This Jamaica Gleaner letter to the editor is in response to Lisa Hanna’s letter in which she says Jamaica should look into clean coal and admits clean coal is harmful to environment.

Kindly permit me the privilege of commenting on Ms Lisa Hanna’s letter on the subject of ‘clean coal’ as an energy source for Jamaica.

Ms Hanna, I beg to disagree with you.

No well-informed individual will disagree that coal-fired energy plants are more reliable and cost-effective as an energy source than natural gas. However, the subject of coal energy, per se, is quite complicated. One should be properly apprised of all facets on the subject in order to make a positive viable assessment on the issue.

First, there is a vast technical difference between, ‘clean coal’, and ‘truly clean coal’. Traditional clean coal technology applies to a process that adduces the extraction of certain impure substances from the coal, thus opening the way for the existing carbon and oxygen to react when the coal is burned and subsequent to burning, the ash residue is then filtered out along with some pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide from the emissions. This process only reduces the nuisance of the environmental pollutants causing acid rain and smog.

When the coal mining industry classifies coal as emission-free coal (clean coal), they are referring to the removal of the public nuisance pollutants, and not to the elimination of the greenhouse emissions which causes climate change as specified in the accords in the International Standards agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, which puts the onus on mining companies to produce truly refined carbon-free coal, or ‘carbon zero emissions coal’.

Grave political concern

Neither the United States nor China, the two largest producers and consumers of coal, has ratified the Kyoto Protocol agreement, for reasons related to the sensitive political implications on their economies. Partly out of genuine concern and partly in response to strong environmentalist lobbying, the US has given a time frame to their coal industry to comply with the standards of the accord. The US uses 50 per cent and China 80 per cent coal for their total power-based generation.

In order to meet the criteria of the International Accord for truly clean coal, the coal-mining companies would be giving an edge to the other competing energy sources, because of the resulting high cost to be incurred by consumers, if and when the transition is made. This prognosis is foreseen to premise to the possibility of coal being either reduced in importance, or being phased out of the energy market, and in the process creating serious dislocations in the large coal mining labour force. And this is an issue of grave political concern.

A further downside is the fact that established accessible coal reserves world-wide, at the current rate of consumption, will be depleted in just over 200 years, which period will definitely be lowered should China pursue its plans to export a significant portion of its coal production. This single fact makes it imprudent, or less than feasible, to make an investment in coal for energy purposes at this time.

Alternative energy solar-oriented institutions, such as Suntech and Kyocera, solar power, wind energy entities, such as Suzion, Siemens and General Electric; natural gas firms, such as British Petroleum, Chevron and Anadarko, Hydroelectric energy engineering and Hydrogen research entities, are aggressively posturing their environmentally friendly status; and may eventually succeed in removing coal from being the major energy source – a position it has maintained since the industrial revolution.

The use of coal energy necessitates storage stockpiling, which is done by creating open storage facilities, or by the construction of special silos; both methods present a range of hazardous challenges, including spontaneous combustion, carbon monoxide and other undesirable gas emissions, dust nuisance, respiratory health issues, etc. All of which require the use of expensive equipment to contain, supported by constant monitoring.

The cost of transporting natural gas is prohibitive. To convey it by sea requires the condensing of the gas to a liquid form (LNG) before it is encapsulated in cryptogenic tanks, fitted in special vessels prepared for that purpose. Over land it requires special pipe lines to convey it to high pressure storage tanks. The major challenge here is illegal siphoning and sabotage either at the wharf or along the pipe run.

Russia has the largest proven reserves of natural gas while Qatar has the largest gas field. Pockets of natural gas are being discovered on a regular basis in several regions of the world. It is also available from sources such as bogs, swamps, and shale, as well as in oil wells, and coal mines; which reasons makes it extremely difficult to arrive at any accurate data as the duration of the availability of natural gas from established reliable sources. At the current rate of consumption, natural gas is expected to last 150 years.

