Moving forward on electricity — practically

Advertisement

Advertise with us

In a December op-ed, I discussed the federal Liberal government’s ongoing failures to reduce emissions, and their lack of any real plan to do so (Canada’s major climate failure, Dec. 22). I noted this assessment was not based on politics, but rather quantitative performance, using various independent external sources. Since then, many have posed the question to me, “So what can we then do to get our GHG emissions down?”

Read this article for free:

or

Already have an account? Log in here »

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Monthly Digital Subscription

$1 per week for 24 weeks*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles

*Billed as $4.00 plus GST every four weeks. After 24 weeks, price increases to the regular rate of $19.00 plus GST every four weeks. Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.

Monthly Digital Subscription

$4.75/week*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles

*Billed as $19 plus GST every four weeks. Cancel any time.

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional

$1 for the first 4 weeks*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles
Start now

No thanks

*Your next subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $16.99 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $23.99 plus GST every four weeks.

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 22/02/2024 (597 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

In a December op-ed, I discussed the federal Liberal government’s ongoing failures to reduce emissions, and their lack of any real plan to do so (Canada’s major climate failure, Dec. 22). I noted this assessment was not based on politics, but rather quantitative performance, using various independent external sources. Since then, many have posed the question to me, “So what can we then do to get our GHG emissions down?”

You do not need to be a climate activist to understand reducing emissions is important for everyone. The concerns, though, involve how this can be done economically, effectively and fairly.

Carbon taxation remains a problem, not solely because of the lack of decisive reductions, promised back in 2018 in the Estimated Results of the Federal Carbon Pollution Pricing System. Worse, the tax gave a false impression of cheap and easy solutions.

Real reductions are difficult, potentially involving pain, a point never honestly admitted by governments or activists. There are various dimensions to moving forward, with initial focus today on the most important, Canada’s electrical grid.

Electricity is a complex product. Ask anyone from Manitoba Hydro and you quickly discover many aspects need to be simultaneously correct: voltage; current; frequency; harmonics; energy (kWh); and power (kW).

What is our overall situation? Canada is well-endowed with electricity, with more than 83 per cent being either renewable or low emissions. We have lots of electrical energy. Canada and Manitoba are net exporters. Why then bother, given we are among the best already?

The reasons are twofold. First is general movement toward electrification to offset fossil fuels. Second is the need to find solutions for all Canadians.

What then are our real constraints? Unlike the U.S., every province represents its own isolated grid, with limited east-west connections. On emissions we are, surprisingly, bimodal. Six of seven super-low grid jurisdictions across the continent are in Canada, all less than 40 g per kWh. Yet, we have three jurisdictions showing more than 500 g per kWh: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia.

We have lots of renewable and low emissions electricity, just not in the right places when needed.

Our biggest pending constraint is not electrical energy (kWh), but electrical power (kW). This is a growing and ominous concern, highlighted by the recent emergency in Alberta. Indeed, based on data trends here, Manitoba could easily face the same serious peaking constraints before 2030. Such concerns, as articulated by former Manitoba Hydro president Jay Grewal, are legitimate, and it would be folly for any government to outright ignore her (Looming need for new energy sources: CEO Jan. 30).

On electricity, regrettably, the federal Liberals are again off-track, doing the wrong things, again for political reasons. Lucrative funding, for example $35 billion, is available, but for solar, wind and battery storage. U.S. President Joe Biden may like this, given significant incentive funding will go to the U.S. where technologies are sourced.

But it does little to address Canada’s real problems of power constraints and limited interconnections.

Solar is especially problematic. While justifiable under special situations, solar is a poor choice across Canada, especially Manitoba, as directly outlined by the Canada Energy Regulator. It is expensive and not dependable, with low capacity-factor. It contributes little in terms of power, so is ill-suited to our problems. Solar is surprisingly dirty, given inputs via manufacturing, with the further emerging concern of “solar trash.”

Wind is a better, more economical source of electrical energy across the Prairies, given strong wind resources. There is also a long history of wind farms operating successfully as independent power producers. This model makes good sense. But it also requires backup for when the wind does not blow, as happened in Alberta. This leaves natural-gas turbines.

These show the lowest capital cost per kW of power, less than a tenth that for dams, and can be built quickly, unlike dams. These certainly will generate emissions but only when, and to the extent, actually operated. Natural gas is thus best suited to “peak” loads and backup.

A hybrid wind-natural gas option was prudently advocated for Manitoba in 2014 by Tim Sale, former NDP minister, achieving the best of both worlds on low costs and reduced emissions. The ultimate extent of backup natural-gas turbines required for this still needs to be clarified, but as long as these represent no more than around 10 per cent of the net energy produced, emissions can remain less than the desired limit of 40 g per kWh for super-low grids.

Moving forward realistically means two things. First is more wind, and associated independent power producers. Second and most essential is more natural-gas turbines, operating as needed for power support and backup.

Manitoba can and should adjust to these new realities and new opportunities. Manitoba should not ascribe to the doctrinaire foolishness of the federal Liberals, or we risk a failing electrical system and associated economic misery.

Robert Parsons teaches at the I.H. Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, on topics of sustainability economics, mathematical methods, logistics and supply-chain management.

Report Error Submit a Tip

Analysis

LOAD MORE