Project Alberta - Empowering Albertans

Re: The Great Debate

JB0713 — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:04:34 PDT

Wow didn't see that coming.

I think what killed them was all the talk of cut backs. Planks such as cash handouts was too transparent or condescending. Pandering to special interest groups like "families" reminded too many voters of right wing American Christian politics and of course the big unknown of how they would govern with no real track record.

But I suspect it was the idea of cutting back when government needs to expand to meet the needs of an expanding province and multiple massive projects. I know those who work in industries directly related to government, education at least, were asking if voting WR wasn't such a good idea for them or a province with increasing population.

Judging by oil politics in other Nations, any real change will be resisted. When other nations insisted on change they were taught a very tough lesson. So tough that maybe not changing, not gambling on an unknown, is best.

Re: The Great Debate

Mudge — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:07:26 PDT

Is now over - was it good for you ?

Re: The Great Debate

JB0713 — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:52:25 PDT

Only saw bits of it, sorry it was just too boring for me to watch, but it seems to me that the odds are good for Wildrose, they are the only party that seems to connect with people. Change is needed and that cannot come from Redford, too much baggage there and besides they have had their chance, we can see what they are about.

Disappointed that there was no debate about the most serious issues facing Alberta. They talked about money but that is a non sequitur with the lost of royalties due to the discounting that happens when we sell our oil to a single customer and the over all low, below average, taxes being collected from the industry.

The spread between what our oil is worth and what we sell it for, or the WTI-Western Canada Select is costing Albertan's Billions of dollars in many different ways yet there was no discussion about our response could be or should be.

Some argue that the spread is due to the inability to ship our resources, or our royalty structure that charges more when Western Canada price goes up, or the fact that we have one section of the industry selling to another section but all owned by the same few top players but maybe that isn't important. If we look at how other oil producing Nations handle such issues we can see that prices, profits, and benefits, can be kept up by preventing overproduction and being active. OPEC has laid out what can be done and active control of the resource has been proven to be very important.

Then there is the large international "interference", our position on responding to attacks against us and our resources, our image, and environmental protections, our relationship with other Nations in Confederation and so on. I didn't feel there was any real discussion on these issues, sound bites and superficial chatter but that's about it. Maybe there was some serious discussion that I missed and the media didn't report on but I doubt it.

Rather pointless to argue about a budget short fall of a billion or two when tens, even hundreds of billions are being given away or lost.

But if the other parties are not going to get into such issues I don't expect the Wildrose to bring them up. The Wildrose is ahead and it looks like they will win if they can just hold the course they are on. Meanwhile election day draws ever closer.

Re: The Great Debate

Mudge — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:13:05 PDT

I too, listened with care the Leaders in this great yawn !

Ms Smith was the definite winner while Redford looked haughty and very "car salesmanish". The NDip leader came off well, but he is still a Socialist, while Raj seemed to be a great waffler - and I suspect his sanity at times.

Where was the Alberta Party - do they not have an MLA ?

So my vote will still be with the Wildrose candidate - seeing as how he's the only one of the bunch to bother knocking on my door !

The Great Debate

Whispering Dick — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:44:25 PDT

I listened and watched. I was not overly impressed. My choice for Premier, Danielle Smith (the cute one), remains the same. I like her, she will make a fine spokeswoman for our province. I just hope that the bright lights around her can convince her to drop that $300 give-away plan. Otherwise, She is just what Alberta needs!!

Watching with interest --- Dick.

Giving it away for free, who speaks for Alberta?

JB0713 — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:03:18 PDT

Since 1986 industry has taken home $260 billion in pre-tax profits while the public, the owner of the resource, has received less than $25 billion or less than six per cent of the total value.

The actual numbers are getting worst. Alberta has a royalty plan in place that would bring in more money as the price per barrel increases, particularly after $100bbl but the industry has managed to claim a discount for Alberta oil keeping it around $75bbl or well off it's actual value.

Of course many believe that is just a coincidence and that the industry does not make any attempts to maximize profits or reduce taxes and there are fairies living under rocks.

