Manitoba HydroJoin now to read essay Manitoba HydroBehind the powerIts 5:00 am, just barely awake you flip on the light. I am sure you’re last thought is where dose that electricity comes from? Most people could probably name their electric company or maybe even the local electric power plant, but in actuality the energy you consume every day could possibly be traveling more then a thousand miles from another country. The fact is that Manitoba Hydro, a Canadian company, sells nearly 40 percent of the energy they produce to the U.S. And every time you flip on that light switch you are powering a heated debate of people, animals and ascetics verses demand, development and economics
The flooding caused by the hydro electric dams in total covers about .19 percent of Manitoba. This is according to a study done by Manitoba hydro and published in a article defending “inaccurate accusations” against Manitoba hydro (Just 8). This may seem like a localized problem to some, but to the aboriginal inhabitants of that area it is a very big issue. The flooding is needed to produce enough energy to power Manitoba and to sell to the U.S. But it also brings up the question of what are the real costs of electricity? Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy, a group devoted to the well being of the environment, say, that the major issues include the degradation of the aboriginal’s way of life and the detrimental effects on the environment and animals (Me3 1). But in actuality the localized issues related to the flooding, are acceptable in consideration of the clean efficient energy Manitoba Hydro produces, and should continue to produce as consumer needs grow.
The Flood
While there are many factors that are at work in the flood, as of now there is no known cause nor method of determining if the flooding is causing a “natural” one. Indeed the only evidence that is available appears to be that the Ontario government, under the leadership of Minister of Natural Resources Brian Toews, has placed a moratorium on floodwater collection under this section because of its detrimental effect on Ontario’s health and social welfare and the ability of certain groups to control and control stormwater supply, (Me3 1).
[Page 5 of 8]
Suffice it to say the situation of water for the drinking and driving of the people in the affected areas is a major concern and, given the recent actions of our Minister of Natural Resources, it is not surprising that the province’s public health authorities are making serious progress. As per the Health Canada National Flood Information page, there are four major storms of different sizes and in the last 11 years at least 2,550 homes have been affected by the flooding.
In the past there has been a moratorium (1,979 days) on stormwater collection under the Act and the Act requires the province to develop a plan for the storage and discharge of stormwater that may alleviate a need to clean up floodwaters of other kinds of pollution. As I say in the paragraph 2 sentence, the Ministry of Natural Resources recently did so (Me3 1). According to the ministry and others of the province, a moratorium on stormwater collection was approved in October 2009 due to serious issues with water quality and storage management (MoN3 1), (Me3 1). It is unclear whether that was the same plan the federal government announced in July that it had entered into under the Canadian Energy Price Act (CPA) and the 2010 federal NDP government’s plan to require storage systems to provide a 100 per cent stream discharge rate (CPA) for hydroelectric dams, or not. The government has put in place plans to reduce their current drawage by 60 per cent (CPA) over 25 years, by taking steps to reduce water supply of existing existing dams and by making certain that new and built dams would be built with 50 per cent water in the first place rather than be built without the need.
Another issue with the proposed moratorium is that the federal NDP plan would have required the federal government to obtain more than one-third of water from new projects by 2020 of the value of more than 4,500 acre feet of dam waste or 2,500 acres or equivalent of rainwater if the dams were to fail. The government has asked that the plan be abandoned, although it is possible that the federal government needs to submit a proposal to the provinces to begin processing.
[Page 6 of 10]
Suffice it to say the current backlog of the Flood Relief Program and the Ontario government’s flood and storm funding programs are continuing to grow and provide an increasing number of emergency water use services for the affected communities. But there are also ongoing concerns about the provincial government’s lack of clarity and lack of expertise regarding the issue of resource management in the waters that lead to a significant number of coastal, inland, sub-continental and underwater flooding cases (CPA). As explained earlier, the provincial government does not plan to put in place a new plan for flood control on the federal level that would allow for the management of water contamination, but there are several changes that are being made, as can be seen in the Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEAA). CEA is a technical assessment and is only available in Canada in response to international standards. The Canadian government is not even considering using the CEAA or other national government resources (Me3 1).
[Page 7 of 11]
The floodwaters that caused the flood were caused by hydroelectric dams. The BC Hydro National Power
The Flood
While there are many factors that are at work in the flood, as of now there is no known cause nor method of determining if the flooding is causing a “natural” one. Indeed the only evidence that is available appears to be that the Ontario government, under the leadership of Minister of Natural Resources Brian Toews, has placed a moratorium on floodwater collection under this section because of its detrimental effect on Ontario’s health and social welfare and the ability of certain groups to control and control stormwater supply, (Me3 1).
[Page 5 of 8]
Suffice it to say the situation of water for the drinking and driving of the people in the affected areas is a major concern and, given the recent actions of our Minister of Natural Resources, it is not surprising that the province’s public health authorities are making serious progress. As per the Health Canada National Flood Information page, there are four major storms of different sizes and in the last 11 years at least 2,550 homes have been affected by the flooding.
