Opinion

Solar discussion invites more creative proposals needing discussion.

Published

8 years ago

4 minute read

Let us consider the carbon footprint issue in more ways than mega-projects. Let us start at home.
There is a lot of information about the average home. For example the average home has 2.5 residents. The average home costs $25.000 to install enough solar panels.( there is debate that it may be as little as 14,000 but I would like to prepare for costs overruns) It takes 75 hours of labour to install enough solar panels including electrical and non-electrical labour. So to go solar it would cost $10,000 per resident and require 30 hours of labour per person. This is based on the U.S. which is higher than countries like Germany who are more involved and takes advantage of economies of scale. Germany averages only 33 hours.
Red Deer has about 100,000 residents, so to go solar in such a big way would cost a billion dollars and require 3 million man hours of labour. Spread out over 10 years and 3 levels of government, federal, provincial, and municipal. It would cost each level of government 33 million per year. It would create 300,000 manhours of work and if a full time equivalent is 2,000 hours per year then it would create 150 full time equivalent jobs directly in installation. Each direct job would create several indirect jobs in manufacturing, transportation, hospitality etc. Someone offered 7 indirect jobs but I do not know.
When you look at previous bail outs for jobs, this is not that extreme. The economic impact would be huge. The tax base would increase, employment would increase, and our carbon foot print would decrease.
The economics of scale would lower the costs, the natural evolution of solar efficiency would lower the costs, and experience would lessen the labour time and costs but the benefits would be the same.
Red Deer College could get involved in training. The city could become an eco-friendly destination for residents and tourists.
If we were to download a portion of the costs onto the home owners through a loan, and incorporate into their property taxes based on 3% interest. 40% of the costs over 10 years would mean $100 per month for 10 years, which would probably be less than their current electrical bill. If as some suggest it would be $14,000 and even if the home owners bore all the costs then it would be $150 per month for 10 years.That is based on current costs on a small scale.
This will not happen overnight. Three levels of government, training, planning, and manufacturing etc. will take time. I remember satellite dishes that were once so huge, that are now so small, and the same goes for solar panels, once so huge they are increasingly getting smaller and more efficient.
The amount of money is not insurmountable. In a equal-shared scenario with the provincial and federal governments, the costs of building the planned footbridge from the Riverlands to Bower Ponds for example would convert about 2500 homes.
I hope the city continues to discuss and explore these possibilities with other levels of government. Talking about the environment, talking about innovation, and talking about infrastructure spending, here you go.
Another idea could be doing a neighbourhood project like Drake’s Landing Solar Community in Okotoks which had 10 years of uninterrupted service with solar fraction of 100% during the summer and a low of 92% during the coldest winter.
We could look at using our river for hydro-electric, mandate architectural restrictions like reflective roofs, encourage green roofs to name but a few as the dialogue widens.
I hope the city continues the discussions after their March 6 2017 meeting.

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.