LETTERS

14 Feb 2016   Lethbridge Herald

I thank Mr. Schaupmeyer for his cost assessment of the application of wind turbines to our future energy needs, with back-up energy facilities and without coal-sourced electricity ( Jan. 28). I also thank Mr. Voutsinos for his considerations when gas turbines are the main back-up to wind turbines (Feb. 6). The contributions relate to the following recent events:

By Schnarr, J.W. on February 8, 2016.

LETHBRIDGE HERALD

[email protected]

Alberta’s plans for wind energy are a sign the province is becoming part of a larger global movement toward renewables, says the president of Canada’s wind energy association.

“Wind is now very much a mainstream power generation technology,” said Robert Hornung, president of Canadian Wind Energy Association.

“Today, wind energy is competitive with any form of electricity generation with the potential exception of natural gas,” he added. “And that’s only if you consider no carbon pricing or if you don’t think the price of natural gas will go up in the next 25 years.

“Alberta is not doing something that no one else has done. They’re following what we’re really seeing as a global trend.”

Hornung cited complaints that wind energy is problematic due to the variable nature of generation. A recent article in The Herald spoke about how new wind projects would have to be backed up with wasteful backup energy projects. Hornung said that is not the case.

“There’s a common misperception that when you build a variable generation source, like wind, then you need something to match it one-to-one,” he said.

Hornung said current systems already in place also have functioning backups built in.

“In Alberta today, if a coal plant shuts down tomorrow, you still need to provide power,” he said. “So there are backup reserves to allow that.

“Those backup reserves can also be used to manage the variability of sources like wind.”

Hornung said although wind does ultimately need to be partnered with another energy source, the amount of pairing needed is much less than commonly assumed.

He said any energy source being partnered with wind should be flexible, and easy to ramp up and down based on need. And while natural gas inside Alberta would certainly work, projects outside of Alberta have seen pairings with hydro electric energy and development of storage technology, allowing the wind energy to essentially back up itself.

“There’s a range of different solutions,” he said. “But in Alberta, it’s going to make sense that natural gas plays an important role in that.”

Hornung said while turbine design has not changed in years, the costs associated with generating electricity have fallen significantly.

“In the United States, it has been estimated the cost from wind has fallen 61 per cent in the past six years.”

One of the reasons for this reduction in cost is wind turbines are taller than they were in the past, allowing for longer fan blades. Another is the material used by designers has improved, making the turbines stronger and more efficient

Other types of advances being seen in the industry include lightweighting the turbines and improved data management for integration and adaptation.

A common issue for people opposing wind energy involve the perceived damage to local wildlife, as birds and bats can sometimes be killed by turbines.

Hornung said it is an issue the industry takes seriously, and one they are working toward minimizing. However, he said critics often miss the context of animal deaths when compared to other risks.

“Are there bird deaths around wind turbines?” he asked. “Absolutely. Per turbine, it’s going to be (four to six) bird deaths per year.”

He noted when compared to other dangers for birds, such as skyscrapers, transmission towers and even house cats, turbines represent a very small danger to the creatures. And the largest danger to birds is something wind energy is designed to combat.

“The largest single threat to birds today is climate change,” said Hornung. “You can certainly argue that wind can help in terms of helping address that challenge.”

He said a larger challenge exists protecting bat populations, as there is less known about their behaviour. Hornung said those involved in wind energy have been heavily involved with scientists who study bats, and work is ongoing.

“It certainly would be incorrect to say there are no impacts,” he said. “But it’s important to put those into context and it’s important to the industry to do as much as they can to mitigate those impacts.

Finally, Hornung addressed the myth that wind turbines cause health issues. He said the concensus among scientists is there are no links between wind turbines and human health.

“Actually, the most comprehensive study was done by Health Canada last year,” he said. “The one thing they did find was that wind turbines can cause annoyance.”

For more information on wind energy, visit canwea.ca or windfacts.ca.

By Letter to the Editor on February 6, 2016.

Re: “Correcting wind energy errors,” by Robert Hornung, president CanWEA, Jan. 23.

Mr. Hornung, perhaps unintentionally, ended up misleading Albertans with his letter. Yes, in order for the grid to be stable and reliable, some kind of reserve capacity is always required, ready to kick in when one of the stations has a problem or shutdown. However, the amount of capacity reserve is defined by the current potential unreliability of the electricity-producing stations in a grid. The higher the unreliability, the higher the needed capacity reserve.