Now is the time for the Oil Sands, we have the worlds largest supply of new oil and oil is worth over $100bbl, yet we are giving it away at a fraction of it's value. Industry, oil companies in particular, have a history of maximising profits. That is the sole reason for their existence, it is how we in the West have set it up.

And it works great as long as the public's interest is well represented via laws and regulations.

Is any political party talking about value for resource other than promising to pick up some scraps left or offered to pacify the ignorant?

Is it any wonder that every other oil resource of this size ends up being nationalised? Would it not be better to regulate and tax to the benefit of the public?

Why are these answers not part of the parties platforms? Why is the media, the public not asking even the most basic questions, like how is it we have yet to twin our major highways? Or what level of immigration is needed to create the Alberta of the future, or what do people want that future to be?

Re: So, Alberta is going to the polls !

JB0713 — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:26:38 PDT

I should clarify as well as my attempt to be brief results in it appearing that I do not think First Generation Canadians can care about long term issues and that isn't my position at all. I do think they are not caring as much as multi-generational Albertans would or should but that short post tries too hard to KISS. BTW Books are great. I've often said one has to write one’s own history or it will be written for you by others.

Anyway, I, all of us, have to be careful to avoid others thinking we are suggesting that those who have moved to Alberta or Canada as recently as the 1920's or the 2010's are not as Albertan or Canadian as those of us who have a family line that dates back about as far as recorded history does on the continent and in some cases farther.

Avoiding that suggestion is particularly the case when it comes to Alberta. As Dick almost certianly knows Alberta’s history shows that rather well. Those who moved to Western Canada either before or shortly after it was purchased by Canada in the 1800's really show us how wrong it is to use linage or length of time on the land to determine loyalty or willingness to act to better the future, as does many generations of immigrants that followed.

(Rant warning: this long following bit adds little to the above but may be of some interest)

I make that historical reference because I am currently looking at that bit of history and can see how it illustrates the idea that lineage alone is not a good indication of where ones loyalties or concerns might lay. I can also do a bit of cut and paste which is always easier.<grin> and when it comes to concern for the future of a nation little shows such concern better than open protest or rebellion which I think is an ongoing part of our history.

In Canada’s history of their Western purchase they represent those who resisted the will of Canada as "merely" Indians and Métis. This enabled them to ignore the real and legitimate issues that resulted in Canadian troops being used to force Canadian will in the West. As would be expected the use of troops did not address the fundamental issues which is why those issues still exist, though some might say less so for the Metis or Cree who were most active in military actions.

I suggest the protest and unrest resulting in the rebellions requiring multiple military “solutions” originated, in no small part, with the "settlers” who had little history on the land prior to 1870. That it was the settlers as much as those included in the purchase that lead to Canada using troops. “White” settlers, first generation Westerners played a significant role in the protest and even in the rebellions. I will give some support and search words.

Because this Western Canadian history is mostly written by others the protest or resistance and/or rebellions are not called Western Canadian Rebellions. While terms like Canada are used to discuss a time before Canada as it is today the term Western Canadian is carefully avoided by Eastern Federalists when talking about this period in Western Canadian history. They prefer the term Metis rebellion or North-West resistance or even Riel Rebellion to try and limit the scope. They often limit in time the causes and events by jumping directly to 1885, which they see as the end. Of course it is better to look farther back and at the whole of the protest if one is looking for a more accurate picture and an understanding of the roots of “Western Discontent” today.

Between 1870 and 1885 we have census data which shows the start and effect of waves of immigration and gives us data on the birthplace of people living in the North-West. This data shows that settlers quickly made up a very large part of the population and that most were from Ontario.

This may be news to anyone reading Canadian history books which often represent early Western settlers as being from Europe, sometimes Eastern Europe. The census of 1885 shows that settlers from all of Europe numbered in the hundreds while those from Canada numbered over 10,000. Between sheer numbers and Ontario institutions such as the NWMP it is more than fair to say that Ontario settled the West.

