Wind Power

[willy]

Just wondering when the Liberals/NDP start building wind mills all over the country how the bird populations will fare.

Wind mills are a disaster for birds. They may be responsible for the mass killing of our feathered friends.

Innovative, positive, green solutions that don't create enough power to run a small village, let alone industry, and cities.

[Slavik44]

Just wondering when the Liberals/NDP start building wind mills all over the country how the bird populations will fare.

Wind mills are a disaster for birds. They may be responsible for the mass killing of our feathered friends.

Innovative, positive, green solutions that don't create enough power to run a small village, let alone industry, and cities.

Headline: "Martin and Layton control the spread of west nile"

Anyways i cant imagine to many birds dieing and i really think that is not a good enough reason to say no. Isee nothign wrong with replacing polluting facotries, as long as the alternative is within the same price range and is stable and reliable. I honestly see nothignw rong with using nuclear power it is relativley clean the only real environmental problem I suppose would be the disposal of the rods.

[playfullfellow]

Wind power has been proven as a reliable source of power in Europe for years. Now what kills more birds? Getting whacked with a blade or living in smog? Personally I think the birds would chose the blades, they have a chance there. Diversifying our reliance on fossil fuels is not a bad thing, especially since the technology is out there, we just have tweak it to become more affordable.

Instead of giving tax dollars to companies that want to come up with alternatives and have them blow it on promotions and gimicks, award them money after they have proven themselves through lower taxes and such for "X" number of years? Sort of like a contest and then make the pay off worth while.

[BigGunner]

Just wondering when the Liberals/NDP start building wind mills all over the country how the bird populations will fare.

Wind mills are a disaster for birds. They may be responsible for the mass killing of our feathered friends.

Innovative, positive, green solutions that don't create enough power to run a small village, let alone industry, and cities.

Propeller driven wind mills are not the only kind that produce power...

I have seen ones that are built in the shape of a cylander and are less of an eyesore, are more efficient, and cost less to install...

The technology is there..

And, yes, windmills in concentration can produce power to light up cities and towns across the country...

We also need to do our part as consumers too. If we make our homes more power efficient, and are wise about our driving habits, we can lower the demand for power too.

[willy]

A little humour. But here is a thought?

In Canada, Alberta is the largest producer of wind power, with other areas now planning large generating projects. Much of the popularity of wind power is due to it being a non-polluting energy source. The decreasing costs of wind power-generating technology and possible deregulation of utilities have also contributed to an increase in its popularity in Canada. The power generated by wind turbines is used both by local power grids and by private properties which are not connected to the public grids. In Denmark, people own shares in co- operatives that run the wind turbines there. Factors which negate the popularity of wind power include the unpredictability of the wind, aesthetic concerns, and the fact that winds pose a danger to birds.

5 SEPTEMBER 1998

The Globe and Mail

5 SEPTEMBER 1998

Can you imagine in a right wing conservative province like Alberta, they lead the pack in wind power?

I do find it ironic, that in a competitive business environment innovation will find its place as environmental leader.

Aside: (By the way I see the role for government to set emission standards, just not the production of power)

[Reverend Blair]

Wind power is not the only alternative, either. Recent innovations in the production of methanol will make it cost efficient, hydro-electric power is also becoming more efficient. With hydro-electric comes the possiblity of cleanly produced hydrogen. All four are technologies that have been proven to at least some extent in other countries or here in Canada. All will provide economic as well as environmental benefits.

While all technologies have an environmental impact, that impact is less than the continued over-use of fossil fuels and lends greater possiblities for being mitigated over time.

[August1991]

Lost in this discussion is the simple fact that in most of Canada, electricity generation is a government sanctioned monopoly. This means that it is illegal for anyone other than Hydro to generate electricity. It is certainly illegal (impossible) for anyone to generate electricity and sell it to the grid.

When the NDP says it wants to subsidize windmills, in effect it wants to shovel money to bureaucrats expecting this will make them innovative.

[Hugo]

Lost in this discussion is the simple fact that in most of Canada, electricity generation is a government sanctioned monopoly. This means that it is illegal for anyone other than Hydro to generate electricity. It is certainly illegal (impossible) for anyone to generate electricity and sell it to the grid.

