Mr. Editor,
I would like to thank Mr. Essington for referring to a power generation technology that is rarely mentioned, even though it has been in the public eye since the launching of the nuclear submarine ‘Nautilus’ in the mid 1950s. I agree with him that small nuclear facilities will be an important part of the energy mix in the future. It is proven and has many advantages. Nearly every recently built large naval ship is powered by a micro nuclear generator. Applications for this power source are growing rapidly.
In my recent letter, the importance of identifying and mitigating, or eliminating, REAL problems pertaining to the construction of pumped storage on the military base is highlighted. Now that the Province, after long deliberation, is supporting the next phase of the project we will be able to do environmental impact studies and cost/benefit analyses that provide information that actually means something.
We have been subject to arguments, pro and con, that have been misleading or based on misinformation. After this next phase of exploration, prompted by the Province’s support, some of the myths we have been asked to swallow may be evident. Mr. Embacher suggests that 20 million cubic meters of dirt and rock must be trucked off the site on two lane roads. Where did that figure come from? Does that estimate take into account that much of the limestone may be crushed and used to produce concrete on site? Will a large amount of that material be used for the building of berms, landscaping, etc. around the storage pond? Will the excavated material be moved by barge? I suspect that at this early stage even TCE has not come up with a definitive plan but the writer’s source seems to know.
Another SGB expert, Mr. Carr, an engineer with 40 years’ experience as he always informs us, states in one of his letters that 6 million cubic meters of material will have to be excavated, using 95 million gallons of diesel fuel, resulting in 232,000 tons of CO2 into our atmosphere. (Note that Mr. Embacher’s source suggests 20+ million cubic meters will be removed.) How in the world does he know, at this point in time, that 95 million gallons of diesel will be used in this project? He calculates that another 11,000 tons of CO2 will result from producing concrete. In the first letter, he states that this will not be a “green” project because of the CO2. Very interesting. In his response to my letter, he makes it clear that his present position is that CO2 has nothing to do with climate change. He calls it a hoax! What caused him to change his mind so quickly? Incidentally, every reputable climate change scientist seems to think otherwise.
Folks, don’t believe everything you hear or read. Do some research and look for reliable sources who do not have an ‘axe to grind’. Be a critical thinker and don’t be afraid to wait for solid information. It seems like we have been debating this subject forever, but we are, really, in the very early stages.
I often hear people who have negative feelings about pumped storage suggest that the Municipality of Meaford should stop the project. I don’t think they can. (Federal land and Provincial responsibility for energy.) Most of our Councillors have declared conditional support for the proposal so it is time for them to get the lead out and start negotiating for as many benefits as they can obtain for our community.
To all who say that the upper tier Governments should not be spending our tax money on this project, start complaining about the tens of billions of dollars they have committed to Volkswagen and Stellantis (Chrysler) so that they can build EV battery plants in other parts of Ontario. I don’t think these foreign-based auto companies (TCE is Canadian-based) are building these production facilities for altruistic reasons. If Governments want to spend our money on green energy sources, why not here. The economy of this area could use a boost. Let’s take it. The substantial benefits will be long term so maybe some short term inconvenience is worth it.
Sincerely,
Jim Hepple, Meaford
