Dear Editor,

Please afford me a little space to respond to recent remarks by the present chairman regarding the interim plan that was left in place by the Board I chaired to expand BEC’s generation capacity.

It is noteworthy that only an interim plan could be put in place, as the illogical, ill-conceived, ill-advised rate reduction that had been implemented earlier had completely wrecked BEC’s financial health and destroyed its capacity to secure general financing.

Not wanting to break my commitment to silence, I delayed communicating sooner, even in the face of the present chairman’s withering attacks, confident that the howls of anguish that would emanate from residents at Lyford Cay, coupled with the cries of concern that would arise from those who seek to protect the once pristine Clifton Bay waters, would dissuade the BEC chairman from his oft-repeated plan to install 120 MW (Mega Watts) of incremental Bunker ‘C’ burning plant at Clifton Pier. In the absence of such howls and cries, I break my silence.

The plan left in place, though of an interim nature, was nevertheless based on sound engineering and economic analysis. I remain satisfied that such an analysis will readily and unquestionably show that natural gas burning combined cycle (gas turbine and steam turbine) plants yield a lower total cost – less capital expenditure, significantly lower repair and maintenance cost (just read the Fichtner report), similar if not slightly lower fuel costs, enhanced plant availability/reliability and significantly reduced pollutants - for BEC and its customers than Bunker ‘C’ burning slow speed diesel plants.

Prompt supply and installation of a supplier financed, 24 MW gas turbine was to take place, so as to ensure the projected needs of Baha Mar would be met. This would immediately be followed by the addition of a waste heat boiler/heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), capturing the waste heat from the gas turbine that would ordinarily go up the stack to the atmosphere and producing 12 MW of incremental power via a steam turbine generator without consuming incremental fuel.

The additional 12 MW of electricity produced without burning incremental fuel effectively lower the plant’s fuel cost per kWh (kilowatt hour) by 30 per cent, compared to the cost of operating the gas turbine in a simple cycle mode (without waste heat boiler and steam turbine), making the plant’s fuel efficiency/heat rate similar to that of a slow speed diesel.

While the plant would likely initially burn diesel fuel, sourcing of a supply of natural gas was to be aggressively pursued in order to further lower operational costs. Gas turbines, as their name implies, are ideally suited to burning gas.

The present chairman, though technically incorrect when he initially pronounced a strong commitment to aggressively pursue liquefied natural gas (LNG) to burn in the slow speed diesels at Clifton Pier, nevertheless appeared to have his head pointed in somewhat the right direction.

From a technical perspective it is to be noted that LNG is natural gas that has been condensed from its gaseous state to liquid by cooling to a temperature of minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit. The gas is normally liquefied for ease of storage and transportation of large quantities over long distances, so as to reduce transportation costs. The liquid occupies a space 600 times less than the space that would have been occupied by the gas. LNG must first be converted back to its natural gaseous state for general use and to burn in power plants.

Moreover, whereas gas turbines will readily burn natural gas, burning of natural gas in slow speed diesels continues to be a work in progress.

The liquefaction and re-gassification processes are quite expensive. The relatively small quantities of gas that would be consumed by BEC likely make such processes cost prohibitive at present. However, direct importation of natural gas via pipeline or import of compressed natural gas (CNG) are distinct and likely possibilities.

In closing, I note that whereas the present chairman might seek to “paint” a particular picture, my comments are based more on time served as chief generation engineer at BEC in the 1970’s, my tenure as general manager at Freeport Power in the 1990s, and the four-years spent as chief technical officer at the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) rather than on my term as BEC chairman.

It is also noteworthy that JPS is aggressively seeking regulatory approval to install a 360 MW combined cycle plant – two plants each comprising 2x60 MW gas turbines and 1x60 MW steam turbine - to reduce electricity costs for its customers. BEC customers are urged to beware the noise in the market and pay close attention to the price of the fish.

Regards,

Michael R. Moss

Freeport, Bahamas