Yet it is that population that rebelled against Ontario and fought for Western rights and representation. Their view, not the Indians, that papers wrote about. Papers that have endless articles and editorials expressing the discontent that led to open protests and even rebellions. It was that first generation that created groups such as the Alberta Settlers Rights Association, who in 1885 demanded “rights and privileges of free men”.

In fact an argument could be made that since then those with the deepest roots have been the most complacent or most willing to compromise, most willing to wait and be let “in”.
I’m not making that argument though I have heard it expressed and would be interested in knowing more about it.

I am suggesting that recent “immigrants” are complacent, particularly those who consider themselves immigrants rather than what many of us wish them to be which is settlers or First Generation Albertans or Canadians. Though I would like to compare the differences between the early settlers or immigrants to today’s settlers or immigrants this post is already wayyyy too long and must wrap up.

Suffice to say that I would be encouraged if all of us would look to a future Alberta when voting. The history of oil rich Nations show us that promises of money today comes at the cost of the Nation itself tomorrow.

Re: So, Alberta is going to the polls !

Whispering Dick — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:50:59 PDT

I think I might have misled you with the beginning of my last post.
Maybe this will set it right!

My PARENTS came to Alberta's Peace River country in 1926 and homesteaded on Strong Creek, a tributary of the Peace River. I was born there in 1935. I don't know how much more "ALBERTAN" you can get.

I have written a book about my early life in Peace River, And am working on a second one about "ATHABASCA", as I prefer to call western Canada.

I am retired to Calgary, now, and still thank God for my Alberta Heritage.

Watching Ms. Smith win --- Dick

Re: So, Alberta is going to the polls !

JB0713 — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:49:11 PDT

If a person moves to Alberta when he is 14 or has deeper roots in Alberta then naturally they will feel a concern for the province and nation that is Alberta. But for those who move here for work are more likely to have deeper ties elsewhere. Our ideas and culture do not change just because we move somewhere and the older we are when we move the truer that is. There is nothing wrong with that and of course they care but they are going to care based on a life elsewhere.

Longer time line issues, particularly those beyond Confederation, are the responsibility of Albertans and maybe Canadians from other provinces. Canadians, mostly Ontario, will remember, or have as part of their world view, the fact that they purchased most of today’s Canada and all of Alberta so deserve an ongoing ROI. They care little about Alberta as a Nation, no mother country should be expected to.

People do care but they are not going to care as much about the big issues, like long term trade issues and access to all three oceans or Alberta’s increased need for border security and proximity to a superpower who has a pattern of dealing with oil nations, or the billions lost by selling our resources.

Politicians on the other hand clearly do not care about anything other than getting elected. There are few if any great people or ideas in this election and that shows in the coverage and platforms.

Doesn’t mean it isn’t an important vote or that people shouldn’t or don’t care but I’m not expecting any change of direction. The best being offered is a new paint job and fancy dice for the mirror.

And the recent issues about "changing" Alberta and balanced budgets show that.

Re: So, Alberta is going to the polls !

Whispering Dick — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 18:33:15 PDT

I CARE !! My first winter job (at age 14 ) was in the Northern Alberta oil-patch as a "jug hustler". I have worked as a Machine operator, Base foreman and Superintendent building highways and rail grades to resources. And when I turned to business, my main clients were oil and gas companies. Alberta Resources have provided a living for me, my children and their children . So I CARE !!

Remove the oil, gas and coal from the picture and 95% of all adults in Alberta would be UNEMPLOYED!! That's how important they are. Anyone who lives in our beautiful province MUST understand that. Anyone who fails to has my deepest sympathy.

Look around you --- Is there a better place to live and work ?? I don't think so. --- Dick.

Re: So, Alberta is going to the polls !

JB0713 — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:05:49 PDT

Cute counts, good thing too because the big issues rarely do.

Alberta oil is being discounted from over $100 down to $75, huge profits are being made by some but for Alberta it is huge losses. Our product is being sold at discounted prices and Alberta is still playing nice.

