Manitoba Hydro

[bodaggin]

5,000 MW Cedar Lake to Lake Winnipeg Pumped Hydro Analysis

This will be complex, so prepare. Note, we're looking from the lens of a Battery As A Service (BaaS) model. It's basically price arbitrage. Buying off-peak electricity during windy times to store it, then selling back during no wind (on-peak).


Assumptions:

-5,000MW nameplate capacity
-15,000 cubic meters/second flow
-120 foot hydraulic head
-Cedar Lake Volume 4.34 cubic km (using average depth 11 feet)
-Max battery runtime 50hrs (that drains 60% of Cedar Lake)
-40% capacity factor (80% efficiency, half of that spent 'charging', the other half generating).
-17,520,000 MW annual generation (40% capacity * 5000mw * 24hr * 365 days)
-Lifespan 100yr+



Now the tricky shit. How much can it earn from that 17,520gw? Price arbitrage is dynamic, and slippage occurs. But let's estimate some ranges.

Ontario TOU Rates:
Low: $0.09/kwh
High: $0.18/kwh
Arbitrage/Difference: $0.09/kwh.
Call it $0.05 to $0.06/kwh with slippage.

Ontario Ultra Low Overnight Rates:
Low: $0.03/kwh (I couldn't believe this)
High: $0.29/kwh
Arbitrage: $0.26/kwh.
Say $0.15/kwh with slippage

Every regional market will be different. Super dynamic number. And fixed contracts would occur. It's hard to accurately estimate this number. But let's also run a $0.03/kwh scenario for the low low end.


Annual earning Scenarios for the 17,520gw:

$0.03/kwh = $525 million
$0.06/kwh = $1,050 million
$0.15/kwh = $2.63 BILLION

The $800m to $1.2b range seems reasonable. Call it $1B for simplicity.


Construction Cost + Profitability:

Average Hydro Build costs are $3-6 million per MW. Not $21m like they blew on Keeyask. They need to get their act together and hit the $5 million. We'll use that.

Construction Cost: $25 billion (5000mw * $5m)
Annual Profit: $1 billion
Repayment: 25yrs (pre-interest)

These are good numbers in terms of a mega project. Keep in mind, the more the switch to wind occurs, the higher the demand for baseload. The higher this demand, the greater the spread between on-peak vs off-peak widens; and thus the higher the pumped-hydro water battery earns annually. The faster it pays off too. This isn't an outlier scenario, we're already seeing those spreads widen like in Alberta's crisis this January. It will only get worse throughout the transition IMO.

And guess what. Another pumped-hydro can be built on the Fairford/Dauphin river using Lake Manitoba as the battery. Maybe 10gw.

Told you it was complex. For now, my invoice is in the mail for doing your fcking work, Manitoba Hydro.

[rivercity]

You would never get environmental approvals to do this

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by rivercity

You would never get environmental approvals to do this

Not if we keep bowing down to these Climate Nazi's, no. They find an excuse for everything. Coal is dirty, nat gas is dirty, solar leeches, wind kills birds, hydro kills fish.

If these woke tree-huggers had their way, we'd live in the stone age.

Hydro is clean and safe. It has effects, but those 2 lakes used to be 1 lake Agassiz anyway.

You have to explain to people: Do you want prosperity? Do you want to not die in hallways because we can't afford healthcare? Do you want Hydro to subsidize gov more, so you have to pay less tax?

If so, this is one sacrifice that we could make to do that. (One of many)

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

I dont think a privatized hydro is palatable to anyone except those who could benefit off it financially. I like my cheap power and have no interest in paying almost triple the price like they're doing in Alberta.

Privatization is often pointed to as a magic bullet that will solve all an industry's problems. It always ignores that fact that private industry works exclusively for the benefit of itself and it's shareholders; not it's employees and certainly not the general public. I agree with FactaNV on this, privatization would result in huge energy price increases.

I'm not against private companies investing the the MB economy; in fact in some areas we need more. In the case of MB Hydro, I simply can't see any long-term benefit in the province losing control of our energy production.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Not if we keep bowing down to these Climate Nazi's, no. They find an excuse for everything. Coal is dirty, nat gas is dirty, solar leeches, wind kills birds, hydro kills fish.

If these woke tree-huggers had their way, we'd live in the stone age.

Hydro is clean and safe. It has effects, but those 2 lakes used to be 1 lake Agassiz anyway.

You have to explain to people: Do you want prosperity? Do you want to not die in hallways because we can't afford healthcare? Do you want Hydro to subsidize gov more, so you have to pay less tax?

If so, this is one sacrifice that we could make to do that. (One of many)

Okay calm down now. Raging against a caricature of an environmentalist doesn't solve anything.

