Dear Editor,
In response to Roberta Docherty’s July 10 Letter to the Editor, I will try to eliminate Roberta’s confusion.
Tesla Fire is an online site that tracks all Tesla fires from worldwide newspaper articles, including cars and Tesla Megapacks. Megapacks are used for electrical grid scale energy storage. Out of 232 Tesla fires documented since 2013, there were only 3 Megapack fires worldwide. Almost all of the other fires were Tesla EV (electric vehicle) fires.
Lithium-ion batteries are sensitive to heat, which can cause thermal runaway conditions and fires. Megapack and other grid energy storage battery facilities have climate control and fire suppression systems that greatly reduce the chance of fire. EVs don’t have these systems.
Yes, lithium mining is environmentally bad but new emerging battery technologies use much less or no lithium in their construction. Also, lithium contained batteries can be recycled into new batteries, thus reducing the need for lithium mining. Tesla’s new Megapacks are based on a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) technology that is safer, less costly and less toxic than lithium-ion. Even TC Energy (TCE) has built a flow battery energy storage plant in Alberta.
The Meaford military base can have several other toxic contaminants (in addition to unexploded ordnance) on site. This is why an independent environmental assessment (EA) of the base and surrounding waters (including water testing for several contaminants) needs to be performed.
If many readers still think that a thorough environmental assessment by government scientists will take place, I have news for them. It’s not going to happen! Also, with federal Bill C-5 and provincial Bill 5, Indigenous approvals, EA approvals and public consultation for the Meaford TC Energy pumped storage project could be completely bypassed.
The power that the TCE pumped storage plant would store will be provided by excess power from the Bruce Power nuclear generating plant (TCE owns 48.4% of Bruce Power).
Open-loop pumped storage is geographically dependent (e.g. Meaford base) and therefore requires long, dedicated transmission lines to deliver and receive electrical energy to and from the distant electrical grid. Battery (e.g. lithium) and other energy storage technologies can be built close to existing transmission lines on unused or ‘brown’ land and don’t have to be constructed close to large urban centers, such as Toronto.
I have debunked Dave MacDougall’s flawed claims several times in the past, so I won’t dwell on individual points. In response to his July 3 Letter to the Editor, his online “research” results appear to be from articles published by news outlets sponsored and funded by hydro-power associations or articles quoting from these associations. These hydro-power associations are comprised of hydro generation/pumped storage corporations. This is why these articles tend to downplay battery storage and promote pumped storage (I’ve seen these inaccurate articles as well). A lot of his statements also seem to come directly from the TC Energy playbook of misinformation.
This TCE pumped storage project with a claimed 50-year longevity could quickly become an expensive, obsolete “white elephant” if the provincial electricity rate structure flattens (e.g. peak hours rate = off-peak hours rate) in the foreseeable future.
Recent letters seem to indicate a lack of critical thinking based on extrapolations of current and new technologies and the ever-escalating costs of construction of this archaic pumped storage project. It’s clearly time for them to enter the modern technological world.
There are now thousands of successful battery storage facilities in use and being built worldwide. Worldwide battery energy storage capacity is expected to reach 222 gigawatts (222,000 megawatts) in 2025. By 2028, Ontario’s utility battery storage is expected to consist of 26 operating facilities with total capacity of 2,916 megawatts. As time moves on, battery storage technology will continue to improve and reduce in cost. In addition, other energy storage technologies are emerging.
In contrast, open-loop pumped storage technology is stagnant, environmentally invasive and will only increase in cost. The cost of this project is currently capped at $7B but could reach well over $10B by completion. The only real financial winners from this pumped storage project will be TC Energy, its shareholders and its associates.
Best Regards,
Mike McTaggart, Meaford