The interests fighting for our oil are not playing nice. We are seeing the results, yet no party is prepared to take a strong stand for Alberta, a stand strong enough to change the course we are on.

It seems that few voters have any deep connection to Alberta. Sure we each have our politics and ideas but no strong opinion on whose oil it is. Many in Alberta actually call it Canadian Oil and appear to care little if Canada or America is able to prevent it's sale globally or control it directly. Many suggest actions that would open resource extraction to the world even while we remain tied to one customer.

edit: never say never

Re: So, Alberta is going to the polls !

Mudge — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:49:30 PDT

Ms. Smith is, I hope, everything one could wish in a Premier - I know the candidate in my riding and he too appears to be quite good - even if he is an "economist" !

I only hope they don't turn out, like the previous LieCons in Edmonton - big spendeds and bigger liars !

Re: So, Alberta is going to the polls !

Whispering Dick — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:54:02 PDT

I like the Wild Rose leader. She's cute. She's also a new broom. She'll need a shovel too. What should we do with all the unemployed polititions? They can't be recycled. Landfill I guess.

Watching in wonder --- Dick.

So, Alberta is going to the polls !

Mudge — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:20:48 PDT

Dies anyone have any opinions ?

Border rant and history question

JB0713 — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:44:06 PST

I cross the border often, by car, plane and boat. I'm a multigenerational North American who is about as low a risk as one can get when it comes to border issues (online posting on the other hand..). And I spend a lot of money in the USA, at least until I can find equivalent services in Canada.

I have a Nexus card, submitted to the interrogation,gave biometerics and permission for a search of my records including employment and everything else they demanded.

Yet I still get hassled at the border.

After the 4th search in a row a while back I asked what was up. They explained it was due to someone with a similar name. I looked at my Nexus card and wanted to ask just how friggin stupid are they? There is no way in hell I could get, let alone keep, a Nexus card with any such issues. It would have been discovered during the interrogation and/or background search.

So what does that say about the Nexus program?

It is totally bogus. We face more questions with the card than without. Often we are viewed with suspicion when we have the card and have been asked more than once why we got the card. Damn good question.

So why did they ask us to get the card? It is seems that the purpose was to create a data base of travelers, to get permission to search and collect information including biometrics on citizens for that data base. A data base clearly not used by border personnel to our advantage.

That isn't the only obvious problem at the border. Another is the Stanford Prison Experiment relationship. Only God can help you if the border guard is in a bad mood. No other guards will stop them and their power is absolute. Sure there is the future prospect of justice but that is very unlikely and complaints are recorded. Which could result in the loss of the Nexus card, then have fun crossing borders.

Of course on the Canadian side I do have rights and as a result am never yelled at, accused of wrong doing, searched or abused. All they want is money and I am always ready with a detailed account and have no problem paying taxes, duties and fees (well on some items I do but I don't smuggle). I have been wronged by paying fees and taxes that were not due but I have also successfully recovered such payments after complaining. Not a perfect system but much more respectful.

No risk Canadians face more questions than ever, must submit to having their movements and data recorded, including face and vehicle pictures and detailed financial data, even personal relationships recorded. Not what was hoped for by previous generations.

It is little better if you are driving a truck across the border. Recall the Free Trade Agreement? The one that promised to open the border to our trucks and goods? Decades later we can see how false that promise was. Crossing the border with a truck has just as much paperwork (some say more some say more info in fewer forms) and certainly more searches (every truck is stopped and scanned, all too often held for hours).

It seems that the main beneficiaries of the FTA and NFTA has been large business who has made huge profits that are being used to create ever greater inequality and class separation. It has not helped the average citizen cross the border as promised.

So what is going on at our Borders? The American border crossing I am close to as I write this has a military trained SWAT team numbered in the hundreds. On the Canadian side we have no military presence and only a few dozen lightly armed guards. In case of trouble we call the local RCMP.