I think most people, including most environmentalists, understand there's going to be some kind of environmental cost in production energy, and none of them are suggesting we go back to the stone age (except maybe the Sierra Club, those guys are wacko ).

Personally i think we can have a higher degree of environmental sustainability AND produce the energy a modern society needs. here's an example:

I was just reading today that the province has approved the silica sand mine and solar glass plant construction for the interlake and Selkirk, and this is from an NDP government, which traditionally has been consigned to the "tree hugger" category. It's a project that will result in some environmental damage, but greater environmental, and financial, benefit.

No word on the larger Sio Silica proposal, but it seems like more of a possibility now.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by pspeid

Okay calm down now. Raging against a caricature of an environmentalist doesn't solve anything.

I think most people, including most environmentalists, understand there's going to be some kind of environmental cost in production energy, and none of them are suggesting we go back to the stone age (except maybe the Sierra Club, those guys are wacko ).

Personally i think we can have a higher degree of environmental sustainability AND produce the energy a modern society needs. here's an example:

I was just reading today that the province has approved the silica sand mine and solar glass plant construction for the interlake and Selkirk, and this is from an NDP government, which traditionally has been consigned to the "tree hugger" category. It's a project that will result in some environmental damage, but greater environmental, and financial, benefit.

No word on the larger Sio Silica proposal, but it seems like more of a possibility now.

I sure hope sio silica doesnt go through. The risk according to the hydrologists are still unknown, with worst case scenario being the water is undrinkable and the Brokenhead dead. It's not worth the risk to line to pockets of some Albertans who are sure to continue the long standing Alberta tradition of ravaging a landscape and leaving it for the public to remediate. Not to mention there may be international ramifications of SS goes through, the aquifer provides drinking water all the way South to ND, MN and allegedly, Montana.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

I sure hope sio silica doesnt go through. The risk according to the hydrologists are still unknown, with worst case scenario being the water in drinkable and the Brokenhead dead. It's not worth the risk to line to pockets of some Albertans who are sure to continue the long standing Alberta tradition of ravaging a landscape and leaving it for the public to remediate. Not to mention there may be international ramifications of SS goes through, the aquifer provides drinking water all the way South to ND, MN and allegedly, Montana.

Those are good points.

[optimusREIM]

Build nuclear plants. Has to be part of the equation if we want green energy. No emissions, no flooded towns, no ugly windmills on the landscape.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Exactly. This is the point I'm making. If we're going to socialize our crown corps, then the people are the shareholders. Run them for max profit (via exports), for the social benefit of the shareholders. Don't just scrape them along.

Private will always be cheaper and more efficient. But we've got a crown corp, and a resource. Use the damn thing for max profit. Start running it like a business like the Scandinavians.

33% of Norway's government is funded by Crown Corps
4% of Manitoba's government is funded by Crown Corps

We're leaving SO much meat on the bone out of utter incompetence.

What is it about Scandinavia that allows them to run crown corporations more like a business than we do? Further to that, I' m pretty sure this idea has been around for decades. Why has Manitoba never latched on to this?

[1ajs]

theres lots of options

like build a bunch of smaller dames like lorie river
finish the rat river project they were going to build for sherritt back in the day if sherritt needed it doubt any of u know the history up here facinating stuff.

look at the smelter in thompson and invest in building a cleaner tech for that or
push a partnetship there to build a new fusion research center in thompson or churchill.

we could take hydro and setup a hydrogen plant in churchill then send that to the artic to fuel generators for their electrcity cuting the carbon footprint in the artic


peak rates is effing stupid if we wana get carbon down in this province aka geet off nat gas and wood stoves dont put them in

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Build nuclear plants. Has to be part of the equation if we want green energy. No emissions, no flooded towns, no ugly windmills on the landscape.

sask has the uranian and theres a sizable deposit north of lynn lake as well out towards broche just off the winter road ive been told that someones been doing exploration on the last few years

[Rutlander]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

theres lots of options

like build a bunch of smaller dames like lorie river
finish the rat river project they were going to build for sherritt back in the day if sherritt needed it doubt any of u know the history up here facinating stuff.
n

My dad worked on Laurie River 2 and he used to tell me wild stories of the construction of that one. I agree that there’s potential in building smaller dams with less environmental impacts.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

What is it about Scandinavia that allows them to run crown corporations more like a business than we do? Further to that, I' m pretty sure this idea has been around for decades. Why has Manitoba never latched on to this?

They think beyond their border, for 1.

MB Hydro seems obsessed with "creating power for Manitobans". You don't get rich by selling stuff to yourself.

