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

CBS settles with Trump over doctored 60 Minutes Harris interview

Aristotle Foundation / 1 hour ago

How Vimy Ridge Shaped Canada

Business / 11 hours ago

RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate

Aristotle Foundation

How Vimy Ridge Shaped Canada

Published on July 2, 2025

Todayville

The Battle of Vimy Ridge was a unifying moment for Canada, then a young country. The Aristotle Foundation’s Danny Randell explains what happened at Vimy in 1917, and why it still matters to Canada today.

About the Aristotle Foundation

The Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy is a new think tank that aims to renew civil, common-sense discourse in Canada. As an educational charity, we publish books, videos, fact sheets, studies, columns, interviews, and infographics.

Visit our website at www.aristotlefoundation.org for more of our content.

Business

World Economic Forum Aims to Repair Relations with Schwab

Published on July 1, 2025

Todayville

By Martin Armstrong

The whistleblower has always been anonymous, and it remains very suspicious that the very organization he created would turn on him after receiving an anonymous letter that they admitted may not have been credible.

World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab stepped down from his chairman position at the organization on April 20, 2025, amid accusations of fraud. Our computer had forecast that the WEF would enter a declining trend with the 2024 ECM turning point. This staged coup happened about 37 years after the first Davos meeting (8.6 x 4.3). From our model’s perspective, this was right on time. Now, Schwab and the WEF are working to repair ties.

An anonymous whistleblower claimed that Klaus Schwab and his wife collaborated with USAID to steal tens of millions in funding. The whistleblower has always been anonymous, and it remains very suspicious that the very organization he created would turn on him after receiving an anonymous letter that they admitted may not have been credible. Something like this would never be acceptable in any court of law, especially if it’s anonymous. It would be the worst or the worst hearsay, where you cannot even point to who made the allegation.

Back in April, the WEF said its board unanimously supported the decision to initiate an independent investigation “following a whistleblower letter containing allegations against former Chairman Klaus Schwab. This decision was made after consultation with external legal counsel.”

Now, the WEF is attempting to repair its relationship with its founder ahead of the next Davos meeting. Bloomberg reported that the WEF would like to “normalize their relationship [with Klaus Schwab] in order to safeguard the forum and the legacy of the founder.”

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe has replaced Schwab for the time being, but is less of a commanding force. Schwab’s sudden departure has caused instability in the organization and its ongoing mission. Board members are concerned that support for the organization will begin to decline as this situation remains unresolved.

The World Economic Forum’s annual revenue in 2024 was 440 million francs ($543 million), with the majority of proceeds coming from member companies and fees. Yet, the number of people registered to attend the 2025 Davos event is on par if not slightly exceeding the number of participants from the year prior.

Schwab’s departure has damaged the Davos brand. There is a possibility that the organization is attempted to rebrand after Agenda 2030 failed. The WEF attempted to move away from its zero tolerance stance on ESG initiatives after they became widely unpopular among the big industry players and shifting governments. The brand has attempted to integrate the importance of digital transformation and AI to remain relevant as the tech gurus grow in power and popularity. Those who are familiar with Klaus Schwab know the phrase, “You will own nothing and be happy.” These words have been widely unpopular and caused a type of sinister chaos to surround the brand that was once respected as the high-brow institution of globalist elites.

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde was slated to replace Schwab in 2027 when her term ends, and all reports claimed that he was prepared to remain in the chairman role for an additional two years to ensure Lagarde could take his place. What changed seemingly overnight that would cause the organization to discard Schwab before he was due to retire?

Schwab denies any misconduct and filed lawsuits against the whistleblowers, calling the accusations “calumnious” and “unfounded.” He believes “character assassination” was the premise of the claims.

I am no fan of Klaus Schwab, as everyone knows. I disagree with his theories from start to finish. Nevertheless, something doesn’t smell right here. This appears to be an internal coup, perhaps to distract attention from the question of alleged funds for the WEF from USAID, or to try to salvage the failed Agenda 2030. Perhaps they will claim that no misconduct had occurred since DOGE did not raise concerns or there is a possibility that those behind the internal coup are concerned that Schwab’s counter lawsuit could uncover new corruption. The investigation into Schwab has not concluded, but after only three months, the WEF would like to wrap it up. It appears that the WEF does not want to welcome Schwab back; rather, they would like to ensure an amicable resolution to maintain both the brand’s reputation as well as the founder’s.