AGL 40.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
AIRLINK 129.06 Decreased By ▼ -0.47 (-0.36%)
BOP 6.75 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.05%)
CNERGY 4.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-3.02%)
DCL 8.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.39 (-4.36%)
DFML 40.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.87 (-2.09%)
DGKC 80.96 Decreased By ▼ -2.81 (-3.35%)
FCCL 32.77 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFBL 74.43 Decreased By ▼ -1.04 (-1.38%)
FFL 11.74 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (2.35%)
HUBC 109.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.97 (-0.88%)
HUMNL 13.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.81 (-5.56%)
KEL 5.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-1.48%)
KOSM 7.72 Decreased By ▼ -0.68 (-8.1%)
MLCF 38.60 Decreased By ▼ -1.19 (-2.99%)
NBP 63.51 Increased By ▲ 3.22 (5.34%)
OGDC 194.69 Decreased By ▼ -4.97 (-2.49%)
PAEL 25.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.94 (-3.53%)
PIBTL 7.39 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-3.52%)
PPL 155.45 Decreased By ▼ -2.47 (-1.56%)
PRL 25.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.94 (-3.52%)
PTC 17.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.96 (-5.2%)
SEARL 78.65 Decreased By ▼ -3.79 (-4.6%)
TELE 7.86 Decreased By ▼ -0.45 (-5.42%)
TOMCL 33.73 Decreased By ▼ -0.78 (-2.26%)
TPLP 8.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.66 (-7.28%)
TREET 16.27 Decreased By ▼ -1.20 (-6.87%)
TRG 58.22 Decreased By ▼ -3.10 (-5.06%)
UNITY 27.49 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.22%)
WTL 1.39 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.72%)
BR100 10,445 Increased By 38.5 (0.37%)
BR30 31,189 Decreased By -523.9 (-1.65%)
KSE100 97,798 Increased By 469.8 (0.48%)
KSE30 30,481 Increased By 288.3 (0.95%)

Apropos editorial "Energy squabbles" carried by Business Recorder on February 19, highlighted, once again, how dangerously miscalculated are our objectives to meet the energy challenges to ensure both availability and affordability!
We missed our essential hydel power objectives at least three decades back and since then, we are only interested in "band-aid" solutions just to meet short-term objectives, with no one to enforce a sensible long term policy, based primarily on energy conservation and renewable energy, not only to control energy costs but, just as important, reduce carbon foot-print causing very damaging climate change! To meet our short-term targets, we have chosen the path of thermal power plants with no concept of efficiency or environmental control. The imported coal-based power plants, both with poor efficiency and very high environmental pollution should never have been considered but we are bent upon creating a highly damaging chain, with enormous coal handling problems at the port and then long distance rail transportation in a big way, before damaging the agricultural heartland forever. We advised against use of high sulphur furnace oil in the 1990s and those areas where power plants have damaged the ecology forever only confirm the worst fears since coal will create a bigger mess. You can see the deteriorating environmental conditions near port areas handling "small" quantities of coal at present so what will happen when we will be handling enormous quantities of coal and transporting it to upcountry?
Since we simply cannot plan for efficiency, and thus reduced energy costs, our announcement for "highest efficiency" combined cycle power plants, based on RLNG, will again not meet the objectives. The announced 61% thermal efficiency is only a "mirage" since this rating is based on theoretical ISO conditions, which have no relevance to actual site conditions where these power plants are to be installed. Due to altitude and ambient temperatures under normal summer conditions, the efficiency will drop by about 10-12% and under peak summer conditions, there will be further 10% drop so what will be the actual fuel costs? Firstly, based on RLNG, the base costs will be high and then due to site conditions, these costs will increase and all such increases will be passed on to the tariff since all fuel costs are pass-through item.
Let us try to analyze what the world is doing to meet the energy challenges. The European Commission has just issued a fact sheet covering the following:
a) Increase the share of renewable: Energy efficiency and deployment of renewable energy complement each other so present approach should have been good utilisation of solar energy, coupled with efficient gas-fired power plant.
b) Reuse energy "waste": Direct feed in the shape of heat for steam and hot water or industrial and comfort cooling via cogeneration the best way to ensure very high thermal efficiency. Only combined cycle approach covers only a very small requirement of high efficiency.
c) Infrastructure development: Authorities have a key role in creating right regulations and helping to develop infrastructure needed to use waste heat potential. If there was a planning on national level, we would have seen all gated communities, presently using enormous energy and at high cost, re-design to efficient cogeneration power plant.
The European Commission has recommended further emphasis on waste heat utilisation (to increase efficiency), even though Europe has already the highest share of cogeneration in electricity and heat production globally.
Our lack of commitment for efficiency is, unfortunately, prevalent in the best of our organisations. Both SSGC and SNGPL are supposed to ensure efficient cogeneration design before gas supply can be sanctioned but over the years, this basic requirement has been ignored, resulting in total collapse of professional approach in literally thousands of captive power plant installations, all operating at low efficiency and wasting precious gas. Our present energy plans have no consideration of efficiency. How can we ever solve our energy problems?

Copyright Business Recorder, 2016

Comments

Comments are closed.