SUMMER is upon us and the desire to run the fan longer or even turn on the air-conditioning unit will rise.

But remember, so too will your light bill.

If the satisfaction of reducing how much you pay JPS for electricity used is not enough incentive for you to conserve, think about the thousands of dollars that could go to your bank account each year.

Residential consumers of electricity pay Jamaica Public Service (JPS) an average of $31 and $40 for each kilowatt-hour (kWh), depending on how much is used in any given month.

The price paid for electricity is higher for those with greater appetites for energy. That’s because the energy rate for each kWh above the first 100 kWh is 2.3 times the rate for the first 100 kWh

We note Energy Minister Phillip Paulwell’s intention of reintroducing the scheme that gave households energy-saving light bulbs in exchange for incandescent ones.

We back the idea if the Cubans, who donated the first set of bulbs, do in fact have more to give, and if we can be assured that there will be proper oversight. For the last effort was not only an embarrassment to Mr Paulwell’s People’s National Party administration, but Jamaica, generally.

The minister’s then deputy, and others, were accused of siphoning off millions of light bulbs for personal benefit and of setting up dummy companies to manage the distribution. These allegations are still before the court.

Any new arrangement must be beyond suspicion.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.

Read more:

 

There are now many general-purpose consumer LED bulbs that give off good light. With so many, how can you tell the difference?

After years of work, LED lighting company have finally achieved their goal of producing a good replacement for the common 60-watt incandescent bulb.

Cree earlier this week released a bulb that mimics the light and shape of the conventional incandescent with aggressive pricing, ranging from just under $10 for a 40-watt equivalent to just under $14 for a 60-watt equivalent. (See,

JPS bills councils separately for LED lamps

Disconnects when payments aren’t made

Erica Virtue, Senior Gleaner Writer

A practice by the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) to charge parish councils separately for light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs on roadways is infuriating councils, which claim that light is being disconnected from major thoroughfares.

The JPS has disconnected electricity on Ocean Boulevard, forcing the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) to hoist high voltage bright lights atop its building to provide light for the area.

The same is true for the busy and accident-prone Marcus Garvey Drive, as light has been disconnected for non-payment of bills, even though the JPS still bills the Kingston and St Andrew Corporation (KSAC) $58 million monthly.

Last Wednesday, Town Clerk Errol Green said the KSAC has been examining different technologies to reduce the amount it pays to the JPS.

As part of that trend, all new roads in the municipality have been outfitted with low sodium bulbs.

“Even as I speak to you, the JPS has disconnected the light along Ocean Boulevard and along Marcus Garvey Drive. There are no lights there,” charged Green.

Ocean Boulevard bill

According to the town clerk, the UDC is responsible for the lights along Ocean Boulevard, but it is unfair for the JPS to ask the state entity to pay that bill when it already receives payment from the KSAC for streetlights.

Green said it was the view of some councils that the JPS was resisting efforts to use lower wattage bulbs across the system.

“At nights, the UDC has had to put up some bright bulbs on top of its buildings to provide light for the area, because the JPS has disconnected it,” claimed Green.

He said the bulbs on Ocean Boulevard were regular bulbs and not LED bulbs.

In the case of Marcus Garvey Drive along the dualised area near Tinson Pen aerodrome, the streetlights have been disconnected.

“There are no lights there, even though they still bill us. But those are more efficient bulbs that have been included,” said Green.

In defence of its actions, JPS said LED bulbs were not in the system at the time the rate approval was granted by the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) and it is hoping to develop a specific rate for these bulbs.

Corporate relations manager at the JPS, Winsome Callum, said LED lamps account for less than 0.5 per cent of the total number of streetlights in the system and as a consequence the overall impact on bills would not be significant.

In the case of the disconnected sections of Washington Boulevard along the new stretch of road, Callum said: “During the period when the LED streetlights were in the name of the subcontractor no payment was made which resulted in disconnection,”

However the KSAC has rubbished the claims.

According to Green, the KSAC is billed separately for that stretch as the subcontractor was forced to take, a contract in his name as “that was the only way light would have been provided”.

According to Callum the JPS is moving to clarify the issue of the LED bulbs.