Today's border environment is accepted by most of us but it would be horrifying to previous generations. And yet here we are about to "integrate" border services with country 10X our size with 20X the border personnel and 100X the attitude.

Now that the rant part is over I do have a question.

I have been trying to find a similar situation from history. One in which an independent country has handed over (or shared with a 10X larger country) both it's defense and border control.

When I try I keep finding examples of Federations. Like the USSR but I do not think those examples are quite the same. Is the recent USSR federation similar? I don't think so, those nations were taken by force were they not?

Does anyone know of an example from History where a nation with huge natural resources, such as the worlds largest supply of new oil, that willingly hands over it's defense and border controls to another nation, a super power?

And then of course my question is what happened? History tells us most clearly what our future is likely to be.

Canada had the 7th largest military in the world, we deployed nuclear weapons in foreign countries, we had respect, won Noble Prizes, had the highest standard of living in the world and today we are....? Well what are we? What examples from history does Canada most closely resemble?

Has any Nation, any Empire (with over 9 million sq/kms we can be compared to small empires), has any Confederation in history had so much and then just, seemingly, gave it away?

Re: If there is anyone still here

JB0713 — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:28:25 PST

I'm guessing he stopped paying. It is easy to get another host so that must be it.

Now if I could figure out why I can't post to the Montreal Gazette anymore.

Re: If there is anyone still here

JBG — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:20:56 PST

I was wondering if anyone new why Link Byfield's blog, Citizens' Center, ccfd.ca was suspended?

Re: If there is anyone still here

JBG — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:29:55 PST

JB0713 wrote:

Nope, nobody hear.

Merry Christmas!

Except me but I'm not in Alberta.

Re: If there is anyone still here

JB0713 — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:39:56 PST

Nope, nobody hear.

Merry Christmas!

Re: If there is anyone still here

AltaInd — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:20:51 PST

Merry Xmas to all and the best in the new year.

If there is anyone still here

Mudge — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:04:41 PST

I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy, Healthy New Year in 2012

Re: Power Myths

JB0713 — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:08:36 PST

Emax is still looking for money, your money would do, so will of course suggest new transmission lines are not needed.

Once built Emax will say that new transmission lines are needed to sell the power into other markets including Edmonton.

Re: Power Myths

dpwozney — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:09:50 PST

Quote:

Rick Bell wrote, in his September 6th column, “At the same time, four Alberta electricity companies -- TransCanada Energy, ATCO Power, TransAlta and Capital Power Corp., once owned by Edmonton's Epcor -- are going to court to stop an assessor's report later this month expected to give a green light to a new Enmax plant designed to provide plenty of power to Calgary without any new north-south lines”.

dpwozney wrote:

Why can’t the future electricity needs in southern Alberta instead be met by more-locally produced electricity from more-local natural-gas-fired power plants?

Shepard power plant breaks ground

$1.3 billion mega-project located on eastern edge of Calgary

CBC News Posted: Oct 4, 2011 1:27 PM MT Last Updated: Oct 4, 2011 3:55 PM MT

Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi, ENMAX's interim CEO Charles Ruigrok and ENMAX board chair Greg Melchin were on hand to break the ground at Calgary’s Shepard power plant. (CBC)

Ground was broken Tuesday at Calgary’s Shepard power plant.

The $1.3 billion mega-project is located on a 24-hectares site on the eastern edge of the city. When finished in 2015 the plant will supply half of Calgary’s current energy needs.

ENMAX’s interim CEO Charles Ruigrok said the natural gas-fired plant will produce half of the carbon dioxide emissions of a coal-fired plant.

“The power is still going to go back to the grid, but it doesn’t have to travel all the way from Edmonton so it travels far shorter distances, so you lose far less electricity in the transmission which, at the end of the day, is a big benefit for consumers, both in terms of losses and building a transmission line that’s not required,” said Ruigrok.

ENMAX is still trying to find a partner to help with the cost of the plant.

If unsuccessful, Ruigrok says they will delay another Calgary power plant ENMAX plans to build Bonnybrook Alta.

