“Re: Why new natural gas plants are NOT a
good fit for the GTA, April 25 2010”
Dear Sir or Madam,
I found the letter extolling the virtues of a gas power plant by Mr. Finn Greflund of
TransCanada on the 25 April, misleading and filled with half-truths.
The supposed "facts" effort to paint the plant as clean power is wrong if you compare it to
nuclear power or renewable energies, as to carbon dioxide (Co2); PM2.5 fine particulate matter;
nitrogen oxides, mercury and everything else a natural gas plant spews out; it only looks
good when you compare it to an even dirtier polluter like a coal powered power plant.
The proposed plant is putting its polluting emissions into an already heavily polluted air shed,
(Ontario Ministry of Health's Clarkson air shed study), which due to prevailing winds often
blows towards the entire Greater Toronto Area (GTA) which breaths it all in, so whilst the plant
may be slightly better than a coal fired plant, it is still adding to the local air shed pollution, local
health problems and adding to Global warming.
TransCanada's "clean natural gas powered technology", is also somewhat of a myth since
because of weak Ontario air pollution laws, I believe the plant it has proposed is not using the
latest clean air technology, so when built, its emissions will be polluting more than they should
and would not be allowed in most other jurisdictions in North America, especially in California
that also has air shed pollution issues. Why should Toronto and its environs have a more
polluting natural gas power plant built on the prevailing wind side of Toronto than say New
York, or any other city in North America?
Why would such a polluting plant even be proposed, since in jurisdictions with strong air
pollution laws it would not be allowed and would be automatically rejected? I believe a possible
answer to this question is that it costs money to use the latest technology, to reduce pollution to a
minimum, and since Ontario's air pollutions laws do not require the best, why bother to propose
the best technology? TransCanada saves money by not cleaning the emissions to the state of the
art possibilities, which may be good for shareholders, but is bad for the people within the (GTA)
who breathe it in!
I understand that the PM2.5 fine particulate matter emissions by natural gas plants or by coal
plants are about the same, yet research is finding out that this is a particularly dangerous
pollutant. Any PM 2.5 emissions is a major health hazard to anyone breathing it in, so why
would anyone want to put such a power plant close to residential neighbourhoods; houses;
schools; businesses etc.? Nuclear power plants have zero emissions of this or any other air
emission pollutants, yet no one would think of putting them close to residential neighbourhoods,
350m to the nearest school, 400m to the nearest houses, or some 100m to the nearest businesses!
As to the better "green house emissions", I believe these are misleading. Drastic measures will
need to be undertaken if the world's average temperature increase is to be kept to the 2 degree
Celsius cap (+ 2C.). Scientists are already suggesting that due to the world's present lack of
concrete action on the issue, that the average global temperature rise now probably cannot be
prevented from rising to + 3C - 4C by the end of the Century. This means that glaciers will melt
faster, the sea ice sheets reflecting sunshine / heat away from earth will be drastically reduced,
and that much of the present tundra permafrost, holding in the billions of tonnes of frozen
methane (a much more significant green house gas) will thaw, releasing the gas, dramatically
adding to global warming. All these will significantly increase ocean sea levels. Therefore, with
disappearing coastlines, islands, estuaries etc., the cost of Global warming is going to be
astronomical high, so claiming to help global warming by using clean natural gas is somewhat of
a misnomer. This “clean natural gas plant” could emit some +200 million tonnes of Co2 a year,
which is less than a coal fired plant but a lot more than a nuclear plant, so it not reducing Co2 but
is actually adding to the global warming trends. If everyone used the argument, “we pollute less
with these plants, but are building more of them to meet demand” Global warming will continue
to be a huge issue, as the net decrease in greenhouse gas pollution, if any, will be too late to be
any help.
The supposed “growing electrical demand” argument is also wrong in both the near and midterm
futures, since Premier McGuinty used as an excuse of the lack of electrical demand to
announce delays to further development of nuclear power. In addition, the days when inefficient
manufacturing can afford to use high cost Ontario electrical power are gone. Peek Ontario
demand has been dropping over the last number of years and is projected to continue to do so.
The so-called Ontario Power Authority "forecast demand of electrical power" is therefore flawed
as it does not represent today's reality as I understand it was undertaken years ago when electrical
demand was rising. Indeed, in a recent debate by all parties in the Ontario legislature, on the
possible separation requirements needed between power plants and people’s homes, schools, and
work etc., all parties questioned the need for additional power plants, as electrical demand is
dropping. Therefore, why do we even need this plant costing some $1.7 billion dollars of Ontario
taxpayer’s money? (Note, presently there are no mandated separations for gas power plants and
residential homes, schools or businesses, so that they can be put into any industrial
neighborhood, yet apparently a wind generator must have a minimum set back of 550m from the
nearest homes, schools or businesses).
As to the benefits, Oakville will supposedly enjoy: “The added employment”, (some 25
permanent jobs). “The secure electrical supply”; not if there is an accident like the 640MW plant
in Connecticut, which exploded in a remote location yet broke windows some +2 miles away. In
addition, TransCanada wants to locate this much bigger 940MW plant on a small, narrow, strip
of land, sandwiched between the QEW, major rail lines, the Ford plant and close to homes
(400m away), to schools (350m away), and to businesses (some 100m away). The major railway
lines are so close that TransCanada has already asked for Oakville Town zone variance safety
exemptions on the site, to reduce the industrial zoned safety separation margins from 15m down
to only 7.5m. Accidents happen! I believe, that the recent accidental rail derailment in
Pickering, had rail cars derailing and traveling some 61m (200ft) off the tracks. Such a similar
accident at this power plant site could cause significant damage to anything, including the huge
concentrated Ammonia tanks used to neutralize and reduce the plants noxious emissions. How
would Oakville or for that matter Ontario deal with pollution of this magnitude if an accident
happened; the huge cloud of Ammonia (explosive) ; the potential huge health hazard to nearby
residences; the health hazard to the thousands of people traveling through the area if this
happened?
Security of supply is quoted for neighbourhood power plants. What about the "security" to the
thousands who travel to work on the QEW or by rail each day, right by the plant?
I am told that this plant will be using water from Lake Ontario for cooling purposes, then the
warmed water will be returned to the lake. Apart from all the environmental questions on what
this heated will do to algae blooms, fish species etc., some of this water will be emitted as a
water vapour plume; when this freezes this will cause icing on the surrounding roads. Will this
be dangerous to drivers locally, on the QEW, on the rail lines, or all of the above and could it
cause accidents?
What about “the security of the plant”? With all these people in near proximity, any major
disruption or terrorist attack would close all roads and rail around the plant. Since this would
apply to the QEW, and some of the busiest rail lines in Canada; this would be catastrophe for the
economy; for the environment; and if the worst happened for loss of life.
Surely, saner councils will prevail and putting polluting, hazardous power plants of any
description near to residential neighbourhoods will not be allowed. In addition, any power plants
that are built must employ the latest technology to reduce emissions, no matter where they are,
and as new technologies arrive to further reduce emissions, such as carbon capturing, those
technologies must also be employed so that we can truly be contributing to reducing Global
warming and reducing air pollution!