Page 38 - CARILEC CE Journal Nov 21

You still have to generate that power that’s lost
from the system for an extended period of time. Planners these days are
So, I still see the need for thermal no matter what not looking at the fact that
percentage of renewable you install.
injecting renewables in the
The prices for renewables have come down, so we system now changes the
see more renewable-related projects going in than upgrading profile of the
thermal. However, you still need to have a thermal existing plants.
equivalent somewhere in your system to take up
that slack just in case.

FP: I’d like to bring up another point. I think it’s about
MS: Edmund raises a good point there because goals versus timing, meaning if you have a carbon
if you were to have a target of getting to 80% footprint or renewable goal, you can achieve those
renewables, then you’ve got a situation where if goals with LNG. You can do waste-to-gas (energy) and
your renewables don’t produce for a significant have bio-LNG. In some cases, it will have a negative
period of time, you need to have thermal backup carbon footprint. Or neutral LNG where you’re bringing
because there is no long-term, multi-day storage carbon credits offset from the value chain. So if the
technology out there yet on a scale that we’re goal is purely an environmental goal, there are ways
talking about in the Caribbean. You need that to achieve those goals without necessarily going 100%
thermal backup. renewables. And, if your goal is purely economic, based
on the assumption that the output of renewables is
So now what you’ve got is an investment in two zero, not quite, but let’s say that’s what it is. The fact
different types of generation, one of which is is that today it’s not economically feasible between
not going to be running much under optimal batteries and the cost of the solar installation, and
conditions, but nevertheless, be paid for by the reliability. It’s just not feasible. Goals and timing come
consumer. So I think we have to be very careful to play in this discussion.
about how we approach these ambitious targets
and phase in renewables. I can give you an CB: How do you monetize the cost of thermal and
example for those people that say for solar, “well, especially in the context where it’s not operating as
you’re only going to be out for a day.” much, or investing in thermal today knowing that
ten years from now it may not be operating as much
For example, we operate a solar plant in Jamaica. in the future because there’s a greater amount of
It is budgeted to produce 110 megawatt-hours variable renewable energy? How do you monetize it?
a day in October. Due to that month’s weather Who pays for it? Utility-owned? Rate-based? How do
conditions, we went for six days and never made you factor in those dynamics and what do you think
more than 50 megawatt-hours each day. Weather is the pragmatic approach to take?
happens. If JPS were relying on renewables to
provide the energy needed and retired a lot of their FP: A keyword for me in life is balance or compromise.
thermal plants, it would have resulted in outages. You can’t run a utility without compromising, planning
We have got to be practical in the way we approach for the future. You’re not always going to be right. You
this and recognize that as the technology changes, need to bring in renewables as it makes sense and not
we’re going to long-term phase out the role of set a goal based on a number or a political goal or a
thermal but in the short-term, it is effectively the banner that looks great to say, 80% renewable by 2035.
cheapest way of energy storage. We appreciate That’s not the way you plan. There are people running
that thermal has a carbon impact, we appreciate models that will understand. This is grid-specific. For
it has a CO2 impact, but liquid fuels, gaseous fuels this specific grid, what makes sense? How is the grid
are effectively energy storage and are dispatchable prepared to take on renewables? What makes sense
immediately. I don’t want to come across as being for the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years? It should not be a plan
the one preaching for staying on oil or gas or any based on the next year but on the next 50 years. It’s all
of the other carboniferous fuels, but I am trying to about balancing and coming up with the right plan that
preach practicality here. will need to be revised every five years.

38