In some European countries and, I believe, states of the US, you can install your own power-generation equipment such as solar panels. When you are producing more power than you need (e.g. all day, when you are out at work but the sun shines brightly on your solar panels), that power is pumped into the grid and the power company buys it off you at the market rate, appearing as a credit on your bill.

That's a good incentive.

[BigGunner]

Lost in this discussion is the simple fact that in most of Canada, electricity generation is a government sanctioned monopoly. This means that it is illegal for anyone other than Hydro to generate electricity. It is certainly illegal (impossible) for anyone to generate electricity and sell it to the grid.

When the NDP says it wants to subsidize windmills, in effect it wants to shovel money to bureaucrats expecting this will make them innovative.

State-owned hydro corporations that still exist in Canada often have rates that are far below what a private sector generation facility can offer.

Case in point - Ontario. Privatising hydro ended up costing the ratepayers thousands more per household, then it cost the taxpayer billions when McGuilty decided to impose a rate freeze with a subsidy cheque for the newly privatised facilties....then it cost even more for ratepayers when he unfroze the rates...

Private hydro companies cost more because they have no choice - they must make a profit (they have shareholders to answer to)..

State-owned facilities can often produce hydro at or near cost. This is almost a hidden tax cut of sorts since the citizens and businesses purchase hydro at rates that are cheaper than other jurisdictions.

Look up the rate differences between BC Hydo and other private firms in other provinces.

When the NDP says it wants 10,000 windmills across the country, they suggest this so that we can increase supply of hydro from a free and unlimited resource, without burning even more fossil fuels. It's a plan that makes sense, is ethically right, and will prove itself over time far more profitable for taxpayers and citizens alike.

[Hugo]

State-owned hydro corporations that still exist in Canada often have rates that are far below what a private sector generation facility can offer.

This is chiefly because they are struggling beneath billions in debt, generated by years of operating without a need for fiscal responsibility or cost/overhead minimisation. An infinite supply of taxpayer cash gives no incentive to reduce overheads, invest in new technology or even spend wisely - witness Hydro One's payments of hundreds of thousands for "consultants" whose work often amounted to a single e-mail.

My family lives in the UK and they buy their power from private companies (PowerGen, Scottish Power, British Gas etc) and they all pay a lot less for power than I do. That is what private enterprise provides, better products for lower prices. Look at Eastern European cars if you don't believe me.

The only way that state-run businesses can offer lower prices than the free market is with subsidy, which comes from tax dollars. It's a simple case of pay me now or pay me later. If your price appears on a monthly bill or on your T4, you still paid it. The difference is that state-run business guarantees you'll get a lot less for your dollar.

[idealisttotheend]

What unsubstantiated "poppycock" on Hugo's part, if I may.

An infinite supply of taxpayer cash gives no incentive to reduce overheads, invest in new technology or even spend wisely - witness Hydro One's payments of hundreds of thousands for "consultants" whose work often amounted to a single e-mail.

Infinite supply's of taxpayers cash only exist in a dreamworld. Taxpayers get mad if too much of their money is spent or if any given Crown posts a loss too many years in a row. This is bad for elected official's careers.

SaskTel is recognized as a leader in fiberoptic technology around the world. Enmax (power company owned by citizens of Calgary) has techhnology just as good as TransAlta's (private company). Until very recently the telecoms were almost exclusively public in this country and we got all the new technology advances (like call display etc.) well before the Americans did, and there is a lot more country per customer to lay all that fiber optic wire in.

HydroOne made a stupid deal. Happens all the time to public and private companies alike. But public companies are accountable to the public so we tend to know about their stupid deals. If the banks had an official opposition to track down their failings would we know more or less about the silly things that they do?

My family lives in the UK and they buy their power from private companies (PowerGen, Scottish Power, British Gas etc) and they all pay a lot less for power than I do.

You must live in Alberta. In any case even if this is true surely there are more variables than whether or not the company is public or private? More/less enviromentally produced power, more/less people in any given area leading to efficiencies, more/less access to cheaper feuls/ power sources.

