Three world records
Dr Farrukh Saleem
Sunday, August 02, 2015
Capital suggestion
May 11, 2013: A total of 14.8 million voters voted for PML-N candidates; the PML-N bagging nearly 33 percent of the popular votes. The PML-N’s current tally stands at 147 general seats, 35 reserved and 6 minorities for a total of 188.
June 5, 2013: Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif took oath as the 18th prime minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
1st World Record:
On March 26, 2015, the first-ever shipment of 147,000 cubic feet of arrived at the Karachi anchorage. Initially, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources was not willing to disclose either the price paid or the buyer (claiming that the private sector has imported). Later on, the media discovered that the payment for the first shipment was made by Pakistan State Oil (PSO). Later on, the media was told that the price paid was $8 per mmBTU (FOB).
As per data maintained by Waterborne Energy, Inc the price of spot LNG stood at around $6.90 per mmBTU. For the record, we overpaid around $3 million for our first shipment – and along the way created a new World Record of buying the most expensive LNG in that timeframe.
Admittedly, the Government of Pakistan is obligated to abide by the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules (PPRA) under which the government has to call in international tenders. Admittedly, international players can play their own games and overcharge our government. The best for the government, therefore, would be to get out of the LNG buying business and let Pakistan’s private sector buy-and negotiate-its own LNG purchases.
For the record, since that first shipment PSO has bought an additional six shipments and overpaid around $18 million.
2nd World Record:
On May 5, 2015, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif inaugurated the Quaid-e-Azam Solar Power Park, Pakistan’s first-ever solar power generation plant. The first 100MW project is owned by the Government of Punjab (through Bank of Punjab) and put up in record time by the turnkey contractor Tebian Electric Apparatus Xinjiang SunOasis Co.
Admittedly, the government of Punjab was in a rush and when your customer is in a rush contractors charge you more – a lot more. For the record, New Mexico, USA, is buying solar power at 8.5 cents/kWh; Andhra Pradesh at 10.28 cents/kWh; Brazil at 8.7 cents/kWh and Dubai at 5.98 cents/kWh.
Lo and behold, our very own National Electric Power Regulatory Authority’s determination of Upfront Generation Tariff for Solar PV Power Plants is 18.28 cents/kWh (Years 1-10) – our 2ndWorld Record.
3rd World Record:
On June 4, 2015, the Rawalpindi-Islamabad Metrobus was inaugurated. The 22.6 kilometre Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) system was completed in a record time of 15 months at a reported cost of Rs44.94 billion.
Admittedly, the Government of Pakistan was in a rush and when your customer is in a rush contractors charge you more – a lot more. As per data maintained by the New York-based Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) here’s the per kilometre costs: Ahmedabad (India) BRT $2.4 million per km; Changzhou (China) BRT $4 million per km; Beijing (China) $4.8 million per km; Paris (France) $7 million per km; Istanbul (Turkey) $8.8 million per km.
Lo and behold, Lahore BRT was built at a cost of $11 million per km. On June 4, 2015, we created a new World Record; Rawalpindi-Islamabad BRT at $20 million per km.
Who said: “Computers can figure out all kinds of problems, except the things in the world that just don’t add up.”
The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad.
Solar And Wind Power More Expensive Than Thought
The paper, by economist Charles Frank, compares the benefits and costs of renewable energy. The benefits range from the lack of emissions to the savings in expenditures for fuels. The costs include the construction and maintenance of these plants, and the drop in power generated when winds are calm or the Sun doesn’t shine.
Frank’s conclusion: Wind and solar power cost far more than anyone expected.
The paper examined four kinds of carbon-free energy – solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear – as well as low-carbon gas generation, and compared them with generators that burn fossil fuels. It also posited a value of $50 per metric ton of reduced carbon emissions and $16 per million BTUs of gas.
Frank calculated that electricity generated by a combination of nuclear, hydro and natural gas have much greater benefits than either wind or solar energy because wind and solar generators cost more to operate even though they require no fuel.
For example, nuclear plants run at about 90 percent of capacity compared with wind turbines, which are only about 25 percent efficient, and solar plants with only 15 percent efficiency. As a result, Frank wrote, nuclear plants avoid almost four times as much CO2 per unit of capacity as wind turbines, and six times as much as solar generators.
Specifically, this means nuclear power offers a savings of more than $400,000 worth of carbon emissions per megawatt of capacity. Solar saves only $69,000 and wind saves $107,000.
Still, Frank conceded, nuclear power plants are costly to build. As an example, he cited a new plant at Hinkley Point in southwestern England, which is expected to cost $27 billion by the time it’s finished. Its operating costs rise because, like all nuclear plants, it can’t be covered by commercial insurance.
But like all nuclear plants, it will run 24 hours a day and so, Frank calculates, it will be only 75 percent more expensive per megawatt of energy to build and operate than a solar generator.
Into this equation, Frank included the generators powered by fossil fuels that will be needed to take up the slack for the inevitable idle periods for wind farms and solar generators. He calls them “avoided capacity costs” that wouldn’t exist if the alternative energy plants hadn’t been built in the first place.
Therefore, Frank wrote, it would take four wind farms or seven solar generators to replace one coal-fired plant generating similar output. Solar generation costs $189,000 to match 1 megawatt per year generated by coal, and wind power is nearly as expensive. Hydropower, he said, provides a net savings, but only a small one.
Frank’s paper concluded that the winner in this comparison of zero-emission power generation is nuclear power because, despite initial costs, it is greatly efficient and operates non-stop.
By Andy Tully of Oilprice.com
