CEB’s LTGEP the best strategy

The Island has carried many pieces on the electricity generation sector, mostly by just one writer, almost all them hostile to the CEB’s Long Term Generation Expansion Programme (LTGEP), which lays out a 10 or sometimes 20-year rolling plan for the addition of new generators to the system. However, I have not seen anything supporting the plan published – sorry if I have missed anything though I am a daily reader of your broadsheet. Let me straightaway say this: The LTGEP is the best strategy for this country to follow at this time. It is based on the upto-date load forecasts, plant cost, construction times and the technology data available, time each the plan is revised – that is once or twice a year. It is compiled by competent professionals in planning not by loose tongued armatures. It is derived by feeding the best data into internationally reputed system expansion algorithms – when last I visited, about five years ago, it was WASP. I am 100% independent and have no connection nor will I get any benefit from this intervention. I have no financial interest nor do I have commercial contact with any fuel or equipment supplier. This may not be the case with all commentators and columnists.

Let me lay to rest some absurdities that have recently been said. I ask only for paragraphs not full-page space.

(a) It is not true that one cannot plan long-term because data changes over time. This is exactly why one has a “rolling-plan” that is revised at regular intervals. The best information is used at each stage. Every company and every intelligent organisation, does the same.

(b) It is in fact essential to plan long-term because these are huge projects and finances have to be negotiated, sites and power plant planned and numerous complications ironed out. Don’t we in Sri Lanka know all about the last point?

(c) It is said LTGEP is in contradiction with President Gotabaya’s “Vistas . . . etc” document. If that is true, too bad for that document. It should be revised.

(d) An absurd claim is made by the article authors that I referred to previously, and in “Vistas” that 80% of electrical energy should be from renewable sources by 2030. Renewables are two-fold Large-Hydro (LH) and Renewable-Non-Large-Hydro (RNLH) consisting of Wind, Solar and Bio-mass (W, S & Bm) and also including mini-hydro (MH).

(e) From the latest available (2017) data (mentally excluding 2020, a very odd year) the current status, I estimate, is that W, S & Bm contribute 0.6 tera-watt hours (TWh) or 3.5% of current energy. Only a looney will hallucinate about raising this by a factor of ten to 6.0 TWh by 2030, to achieve 17.5% (5×3.5) of the then demand, assuming that the by-then generation has doubled.

Thank you for allowing me a few words contradicting widely prevalent popular myths.

Professor Kumar David

Retired Dean Engineering

(HK Polytechnic University)

and former Fellow IEEE and IEE