Currently Alberta’s grid is supplied by high-reliability gas and coal power plants that don’t shut down when a cloud passes, at sunset, or when the wind drops. If we go ahead and increase the renewables to supply 30 per cent of the grid, it means that we will be increasing the grid’s unreliability and as a result, we will need a higher number of gas-powered plants to be on stand-by. These reserves will have to be at least 30 per cent of the grid, thus duplicating capital and operating costs and hence increasing our electricity bills.

Having gas-fired plants on spinning reserve, means these gas power plants will run inefficiently continuously, producing little or no power in order to be ready. Running the spinning reserve not only increases the cost but also continuously emits CO2 to our atmosphere from the gas turbines that need to be shadowing unreliable wind power.

Considering the CO2 emissions resulting from the making of the steel towers and concrete bases of the wind turbines, plus the continuing necessity to shadow them with gas turbines, a question needs to be answered: “Does wind power contribute anything more than increased costs of electricity, higher redundancy, and a need for subsidies, all without saving the significant amount of CO2 from our environment, as promised?”

The Energy Collegium stands behind the accuracy of its statements and invites Mr. Hornung to send his experts to Lethbridge where we can help them understand the differences between “regulation reserve,” “capacity reserve” and “spinning reserve” of a grid system. This should help the president of CanWEA to stop confusing the different meanings of these terms.

Cosmos Voutsinos

Lethbridge

28 Jan 2016 Lethbridge Herald
THE CANADIAN PRESS — TORONTO
Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in Canada will continue to grow over the next 24 years regardless of whether oil prices rise or pipeline projects are built, a report from the National Energy Board says.
“Scenarios like high or low oil and natural gas prices, or whether or not we build pipelines or we build LNG terminals … are not sufficient to put Canada on a path to declining greenhouse gas emissions,” said board chairman and CEO Peter Watson, who presented the report’s findings to the Toronto Region Board of Trade.
The study released Wednesday takes a long-term view of the country’s energy future and expects power consumption to grow by about 20 per cent by 2040.
The markets will supply Canada’s demand for energy, and fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are anticipated to increase. Fluctuating oil prices or possible future development of pipelines don’t necessarily impact this, Watson said.
The report offers a number of projections.
Under one scenario, it expects oil prices to climb to US$80 per barrel in four years, with that rising to US$105 per barrel by 2040. In that case, Canadian energy production is forecast to increase 56 per cent to 6.1 million barrels daily by 2040. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers forecast daily production at 3.9 million barrels last year.
If no new pipelines are built during that time, oil production would be 5.6 million barrels daily by 2040.

26 Jan 2016 Lethbridge Herald
Ian Bickis THE CANADIAN PRESS— CALGARY
POWER PRODUCERS WOULD NEED HIGHER RATES TO JUSTIFY RENEWABLE ENERGY
A new study has found that Alberta’s climate change initiatives would result in big emission reductions but power producers would need significantly higher renewable rates to justify building wind and solar power.
The report, prepared by utilities consultant EDC Associates Ltd., looked at the impact of the NDP government’s plan to phase out coal power by 2030 and source 30 per cent of energy from renewable sources.
It found that the boost in renewables and the end of coal would mean a 45 per cent reduction in emissions, or 18.5 million fewer tonnes of carbon released into the atmosphere a year.
However, under the province’s privatized utility system, prices for renewable power would have to be between $60 to $85 per megawatt hour to justify wind power construction.
And if solar power were to make up 50 per cent of the renewables mix, power producers would need prices of between $200 and $300 per megawatt hour for solar, the study found.
Those high-rate renewable prices would fall under a separate pricing system that would encourage renewable energy installation.
The report also found that the early closure of coal power plants would mean power producers lose out on anywhere between $3 billion and $16 billion in gross operating margin, depending on how much future earnings are valued and how many years of lost production are compensated.
The NDP government has not made a clear commitment to compensate producers for the early closure of coal-fired power plants, but it has said it would treat producers “fairly” and not “unnecessarily strand capital.”
Allen Crowley, co-author of the study at EDC, said he wasn’t making any policy recommendations and was simply trying to figure out the impact of the new plan. His one recommendation was for the government to take things slow.
“The policy choices are so complicated that they really shouldn’t be going quite so fast,” said Crowley.
“It’s just too big of a thing. It’s a great, big, huge cruise ship that you’re pulling into harbour at 100 miles an hour. It’s not a good strategy.”

