Editor,
There are many valid arguments against the flawed decision to proceed with this project on DND lands in Meaford… Environment Matters, Indigenous Issues, Destroyed Property Values, Costly transmission lines to Barrie… But none as shocking and compelling as the bottom line cost of acquisition and operation of this energy storage technology.
The following is a comparison of the cost between Pumped Storage and Battery Storage systems.
To preface, I am an electrical engineer with 20 years experience in designing and building Hydro-Electric and Water Storage Dams internationally. This commentary is strictly academic. I have no proprietary interests in any real estate in the affected area or in any related commercial activity.
This comparison is based on charging/discharging both 1,000 megawatt systems 5 times per week for a service life of 50 years, with a nominal cost of electricity at 14 cents per kilowatt hour. It also accommodates a Pumped Storage energy capture efficiency, measured at the Essa Transfer Station of 67% (calculated) and a measured capture efficiency of battery at 89%. It should be noted, both systems consume energy in order to store energy.
To regenerate 1,000 megawatts will require a charge of 1,492 megawatts with pumped storage. To regenerate 1,000 megawatts with battery storage will require 1,124 megawatts. Battery storage will consume 368,000 less kilowatts per charge cycle than Pumped Storage. (1 megawatt is equal to 1,000 kilowatts).
At 14 cents per kilowatt hour, the added cost using pumped storage per charge cycle is therefore $51,520 per cycle …$257,600 per week …$13,395,200 per year … and $669,760,000 over 50 years. Should some correction wish to be made for the 14 cents per kilowatt cost or the number of charge cycles per week, these totals can be factored accordingly.
We also need to recognize the capital cost of the Meaford Pumped Storage System will be $10 billion. The capital cost of the same capacity of Battery Storage will be $5 billion. Therefore the Pumped Storage option will cost $5.67 billion more than the Battery option. The battery storage facility can be located anywhere in Ontario underneath high voltage transmission easement divided into say, five 200 megawatt storage units if desired. Their charge and discharge cycles are automatically variable based on real time demand. Something unachievable with Pumped Storage. None of the environmental, residential destructions/DND and Indigenous issues referenced above need to occur.
In terms of ‘Green Initiatives’, Pumped Storage will create 4 times the waste heat than will Battery Storage. The energy savings here would power 36,800 homes, essentially all of Owen Sound, Meaford and The Town of Blue Mountains.
There is clearly no argument remaining here to consider and recommend Pumped Storage. Those members of all political bodies and local community as well as TC Energy must develop a compelling critique of this analysis to justify the $5.67 Billion that need not be used to regenerate 1,000 megawatts of electrical energy. These numbers carry a maximum +/- 5% tolerance.
Stephen Carr, Meaford
