Letter to the Editor
Editor,
I am starting to see a few lawn signs supporting the NO camp re: Meaford Pumped Storage proposal. I continue to disagree with the NO position especially now that more environmental and economic impact information is being published.
Originally there were concerns about:
A) Impact on the water quality,
B) Eye-sore shoreline views, of buildings and power lines,
C) Damage to animal and fish habitat,
D) Noise from pumps, etc.
Based upon the latest proposal from TC Energy, the company has listened to these concerns. They now propose many changes to their plan to deal with these issues, https://www.tcenergy.com/pumpedstorage
-
Moving the input and output pipes well off shore with screening to reduce impact to fish and wildlife;
-
Moving the pumps and plant underground to eliminate visual and noise impacts;
-
They have refined their estimates on impacts to the local economy and jobs and provincial tax revenues;
-
They have clarified contributions to CO2 reduction by displacing carbon-based peak electrical generation with a renewable energy source;
-
Power lines will run along the 7th line where an existing power corridor already exists.
I think they have done a good job to address our concerns.
On June 19, Stephen Carr wrote an interesting technical rebuttal to the project. His comments raised several questions in my mind.
-
Selling at a loss, or giving away excess energy to the U.S. may be a neighbourly thing to do but it does Ontario no good if it simply delays their implementation of clean energy generation. Whatever we can give away will not meet their needs so we will still be impacted by their CO2. They need to get off coal.
-
While on this topic, why should Ontario give the excess energy away? Providing the excess energy to this project will keep the value in Ontario. This is a good thing.
-
He does comment about the fact the process is 70% efficient but the off peak power costs mitigate this issue. They should be able to negotiate a better rate than Ontario gets for sales to U.S. states.
-
He did NOT comment about Ontario being able to use the stored power to reduce reliance on gas-powered electric generators to meet our peak power needs. They do contribute to the CO2 problem and add to our energy costs.
-
He does make a good point about the CO2 impact of construction, but amortizing that impact over the lifetime of the asset may not be a significant factor.
-
He theorizes that the cost of the project could provide battery storage to a million homes. I’d love to see the math on that. My quick analysis comes to about $8,500US per household for 14.5 kw of backup power. That is the minimum practical requirement for most homes. He does not offer an idea about how this could be funded. My guess is it would likely have to be a provincial or corporate process to provide loans to the home owners for the battery purchase and installation. While this would be beneficial, for reasons stated, this would still not solve the problem of meeting environmentally effective peak energy demands.
-
He makes the point that this is not new technology. Agreed. On the other hand, it is proven. Low risk technology, available now. We know how to install and maintain hydro electric plants.
-
It is true that large-scale battery technology is emerging but currently not at a price point or with proven reliability for a $3.3 billion bet. The technologies for this kind of use are still being debated and developed with no clear technology leaders except maybe Tesla. Grid storage will most certainly come. Give it several years I think; maybe longer because fossil fuel companies are not helping the cause at all.
And yet, there are other issues that I wonder about.
We have a wonderful small town whose business base is slowly eroding. Our downtown core has, by my count, six empty store fronts on the main street. In the immediate area, within sight of the shoreline and downtown, there are abandoned houses, businesses, and empty overgrown lots. Within a short walk of downtown there is an empty school, manufacturing buildings, and warehouses. Along the eastern shore of the bay, inside town limits, are still more abandoned manufacturing sites and buildings. This is an existing eyesore and embarrassment to the town. The situation does not encourage new business or home building. The impact on the local economy and tax base is not good. We are all carrying extra tax burdens because these properties are not contributing to their potential. That is an economic problem for us that is getting bigger year by year.
So, I wonder why these issues are less of a concern to the NO community than a project that will (upon completion),
-
Have minimal impact on the Bay based upon the new design;
-
Provide direct employment for 23 people, and 52 indirect jobs;
-
Contribute $19 million in direct spending in the area;
-
Contribute $1.9 million in tax provincial revenue.
During construction, Meaford will benefit from hundreds of construction jobs and investment in materials and services, restaurant meals, convenience store purchases, motel occupancy etc.
An injection of these new jobs and investment in the town from the pumped storage project should not be ignored out of fear or conservative tradition or a false sense of environmental protection. Do our citizens or town council have any ideas where we might find a similar boost to our economy? Are they speaking out?
John Mikkelsen (TC Energy) says this will be one of the largest ‘Made in Canada’ climate change initiatives currently in development. If so, then this will bring a lot of positive publicity to Meaford and area. There will likely be a lot of visitors come to check it out. This would be a good thing for Meaford businesses, restaurants, motels, etc.
I know that many people are worried about about fossil fuel-based energy sources that contribute to global warming, climate change, unusual weather, and resulting high water levels. Without long-term damage to the environment, the pumped storage project will be part of the solution.
Changes are going to come to our area. We can embrace them and channel them to our benefit or we can say No and watch our town quietly fade away.
For a town that is progressive enough to build a new school and new library, surely we can adopt renewable energy sources.
If there should be a sign that read:
Save Meaford
Say Yes to the pumped storage project
I would most certainly display it.
Dave MacDougall, Meaford