28 Jan 2016 Lethbridge Herald – Letters to the Editor

Re: “Correcting wind energy errors,” Jan. 23 Herald.

Robert Hornung, president of CanWEA, discussed “reserves” in a failed effort to pretend all is well in wind’s fantasyland. His mission was to divert attention from the fact that Albertans will pay billions for CanWEA’s and the government’s green dreams. Hornung also failed to mention that CanWEA has asked your Alberta government for subsidies as wind can’t compete because of its abysmal performance.

The annual output of wind is an unreliable 30 per cent of its nameplate capacity, but output varies a lot. For example, the weekly report for Jan. 14 to 20 showed that wind produced a pathetic 19 per cent of its capacity. Worse still, for 50 hours that week, wind produced effectively no electricity! Read the grim statistics in AESO’s weekly reports at

The government proposes to close coal plants by 2030, stating, “Two-thirds … replaced by renewable energy; one-third … by natural gas.” Most of the renewable electricity will come from wind. About 12,000 MW of new turbines will be needed to produce two-thirds of coal’s soon-to be lost 44,000 GW of power. Recently, CanWEA told our government that we need up to 15,000 MW of new renewables, including 9,000 MW of wind.

CanWEA reports that turbines cost over $2 million per megawatt. Thus, using CanWEA’s own figures, the necessary turbines will cost at least $20 billion and Albertans will pay one way or another. In addition, customers will pay billions for new transmission lines that Alberta Energy said will be needed to integrate wind. Then add a few billion for extra gas capacity and 10 billion tax dollars to buy out coal plants forced to close 30 years before the government originally planned.

We will be forced to rely solely on volatile natural gas to supply electricity during wind’s almost-daily failures. Unlike in Ontario and the U.K., Albertans do not have the luxury of a nuclear baseload. Electricity in “green” Germany costs about four times more than in Alberta, yet, they still rely on coal for 40 per cent of their power. Because of renewables’ unreliability, Germany continues to build new coal plants, the newest opening just weeks ago. Yet, our government, counselled by CanWEA, will close reliable coal.

The government’s new electricity plan will cost Albertans tens of billions of dollars directly and indirectly. Our money would be better spent on important needs. For example, the waiting period for an MRI in Shannon Phillips’ riding is nine months. A disgrace.

http://ets.aeso.ca/.

Clive Schaupmeyer

Coaldale

By Schnarr, J.W. on January 18, 2016.

Clive Schaupmeyer spoke at the Foothills Little Bow Municipal Associaton about potential problems with the cost of wind power versus fossil fuel sources of electricity generation.

J.W. Schnarr

LETHBRIDGE HERALD

[email protected]

Alberta’s shift to renewable energy and away from coal is going to be bad news for Albertans, members of the Foothills Little Bow Municipal Association heard Friday.

Outdoorsman and author Clive Schaupmeyer represents a local group called the “Energy Colegium” – a group of retired professionals with a wide range of backgrounds with the goal of looking at factors regarding increasing electrical costs, and to provide municipalities with information on the electricity sector.

Schaupmeyer said the plan put forward by the province is to eliminate coal use and replace that lost energy with wind and natural gas.

“Wind and gas are key to the Alberta climate leadership plan,” he said.

“(But) is there a pot of gold out there? Or is it going to cost us a pot of gold?” he asked.

“The plan was produced in weeks in time for Paris,” said Schaupmeyer. “It may be well intentioned, but not well thought out.”

Schaupmeyer noted many people don’t realize the actual cost of renewable energy and how the plan to end coal use is going to bite into their wallets.

“We’re not saying (renewables) don’t work,” he said. “We’re saying they are expensive.”

One issue with wind farms is spatial distribution, meaning wind farms are spread out over a large area. Power has to be gathered and transported over large distances.

“In Alberta, we have the capacity for 1,463 Mw of wind, and we gather that over a huge area,” he said, noting wind energy production is gathered from an area the size of The Netherlands in southern Alberta.

Often, wind generation is only able to hit an average of 30 per cent of capacity due to periods where it slips below the five per cent threshold (considered to be zero output). That instability in power levels is a major issue for supplying power to Albertans.

In contrast, the Sheerness generating station near Hanna has a capacity of 780 Mw.

“It provides more electricity than all the wind turbines in Alberta,” Schaupmeyer said, adding coal generation also has stable output.