Located on Calgary’s doorstep, the 800 megawatt power plant will reduce the need for new power lines for Alberta's grid as it's close to the end customer.

More than 200 workers are already at the Shepard site, and it is expected that 600 will be employed during the height of construction.

Although construction on the plant just started a couple of months ago, Ruigrock says about half a billion dollars has already been spent.

Despite the cost of the project Mayor Naheed Nenshi said city council stands firmly behind it, noting that it’s good for the city, the environment and the power grid.

“This is the right thing to do for Calgary, for our electricity and energy needs and for sustainability in the future.”

The endeavor is one of the largest projects ever undertaken by the City of Calgary or a related group, said Nenshi.

More energy changes are on the way. Two giant turbines that have been built in Japan will be shipped to Calgary next year.

The turbines will travel through the Panama Canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway before being put onto special rail cars on their way to Calgary.

[ link ]

Re: Power Myths

JB0713 — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 10:18:12 PST

I can prove that more north-south lines are needed but the math gets to be time consuming so instead I'll just try to explain it. Most people will know most of this so please bear with me.

Today most electricity used is taken from the "grid". The grid connects almost all of North America enabling the sharing of electricity. Connect a generator in Alberta and it is possible to sell the energy to California or even Florida. This means that we can expand by adding power lines without having to add generation.

Of course Powerlines are almost always added to the grid when load increases but are also added when loads are stagnant to address grid issues, like stability and quality.

Adding lines increases the stability of the grid in part because the more interconnections there are the more options the grid operators have. A thick web of high voltage transmission lines helps ensure electrical power is always available and that the system is never straining to deliver that power, particularly when load increases or there are quality issues.

Load increases with time (you use more energy than your grandparents), population and increasing economic activity (there is a direct relationship between economic activity and energy use). Alberta has all three driving the need for more transmission and generation.

The one thing we should all agree on is that more high voltage transmission lines are needed, more local distribution lines are needed and more generation is needed. We should agree on that because it is a basic fact of using a grid system in a society that is increasing their use of electricity.

Why can’t the future electricity needs in southern Alberta instead be met by more-locally produced electricity from more-local natural-gas-fired power plants?

Increasing local generation does not remove the need for more transmission lines, just the opposite. Sure you can have large generation capacity (either one big station or many small ones) connected with a single undersized line to the grid but such a design will be very susceptible to islanding, power quality problems, brown outs and black outs.

This is why a grid that has few or thin connections with lots of local generation is not as robust as a grid with several large generating stations with many or thick connections.

This is not to say that future electricity needs, or at least an increasing portion of our future needs, could not be met with many small gas fired generating plants but there will be trade offs.

First as mentioned if we are to keep the grid, using local gas plants does not mean fewer transmission lines. Depending on the configuration it might, imo likely, mean more transmission lines to avoid the power quality problems the public and economy has clearly shown it will not accept.

When designing such a system the grid would have to be able to supply power when those local generators fail. We see this with wind power. For every megawatt of wind added to the grid we need to add a megawatt of traditional generating capacity. Failing to do that results in the problem many areas of Europe has, which includes expensive importing of power, power quality issues, even brown outs and black outs.

Many smaller plants means more expensive power. It is much cheaper to generate power on a large scale, megawatts or gigawatts than it is to generate it on small scale, say kilowatts.

Power generated on a small scale is less efficient and more polluting.

Power generated on a small scale is ugly, noisy, smelly and/or hazardous. All those things exist with large generation but fewer people have to see them and/or deal with such issues.

So where will future large generation capacity come from? Well thanks to Canada's failure to communicate to the world that we sink more carbon than we could ever produce we will likely not be able to use carbon based fuel without paying a tax of some kind to "developing" countries. Which means coal, gas and oil are out unless we use expensive, and in Canada's case pointless, man made carbon sequestration methods.

"Alternative" supplies are not reliable enough for grid use not to mention cost effective on the massive scale our industry needs. We lack significant hydraulic capacity, and our cheap geothermal is also limited.

