Archives

by J. Varnakulasinghe

Coal was and is the main fuel for electricity generation worldwide: it was and is the cheapest fuel for us. Further burning low sulphur (high-energy) coal deploying 'clean coal technology' minimizes the cost per unit generated, and ensures negligible pollution.

Proposed thermal power project in Trincomalee

During the design stage of our largest hydro-the Mahaweli Hydro Complex (MHC) - in 1978, the consultants and the CEB became aware that the rapidly growing demand for electricity would soon exceed our widely variable and limited monsoon rain dependent hydro capability. They decided therefore that the CEB would commission a 300 MW coal-fired power station by 1992 for providing the base load: hydro was to provide the peak load and the MHC power stations have been built to serve this specific purpose.

The steam turbines used in coal power stations are highly reliable and can be run at full load continuously day in day out: such plant were ideal for base load-base load being the minimum continuous load of the system. Coal fired plant are no quite suited for intermittent or variable load such as peak load - hydro is ideal for such purposes. Thus the arrangement, for the CEB to build a coal plant for base load and use hydro for peaking, made both engineering and economic sense.

The reduced availability of water during dry weather made the imposition of power cuts unavoidable from the early years of our dependence on hydro power for electricity: 50 MW of back-up thermal plant were commissioned in 1960 to provide the shortfall of supply resulting from the reduction in the supply of water. At the design stage of the MHC, it was agreed to increase the backup thermal by 200 MW, till coal was commissioned in 1992.

However, in 1989 the CEB decided to continue with hydro and back-up thermal and put off commissioning coal to 2006: as for power cuts they were shown in CEB computations to occur very rarely.

Nevertheless, power cuts were imposed for 41 days in 1992, 170 days in 1996, six months in 2001 and five months in 2002!

Further, the severity of power cuts have increased and those from 1996 have depressed the economy putting several small industries out of business. The power cuts of 2001 and 2002 have made the CEB heavily indebted to the banks due to the high cost of purchasing emergency power: high tariffs have of late transferred the burden of debt to consumers.

The table below illustrates the evolving situation since 1995.

Column 2 gives the annual GWh (millions of units) generated beginning 1995, whilst Column 4 gives the projection made by the CEB in 1995 for each of those years: the difference between the projection (Column 4) and the GWh generated (Column 2) is shown in Column 5. Column 3 shows the annual percentage growth in demand.)

Column 5 clearly suggests that the effect of power cuts is cumulative. It is pertinent therefore to look at the provision of hydro and thermal back-up plant made after 1989 by the CEB to ensure a power cut free supply to the nation.

All the hydros envisaged after the completion of the MHC are run of the river type: they can provide electricity only when the rivers are running, not in dry weather: they therefore provide no security against power cuts brought on by dry weather.

The Samanalawewa hydro completed in 1992, the Kukule under construction and the Upper Kotmale - the starting of which is in dispute - could under average rainfall conditions provide 361, 303 and 530 GWh respectively: however each costs as much as a 300 MW coal power station that could provide double the total output of all three even in a very dry year!

The CEB justifies the building of these run of the river hydros on the grounds that they are built on soft loans with very long repayment periods. But what the CEB does not highlight is that the loan only covers 70%, and that the balance (30% local costs) is met by the CEB: this means that when all three hydros have been built the CEB would have virtually paid for a 300 MW coal plant, yet the nation could suffer power cuts during dry weather.

The back-up thermal plant built since 1996 by Independent Power Producers (IPP) are all run on residual fuel or furnace oil, minimizing running costs. The CEB on the other hand opted for the 115 MW Fiat GT as thermal backup: this plant is operated on expensive auto diesel which makes the fuel costs per unit very high, and this has compelled the CEB to operate it only as a last resort. Moreover, this Fiat GT and the 6 smaller GT - purchased in the 1980s - have frequently failed and needed many expensive overhauls. Nonetheless the CEB has now opted for 150 MW Combined Cycle (CC) - a GT that uses its waste heat for generating additional units cheaply.

The CEB has ignored the hard fact that the reliability of CC is no better than its integral GT, and that the failure of such a GT will reduce generating capacity by 150 MW and may compel the CEB to impose power cuts. Thus since 1992 the CEB has been providing hydro plant that will run only in wet weather backed up by costly far from reliable auto diesel operated thermal plant: this regrettably is to be the policy till a coal plant is commissioned by the CEB in Trinco in 2008. This is certainly not a situation for anyone to be complaisant about for oil prices are rising and will escalate in the event of a Middle East conflict, and work cannot start at Trinco till peace is established - the Prime Minister is of the view that it will take at least three years.

The Ministry of Power supports the CEB view that the first coal plant should be built by the CEB and no one else, and that it must be built in Trinco and nowhere else. The CEB has no civil engineering capability so some paid servants of the CEB - consultants, contractors etc. - will be given the tasks, and importantly the responsibility, of designing and building the coal power station.

Thus all that is meant by the proposition that the CEB must build the first coal plant is that the Government will find the hundreds of billions of Rupees which the CEB will disperse - well the citizens of this country will of course pay the bill as always! Have the Prime Minister and his Cabinet not the collective responsibility for providing this nation with a low cost, adequate and reliable supply? As they obviously do they needs must save us from power cuts, high prices and economic decline.

Hopefully, they will stop the frivolity of providing a coal plant at Norachcholai, Trinco etc. by the CEB on unlikely dates and opt for the building a coal plant on a BOO basis by an experienced developer at any site of his choice by a specific date for the delivery of an agreed quantum energy at a low cost. In 1992 we needed a 300 MW coal plant, today we need 600 MW due to the growth of demand, so a coal plant is of the utmost urgency.

The Prime Minister and his Cabinet will be judged on what they have achieved in this regard when the next election comes along. The last government was ridiculed for depending on rain and low cost oil: today the CEB announced that the water levels in the reservoirs are low and the media that oil prices are rising. The Government would be foolhardy to leave matters as they are, therefore.

(The writer was a Director, Engineering and Board Member CEB)

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager