Dear Editor,
The Norconsult Report repeatedly mentions Guyana’s goal of achieving 100% emission free generation by 2025 and suggests that a second hydropower plant of capacity comparable with AFHP will have to be commissioned by 2025 to meet this goal. I believe that a goal for 100% emission free generation by 2025 in a poor developing country might make political sense, but it definitely does not make technical and economic sense without hydropower.
Intermittent resources like wind and solar cannot be depended upon as baseload power sources. Using battery back-up for these resources is extremely costly and batteries are only good for a couple of hours before they need to be recharged. There are also a host of other technical problems associated with depending on too many intermittent resources such as need for voltage control, frequency and regulation support, and ramping capability.
Norconsult’s suggestion that a second hydropower plant of capacity comparable with AFHP needs to be commissioned by 2025 is also not reasonable. With that approach, the hydropower capability will be about 330 MW and will result in overbuilding because from other reports I have seen, the average load is not expected to be in the 330 MW range until 2040. I believe a more reasonable approach would be to maximize the potential of the AFHP since the Report noted that there is room for expansion at Amaila and the use of intermittent resources such as wind and solar together with conventional thermal resources to meet peak load.
In my opinion, Guyana should not strive for a 100% emission free generation goal if it is not cost effective for the people of the country. The developed countries should play a more leading role in supplementing the costs of carbon free generation if a global climate change initiative is to be achieved. Of course Norway is already leading by example in Guyana through the Norwegian International Climate and Forest Initiative. Maybe it is a little known fact that carbon reduction in any place on earth has the same effect on helping climate change efforts. That is, saving one ton of CO2 emissions in Guyana has the same effect on climate change as saving one ton in the USA or anywhere else. Therefore, it makes sense to have a global carbon emission trading price where developing countries can be paid for their efforts to achieve carbon free emissions.
Unfortunately, climate change is being used as a bogeyman to steer renewable investment to less efficient places where ‘players’ make tremendous profits, so a global carbon trading price might not be achievable. However, developing countries should keep pushing for this with help from countries like Norway.
I have seen media reports that the government suggests that it will ask Norway to use the $80 million funding towards developing other renewable initiatives rather than AFHP. I would not be surprised if Norway rejects this request. The $80 million should be spent where there is the biggest bang for the buck and that is in hydropower development, and AFHP is the most promising candidate.
It is important that politics be stripped away from Guyana’s developmental plans mostly plans for developing its electric infrastructure needs. It goes without saying that safe, reliable and cheap electricity is the most important ingredient for the development of a country. In this light, it is not reasonable to call the AFHP a brainchild of the PPP as I have seen mentioned in the media. The hydroelectric potential of many of Guyana’s rivers have been studied way back in the 1970s and Amaila was one of them. Moreover, if an underground powerhouse is built, this will bear no resemblance to the initial project design.
I would like to suggest that given Norconsult’s expertise in hydropower engineering, it should be allowed to function in the role of the Independent Engineer as described on page 42 of the Report. Given Norway’s interest in seeing a successful outcome for the AFHP I would expect Norconsult to act in the interest of the Government of Guyana and maybe perform the function at a cheaper price.
Editor, this is a huge project that could have major financial implications on the people of Guyana. I sincerely hope that all past and future studies on this project can be made available to the general public for their comments since they will be footing the bill.
Yours faithfully,
Vijay Puran
New York