Given the many restrictions being placed on the electrical industry the only way forward is nuclear and the sooner we start building the better it will be for the electrical grid. A good example of there being consequences to any position one takes. Did we really have to put ourselves in this position? I think not but we are here so we have to deal with it.

A major problem with the grid system is it's size and latency when it comes to expansion. Generation has to be in place before it is needed. Delays are expensive. We need only look at our neighbour to the west to see just how expensive. They should have and certainly could have the cheapest power in North America but public ignorance has resulted in them having increasing loads with little new and no major generation being added. This has them dealing with double digit annual increases in their household electrical bill and a larger bill for the generation they will now have to build anyway.

If we are to keep the grid the question isn't really are new power lines needed but how many and where they will be located. The same is true for generation.

BTW, IMO, in the distant future there will be no grid as there is today. There is a trend towards loads not being connected to the grid. Right now they are small insignificant loads but over time the loads that can be cost effectively supplied by the equipment itself will increase, it will also be DC not AC. Edison will win eventually.

Re: Power Myths

dpwozney — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:21:22 PST

Ted Morton said “It seems improbable that at some point there will not be more north-south lines built and in terms of overall grid reinforcement, those will connect with the Heartland”, according to this November 4, 2011 article by Michael Di Massa.

Why can’t the future electricity needs in southern Alberta instead be met by more-locally produced electricity from more-local natural-gas-fired power plants?

Existing southern Alberta electricity consumers can easily use up all of the electricity that southern Alberta wind-power turbines can currently generate.

What power plants will be supplying electricity for the proposed north-south line which would run from the Fort Saskatchewan area to the Brooks area? There is no guarantee that any of the proposed upgraders or petrochemical plants, which would have electricity-supplying cogeneration facilities, will be built in the Fort Saskatchewan area.

What power plants will be supplying electricity for the proposed north-south line which would run from the Wabamun area to the Calgary area? The federal government is proposing regulations which would make it prohibitive to build new coal-fired power plants in the Wabamun area southwest of Edmonton.

What power plants will be supplying electricity for the proposed Heartland transmission line?

No one has yet proven that the proposed Heartland transmission line, and the proposed north-south transmission lines, are needed.

Can Ted Morton, or anyone, prove that the proposed Heartland transmission line, and the proposed north-south transmission lines, are needed?

Re: This is the best we've got ?

AltaInd — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:45:24 PDT

WD, I've requested the Edmonton Public Library to buy some copies of your book. It will help sales and get the word out.

Re: This is the best we've got ?

RedDog — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 15:52:08 PDT

Congratulations! May I ask how you go about getting a book published? I inquire not for myself but for a friend.

Thanks.

Re: This is the best we've got ?

Whispering Dick — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:22:19 PDT

Hey, Folks --- They published my book !!!

"NORTHERN SON", my autobiography, is now available from AMAZON books in both print and Ebook formats. It's been a long and eventful journey, but it's finally done. I hope folks have as much fun reading it as I had writing it.

Happy reading --- Dick.

Re: This is the best we've got ?

Mudge — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:07:40 PDT

Ah, yes - so true !

Re: This is the best we've got ?

Whispering Dick — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:37:11 PDT

Speaking of HEAPS --- made me remember something my father taught me. Each morning, all winter long, he would remove from the barn the accumulation of horse and cow manure and pile it in a heap out-side. There it would "heat" like a small volcano until spring.

That's when the magic took place! He removed all of "the green stuff" from the top of the heap to expose the well-rotted fertilizer at the bottom. This was spread deeply on the vegetable garden and potato patch. Then it was plowed into the soil and Mom would plant her garden. It was a lot of work but it really paid off. We always had the earliest and best yielding garden in the district. It taught me that you do not always find the best at the top of the heap. You have to dig deeper to find the best. When the provincial parties strip away all the "fat-cats" from the top of the heap, maybe I'll start voting again --- maybe. The lessor of two or more evils is still EVIL!!!

Still steaming --- Dick.