Another issue with wind power is that it must be backed up due to the intermittent nature of power generation. Backup is handled through the use of natural gas, but it causes a redundancy in the system as wind power and natural gas power then overlap.

“We duplicate that capacity,” said Schaupmeyer. “When you build a wind farm, you better have something to back it up.

“Wind will often be effectively redundant, and all of our electricity will be coming from natural gas when the wind is not blowing.”

Schaupmeyer compared renewable energy costs in Europe, showing how the cost of energy increased the more renewable energy was added to the system.

“How many have heard how wonderful renewables are in Germany?” he asked. “In 2014, Germany got 43 per cent of its power from coal. More than half of that is lignite.”

He said the renewable push in Germany has essentially doubled the cost of power in that country.

“And remember, Germany still has that baseload of coal that’s going to be taken away from Albertans,” he said.

“Intermittent unreliable wind has not replaced conventional fuel anywhere on Earth,” he added.

Schaupmeyer also pointed out the companies which own the bulk of wind production in the province, such as TransAlta, Enbridge, Enmax, and others, are also involved in natural gas for electricity generation.

It has been reported in the media that Alberta’s climate plan could result in $30 billion in investment in wind and natural gas electricity generation.

“So we build huge numbers of subsidized wind farms, then what do we do?” he asked. “Then we build gas generators to back up the ineffective wind. Duplication and redundancy.

“It’s really great if you are in both businesses.”

While some may point out that energy companies build the infrastructure for energy projects Schaupmeyer said those costs are inevitably passed down to Albertans.

“Sooner or later, you will pay,” he said.

Livingstone Macleod MLA Pat Stier was in attendance and said the presentation confirmed many of the things he has been hearing about renewable energy production.

“They confirmed most of the reports we’ve seen in media where, again, the failed policy that the government is trying to promote to replace coal generation and gas generation to a large extent, by renewables, will not work, is not economically viable and will cost this province billions of dollars,” he said.

“It’s nice and refreshing to see some real numbers instead of the less-than-truthful policies the government has been giving us.”

By Emily Mertz and Caley Ramsay Global News

The Alberta Energy Regulator confirmed a 4.8-magnitude earthquake happened near Fox Creek Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2016.

EDMONTON – Tremors from an earthquake near Fox Creek, Alta. Tuesday were felt as far away as St. Albert, about 280 kilometres away.

The Alberta Energy Regulator confirmed the 4.8-magnitude earthquake, and initially said it was caused by hydraulic fracking. But the AER later backed away, saying it could not confirm the cause, only that it happened in an area where fracking occurs.

Related

• Seismic event in southern Alberta: could it be an earthquake?
• How fracking is linked to Fox Creek earthquakes

The AER has sent a team of investigators to the site, owned by a company called Repsol. The company has ceased operations in the area and will not be allowed to resume fracking until AER gives the go-ahead, according to AER spokesperson Carrie Rosa.

Natural Resources Canada’s preliminary findings measured the earthquake at a 4.5 magnitude. NRC said the earthquake happened at 11:27 a.m. (MST) Tuesday about 31 kilometres west of Fox Creek.

NRC said the quake was “lightly felt” in Fox Creek and St. Albert. There were no reports of damage.

“It felt like a large truck driving by,” said Fox Creek operations manager Roy Dell. “Some saw pictures shake on the wall. The Town of Fox Creek is disappointed to hear of another seismic event.”

Cory Sinclair works for the City of St. Albert. He was on the third floor of St. Albert Place when he felt a jolt at around 11:30 a.m.

“I felt a bit of a shake in the building and they were doing a bit of work on the main floor so I thought perhaps it was associated with that, and there was also a door just down the hall so I thought someone has slammed that door,” Sinclair said.

“But afterwards I realized it was in fact a tremor that we had felt.”

Sinclair said it was one single shake, not a continued shake.

“Someone had jokingly said that it might have been an earthquake, but we never suspected that at all until one of our colleagues informed us that they had heard report of seismic activity,” Sinclair said.

Ken Munroe works in St. Albert’s Campbell Business Park. He said he was sitting at his desk, working away, when he felt the quake.

“Suddenly the building shook,” he said. “It was just a bump… It felt like a truck hit the wall or something like that. It was a noticeable enough bump that the monitors shook a little bit.”

Munroe said the shake was very quick and only lasted about two seconds.