Although natural gas is being touted by the industry as being the fuel of the 21st century, scientists have warned of the imprudence of taking such a pronouncement seriously, as only approximately three per cent of natural gas is being used in the world’s total power generation at this time; and should this rise, the available natural gas would be seriously depleted. Advanced plans are in place to replace the use of fossil energy generation with alternative renewable sources by the year 2030. At present, however, there is no available substitute for aviation fuel, which must await the perfection of hydrogen fuel technology; the energy fuel of the future.

The most viable suggestions for Jamaica at this time is to engage the use of a combination of hydroelectric and wind-powered energy generation, coupled with using solar power for street lighting, investing in an autoclaving facility, which converts the waste disposal available from our garbage dump sites, and sewage-disposal systems to fuel.

Explore autoclaving

In the United Kingdom, just such a facility is being constructed at an estimated cost of US$70 million, which is destined to be the largest of its kind in the world. This technology not only provides an efficient solution to the waste disposal problems, it converts waste to energy. All waste goes into the system, without any need for any form of separation into various categories. The possibility of building such a plant in Jamaica with the support of interested Caribbean Community partners, should be fully explored.

Autoclaving provides:

  1. (a) Biofuel – second generation bioethanol, biodiesel and biobutanol.
  2. (b) Biofuel to be co-fired in conventional, and biomass power stations.
  3. (c) Biofuel for conversion to biogas using anaerobic digestion technology to produce fuel for industrial boilers, and motor vehicles as well as household gas, etc.

(d) Independence from imported fuels reduced to 80 per cent of the sum currently expended to purchase fossil fuels, as well as giving a competitive edge to exporters. Lowering the cost of public transportation and energy used for industrial and domestic consumption, etc.

(e) An investment of a sum less than two-thirds of the proposed cost of the United Kingdom’s plant could supply our energy needs and recouped the sum invested in a relatively short time.

I am, etc.,

HUGH WILLIAMS

psytech616@yahoo.com

Kingston 8

Jamaica Gleaner

A solar panel used at the Ecological farm near...
Image via Wikipedia

Allow me space in your publication to respond to a letter in which Member of Parliament Lisa Hanna defends her thesis on ‘clean coal‘ as a possible energy source on which to build our economic future.

I’m quite in agreement on the points made in her first two paragraphs, but must violently disagree on her postulation about Jamaica’s economic future being built on cheap energy source, and that source being clean coal. Her view about the stability of coal price is myopic.

May I remind her about our cheap bauxite in the 1970s, how it became expensive when we thought that all and sundry were benefiting – except us, the primary producer. All commodities are subject to market manipulation, politically or otherwise.

Here is my solution for building our economy, by marrying two renewable resources, our people and renewable energy, we will create a symbiosis which has perpetuity. Consider the vehicle you love, the great value lies in the head of those who manufactured it, so will the solution to solve our energy needs. For it is the value that is added to any resource that gives value, by developing our human resource to harness the abundant energy which bathe our beloved island daily we will have a dependable source of energy, and can even be net exporters of energy-harvesting equipment.

No good foundation

MP Hanna points to the competitiveness of economies having cheaper energy source, but here are the calculations. For solar energy, the most expensive at present price using a life of about 40 years, the cost is US 13 cents per kilowatt-hour and set to go down as the industry matures.

She said coal-based power supplies 40 per cent of the world’s electricity and this is set to go up with China’s ever increasing wealth and its desire to improve the lot of its citizens. Coal, whether clean or not, is set to see greater demand and, hence, price movement. That’s not a good foundation on which to base a country’s future, when we have a source of energy that is in our hands, for a better way to build one’s future.

Global warming

We are all concerned about the global state of the world environment; research indicates that global warming is due, in part, to the use of fossil fuel. A shift to renewable energy will lead to a reduction of our carbon footprint. Over time, this could be brought near to zero.

This approach will render the development of resources in the constituency she now represents feasible, but further arguments can be made about the country as a whole. The natural scientists, business persons, civil engineers, manufacturers, artisans and even casual labourers will be beneficiaries of this policy approach. This is development.

In the final paragraphs of the letter, the issue of liquefied natural gas (LNG) was discussed. Again, as with her discussion on coal, the decision to embrace LNG as the fuel of choice is wrong. Proponents of both fuel miss the key issue. It is the human resource that should be at the centre of policy.