“The long-term plan is to have standardise LED streetlights across the system. The JPS is therefore now developing rates specific to LED lamps for consideration and approval by the OUR at the next rate review.”

erica.virtue@gleanerjm.com

Read more:

ENERGY STAR is an international standard for energy efficient consumer products originated in the United States of America. It was created in 1992 by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. Since then, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Taiwan and the European Union have adopted the program. Devices carrying the Energy Star service mark, such as computer products and peripherals, kitchen appliances, buildings and other products, generally use 20%

 

Kelly Tomblin, the new CEO of the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS), the light and power company, has started well. Rather, in her first interview with this newspaper, she was soothing.

But neither empathy nor intent to soften the hardened image of the JPS will be enough. If JPS is to be a player in Jamaica’s energy future, it has to be fully engaged in efforts for the efficient delivery of power to customers, which will require it to be a vastly more efficient operation.

Put another way, it just won’t do for the JPS to use two barrels of oil equivalent to generate the electricity to light a simple 100-watt incandescent bulb for a year. Nor can it be tolerated that more than 70 per cent of the fuel, mostly expensive oil, it consumes goes to waste, producing nothing.

Indeed, JPS has to convince Jamaicans that it can, and will, be a serious contributor to efforts to slash the price of electricity from around US$0.41 per kilowatt-hour to the US$0.10-US$0.15 required for the Jamaican economy to have a reasonable chance of competing with its neighbours.

In this regard, the contribution of the Energy Think Tank at the University of the West Indies, Mona, to the energy debate, by making the issue accessible to most people – such as with the light bulb example – is important.

The group bases its conclusion on the fact that the value of a barrel of oil equivalent is 1.7 megawatt hours, or 1,700 kilowatt-hours (kWh). A 100-watt incandescent bulb, burning continuously for 365 days, or 8,760 hours, would consume 876 kilowatt-hours, or 51 per cent of the electricity output of a barrel of oil equivalent.

But at the rate at which JPS converts its fuel to electricity, the company gets only 35 per cent of its energy value. Old equipment and other inefficiencies mean that 65 per cent goes up in smoke – literally.

Rethink both cost and technology

Of the electricity generated by the little more than one-third of a barrel of oil that is actually converted to power, 23 per cent is lost in transmission and distribution, a combination of technical loss and consumer theft. So, only 27 per cent of the potential energy from a barrel of oil burned by JPS reaches its consumers, or, in this case, the Energy Think Tank’s 100-watt bulb.

That’s untenable!

We note Ms Tomblin’s allusion to the 360-megawatt gas-fired plant that JPS won a tender to install, which promises to cut the cost of electricity by a third. That is a start, but hardly the full solution to an energy-competitive Jamaican economy. For while fuel type is critical, it is not the only issue relevant to the delivery of competitive power in Jamaica. Plant technology, for instance, will be important, as well its financing cost.

These matters need to be fully and honestly ventilated – from all angles. So, too, must be the matter of competition.

On the latter point, given her assertion about the inefficacy of multiple grids in small countries, we suppose that Ms Tomblin has not yet been fully briefed on the competition model for transmission and distribution floated by the Government.

We look forward to an informed discourse, but urgent action.

 

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120425/cleisure/cleisure1.html

About 871lb of coal is needed to power a 100-watt light bulb for 12 months.

 

RESEARCH CONDUCTED by a University of the West Indies energy think tank indicates that coal is the most efficient energy source in powering a light bulb.

Arguing that given the current inefficiencies in the electricity production and distribution system, it takes approximately two barrels of oil to keep a 100-watt light bulb burning continuously for a year, the think tank said using coal-generated energy to do the same job would reduce the cost significantly.

“Using LNG instead of oil would cost roughly half the amount to burn the light bulb, and using coal would be about one-seventh the cost,” the group said.

The think tank said using current prices, it would cost US$178.70 to purchase two barrels of oil to power the incandescent bulb. It said if coal were to be utilised to do a similar job, it would take only 396 kilograms (871lb) of the product at a cost of US$23.8, or 13 per cent of the cost of oil. The think tank also said liquefied natural gas (LNG) would be a more expensive option to coal. The researchers argue that it would require 333 litres of LNG to power the same 100-watt bulb, which would cost US$83.3, or 47 per cent of the cost of oil.

See full column http://gleaner-ja.com/gleaner/20120423/news/news2.html.

‘Using LNG instead of oil would cost roughly half the amount to burn the light bulb, and using coal would be about one-seventh the cost.’

About 871lb of coal is needed to power a 100-watt light bulb for 12 months.

 

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120423/lead/lead2.html