“We were sort of thinking, ‘Is it an earthquake? Is it an aftershock? How big is it? Or is it just something falling on the floor?’” he said with a laugh.

“The funny thing is that I said, ‘This feels like an earthquake.’ And, you know, everyone just started laughing at me.”

It’s not unusual for earthquakes to be reported in the Fox Creek area. There have been about 200 quakes in the area since December 2013. Alberta averages 30 earthquakes each year.

Last year, there were two 4.4 magnitude earthquakes in the area. Authorities said both quakes were the result of hydraulic fracturing in the oil and gas industry.

READ MORE: Another earthquake in Fox Creek raises concerns over hydraulic fracking 

The premier is asking that an Alberta Energy Regulator review of fracking be sped up.

“My officials have been in touch with the AER to find out exactly what the situation is and where we can get more details on that,” Notley said.

“Generally speaking the AER has been engaged in a review of fracking in particular as it relates to this issue and I’ll be asking them to speed that review up a little bit more to come up with some recommendations that we can consider sooner rather than later.”

The AER announced new requirements in February 2015, after several seismic events in the Fox Creek area. If a seismic event measuring 4.0 or greater occurs within five kilometres of an operator, it must cease operations and inform the AER. If a seismic event between 2.0 and 4.0 occurs, operators must inform AER and invoke their response plan.

The AER reports three events measuring 4.0 or greater in 2015: Jan. 14 (4.23), Jan. 23 (4.61) and June 13 (4.26).

Fox Creek is 263 kilometres northwest of Edmonton.

With files from Slav Kornik, Sarah Kraus, Global News and The Canadian Press. 

*Editor’s note: The Alberta Energy Regulator originally told Global News the earthquake was due to hydraulic fracking. However, the AER later said it could not confirm that. 

© Shaw Media, 2016

Edmonton Journal
Published on: December 22, 2015 | Last Updated: December 22, 2015 3:47 PM MST

At the Alberta legislature on Dec. 3, 2015, Premier Rachel Notley explains the many exemptions for Bill 6 and apologizes for poor communication to farmers and ranchers that has lead to confusion. Ryan Jackson / Edmonton Journal

Notley deserves credit over Bill 6

As an agricultural producer, I was appalled at the anti-Bill 6 demonstrations at the legislature, the lineups of expensive machinery and especially the death threats made against Premier Rachel Notley, her cabinet ministers and other NDP members.

Once fully implemented, this bill would protect the rights and safety concerns of farm employees. This should have been in place years ago; after all, it is a human rights law. Agriculture was the only industry in Alberta that did not have this protection, and Alberta the only province that did not do so.

Although I have never voted NDP, I applaud Notley and her party for their initiative. Regardless of party affiliation, recognize her progressive advance in agriculture and let her party know your positive feelings on this important bill.

Maurice L. Parrent, Clyde

Canada’s firearms laws are robust

Re: “Crack down on rapid-fire weapons,” Letters, Ron Charach, Dec. 22

The letter writer is completely misinformed as to Canada’s extensive firearms control legislation.

You cannot simply show up at a gun store and buy one; you must take a firearms safety course. Once you have passed the exam, you apply for a firearms licence, where you need to supply character references — who, 100 per cent for certain, are called by the RCMP. The licence application takes four to six months.

As for handguns, you can only legally own one if you are a certified collector or belong to a shooting range. There are extensive requirements for storage and transportation of firearms.

The problem with Canada’s gun laws is they tend to target law-abiding owners and do nothing to keep firearms away from those who’d use them for criminal purposes.

Mark Stead, Sherwood Park

Cartoons insulting to Premier Notley

Re: Malcolm Mayes cartoons

I am surprised that a newspaper which has won journalism awards would continually print insulting, demeaning pictures about our premier. I don’t call them cartoons because they are not funny.

They’re mean, unkind, unfair and meant to belittle the competent Rachel Notley and her government. I am not surprised that Mayes does it, but I am surprised the Journal continually prints this stuff.

Frank Parker, St. Albert

Could do more for beleaguered merchants

Re: ” ‘Cash mob’ aims to boost shops hurt by bridge delays,” Dec. 10

The recent comment attributed to Coun. Scott McKeen really underscores just how little regard this city council has for 102nd Avenue merchants affected by the prolonged closure of the bridge over Groat Road.

Area merchants have been hard-pressed to keep their doors open because of the apparent blundering of the contractor in installing bridge girders in the first place. To further exacerbate the merchants’ dire financial situation, the purported opening of the new bridge is October 2016 — about a full year later than originally set. This is extraordinary, and requires compensation.

