Professor challenges Liberal job numbers

Professor Miljan

CBC News Excerpt:  Lydia Miljan, an associate professor of political science at the University of Windsor, says green energy has the potential to define the election.

“The problem is, is that we actually have surplus electricity,” Miljan said. “We’re giving away our electricity to our neighbours and at the same time we are going to be charging individual Ontarians for their own power at a higher rate than they had before.” Read article

12 thoughts on “Professor challenges Liberal job numbers

  1. Hmmm

    Most of all, Carriveau doesn’t want to see the green energy train derailed because of voter fears over rising energy bills.

    “For the sake of a few dollars here and there, we could really cripple our progress,” he said.

    Wind Power is progress?? rotflmao!

    Tim Hudak…

    The Progressive Conservatives, if elected, would scrap the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program, only honouring those with existing contracts. Tory Leader Tim Hudak has also pledged to cancel the $7-billion deal the Liberals made with Samsung C & T Corp. in January 2010 to manufacture wind turbines in the province, touted by the Liberals to be the source of thousands of future Ontario direct and indirect jobs.

    That’s a small start — but canceling FIT outright makes sense and the proposed baby steps do not.

    Maybe economists see more clearly…

    Lydia Miljan, an associate professor of political science at the University of Windsor, says green energy has the potential to define the election.

    “The problem is, is that we actually have surplus electricity,” Miljan said. “We’re giving away our electricity to our neighbours and at the same time we are going to be charging individual Ontarians for their own power at a higher rate than they had before.”

    The turbo-charged subsidization of one sector can come at a cost to others, Miljan said, tying some of Europe’s recent financial problems in part to “heavy” subsidization of green technology in certain countries.

    “And that’s just bad public policy,” she said.

    Well one person right out of three ain’t bad for Ontario Politics…

    I hope Tim Hudak reads this article…

  2. Here is one of the latest polls…

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/01/liberals-narrow-pc-lead-in-ontario-poll/

    PC Leader Tim Hudak’s gold-bricked path to the Ontario premiership has just gotten bumpier.

    Only two months ago, Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal Party was poised for a devastating defeat at the hands of Mr. Hudak’s Conservatives. Now, with election day only five weeks away the two leaders are “neck and neck,” according to a new poll by Toronto-based polling firm Forum Research.

    With Tory support at 35% to the Liberals’ 30%, the poll suggests Mr. Hudak would clinch a narrow victory to lead a minority government if Ontarians voted tomorrow.

    The Ontario NDP, spurred in part by attention surrounding the death of Jack Layton, are following in a close third place at 26%.

    “It’s moving towards a three-way race, but not quite,” said Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research.

    …and so it goes…

    • certainly not what I see in newspaper polls..Hudak is way ahead.
      Buying perception..Liberals buy a lot of that .I wonder how much it cost ?

    • Hey Dave,
      from your link:

      But, first a question:
      Why use taxpayer money? Ontario is bankrupt!

      London jobs will die on the vine — and deal another blow to the city’s struggling manufacturing sector — if key parts of Ontario’s energy program are scrapped, say energy industry observers.

      At least one proposal is waiting to learn whether a feed-in-tariff program will still exist after the October provincial election before it commits to setting up shop.

      “We have heard from industry that manufacturers are concerned, there is hesitation in companies making investments,” said Peter White, chief executive of the London Economic Development Corp.

      “The Green Energy Act has brought investment forward and job creation, and we have taken advantage of it.”

    • they buying a lot of it , province wide..look to letters to the editor lot of lobby groups trying to misdirect or spin

  3. You can just bet the good professor is working hard to extract wind energy as wind has the least energy to begin with for electrical generation. Trying to extract energy that’s not there to begin with.
    And the lady professor must have heard about the Solyndra failure that took ~ 1.5 billion down with it yesterday. Same will happen here to the solar panel industry with global oversupply and cheap Chinese pricing. Can’t compete and lota of money will be lost here due to market forces.

    • You might compare extracting energy from wind to getting gold from ore that only has a few specks of gold in the ore to begin with. Trying to get something from almost nothing to generate power. MSM reporters don’t know anybetter than to broadcast this kind of nonsense.

      • Barbara:

        Bad analogy. If you can see gold it is probably an economic deposit. 😉

        http://gold.bullionvault.com/How/GoldProperties#section-GoldProperties-GoldSAbundance

        Gold’s average concentration in the Earth’s crust is 0.005 parts per million. The technology of extraction is expensive primarily because the process always requires the manipulation of large physical quantities of ore for small results. The energy required to heave, grind and process ore is itself valuable and places a lower limit on the quality of ore which can be profitably worked. Rising energy costs always impact gold mining viability.

        I spend a lot of time computerizing that knowledge so deposits can be categorized mechanically — sorry about that 🙁

        A 90X microscope can see particles that could make a deposit economic — if there are enough of the “specs”. …and that is how we do it.

        From elsewhere… (Wiki Answers)

        The unaided, 20/20 vision human eye can resolve down to 0.1mm.

        The very small portion of the electro magnetic spectrum that the human eye can detect (visible light) has a wavelength of around a micrometer (10-6 m), so utilizing an optical microscope you couldn’t see anything smaller than this. A UV or even x-ray microscope could “see” smaller particles than this, but it takes conversion. Gamma rays have the smallest wavelength, but could not work due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

Comments are closed.