Dear Editor,
Mr. Pat Maloney’s letter (May 7, 2026) contains too many things that are inconsistent with the truth for it to be comfortably ignored.
Saying – “TCE proposed to the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) to utilize this elevation for profit, through sole source procurement, with little apparent foresight.” – and implying that was a bad thing?
To speak the truth, Mr. Maloney should say something closer to “There’s nothing unethical or wrong with sole sourced for-profit procurement. That’s called Blended Ownership. Only Ontario’s foresight has permitted us to approach large scale energy procurement that way. It has been the official Ontario government policy since 1999. And it would be wrong for anyone to suggest it’s inappropriate.”
Similarly, when Mr. Maloney says “Pumped storage systems have served their purpose, with several facilities operating worldwide and providing necessary energy storage.”?
To support his commitment to accurate reporting, I expect that Mr. Maloney meant to say something more like:
“As of 2026, there are over 400 pumped storage hydropower (PSH) projects in operation worldwide, representing over 90% of all long-duration energy storage… China leads in development, while the U.S. has 43 plants and a massive pipeline of over 67 projects planned.”
Could “several” actually mean “over 400” on the 7th line in Meaford? Is that what “several” means to Mr. Maloney? Several and over 400 are numerically very different. It seems dishonest to try to pass off more than 400 of anything as “several”.
Or maybe there was a typo in his letter and Mr. Maloney really meant to say “several HUNDRED”?
Mr. Maloney’s decision to use “several” could mislead readers into believing pumped storage isn’t the dominant form of energy storage in the world. And that pumped storage isn’t growing extremely fast. Both are true. That was a very bad mistake on his part. I don’t know how he could be more wrong than he was here.
Does “a massive pipeline of over 67 projects planned” mean “have served their purpose” out on the 7th Line?
“pipeline”, in this case, means currently being built or planned for building. It means it’s happening now. Mr. Maloney’s choice of the past tense seems very inappropriate. Because it is extremely misleading. “Served their purpose” means that usefulness has ended. It doesn’t seem right to try to pass off that huge amount of current activity as “served their purpose”. Usefulness has not ended in this case. That’s painfully obvious to anyone looking, including Mr. Maloney. Surely Mr. Maloney didn’t intend to suggest pumped storage’s useful life has ended when nothing could be further from the truth. He made a huge error there too.
When Mr. Maloney shared “While proponents may cite their relevance today, it is clear that supporting this development—especially when compared with modern technologies—makes little sense. Pumped storage projects are expensive, inefficient, complex, and environmentally destructive.”
Maybe Mr. Maloney believes he was aiming at reality here. But the truth is he was simply wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
The experts in the field tell us:
“… results demonstrate that enabling renewable electricity deployment by adding Pumped Storage Hydro to the grid will result in lower climate change impacts and contribute more to achieving the country’s (U.S.) clean energy goals compared to other grid-scale energy storage technologies.” (U.S. Department of Energy Report, March 14, 2024).
Good value for the money, more efficient than the alternatives, and more environmentally friendly. Tick, tick, and tick. Mr. Maloney missed badly there too.
Mr. Maloney will first have to correct the U.S. Department of Energy if he hopes to convince any but the most gullible people in Meaford that “Modern technologies now offer more efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly solutions.”
Because they don’t. They aren’t.
That’s a fact and the U.S. Department of Energy proved it. With real data and scientific evidence.
And in what alternate universe are pumped storage projects considered “complex”?
You pump water up a hill. Through a tunnel. To a lined reservoir. It goes back down through the same tunnel. Passes through a turbine. Back where it came from. Water up. Water down. Electricity out.
Happens every day around the world. In, ahem, over 400 places…
Complex? Honestly? Complex to who?
It’s not like you’re combining toxic, dangerous, highly flammable extremely corrosive metals and liquids to make, say, a big battery, at all. That’s complex. But then things that can explode unexpectedly often are pretty complex.
When one of us writes the Editor, and when they’re somehow blissfully unaware of the existence of around 397 pumped storage facilities worldwide? And they’re hoping to convince your readers that the verified best choice for large scale energy storage is somehow the worst choice available? When they persist in doing that despite the readily available and irrefutable facts that prove they are dead wrong on the subject? Every subject? When they ALWAYS get it ALL wrong?
Well, this is a serious topic that requires serious people. It’s important.
Those in our community that constantly get it that wrong really need to rethink whether they should be writing letters to the Editor.
Because facts are our friends. We all need to respect the facts.
And getting the facts that horribly wrong was inexcusable.
Bruce Mason, Meaford