If you do live in Alberta you may have noticed that since deregulation your bill has almost doubled and you pay the highest rates in the country. What is the advantage to you? Do you like paying more to the private companies than you did under a regulated regieme? Can you afford it?

That is what private enterprise provides, better products for lower prices.

In all cases and at all times? Why is car insurance half the cost of a private system, in Saskatchewan? What part of the private part is better or how can you possibly argue it is lower priced? What was better about the private electricity in California that made it so much more expensive than surrounding states? How was is lower priced when it was setting record highs for prices?

The only way that state-run businesses can offer lower prices than the free market is with subsidy, which comes from tax dollars.

They were talking about privatizing Epcor (the power company owned by the citizen's of Edmonton) awile back. Turns out that if they did property taxes would have to go up by an average of 1% a year to make up for the lost revenues (dividends payed to the city). Do you like paying higher taxes? Epcor's service and prices are easily on par with anyone else in Alberta if not better. Publicly owened companies make profits more often than they take losses and that means the only subsidization is of lower tax rates to citizens. Even Canada Post made 75 million in profit in a time of vastly lower mail volumes, that's 75 million we don't have to pay in taxes.

The difference is that state-run business guarantees you'll get a lot less for your dollar.

So says who? The bright lights at the Fraser Institute? They are the only ones I can think of that would make such a silly and unsubstantiated assertion.

And they'd be wrong as ususal.

[Reverend Blair]

Hmmm...I live in Manitoba. We can argue whether I pay lower power rates than people in Quebec, the other province vying for lowest rates in Canada (maybe on the continent), but both have power supplied by Crown Corporations.

[August1991]

But public companies are accountable to the public so we tend to know about their stupid deals.

You mean that State-owned corporations are accountable to an elected government which is accountable to voters once every four years. Those voters must choose one candidate based on myriad issues.

A private corporation must respond to owners, typically shareholders, who can and will at any moment sell their shares if they are not getting an acceptable return.

In your view, which method is likely best to concentrate the minds of managers?

That is what private enterprise provides, better products for lower prices. Look at Eastern European cars if you don't believe me.

BigGun and Idealist, you must be able to answer for the tremendous evidence of the past century. Socialism in the form of State corporations does not work in the long run. There may be exceptions but the onus is on you to identify them.

[Hugo]

Taxpayers get mad if too much of their money is spent or if any given Crown posts a loss too many years in a row.

It doesn't seem that way from where I am sitting. Canada is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world and a substantial portion of the electorate still picks the Liberals and the NDP, who don't make tax cuts a big part of their agenda. "Too much" taxpayer money has been spent since Trudeau got into power. I don't see a revolution coming.

But public companies are accountable to the public so we tend to know about their stupid deals.

Public corporations (those with publicly available shares) are required to disclose financial information. They also have a board of directors elected by the shareholders and that board can hire and fire senior management at any time as it sees fit. They also have to answer to consumers who can stop buying their products at any time.

That's a lot more accountable than state-run enterprise.

You must live in Alberta.

I live in Ontario. I wish that Ontario hydro had been privatised a long time ago so I didn't have to pay for the mess that state-run business created.

What was better about the private electricity in California that made it so much more expensive than surrounding states? How was is lower priced when it was setting record highs for prices?

Because environmental activism in California prevented any new power plant construction in the last ten years. Demand increases, supply is unchanged, and what usually happens to prices in that situation?

California is a great example of how state involvement in the economy just screws things up.

Why is car insurance half the cost of a private system, in Saskatchewan?

Because Saskatchewan and federal tax money pays the cost down. I live in Ontario and I contribute to the low car insurance costs of Saskatchewans. Is that fair?

So says who? The bright lights at the Fraser Institute? They are the only ones I can think of that would make such a silly and unsubstantiated assertion.

Says history. The stunning failure of state-run business and socialist/mixed economies throughout the 20th Century should have clued you in on that score.

[takeanumber]

Bird kill is a huge issue.

I think building them offshore, like in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, or offshore BC, would be a terrific way to generate energy, and reduce birdkill.

