There is a better way

Hal Turner is correct about the challenges posed by winter and drought to our energy grid (The right plan for reliable energy, Think Tank, Aug. 11). But the ongoing debate is really about how we manage them.

Manitoba Hydro’s chief operating officer wants that debate to stay focused on facts, and his summary is fair. Demand is going up. The toughest times are still the coldest nights, and dry years put the most strain on the system. Wind power is unpredictable, solar is weakest when our days are shortest, and batteries alone cannot get Manitoba through a drought. The province also already buys wind power, is growing Indigenous-led supply and still has one of the cleanest and most affordable grids in North America. We’re not arguing with these points.

The real issue is not whether Manitoba needs reliable winter power. It is about whether building a $3-billion gas plant in Brandon is the only or best way to bridge the forecasted energy gap.

Almost all of our electricity, about 99.7 per cent, already comes from water, wind and biomass. We emit about 1.3 tonnes of carbon per gigawatt-hour. By comparison, the average Canadian utility emits approximately 121, and the American average is ~350.

This difference is not just for show. It is the reason our Manitoba bills are still affordable. But if we start relying on gas during the coldest nights, we will end up paying for the kind of grid others are moving away from.

Turner says Hydro picked turbines in Brandon because operators can start them quickly when demand spikes. Brandon is already a real power plant in a real city, and someone needs to cover the peak. That is a reason to consider gas, but it doesn’t mean it’s the only option. Seven hundred and fifty megawatts of new turbines, costing about $3 billion, still needs to be proven better than any other way to get through a -30 C morning.

Hydro says the units would run so rarely that the yearly average would hardly change — 99.8 per cent fossil-free — and it would still be under two tonnes of carbon per gigawatt-hour. This is true — in a wet year.

In a dry year, this would not be the case. If the reservoirs are low and the full 750 megawatts run often, emissions could reach 1.6 million tonnes. The intensity would rise from 1.3 tonnes/gWh to about 40-50 tonnes/gWh.

This is still cleaner than a fossil-heavy grid, but it would not be the same as our current one.

Turner himself points to a solution. He writes that our hydroelectric system is “effectively batteries.”

So, our plan is to use it that way. Keep the Indigenous wind projects, continue with efficiency improvements and dam upgrades. But instead of burning through the peak, reduce it: meaning keep furnaces running on the coldest nights instead of switching every house to electric heat, save batteries for the morning and evening rush, pay large customers to use less power for a few hours, and connect the region so we can borrow surplus when needed.

This approach could add about 688 megawatts of firm winter capacity for about $1.95 billion — almost a billion less than the Brandon plan, and with no fuel costs.

New machines might start more cleanly than the old ones, but they still have to prove themselves. Hydro’s own evidence before the Public Utilities Board showed that Brandon’s existing units were offline or reduced during three of the 10 highest winter peaks in the past five years, including the 5,096-megawatt night of Jan. 22 to 23, 2024. Alberta learned this lesson the hard way last winter. Manitoba can learn from its neighbour.

Turner wants to keep the lights on, keep rates fair and keep the grid clean.

Everyone else wants that, too.

The Public Utilities Board should require Hydro to present a hybrid winter plan and compare it to the gas plant option during the kinds of weather that really test the system.

This is not ignoring the facts. It is making sure we consider all of them.

Hersh Seth is a Winnipeg resident and community organizer. Learn more at www.spirited.energy.