The Editor, Sir,

I note the response of two readers to my letter on power generation expansion plans published in your issue of May 18. Fitzgerald Yaw dismisses consideration of coal as a possible fuel because of the resulting drain on foreign exchange resources as well as on coal's perceived impact on greenhouse gases and consequently climate change. He proposes instead utilisation of the renewable energy resources with which Jamaica is well endowed and/or natural gas which, he says, is available from Trinidad.

Unfortunately, at the current stage of development of the relevant technologies, generation of commercial electricity from the available renewable energy resources would result in significant increases in the price of electricity to consumers and possible adverse impact on the country's economic development. Responsible generation planning seeks to find the optimum combination of the costs and benefits of all technically feasible alternatives.

Environmental impact

As far as natural gas is concerned, Yaw seems to have forgotten that less than three years ago Trinidad, which he advocates as the preferred source of natural gas, informed the Jamaican Government that it would be unable to provide that fuel for our power generation expansion plans. Trinidad's commercial gas production has not increased since.

The other letter was from Everton Eastwood who raised questions concerning the environmental impact as well as the investment and operational costs of coal-fired generating plants. This medium is not the appropriate forum in which to respond to those issues in detail. Suffice it to say that they must all be properly addressed in any properly conducted investment study. The feasibility studies which have concluded that coal is the most economic fuel for increased power generation in Jamaica have been reviewed and approved by competent and internationally respected institutions such as the Argonne National Laboratories and The World Bank.

Assessments undertaken by the relevant local authorities have also indicated that the adverse environmental impact of coal used for power generation can be controlled within acceptable limits.

There can be little doubt that if cost were not a factor in the decision-making process, natural gas would easily be the preferred fuel for thermal power generation. However, the available evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of coal being the lower cost alternative for Jamaica.

The argument most often advanced in support of natural gas for Jamaica is reduced greenhouse gas emissions and consequently lower impact on global warming. However, it must be remembered that the global warming problem is, indeed, global and that the practical effect of Jamaica's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be in proportion to its contribution to the overall problem.

This is not to suggest that Jamaica should be insensitive to the potentially disastrous effects of global warming, but rather that we must realistically assess the probable international impact of our efforts to reduce the problem.

The fundamental objective

In any given month China commissions coal-burning plants with twice the current megawatt rating of Jamaica's entire public electricity system. India installs new coal-burning plant at a monthly rate somewhat lower than China's, but still well above Jamaica's installed capacity.

It was interesting to see that neither Yaw nor Eastwood recognised the fundamental objective of my letter. It was an appeal to release for public review, the study or studies on which the government bases its decision to select LNG as the fuel for power generation in the immediate future. The studies selecting coal as the most economic fuel have all been publicly aired and a similar approach to those advocating natural gas may help to assuage the concerns of persons open-minded on the issue but currently unconvinced.

I am, etc.,

Winston C. Hay

winhay@cwjamaica.com