Both sets of proponents see the Jamaican people as objects to be exploited while a bone is thrown their way. I can show a policy path that can lead us into wealth, creativity and, finally, a proud people which have the capacity to solve our problems. My friends say there is a dinosaurian tendency among the young politicians, by association, and they are about to redo the failure of the last 48 years. We can point them the way to a better future.

I am, etc.,

AUBREY MURRAY

Atlantic Solar Corporation

10 Chisholm Avenue

Kingston 10

Jamaiaca Gleaner

see Lisa Hanna article below

Coal can supply north coast with power, says Hanna

Member of Parliament (MP) for South East St Ann, Lisa Hanna, is suggesting that, using the clean coal technology to safeguard the environment, a coal power plant located in St Ann could generate enough power to satisfy demands on Jamaica’s north coast.

“Right now Jamaica is producing energy at US$0.30 per kilowatt hour whereas countries which are competitive are producing at five cents,” Hanna told The Gleaner. “And you are not going to have persons running to do business in Jamaica if the energy costs are eating up their profit, which is also what is happening.”

The St Ann MP said she wanted efforts to be made to export limestone and bring in coal.

“If you look at a constituency like South East St Ann or South West St Ann, if you put a clean coal power plant up there you can power the entire north coast with it,” she argued. “That is something that I would like to realise.”

Hanna argued that the Government’s pursuit of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a solution to Jamaica’s energy problems would be an expensive venture when compared to using coal.

Energy and Mining Minister James Robertson has stated that Government’s LNG project was expected to save Jamaica US$1.2 billion in energy cost.

Expensive venture

However, according to Hanna, the cost would still be high as Jamaica would have to import the LNG.

“That is going to be an expensive venture and clean coal technology is technology that is being used in different places of the world quite successfully,” Hanna said. “And there are places that have the coal and need limestone and the ships could export (limestone) and import the coal at the same time.”

In the United States, the cost of a megawatt of electricity produced by coal runs between $20 and $30, while a megawatt of energy produced from natural gas ranges between $45 and $60.

Hanna’s comments reflect a concern expressed by Jamaicans who over the years have been calling for alternate sources of energy in order to reduce Jamaica’s dependency on oil. Solar, wind and hydropower sources have been suggested as viable alternatives.

Loan programme

The National Housing Trust (NHT) has taken a step in this direction by introducing a loan programme to assist home owners install solar powered water heaters in their homes.

Research shows that approximately 40 per cent of the world’s energy was derived from oil, while 23 per cent was derived from coal.

Experts estimate that, by 2025, 80 per cent of the world’s oil reserves would have been used. Coal reserves, on the contrary, are capable of lasting 1,000 years.

One drawback of the use of coal however, is that its negative impact on the environment is greater than oil and natural gas

Photovoltaic cells produce electricity directl...
Image via Wikipedia

The Government of Trinidad& Tobago is exploring the possibility of establishing a facility to produce glass and photovoltaic or solar cells, used to convert sunlight energy into electricity.

Energy Minister Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan said the People’s Partnership Government was looking at importing silica from Guyana to provide raw material for the glass and PV cell plant.

She was speaking earlier this week at a BG luncheon, hosted by energy company BG Trinidad and Tobago, in partnership with State bank First Citizens, at the Hilton Trinidad in Port of Spain.

Seepersad-Bachan said the project could cost around US$2.5 billion.

There is a huge export market for PV systems, solar and wind power systems, she said, adding it was critical the country moves towards energy efficiency.

Finance Minister Winston Dookeran said in the September 8 national budget, in Parliament, the Government would explore the development of alternative energy such as solar and wind energy and explore the prospect of developing a regional effort for the long-term sustainability of the country’s energy supply.

Seepersad-Bachan said the Government was also reintroducing the Petroleum Pricing Committee to ensure there was a system of transparency in the determination of energy prices.

She said the committee will be reintroduced after consultation with the Finance Minister.

