LNG vs Solar—An Alternative Whose Time has Come

by Sam Duncombe

Over the last few weeks, the company that wants to build a liquified natural gas facility on Ocean Cay near Bimini to supply Florida, has been spewing a lot of hot air about running a pipeline to New Providence to supply the Bahamas Electricity Corporation with LNG.

AES says this will reduce our carbon emissions and cut our fuel bills. They have also thrown in a marine research facility in their latest attempt to bamboozle the Bahamian public. But this proposal is nothing more than public bribery and deceit.

The “fossilized” thinking that recommends this “solution” to our environmental, energy and economic problems should be well on its way to extinction - to use a double metaphor. The latest AES proposal is an opportunistic and self-serving tactic to achieve their ends in a way that will degrade our environment.

LNG is part and parcel of an energy source whose supply-demand dynamics (dwindling supply and rising demand) guarantees higher prices for energy over the long term. We can only conclude that this is nothing more than an effort to extract unreasonable profits masquerading as environmental consciousness and community interest.

We are blessed with an abundant, renewable and free source of energy - sunshine. It is increasingly distressing that successive administrations have not only largely ignored this option, but continue to give AES the opportunity to cynically reformulate their proposals in the hope that Bahamians will tire of this fight or be duped by their bread-crumb-rhetoric.

Next to cooling systems, water heaters are the biggest energy users in our homes. A conventional electric water heater’s CO2 emissions are estimated at approximately 8 tons a year and would consume 6,400 kwh to heat water for a year for a family of four. Currently we are paying 37 cents per kwh (fuel surcharge included) for electrcity. At this rate a water heater costs about $2300 per year to run.

A standard 40 gallon solar heater costs about $3000 to install - and nothing to operfate over a lifespand of 20 plus years. The government should introduce low-interest loans to help consumers acquire solar water heaters. At the end of the loan the consumer would enjoy free hot water. No LNG pipedream can match that.

Additionally, we would need hundreds of people trained to install these water heaters. If the government wants to create meaningful long term jobs, lower our carbon footprint and move towards energy independence, then solar water heaters are the first step in a win-win solution.

If we installed solar water heaters on 80,000 homes, we could reduce CO2 emissions by 640,000 tonnes per year. As these units do not require electricity, emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrous dioxide would also be eliminated.

We are at a critical stage in our national development where the choices that we make today will affect us and our children. Let us work toward a post-carbon future for our country and decouple our nation from this dirty, diminishing and deadly source of energy.

Comments

[joseph]

Solar Thermal and Solar Water heater can save 30-50% from your electric bill easily paying for themselves within 5 years.

Buy solar power and solar thermal today!

[Solar]

Yes! Keeping in mind the drastic environmental changes and rising fuel prices going Solar is one option open to all at minimal investments. The Solar Water heating systems are so easy to install and most of them come in a Do-it Yourself kit, With the technological advancement the once heavy, bulky hard to move panels are now available widely in light weight easy to carry by one personal only packages. The advancement in technology is not only limited to light weight, but for those concern about the asthetics of the panels, the good news is that the panels are now available with a variety of teim colors to choose from and can be easily matched to your roof. Saving about $25.oo on ones electricity bill on a residence of 4. We all use hot water, as one of our basic needs and what can be a better way, than helping our environment, saving our resources and ourself's some money other than by investing in a Solar Water Heating System.
There are a couple useful websites I'm aware off, that I would like to share with you
1. www.dsireusa.org- is a comprehensive source of information on state, local
, utility ans federal incentives that promote renewable engery ans energy efficieny.
2. www.powerpartnerssolar.com- one of the many manufacturers of certified Solar Water Heating Systems available. One place I saw the light weight panels and trim color options I was mentioning earlier.
Lastly, the local utilites in some areas also provide additional rebates and incentives for adding a Solar Water Heating Sytem to your exisitng water tank.
Keep the look out on. Feel Good and save- money for you, environment for us.

[Rob]

Where I come from, solar water will be enforced by the government in a few years. Goes to show that it's being taken seriously as an alternative to heating on fossil fuels...

[Bill Bardelmeier]

Sam Duncombe is surely correct about the need for the Bahamas to shift into high gear in pursuing practical ways to extract as much solar energy as possible . This should take top priority because solar can become our cheapest most plentiful, cleanest, energy while science continues finding ways to further boost the ~15% efficiency of solar voltaic cells.
Unfortunately despite our best solar efforts we will presumably continue to need a large base load electrical generating capability for another score or two of years at best. I believe B.E.C. now have somewhere in the order of 165000 KW capability. (BEC seems to go catatonic when any outsider queries the company’s statistics, and since they never seem to publicize the issuance of a up to date annual report anyhow, the magnitude of our need is only a guess at the moment).
Given time however the solar generating capability should continue to climb upward as cell efficiency improves, and newer technology replaces old. We will surely however continue to need large amounts of power in excess of our solar capability in the decades ahead . I refer to power for light industry, for cooling, for multi storied buildings with a only a roof exposed directly to the sun for only perhaps 8 or 10 hours per day. and will surely need a lot of power in night hours and during prolonged dark days.
At present technology the only practical way for a small island nation to generate this large amount of power is by combusting hydrocarbon fuels in a thermal power plant driven by either steam turbines or by large diesel engines.
If very small cheap atomic plants were available they would be a fine source of green energy; but they are not available.. Gas turbines are used but they are fuel hogs and best used only for short peaks of power demand.
Both the steam turbine option and the diesel engine option can and do in practice consume a fairly broad range of hydrocarbon fuels. The steam boiler for the steam turbine may use at worst case for example , some Venezuelan heavy fuels with very high percentage of corrosive sulphur and scary heavy metals including vanadium and cadmium that pose a health threat to the populace; or at substantially greater cost one can purchase .cleaned-up heavy viscosity fuels with most deleterious elements removed. There is at present however no economical way power plants on the best of these fuels can avoid exhausting substantial carbon dioxide that will aggravate the worlds’ greenhouse earth warming problem. To the extent we improve plant efficiency, we can reduce CO2, but we cannot get entirely rid of it economically.
Today we can have an ameliorating option: We can use the lightest hydrocarbon gas, methane, ( commonly known as natural gas) in our existing machines with only slight modification.
Methane fuel (Which is simply LNG re-heated back from liquid to a gas) does not contain any heavy metals and when burned will exhaust only carbon dioxide. The quantity of carbon dioxide in the exhaust will be substantially less than that contained in the exhaust for a similar horsepower liquid fuel burning plant.
Methane being very light would rise up through our atmosphere to extremely high altitude if we simply released it. If released directly into the atmosphere methane would be far more damaging to the greenhouse problems’ solution than carbon dioxide. We do not now, and never have had, reason simply release natural gas into the atmosphere. Even 75 years ago when natural gas was unwanted in the world’s major oil fields, it was led up a tall flare pipe and ignited so that only CO2 went into the atmosphere. Many jokes are made about it but the fact seems to be that the worlds’ present largest pollutant for of natural gas originates as flatulence in cattle world wide. No combustor nor converter has been introduced to solve that problem to date. Unfortunately we may yet find that large underseas deposits of methane can and do with minor heating send large quantities of methane skyward.
Sam Duncombe cites an excellent long term solution beyond all doubt, but realistically we cannot expect people of this modern world to simply live in darkness with a chronic lack of energy for 20 to 40 years whilst we learn how to “solarize” our entire life style. My only caveat would be that in the years ahead we may find that converting the ocean’s heat is equal to or better than solar energy. ( And it will work in daylight or night)
For the foregoing reasons the writer believes very strongly that we need LNG now and we must not miss a chance to seize it for an interim fuel.
If one accepts that premise then the problem we must now face is how do we negotiate to obtain the greatest good for the Bahamas at a very favorable cost?
Sam Duncombe notes that our petitioners would seem to be playing some kind of a shell game with us. Offering to “throw in” this tempting tid bit, whilst withdrawing some other valuable tid bit. The work will be cut out for the Bahamas in this sector, but the present Prime Minister seems to be a tough negotiator. I’d bet on his seeing the job through right.
We won’t win by trying to deprive our petitioner of a handsome profit. He will want a fair profit for the risks entailed, and we should be happy to see him earn it because we do need LNG for the next score or two of years..
W E Bardelmeier Aug 16, 2008