Dear Editor,
I have written before that solar power is a viable alternative to the gas-to shore project, e.g., https://www.stabroeknews.com/2021/04/07/opinion/letters/solar-energy-far-cheaper-than-gas-to-shore-project-ppp-c-not-paying-attention/. So it is hard to understand why someone as supposedly qualified and experienced as Tara Singh would make claims like in SN of July 12, 2021 without criticizing specifics of what I have written. Reference to the Guyana Energy Agency installations cannot be helpful without knowing how many installed watts are still functioning. In my experience, lack of proper management is the greatest downfall of solar power. If a management consultant does not know that, then he has limited familiarity with solar power.
Systems for which I had early 2020 invoices include batteries for US$2 per imported, installed and delivered watt, and were dimensioned for 2 rainy days in an average household. 250 MW of such power would cost US$500M. Operating inductive motors for industrial purposes would require virtual reactive power that would have to come from the solar power. This could be provided from the present fossil fuel system, or from using more installed watts. Responsibly managed industrial installations in Guyana should have a power factor of at least 80%, which means that 313 MW would have to be installed instead of 250 MW. But this would only cost US$626M, and not the US$900M for the gas-to-shore project. In other countries, like the USA, the power factor is not less than 95%, meaning that only 263 MW would have to be installed in such an efficient infrastructure to deliver the same 250 MW. Appropriate (appliance) technology can also bring down costs.
The gas-to-shore project would have to have almost all the investment from the beginning, whereas the solar power could be installed gradually, with almost no maintenance, but with strict adherence to operational instructions. The gas-to-shore project should indeed lower present power costs significantly from the current 26 US cents of the household tariff, but its touted 3 US cents per kWh does not include maintenance, transmission and distribution from the one (Wales) location.
We experience shutdowns in only managing the current 150 MW from GPL. The public is sometimes graced with the reason, like transformer on fire, or something tripped. But all we hear is that a root cause analysis is being done, never what the root cause was. How can 250 more MW be managed from one location? Why not use the solar power systems from many locations, gradually without the mortgaging the country’s financial resources in big investments, while the wider population equally gradually acquires the expertise in managing alternative energy? This is better planning, which the central big power operators have not yet grasped.
Yours faithfully,
Alfred Bhulai