What reeks is the rather cavalier manner in which the thought of compensation to merchants was cast aside as being a “can of worms” council did not want to open. The City of Edmonton is not only continuing to collect taxes from the merchants, but is also collecting late penalties of $11,500 per day as the contractor has failed to meet the deadline. The subsequent silence on this matter is deafening. One day of a cash mob rally is clearly not going to ease the pain.

I’m glad I live in St. Albert, where ignorance at this level only surfaces on rare occasions.

Robert M. Claney, St. Albert

Tears cannot undo damage to others

Re: “Boy weeps as charges read in court,” Dec. 22

Everything we do, right or wrong, has a price that we could never imagine. That is what a 13-year-old boy has learned, and tears cannot undo a crime against other human beings.

Kenneth T. Tellis, Mississauga, ON

We’re more welcoming than letter indicates

Re: “Unbridled growth nothing to celebrate,” Letters, P.J. Cotterill, Dec. 21

So if the letter writer had her way, the wonderful 65,835 folks choosing to call Edmonton and the rest of Alberta home in 2014-15 are only welcome if they’re directed and confined to live in infill, refurbished and renovated properties? Well, actually a welcoming environment like ours sees fit to enable new Albertans and their families to own the home of their choice.

Is she correct in assuming municipalities only receive residential taxes to pay for infrastructure? Municipalities also receive millions through commercial-industrial business taxes, provincial grants and federal funding.

I suppose if she had her way, new Edmonton signage would read: “All welcome as long as you live where we say and in what we tell you.”

Rick Preston, executive director, Urban Development Institute, Edmonton Region

Consult with Albertans on climate issues

After reading the Climate Leadership Report and the government documents on their Climate Leadership Plan, I have concerns.

The report recommends a tax at the pumps of seven cents, on top of the already increased fuel tax of 13 cents. It also recommends homeowners and business owners pay a new natural gas carbon tax of $1.68 per gigajoule.

For January to November 2015, my average cost for natural gas was $2.93 per gigajoule. Now the government wants to increase my heating costs by 57 per cent — for what? I can’t reduce my home heating cost any further or I’ll freeze. While the report did not specify what additional cost will be implemented for electricity, it did indicate there should only be a small change.

No amount of increased tax will cause residents to reduce the amount they use their vehicles or heat their homes. The report suggests the government use some of the revenue from increased carbon taxes for a rebate to lower- and middle-income residents to offset the increased costs resulting from the new carbon taxes (the report suggests additional annual costs of $500 in 2018 to $900 in 2030). If these residents can’t afford the new taxes in the first place, why charge them at all? Also, wouldn’t a rebate negate any intended impact of the carbon tax?

The government now suggests closure of coal-fired electricity plants well before their natural lifespan — at what additional cost to taxpayers, not to mention the human cost?

Nowhere in the government website documents is there any mention of the costs I have outlined above. Given the communication mistakes they made with Bill 6, the government should at least consult with Albertans.

Arthur Hagan, Edmonton

Emperor Trump has no clothes

Can someone please find a child to tell Americans the emperor has no clothes? How long will Donald Trump be allowed to denigrate and embarrass his fellow citizens?

In Hans Christian Andersen’s tale, the emperor’s tailor pretends to outfit him with a new suit, but he’s actually naked. Still, all the yes-men tell him what a beautiful suit it is. The emperor can’t see the suit either, but he listens to the yes-men until a child calls out, “But the Emperor has no clothes!”

Surely everyone recognizes the clown that Trump is — a foolhardy, rich braggart with so much money he can afford to either buy anyone out or blaspheme anyone who stands in his way. His last tirade against Hillary Clinton about her bathroom break was so crude and offensive on every level that I believe that’s where Trump’s campaign should now end — in the toilet, clothes or no clothes.

G.A. Teske, Sherwood Park

Parties of all stripes ban comments

Re: “So much for consulting people,” Letters, Marika Pender, Dec. 21

I can empathize with the letter writer because I was outright banned from commenting on Stephen Harper’s Facebook page this year. I emailed the PMO and was allowed to post messages, but only for a short time before I was banned completely. Every time I tried, the screen went blank.

Clearly, the banning of commentary is not the exclusive territory of Rachel Notley’s NDP government.

Ron Bereznicki, Edmonton