You get rich by exporting to others. Norway didn't extract just enough oil to fill its citizen's tanks. It ballooned production for export. Drill drill drill, sell sell sell.

Yes, MB Hydro does some export. But its pittance of what it can be. Full steam ahead.

[drew]

It's also Oil (Norway) versus Hydro (Manitoba). But I am sure it will be pointed out I am wrong about that.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by drew

It's also Oil (Norway) versus Hydro (Manitoba). But I am sure it will be pointed out I am wrong about that.

To be fair, Equinor is also an electrical utility. They were formed as a merger between two crown corps, one being oil, one being hydro. It's a fascinating company, but with some interesting scandals to go with it haha. What is applied there with their hydro side of the business could be applied here.

[bodaggin]

As for untapped MB energy potential:

~4,500mw of Hydro: (Linked)
-1400mw Conawapa (Lower Nelson)
-1000mw Gilliam Island (Lower Nelson)
-400mw Birthday Rapids (Lower Nelson)
-500mw Bladder Rapids (Upper Nelson)
-300mw Birchtree (Burntwood)
-200mw First Rapids (Burntwood)
-600mw Other various small dams


3,000mw+ Wind:
-2500-4000mw Lake Manitoba Wind
-Offshore Lake Winnipeg? There 5x the area but it's deeper than Lake MB
-Onshore? Do we plaster farmland with wind? I'm less a fan there

15,000mw Pumped-Hydro Storage (guessing capacities)
-5,000mw Cedar Lake @ Grand Rapids
-10,000mw Lake MB @ Fairford/Dauphin River

Price them all out. Start with the lowest cost per MW to build and get shovels in the ground.

Get BiPole 4 going properly down the east side. Cut off Bipole 3 by Swan River and send that 2mw west to SK and AB where they're getting killed on carbon tax. Let's fcking go already.

And stay away from Nuclear. It's the highest LCOE. Plus MB Hydro can't even build a dam.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

As for untapped MB energy potential:

~4,500mw of Hydro:
-1400mw Conawapa (Lower Nelson)
-1000mw Gilliam Island (Lower Nelson)
-400mw Birthday Rapids (Lower Nelson)
-500mw Bladder Rapids (Upper Nelson)
-300mw Birchtree (Burntwood)
-200mw First Rapids (Burntwood)
-600mw Other various small dams


3,000mw+ Wind:
-2500-4000mw Lake Manitoba Wind
-Offshore Lake Winnipeg? There 5x the area but it's deeper than Lake MB
-Onshore? Do we plaster farmland with wind? I'm less a fan there

15,000mw Pumped-Hydro Storage (guessing capacities)
-5,000mw Cedar Lake @ Grand Rapids
-10,000mw Lake MB @ Fairford/Dauphin River

Price them all out. Start with the lowest cost per MW to build and get shovels in the ground.

Get BiPole 4 going properly down the east side. Cut off Bipole 3 by Swan River and send that 2mw west to SK and AB where they're getting killed on carbon credits. Let's fcking go already.

And stay away from Nuclear. It's the highest LCOE. Plus MB Hydro can't even build a dam.

East side of Lake Winnipeg is basically untouchable now. It's a UNESCO global heritage site and basically a national wilderness preserve. That's a good thing because it part of one of the last major tracts of undisturbed wilderness left on Earth.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

East side of Lake Winnipeg is basically untouchable now. It's a UNESCO global heritage site and basically a national wilderness preserve. That's a good thing because it part of one of the last major tracts of undisturbed wilderness left on Earth.

Easily solved there. You tell the UN to go back to the Swiss cheese hole they crawled out of. The majority of our entire country is untouched. What gives them the right to tell us what we can do on OUR land?

If UNESCO wants to control land use in OUR province, they can do something useful and pay the extra topup to re-route the line. (they won't)

Even the reserves along that side wanted Bi-pole because they wanted the royalties.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Easily solved there. You tell the UN to go back to the Swiss cheese hole they crawled out of. The majority of our entire country is untouched. What gives them the right to tell us what we can do on OUR land?

If UNESCO wants to control land use in OUR province, they can do something useful and pay the extra topup to re-route the line. (they won't)

Even the reserves along that side wanted Bi-pole because they wanted the royalties.

It's recognized by the UN but it's reserve land and provincial parks that have been protected....Google my dude.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Rutlander

My dad worked on Laurie River 2 and he used to tell me wild stories of the construction of that one. I agree that there’s potential in building smaller dams with less environmental impacts.

my grandfather used to fly the line weekly depeneding what u dad did he mighta known my grandfther flew from 57-84 for sherritt avaition

guessing ur dad worked for laurie river power company?