Jamaica Observer

Flag of Jamaica See also: List of Jamaican flags
Image via Wikipedia

It seems there has been a hiccup in Minister of Energy James Robertson’s plan to move Jamaica into the ill advised Liquid Natural Gas sector. As we know LNG is a commodity with a a limited supply no matter how plentiful it seems now. Eventually price will rise and countries stuck on natural gas will be forced to pay whatever those who control the supply demand us to pay just like we are now seeing with oil. So why not push Jamaica towards solar or wind instead of spending US$600M on LNG? No one can get a straight answer besides all the corruption talk which has forced us to make some sad conclusions. The Jamaica Gleaner article today shows their may be some slight hope that JPS is wising up. Unless it’s just a political move that we will find out the reason for later on. Until then we can only hope renewable energy begins to take a more serious role in Jamaica for the economy’s sake. See Gleaner’s article below.

Household electric meter, USA
Image via Wikipedia

I received a bill from Jamaica Public Service via email on Monday morning (September 13). The bill had an amount due of $49,021.51. The readings were – Current meter reading: 3667 kWh; Previous estimated meter reading: 2106 kWh.

This varies from a normal bill of approximately $17,500 with absolutely no change in my consumption or usage pattern. A quick check on the meter showed that the current reading is in fact 2727 kWh, three days after the meter was ‘read’ on September 10. On the bill was a note AH1 which overleaf read:

“Your meter was read and our quality checks identified your reading as high. However, further checks suggest that the reading was correct and so it was used to bill your account.”

While the person at JPS promises to have the matter checked, it leaves me to ask three questions:

1. What “further checks” could JPS have done in the intervening period which covers Saturday and Sunday?

2. Were I not able to read the meter, what kind of hassle would I have to undergo to have this matter resolved?

3. Am I going to hear that the meter is malfunctioning after requesting at least three meter checks over the last two years and being told that the meter is correct?

Clearly, JPS needs to modify its procedures to ensure that cases like this actually undergo some sort of quality-control checks before they reach the consumer.

I am, etc.,

DONATH E. JUMPP

Jamaica Gleaner

Saying the issue was as fundamental as their survival, a group of micro and small businesses has collected close to 1,000 signatures on a petition handed to Prime Minister (PM) Bruce Golding pleading for support of the sector.

The MSME Alliance’s list of concerns runs the gamut of the expensive cost of doing business, and how to mitigate impact on companies’ bottom line.

Its list was mostly skewed towards access to credit and taming energy overheads, including a proposal to implement an energy subsidy financed from dividend payments to the Government on its one-fifth equity stake in the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS).

The proposal goes even further to suggest that Jamaica “assume ownership of transmission lines”, which are currently the property of the JPS. The utility is owned 40 per cent by Marubeni of Japan, 40 per cent by Taqa of the United Arab Emirates, 19.9 per cent by the Government of Jamaica through the accountant general and the Development Bank of Jamaica, while 0.1 per cent is held by individuals.

But the group is also seeking more duty concessions, the establishment of an agency that can sell “collateral cover” to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), and a more palatable credit policy that makes it easier for them to access investment capital.

The alliance – whose membership covers 35 business associations that represent some 300,000 businesses – staged a mock funeral for businesses in the MSME sector in August, which it dubbed ‘Bawl Out’, to bring public attention to the concerns.

list of concerns

From that event, and subsequent feedback from businesses, it has put together a 10-point list of concerns, which the group has asked Golding to give some consideration to before returning to the public-private sector Partnership for Transformation Talks.

They met with the PM on September 2, according to a release from the group.

“These signatures represent only a small fraction of the support we have received since our Bawl Out in Portmore Pines,” said Anthony Charley, first vice-president of the MSME Alliance.

“Our members are fighting for survival and we will continue to bawl out until we feel the support from the Government.”

The 10-point list, including sub-points – dubbed by the alliance as a large-scale national risk-management programme for MSMEs

Flag-map of Jamaica
Image via Wikipedia

An economic relationship between Stephen Wedderburn – the technical director for the Government’s effort to develop a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility in Jamaica – and the Belgian firm designated the preferred bidder on the project will likely be a major focus of Contractor General Greg Christie’s ongoing probe of the scheme, a series of emails and letters on the project obtained by The Gleaner suggest.