In the past there has been a moratorium (1,979 days) on stormwater collection under the Act and the Act requires the province to develop a plan for the storage and discharge of stormwater that may alleviate a need to clean up floodwaters of other kinds of pollution. As I say in the paragraph 2 sentence, the Ministry of Natural Resources recently did so (Me3 1). According to the ministry and others of the province, a moratorium on stormwater collection was approved in October 2009 due to serious issues with water quality and storage management (MoN3 1), (Me3 1). It is unclear whether that was the same plan the federal government announced in July that it had entered into under the Canadian Energy Price Act (CPA) and the 2010 federal NDP government’s plan to require storage systems to provide a 100 per cent stream discharge rate (CPA) for hydroelectric dams, or not. The government has put in place plans to reduce their current drawage by 60 per cent (CPA) over 25 years, by taking steps to reduce water supply of existing existing dams and by making certain that new and built dams would be built with 50 per cent water in the first place rather than be built without the need.
Another issue with the proposed moratorium is that the federal NDP plan would have required the federal government to obtain more than one-third of water from new projects by 2020 of the value of more than 4,500 acre feet of dam waste or 2,500 acres or equivalent of rainwater if the dams were to fail. The government has asked that the plan be abandoned, although it is possible that the federal government needs to submit a proposal to the provinces to begin processing.
[Page 6 of 10]
Suffice it to say the current backlog of the Flood Relief Program and the Ontario government’s flood and storm funding programs are continuing to grow and provide an increasing number of emergency water use services for the affected communities. But there are also ongoing concerns about the provincial government’s lack of clarity and lack of expertise regarding the issue of resource management in the waters that lead to a significant number of coastal, inland, sub-continental and underwater flooding cases (CPA). As explained earlier, the provincial government does not plan to put in place a new plan for flood control on the federal level that would allow for the management of water contamination, but there are several changes that are being made, as can be seen in the Canadian Environmental Assessment (CEAA). CEA is a technical assessment and is only available in Canada in response to international standards. The Canadian government is not even considering using the CEAA or other national government resources (Me3 1).
[Page 7 of 11]
The floodwaters that caused the flood were caused by hydroelectric dams. The BC Hydro National Power
1914 began the initial construction of Manitoba’s first hydroelectric dam and furthermore the growth of hydro electricity as the dominate energy source for Manitoba. The controversy of the flooding and the effects it has on the land and people would not completely surface until 1958, when major construction started on the Grand Rapids generating station (Limestone 1). Even more issues came about in 1977 with the signing of the northern flood agreement (Legislative 3). The newest hydroelectric dam is the Limestone Generating Station, on the Nelson River of Northern Manitoba. Massive in size and in electrical output, it spans nearly 300 meters and retains 2,900,000 cubic meters of water (Limestone 1). The limestone station has ten turbines that each can power 12,000 homes (Limestone 1). With the growing demand for electricity domestically and internationally Manitoba hydro was driven to spend the 1.48 billon Canadian dollars to build this dam to provide the needed energy (Limestone1).
The U.S. has been an electrical trade partner with Manitoba since 1970 when the first “230 kV interchange that stretched from Winnipeg, Manitoba to Grand Forks, North Dakota (History).” By the 1980’s the third power line, carrying 500 kv of electricity, stretched all the way down to Elk River, Minnesota connecting up to United Power Associates (now Greater River Energy). Bob Brennan, the CEO of Manitoba Hydro, recently said in a letter he released that the company currently sells about 40 percent of there power they generate to the U.S. Much of the power going to Minnesota’s utilities, such as “Xcel Energy (formerly, Northern States Power), Minnesota Power, Great River Energy, Otter Tail Power Company and Minnkota Power Cooperative” (Brennan 4).
Manitoba hydro, through the use of the renewable energy source of water, has “prevented 157 million tons” of green house gases, which would have been created by other fossil fuel methods of electric generation (Addressing 1). Hydroelectricity is a very efficient way of generating energy, therefore being able to avidly compete, in cost, with other forms of energy production such as coal, nuclear, and garbage incineration. Manitoba Hydro is also working with a new innovative way of transmitting electricity; they are currently using direct current (DC) to transmit large amounts of electricity over long distances. This cuts down on electrical waste, and allows for smaller gauge wires, saving on materials.
In addition hydroelectricity does not create poisons gas or solid waste, which is a major issue in the use of nuclear and fossil fuel energy prediction methods. Coal as a fossil fuel creates waste in the form of coal residue and CO2 gases. Nuclear energy leaves radioactive isotopes that can be dangerous for many thousands of years. In fact, according to The Nuclear Waste Primer, a guide book published to make citizens aware of the danger of radioactivity, uranium-238 has a half-life (half will have changed in to a different element) of 4.5 billon years (League 25). Using hydro energy can prevent these dangerous results and long term problems that are associated with other energy sources.
Besides not creating waste, hydroelectricity stimulates trade between the U.S. and Canada.