[idealisttotheend]

Canada is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world and a substantial portion of the electorate still picks the Liberals and the NDP, who don't make tax cuts a big part of their agenda.

This is irrelevant to our debate. Taxation rates relate to Crowns only insofar as profits/losses go into/from general revenues and in most sectors profits far outweigh the losses.

Public corporations (those with publicly available shares) are required to disclose financial information

I am thinking of the Raptor "vehicals" that Enron created. I am thinking that the CBC is reporting today that the private insurance companies no longer disclose even something as simple as their profits. I am thinking that I can get the SGI numbers in 30 seconds on the internet.

I agree with August that people vote for their elected officials on things other than the performance of the Crowns even if they are concerned with Crowns. But... the NDP won the election in Saskatchewan on protection of the Crowns. The solution, the boards of significant Crown corporations should be elected seperately at all levels of government. This would also get rid of allowing governments to appoint their good friends to these positions based only on patronage concerns and strengthen these organization.

California is a great example of how state involvement in the economy just screws things up.

My Lord. The private interests in California pushed the prices up by intentionally overloading weak points of the grid to create a false emergency and tripling prices. I've never heard of a government doing that.

Any first year economics student will tell you that surpluss capacity is not in the interests of private companies delivering power so they don't build new capacity (same with oil refineries for example).

Because Saskatchewan and federal tax money pays the cost down. I live in Ontario and I contribute to the low car insurance costs of Saskatchewans. Is that fair?

How?!?!? SGI is a break even 'fund,' it sets it's rates to be revenue neutral with the revenues it takes from it's customers. Tax money is only 'borrowed' when their is a loss and then is paid back. SGI invests money like any private company to make up part of it's revenues. You may be assured that you do not in any way shape or form subsidise car insurance rates in Saskatchewan and I don't know where you would get such an impression.

Says history. The stunning failure of state-run business and socialist/mixed economies throughout the 20th Century should have clued you in on that score.

Really. I haven't noticed our economy failing, but perhaps you have information I don't have? In any case if you look at utilities or health care part of the reason it is largely delivered by publically owned companies is because the private sector wouldn't touch them. Once the systems are built and people are dependant on them the private sector is happy to move in and reap the rewards.

In any case none of the state run utlities or insurance plans have failed and I thought that is what we were discussing since the thread is on power.

[playfullfellow]

It is certainly illegal (impossible) for anyone to generate electricity and sell it to the grid.

In Alberta, you are allowed to sell power back to the grid if you have excess power. Wind farms do this and so do biogenerated power systems. I am not sure of the hoops you have to jump through to do this but it is one incentive to bring in alternative power. Alberta's privatization of the power companies was basically a flop because the industry was not ready for the change over. Do I mind paying more for my power? Sure but it has also given me plenty of incentive to make my home power smart. Using power efficient appliances, power efficient bulbs and teaching our kids to be energy smart are ways of reducing our power cost. I would like to see every home have an alternative power source but it is yet too expensive to do so. I guess another way to look at is, if you got cheap power, what incentive do you have to become more efficient? None really aside from your conscience. You see more homes being built to be as energy efficient as possible now which in turn uses less power which reduces reliance on fossil fuels to produce that power.

I do not feel the government should pay people to come up with alternative power sources until that source is a proven, viable product. The pay off should come from producing a good product that people will want and use. Demand based economy is the term I think.

Whether private or crown corporations run the power supply, we end up paying the full cost of producing that power no matter what either through direct billing or through our taxes. If it is a private company, then there needs to be regualtions in place to protect power users because with our reliance on power, they have us by the short and curlies.

[August1991]

I am not sure of the hoops you have to jump through to do this but it is one incentive to bring in alternative power.

I know that this is illegal in Quebec. In fact, a private enterprise with its own generator is suspect.

If the Green/Leftist/NDP read this post, please think of the consequences.

The technology exists now for people to consume their own power or to feed it to the grid. Solar panels, wind technology exists also. There are also meters available to register consumption/supply on an hourly basis. We could have a pricing scheme that would account for marginal cost and capacity issues.

All of this would do much, much more to reduce Canada's and the world's CO2 emissions than Kyoto ever will. We all know this.