Wedderburn’s relationship with Ian Moore, the former chairman of the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica (PCJ) whose involvement in a consortium headed by the Belgian firm, Exmar Corporation, triggered Christie’s investigation, will also likely fall under scrutiny.

Wedderburn, who has not returned phone calls from The Gleaner, could not be contacted for comment.

No commercial relationship

But in a September 6 email last year, to then PCJ managing director Ruth Potopsingh, querying a delay in renewing his contract, Wedderburn confirmed his participation in a project in Colombia in which Exmar was also involved, but denied a specific relationship with the Belgian firm. He, however, undertook not to participate in the evaluation of any bid by that company.

Said Wedderburn: “In terms of a connection with Exmar, please note that on numerous occasions I have explained to officials at the ministry of energy and mining, including the former permanent secretary (Marcia Forbes), that I have been involved in a project to develop floating LNG liquefaction in Colombia. Exmar is also involved in this project, but I do not have any commercial relationship with Exmar.”

He added: “Nevertheless, if the project is successful both Exmar and I will benefit. My involvement in the project was on a success-fee basis and even where I have ceased active involvement in the project, I will still have a financial interest. I have no other commercial connections with Exmar.

“Given this background, it has already been decided that I would not be involved in the evaluation of any LNG FSRU proposals for Jamaica.”

Wedderburn accused persons he did not name, of “creating a red herring out of this matter” and complained about being assigned work without pay.

Wedderburn did not provide details of the Colombia project, or say what work he did on it, or the level of his potential compensation.

Wedderburn, a former official of the now defunct National Investment Bank of Jamaica, has worked on LNG efforts to shift a substantial segment of the nation’s energy requirement from oil to natural gas.

He joined the PCJ in 2004 as group technical director and a year later was assigned to the Cabinet office to work on the LNG project with Anthony Hylton, who former Prime Minister P.J. Patterson had named to spearhead the project.

He returned to the PCJ when Portia Simpson Miller, who succeeded Patterson, reverted the LNG scheme to the central government and the PCJ, under the direction of then energy minister Phillip Paulwell.

When Simpson Miller’s administration lost office in September 2007, Wedderburn continued to work on the project. The project, however, had slowed down under new energy minister Clive Mullings, who had a greater partiality to coal than LNG.

It was during that period that Wedderburn worked with Ian Moore, who had been appointed by the new administration as chairman of the PCJ.

Fuel diversification

Moore was a strong advocate of LNG and, insiders suggest, it was this difference with the minister that was partially responsible for his firing by Mullings in November 2008.

Soon after Moore’s departure from the PCJ, Wedderburn followed and joined the Colombia liquefaction project, sometime in 2009. He, however, returned to the PCJ on a consultancy basis when Mullings was himself fired by Prime Minister Bruce Golding and replaced by James Robertson.

Robertson was clearly keen on Wedderburn rejoining his team, as was firmly stated in an August 2009 letter by his then permanent secretary, Forbes, to the PCJ’s Potopsingh.

Declaring the Government’s decision to give natural gas priority in “its fuel diversification plan”, Forbes said: “We wish to confirm that Mr Stephen Wedderburn is to be employed by the PCJ as project coordinator.”

It is not clear whether Wedderburn stuck to the undertaking of not participating in the evaluation of the proposals on a project for which, despite the Government’s engagement of foreign consultants to help, he was the key domestic technocrat.

It is, however, known that Wedderburn formulated the arguments against Jamaica acceding to the request of two major potential bidders, Korea Gas Corporation (Kogas) and Samsung C&T Corporation (Samsung), for more time to file proposals. This effectively left Exmar consortium – which includes a firm, Caribbean LNG Jamaica Ltd, in which Moore is apparently a major shareholder – the sole bidder on the LNG project.

Request for proposals

When the PCJ, the vehicle used by the Jamaican Government for its energy projects, put out its request for proposals on the LNG project, it set a close date of February 15. But by early January Kogas, Samsung and Gloat LNG of Oslo, Norway, were signaling they could not make that date.

