HomeMy WebLinkAboutClinton News Record, 2016-07-27, Page 5Wednesday, July 27, 2016 • News Record 5
www.clintonnewsrecord.com
Convenience driving force on electric cars
The number of electric
cars in Ontario is
bound to increase
over the next several years,
but that will mostly happen
for the same reason fuel -
powered automobiles have
thrived over the past century
-- convenience.
Last week, the Ontario
government vowed to make
it more convenient for elec-
tric car ownership and oper-
ation. It pledged $20 million
for the installation of 500
new electric servicing sta-
tions at 250 sites. Many of
the installations will be
developed in co-operation
with private businesses.
They are to be installed by
next March.
The plan dovetails with
the government's goal to
eventually have all new resi-
dential homes built with at
least one charging station.
The idea, of course, is to
make electric car ownership
more convenient.
As always, the challenge
for such vehicles is the range
offered by a charged battery.
Technology is extending that
range, but it's still small
when compared to the
range drivers of gasoline,
and especially diesel -fueled
vehicles, consistently enjoy.
The problem of range, espe-
cially for those who want to
drive some distance, is com-
pounded when there is a
lack of recharging stations.
That challenge is not new.
In fact, it can be argued
range was part of the reason
the original electric car fell
out of favour. Prior to 1910,
about half of cars sold in the
U.S. were electric. Most had
a range of approximately
100 miles -- remarkable,
given the technology of a
century ago. Those early
electric cars were mostly
confined to urban areas, and
operators were mostly
women.
Women found the early
electrics appealing because
they could be started with
little personal risk. Gasoline -
powered automobiles had to
be hand -cranked, a chore
often difficult and
dangerous.
Charles Kettering, a bril-
liant engineer who came to
General Motors when GM
purchased Dayton Engi-
neering Laboratories
PM mum on cost of carbon pricing
prime Minister Justin
Trudeau should have
explained his carbon
pricing scheme during last
year's federal election
instead of playing chicken
with the provinces now.
On Wednesday, the day
before the premiers meet for
their annual conference tak-
ing place in Whitehorse this
year, Trudeau said he's pre-
pared to impose a "strong"
national carbon price on
them, although he'd rather
they did it themselves.
"We're going to make sure
there is a strong price on
carbon right across the
country and we're hoping
that the provinces are going
to be able to do that in a way
for themselves," Trudeau
said on CBC's Power &
Politics.
"We're going to be looking
at making sure that the way
they do that is going to be
sufficient to both protect our
environment and reduce
our emissions and get that
reassurance not just from
Canadians, but from our
trading partners, that Can-
ada is serious about the
environment."
That could put Trudeau
on a collision course with
Saskatchewan Premier Brad
Wall, who is the most
opposed to carbon pricing
among Canada's premiers.
But the more important
question is what is Trudeau
actually going to do?
Will he impose a second,
federal layer of carbon pric-
ing on Canadians, in addi-
tion to the provincial
schemes already in place in
B.C. and Quebec and about
to start in Alberta and
Ontario?
If so, that means Canadi-
ans would be hit with a dou-
ble whammy of provincial
and federal carbon taxes
and/or cap -and -trade
schemes -- a carbon tax by
another name -- dramati-
cally increasing their cost of
living.
What does Trudeau con-
sider a "strong" carbon price
to be, given that the highest
in Canada right now is B.C:s
$30 -per -tonne of industrial
carbon dioxide emissions.
Is that the national
(DELCO), provided a solu-
tion to hand -cranking. He
developed an ignition
switch that debuted in
Cadillac, using a mecha-
nism similar to the device
that opened a cash regis-
ter's drawer. The starter
switch made gasoline -pow-
ered cars "safe" for female
operators. That, and
extended range gasoline -
powered cars were already
providing, effectively
doomed the early electric
car to obscurity. It was all
about convenience then,
and it still is.
And so, when Ontario's
new charging stations
become operational, they
will provide a necessary and
useful infrastructure for
electric car operators. But as
standard Trudeau wants, or
something higher, keeping
in mind that the higher the
price, the more Canadians
will be paying for virtually
all goods and services, since
virtually all are made using
fossil fuel energy?
Finally, there's the fact
carbon pricing has failed to
lower greenhouse gas emis-
sions effectively or effi-
ciently anywhere it's been
tried.
All it ends up becoming is
a cash grab for
governments.
Given that, it's time
Trudeau made clear to
Canadians how much it's
going to cost them.
Absurdities abound with rural water plan
It's difficult to rule in
isolation.
That can be the only
conclusion from the latest
incident between rural
Ontario and those in charge
of Ontario's Green Energy
Plan.
How else to explain the
almost embarrassing lack of
understanding that the
Green Energy people have
about the potential impact
of their decisions in parts of
Ontario where wind tur-
bines are to be developed?
The latest wrinlde comes
from Chatham -Kent, which
happens to lead the prov-
ince in the number of wind
turbines located in a single
jurisdiction, and whose resi-
dents are bracing to receive
even more.
A citizens' group is now
concerned about the poten-
tial impact that turbine
vibrations will have on rural
water wells, in an area where
40 to 50 turbines are to be
constructed. They say stud-
ies show turbine activity can
disrupt groundwater activ-
ity, a red flag for those who
depend upon water wells for
their households and agri-
cultural activities.
Turns out that the Minis-
try of the Environment and
Climate Change is prepared
for such an eventuality -- or
they thought they were. The
ministry's approval for the
turbine company reads that
"an adequate amount of
bottled water" must be pro-
vided to "the impacted
party" should there be a dis-
ruption with water well
activity.
That's a lot of bottled
IVIIKe umaIDSta,rostmerna Network
Mark Buma, the assistant properties manager at the Niagara
Parks Commission, with one of the two electric Smart cars being
used by the commission as part of its ongoing effort to be green
in this undated file photo.
in the past, it will be up to
individual drivers, and not
the government, whether
they choose to stay with gas-
oline or go electric.
- Peter Epp,
Postmedia Network
Leah Hennel/Postmedia Network
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau enjoys a ride with daughter Ella-
- Postmedia Network Grace at the Calgary Stampede in Calgary on July 15, 2016.
water. As one Chatham -Kent
farmer told reporters, an
average horse can consume
two to five cases of water a
day.
"How are we supposed to
water livestock?" he asked.
It's likely the ministry
wasn't counting on watering
livestock. It was thinking
about the water require-
ments of homeowners. Its
bottled water protocol
appears to be adequate for
that requirement, but agri-
culture is different, and the
amount of water needed by
livestock farmers can be
staggering.
Part of the problem, as
always, is that those who
implement the Green
Energy Plan are making
decisions from Toronto, and
those centralized decisions
rarely take into account the
diversity of challenges faced
by residents in rural Ontario.
On the surface, it makes
sense that an emergency
protocol would demand
bottled water for a home-
owner whose water source
has been disrupted. But it's
a ridiculous response for the
farmer responsible for hun-
dreds of thirsty animals.
Yet absurd incongruities
are bound to occur when
governments rule in isola-
tion. Did the urban -based
architects of the Green
Energy Plan not realize that
the turbines they were
approving for rural Ontario
might co -exist with agricul-
ture, and that livestock
might be included?
- Peter Epp,
Postmedia Network