Kyoto exempts entirely India and China for all emissions. Europe must make essentially no restrictions since Europe produces no fossil fuels. Canada, the US and Russia are the culprits. They must pay. Why not Arabia? And why not consumers like Japan and Europe?

Be honest, please. The environment matters. This is no time to play left/right politics.

[idealisttotheend]

i think it is a great idea to get paid for what individual citizen's put into the grid. It's large corporate interests that I am suspicious of. Public utilites are more likely to support green power than private concerns.

In fact there was talk that if we went to feul cell cars than each car could act as a power generating unit so each person would generate a very small amount of the total energy needed and you wouldn't need the massive distribution network. Solar panels on every house would be great if it was economical (and if everyone did it it might be).

[Hugo]

I am thinking that the CBC is reporting today that the private insurance companies no longer disclose even something as simple as their profits.

In a case like that, the clear role of government is to step in as an ombudsman and consumer watchdog. Government has no business in business, and to say otherwise is statism, pure and simple.

My Lord. The private interests in California pushed the prices up by intentionally overloading weak points of the grid to create a false emergency and tripling prices.

You're saying I'm wrong? Alright, then tell me the names of the Californian power plants built in the last 10 years. I can tell you that Californian demand has increased 13% in that time.

What you are saying is a ridiculous socialist conspiracy theory - that Californian power companies deliberately created a power crisis so they could increase their prices. I challenge you to provide one single piece of evidence that can support it.

SGI is a break even 'fund,' it sets it's rates to be revenue neutral with the revenues it takes from it's customers. Tax money is only 'borrowed' when their is a loss and then is paid back.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything. We all know that government has been extremely dishonest about that sort of thing in the past - interdepartmental borrowing, slush funds, misappropriation of funds, creative accounting etc. Isn't Paul Martin losing an election on this very issue? Sponsorship scandal, EI surplus, the hundreds of millions missing from the Federal budget, money that vanished in deals with companies (Hewlett-Packard) and so on.

The Canadian government runs budgets like Enron, year upon year. I don't think their figures can be trusted. You claim that their accounting is sound, well, history is not on your side.

Really. I haven't noticed our economy failing, but perhaps you have information I don't have?

Apparently! Why is the percentage of people below the poverty line in Canada at 16% and rising, whereas in the U.S. it's at less than 12% and falling? Why is Canada's growth lower? Why is Canada's real income lower? Why does Canada rank lower on the index of economic freedom?

In any case none of the state run utlities or insurance plans have failed and I thought that is what we were discussing since the thread is on power.

I'd call massive rate hikes, long and very geographically extensive blackouts and the promise of more blackouts to come a failure (Ontario).

[playfullfellow]

Be honest, please. The environment matters. This is no time to play left/right politics.

I agree with you here August that something has to be done to ensure we protect the enviroment. but is Kyoto the way to go? This deal is so stacked against us just because we are a have country. I do not think that we have yet looked at decent alternatives to our current energy uses. The Liberals stance seems to be that they agree to do whatever the world wants and we as a taxpayer will foot the bill no matter what the cost. The NDP are no better, maybe even worse because they seem to want to take it beyond Kyoto.

What exactly is the current projected cost of Kyoto August? You seem to have an uncanny knack for finding all kinds of info that are very relevant to different topics. The road I am heading down is that I think this money can be used much more wisely than the current plan set in place by the Liberals, oh yeah, there is no plan aside from just wanting to throw tonnes of money at it.

I also wonder if you have ever read any articles by Prof. Jim Ball? He is a climatologist who specializes in tracking weather statistics through the centuries, not just the decades. I will try to find some links to his works, he offers some very hard evidence to support his views.

[idealisttotheend]

What you are saying is a ridiculous socialist conspiracy theory - that Californian power companies deliberately created a power crisis so they could increase their prices. I challenge you to provide one single piece of evidence that can support it.

Here is your evidence

I can't believe I found the exact quote on the internet but there it is. It covers your generation questions also.

