions of flights while emphasizing privacy by storing data on users’ mobile devices rather than centralized databases. Plans are underway to expand the program further, including international pilots scheduled for mid-2025.

While biometric technology offers alleged benefits, such as faster boarding and enhanced security, it also poses serious risks. Privacy advocates caution against unchecked implementation, especially since, one day, this form of check-in is likely to be mandatory.

The TSA’s aggressive push for biometrics places the United States at the forefront of this global shift.

Continue Reading

Trending

X