Connect with us

Features

Development of renewable energy projects: President’s concerns

Published

on

BY Dr Janaka Ratnasiri

Proceedings of a meeting held by the President on 15.12.2020 with the Power Minister, Renewable Energy Minister, officials of the two ministries as well as officials of institutions coming under the two ministries to discuss issues pertaining to the development of renewable energy (RE) were shown in newscasts of TV channels as well as reported in the print media recently. The purpose of this write-up is to elaborate on some issues raised by him.

 

PRESIDENT’S CONCERNS

According to a report in The Island of 16.12.2020, the President has said that “he is exploring the possibility of rapidly adding power from renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, to the national grid, and that many countries are turning to renewable energy sources for power generation. As per the “Saubhagyaye Dekma” Policy Statement, by 2030 the government expects to meet 70% of the total electricity demand from renewable energy sources”. He has further said that “the generation of renewable energy should be carried out expeditiously in a systematic manner with short-term as well as long-term objectives”. He was also heard saying that officials should be sincere and honest in this exercise.

 

REALIZING THE PRESIDENT’S TARGET

It may be recalled that the President first announced his target of achieving 70% of energy consumed for generation of electricity from renewable sources by 2030 at a meeting he had with the same audience on September 14th, more than three months ago. This was given in a press release issued by the President’s Media Division on the same day. See the website http://www.pmdnews.lk/70-of-electricity-demand-will-be-generated-using-renewable-energy-by-2030/.

In this press release, the President has emphasized that institutes with the authority to approve Development Projects should have feasibility reports stand by and the approval process should be expedited and that the Government has made the promotion of renewable energy a top priority. The President advised the Secretary to the President to issue a gazette calling for all the institutes to assist in this endeavour. But it appears that the President’s instructions have not been carried out.

The President would have convened the meeting on the 15th, probably because there has been no follow up on his announcement initiated during the last three months. Though he said once at a public meeting where officials were present, to take his word as a circular, things do not happen that way in the system. To give effect to the President’s target, the Secretary to the Ministry of Power, being the Cabinet Ministry, has to prepare a Cabinet paper seeking approval of the Cabinet for amending the Cabinet approved Guidelines for Electricity Industry by changing the target given in it from 50% to 70% as decided by the President.

This amended Guidelines document has to be presented to the Cabinet by the Minister and once approved, it has to be communicated to the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL), who will in turn direct the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) to prepare its Generation Plan to conform with the amended Guidelines. The writer’s understanding is that this process has not happened to date, for which the Secretary to the Ministry of Power should take the responsibility. Incidentally, the PUCSL was a notable absentee at the President’s meeting.

After the President made this announcement in September, the writer published an article in The Island of 02.11.2020 under the heading “Will CEB make an effort to comply?” referring to the President’s target. In this article he wrote “Being a matter concerning RE share in power generation, the relevant Cabinet paper will have to be presented to the Cabinet by the Power Minister. The general practice is for the Secretary to the Ministry to draft the paper in concurrence with the Minister. The question is how long the Power Ministry will take to attend to this” (https://island.lk/will-ceb-make-an-effort-to-comply/).

It appears that the Secretary to the Ministry of Power has failed to take any action towards incorporating the President’s target into the Guidelines to the Electricity Industry during the last three months which is a pre-requisite for adding RE systems into the grid. Hence the first thing the President should do to see that “generation of renewable energy should be carried out expeditiously” is to have a more efficient and dynamic person as Secretary who can take decisions independently. If he had a Secretary like that, the PUCSL by now would have directed the CEB to revise its Generation Plan to conform to President’s target.

 

RENEWABLE ENERGY SHARE IN THE POWER SECTOR

The CEB’s Statistical Digest for 2019 reports the total electricity generation in 2019 as 15,922 GWh, of which major hydro had contributed 3,784 GWh (23.8%), coal, 5,361 (33.7%), petroleum oil, 5,061 GWh (31.5%), Mini hydro, 1,011 GWh (6.3%) and other RE sources including wind and solar adding to 750 GWh (4.7%). This gives the RE share in the power sector as 35% in 2019. The challenge is to raise this share to 70% by 2030. According to the CEB’s draft Generation Plan for 2020-39, to meet the demand in 2030, approximately 31,700 GWh of electrical energy need to be generated. This means 70% of this amount or 22,000 GWh of electricity will have to be generated from RE sources in 2030. With the 2018 RE generation standing approximately at 5,545 GWh, this has to be quadrupled by 2030 by adding 16,400 GWh units of RE. However, this is subject to output from the major hydropower plants which varies with the rainfall. For example, in 2018, this share was 45% with the major hydro contribution of 5149 GWh and the shortfall was about 15,000 GWh.

