Letter to the Editor
Editor,
With due respect to the November 14th opinions Mr. Eric Brown and those of like mind express over the virtues of pumped energy storage as a means to reduce CO2 emissions, I believe we are in need of a ‘reality check’ on the basis of both physics and economics.
Pumping water uphill and then extracting energy from it during downflow results in an approximate 30% energy loss (and financial loss) from the initial energy investment. These losses are in the form of waste heat which will find its way into our atmosphere. (Something we need less of.) Consider also the significant volumes of diesel fuel required to power equipment needed to construct this facility.
While this project will not propose a threat to Georgian Bay, it will have no effect at all on the net reduction of CO2 into Ontario skies. 90% of Ontario’s electrical energy is derived from nuclear and hydro-electric generation. It is at best a ‘make work project’, which has to be the product of those with no understanding of science and economics.
The growing hysteria over climate change has somehow stunted our abilities in critical thinking and common sense. If a multi-million dollar budget can be created for such an ineffective endeavour as this, surely these funds would be better utilized in Ontario for projects which would have an immediate and extensive/definitive effect on CO2 abatement, such as:
-
Mass reforestation program (trees absorb CO2 and produce O2)
-
Electrification of the government-operated GO commuter train network. (These antiquated diesel-powered trains burn millions of litres a month of diesel fuel).
-
Elimination of all taxes associated with the manufacture and sale of electric vehicles.
Come on folks. Some sensibility please. Why are we even debating such an ineffective use of our limited resources?
Stephen Carr, Meaford