It's a great book, I read the whole thing and it's a great portrait of how the new capitalism works. Very eye opening.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything. We all know that government has been extremely dishonest about that sort of thing in the past - interdepartmental borrowing, slush funds, misappropriation of funds, creative accounting etc. Isn't Paul Martin losing an election on this very issue? Sponsorship scandal, EI surplus, the hundreds of millions missing from the Federal budget, money that vanished in deals with companies (Hewlett-Packard) and so on.

Huh? Kindly source the connection between SGIs non profit status, your wild assertion that it is subsidised by the federal government and your even wilder assumption that it had something to do with the sposorship scandal. Either that or make a movie with Oliver Stone along the lines of JFK.

The Ontario blackout was caused by a private company that didn't bother to keep itself up to standards.

The US is in a whole lost of trouble economically and it is only begining.

[August1991]

From your link, Idealist, I found this:

But the solution turned out to be worse than the problem. California deregulated the wholesale side of its energy market, while keeping price caps on the retail side.

I have never heard of the book. But the quote above says the essentials of what happened.

No private business can operate where costs follow the market but revenues are dictated by fiat. California is an object lesson in how not to privatize.

One problem is that free-market electricity prices are extremely volatile. (I think this volatility is due in part to the historical State dominance in this sector.) There are solutions to this market volatility but they still seem strange to many people.

To protect the environment, our collective decisions about electricity production and consumption must absolutely follow the free market.

If we survive this century and the serious environmental hurdles we face, I have no doubt that people will look back and see how ignorant we were with respect to energy, transportation and the environment.

Markets cannot solve simply these collective problems. For the same reason, neither can the State. That's why ther're problems. There are solutions but I get seriously depressed when I see the gap between the "solution" and the "politically viable".

[Hugo]

I can't believe I found the exact quote on the internet but there it is. It covers your generation questions also.

I think, as August opined, that this illustrates not the problems of the market system but the problems of state interference in economics and the fallacy of regulation. I read through your excerpt and noted the following items:

California deregulated the wholesale side of its energy market, while keeping price caps on the retail side. Simultaneously, the state barred its utilities from signing long-term fixed-price (i.e., cheaper) deals for power... the stage was set for disaster.

So, the state continues to interfere with price fixing almost across the board. We will see how this impacted events later on.

Enron promised to... build better plants that ran on cleaner, cheaper fuels.

But they could not, because all new power plant construction was vetoed at the political level.

California's major electricity generators had a big problem: They were facing power shortages but realized that they could not afford to buy power from the companies selling it on the spot market, as deregulation required them to do.

So, state interference caused them a "big problem."

To summarise all that, what we can see is that deregulation was extremely badly planned and, while the state handed over generation to the free market they insisted upon keeping a lot of control. When things started to go badly wrong, knee-jerk reactions were made that might have worked ten years previously but could not work at the time.

Huh? Kindly source the connection between SGIs non profit status, your wild assertion that it is subsidised by the federal government and your even wilder assumption that it had something to do with the sposorship scandal.

I did not say I had proof of creative accounting in SGI, because my argument is this: you say you do not trust corporations, but you trust government. I say you have it backwards. Public corporations must disclose and have to answer to a large body of shareholders and, of course, their customers. Government, especially in Canada, has proven that it cannot be relied upon to disclose accurate figures and budgets and has proven that it frequently indulges in interdepartmental funding transfers, slush funds and all sorts of illicit dealings.

Furthermore, you may believe SGI works now, but any state-run business operation is inherently unsustainable. In 10-20 years, perhaps sooner, you will come to realise that when something makes it fall apart.

The Ontario blackout was caused by a private company that didn't bother to keep itself up to standards.

Actually, Eves slammed the door on privatisation virtually as soon as it was opened. Apparently, you expected a private company to repair decades of neglect and damage in a few months and to do this with a multi-billion-dollar debt. How, exactly, should they have done that?

The US is in a whole lost of trouble economically and it is only begining.

Evidence? Economic figures, please, not anecdotal evidence, anti-American bigotry and socialist dogma.

[Black Dog]

Just thought I'd toss this in to address the claims that it was government mismanagement that brought on California's power woes. In fact, private sector manipulation of pricing and power supplies wa sthe biggest culprit.

Power ploys

Enron tapes