On February 4, the two South Korean firms, Kogas and Samsung followed up their informal communications with a letter to Wedderburn and then PCJ chairman Kathryn Phipps, formally requesting an extension to April 30. They argued that the proposed time frame to complete the proposal for such a complex project was too tight.

“… We need further time … in order to meet the RFP’s requirements properly and provide a far better proposal for your esteemed company … Otherwise, we will inevitably not be in the position to proceed further and to stop here without participating in the tender,” stated the letter signed by Hyeok Lee, Kogas’ senior manager, and Samsung’s deputy general manager, Se-Ik Oh.

But days earlier, in response to the firms’ initial intimation they needed the extra time, Wedderburn, in an email to Hillary Alexander, who by then had replaced Marcia Forbes as the permanent secretary in the energy ministry, was expressing his opposition to the extension. That email was copied to Phipps and other members of the PCJ board.

Wedderburn argued that the original bidding of “slightly in excess of 90 days” was “the standard period for bid exercises of this type”.

In any event, he said, two firms had said they would deliver their bids on time.

“This extension request, coming from a group that has not previously developed an FSRU project, suggests that inexperience may be the underlying cause for the request,” he said.

He also claimed that a delay would risk the collapse of the project because of the likely jitteriness of potential natural gas customers. Moreover, he said, Jamaica’s reputation in the LNG industry was “pretty tattered” because of its failure over the years to bring its announced project on stream. A further delay would brand Jamaica as “flirts” in the LNG market.

Alexander agreed. In a response the same day to Wedderburn and copied to the PCJ board, she said: “I agree with your analysis. In my considered opinion, and given the policy directives and the extension already given (in December 2009), further extensions should not be contemplated.”

Later, when it seemed that the PCJ board might still have been keen to grant the extension, Alexander stamped her authority on the matter in another email to Wedderburn. She insisted it was both a procurement and policy matter, demanding that the PCJ directors “act within the guidelines and policy framework” of the Government”.

In the end, PCJ received two tenders, one from the Norwegian firm Hoegh LNG, and the other from the Exmar consortium. Hoegh’s bid, however, did not cover the gas pipeline of the request for proposal.

But questions have since been raised over whether the Exmar consortium, which includes the Colombian pipeline company Promegas and CLNG, had inside information. Indeed, it was out of such accusations that the Office of the Contractor General launched its investigation into the bidding process.

CLNG Jamaica, for which Jamaica company records list Moore as a director but not a shareholder, is, according to these documents, 80 per cent owned by Caribbean LNG, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands (BVI).

Both Moore and another CLNG Jamaica director are believed to major shareholders in the BVI-based firm. In June, Moore wrote to a trust services company in that British territory giving permission for the Jamaican contractor general to peruse its records.

Caribbean LNG Jamaica was incorporated in Kingston in June last year, seven months after he demitted office as chairman of PCJ, but the contractor general suggested that this did not rule out “a potential conflict of interest, taking into consideration Mr Ian Moore’s former position as board chairman of the PCJ and his now documented position as a director of the local company, Caribbean LNG Jamaica Ltd”.

Additionally, the OCG’s investigation would seek to determine whether Moore’s prior involvement in the consideration by the PCJ of the LNG project would have given the companies, with which he is now involved, an advantage in the procurement process, which was “initiated in earnest in April 2007 and which overlapped his tenure as PCJ board chairman”.

Development guidance

Critics of the way in which the project has evolved, also have other concerns, including the seeming shifting role to be played by Caribbean LNG in the arrangement.

For instance, outlining Exmar consortium structure describes Caribbean LNG Jamaica as being formed for the “sole purpose of providing development guidance to the consortium partners for the LNG infrastructure RFP and potential implementation and execution”.

But a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Caribbean LNG and the other consortium partners, as well as documents delivered to banks for possible financing said it intended “to take part in natural gas and LNG marketing in relation to the project”, which was to be covered by a separate MOU.

Jamaica Gleaner

Enhanced by Zemanta