Yet another bailout.

This time it is local Canadian television stations that are complaining that they just aren’t making enough money.

So the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC) has decided that average citizens will need to cough up some cash, whether they like it or not, for the Local Programming Improvement Fund. Digital Home gets it right; it’s a new tax on you and me to benefit a couple of Canadian media companies like CTV:

Once passed on to Canadian consumers, the LIPF tax is expected to add an additional $100 million annually to cable and satellite television bills. For an individual household paying $70 a month in cable or satellite television fees, the LIPF tax will add an extra $12.60 a year to their cable and satellite bill.

The LIPF is in addition to the 5% tax currently embedded in cable and satellite TV subscriber’s bills which pay for the Canadian Television Fund. The Canadian Television Fund (CTF) is a tax imposed by CRTC which supports the production and broadcast of Canadian television programs.

Rogers, my provider, informed me of this as well. And I don’t even watch local programming, except when I’m forced to by Rogers choosing the Canadian over the American channel on simulcasted programming, a practice I hope will end now.

As usual, the joke is on us though, because this isn’t about improving anything but the networks’ bottom lines.

Hmmm. I’m not making enough money either. I wonder when my bailout will arrive?


Powered by Bleezer

Let me get this straight.

Comparing President Bush to Hitler is good.

Comparing President Obama to Hitler is bad.

But dissent is reasonable, right?

In 2003, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton declared: "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with [the Bush] administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

Unless you are Nancy Pelosi and the dissenters disagree with you I suppose:

“These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”

I just don’t remember the Bush White House telling anti-Bush protesters to "take that temperature down a bit."


Powered by Bleezer

Just so much hot air.

I recently read an article on land area required for different forms of power generation; the article provided a graphic representation of the area required for nuclear generation, then immensely larger area required for solar power, and the yet even larger area required for wind generation.

On a recent drive to a Kincardine, Ontario, this information came to mind as we drove by the Ripley Wind Power Project. Ripley goes on for miles and miles. 3600 hectares, or 13.9 square miles actually. Consisting of 38 turbines, Ripley cost about $176 million to build.

Ripley exceeded expectations, producing 221,799 megawatt-hours (MWh) last year. Current demand in Ontario is about 151 TWh. That means that Ripley produces about 0.147% of Ontario’s current demand. Ontarians consume 12,750 kWh per person per year, which by my math suggests that Ripley can provide power for about 17,396 people annually. For some reason Suncor/Acciona, the operators, use a number of about 20,000 homes, though I can’t imagine that all homes are single person occupancy:

With 221,799 megawatt-hours (MWh) produced, this is above Acciona Energy’s expectation of 216,000 MWh over its first year, said project operator, said Paul Austin, Acciona Wind Energy’s community relations manager.

This translates into enough electricity to power about 20,000 average homes, Austin said, adding the wind studies have revealed a resource plentiful enough to make their investment worthwhile.

I currently live in Waterloo, Canada, a city with well over 100,000 habitants in an area of 24.7 square miles. My rudimentary math suggests that being generous it would require at least four times the area – or 55.6 square miles – to provide for the energy consumption of the residents of my community, not including any industrial use. Does this sound like a worthwhile investment? Or an workable one?

Actually it is more likely that Mr. Austin of Acciona thinks that the investment is worthwhile because the Ontario government pays them 13.5 cents per kWh. As a customer, I only pay about 6 cents per kWh, so this is a massive subsidy by the government.Last year that would have generated revenue of about $30 million. As customers would only have paid about $13.3 million for that power, that amounts to a subsidy of about $16.7 million.

If I was on the receiving end I’d consider that a worthwhile investment too. As as taxpayer though, the math doesn’t work for me, and I don’t imagine how it could. Health concerns of those living near the turbines have also been raised. Wind power sounds great until it actually has to work in real life.

You can catch up a little more on the folly of wind power at Wind Concerns Ontario.

Tip of the hat to small dead animals.


Powered by Bleezer