The total committed solar power systems as announced by the government from time to time amounts to about 1,400 MW and assuming a plant factor of 20% based on the performance of existing systems, they could generate about 2,400 GWh of energy a year. Similarly, the committed wind power systems will add up to 650 MW yielding about 2,000 GWh of energy assuming a plant factor of 35%. Dendro and waste to energy projects could add another 1,300 GWh of energy. This makes a total of 5,700 GWh of RE energy to be generated within a few years’ time beyond the existing plants. This means there will be a shortfall of about 10,000 GWh of RE energy for generating 16,400 GWh by 2030 to meet the President’s target.

One problem here is that the quantities of RE generation from such sources as hydro, wind and solar have hourly, daily, seasonal and annual variations. In particular, the hydro power contribution, both from major and mini, could vary widely depending on whether the year is a dry year or a wet year. If the 70% target is achieved in a wet year, it does not mean the target is achieved in a subsequent dry year. Hence, it is necessary to have a surplus of energy from other sources such as wind and solar to accommodate any drop in the hydro contribution due to adverse weather conditions. This could issue could become prominent in the future under climate change.

 

CEB’S RESPONSE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PROPOSALS

A previous regime launched in 2017 a programme named “Soorya Bala Sangramaya” (SBS) to be implemented in four phases, with a view to accelerate the utilization of solar power in the country. Under Phase I, it aimed to generate 1 GW from one million solar rooftops, each with capacity of 1 kW. Phase II of the programme relates to building 150 solar power plants each with capacity 1 MW to be built by the private sector on build, own and operate (BOO) basis in two stages of 60 and 90 plants each of 1 MW capacity. The entire cost including land acquisition and extension of the grid as well as getting clearances has to be met by the investor and tenders were called in 2017/18. However, there is no information as to how many of these projects were accepted and commenced.

In 2020, another tender was floated inviting investors to build solar power plants with capacities in the range 3-10 MW amounting to a total of 150 MW at specified locations where gid substations are available, under Phase III of SBS programme. Though in 2017 the Cabinet approved building an aggregate of 1,000 MW of large solar power plants under Phase IV of the SBS programme, comprising 800 MW solar park at Pooneryn, 100 MW solar park at Siyambalanduwa, 100 MW solar system on Maduru Oya Reservoir, no firm action has been initiated by the CEB to proceed with these proposals during the last three years. The lack of enthusiasm to develop RE projects is understandable as the fuel, that is, solar radiation and wind, are available freely for RE projects unlike for thermal power plants for which the CEB has spent in 2019 a sum of LKR 50 Billion for oil and LKR 46 Billion for coal (CEB’s SD 2019).

The CEB publishes once in two or three years a Long-Term Generation Expansion (LTGE) Plan incorporating the capacities that need to be added annually for the 20-year period to the future to meet the future demand for electricity and specifying the type of corresponding generation units including their fuels that would generate electricity at least cost. The RE capacities to be added up to 2030 as included in the CEB Plan are 165 MW of mini-hydro systems, 555 MW of wind systems, 880 MW of solar systems and 55 MW of biomass systems. These are far below the capacities already approved by the Cabinet from time to time for installation in the short term which means that the CEB’s Plan does not fall in line with the government requirements. The CEB is not even responding to requests made by PUCSL to revise its Generation Plan to conform with the Cabinet approved present Guidelines which says that minimum of 50% of electricity has to be met from RE sources. Obviously, this calls for a change in management of the CEB.

 

SRI LANKA SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AUTHORITY

Sri Lanka commenced its RE programme in early seventies, about 50 years ago, when it established an integrated RE village at Pattiyapola in the Hambantota District with the assistance from UNDP. Its objective was to provide energy requirements of the village from RE sources including wind, solar and biogas generated from cow-dung amply available in the village. However, with the extension of the grid to the village a few years later, the project was abandoned.

 

The availability of international funding for the development of solar-home systems and the large number of sites suitable for setting up of mini-hydro systems associated with waterways in the Central, Sabaragamuwa and Uva Provinces, prompted the expansion of the RE systems in the country in an ad-hoc manner.

In order to regulate and promote the RE industry, the Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority Act, No. 35 was passed in 2007. Though the Board of the Authority comprises 21 members, mostly Secretaries to various Ministries, surprisingly there is no representation of the CEB in its Board. Under the following Articles in the Act, the SLSEA is required to prepare a comprehensive RE Development Plan and have it gazetted after receiving comments from the public and stakeholders.

7. (1) The Director-General shall within six months of the appointed date, cause a survey and a resource assessment to be commenced of all renewable energy resources in the country and prepare a renewable energy resources inventory and a renewable energy resource map in respect of each Development Area.

8. (1) The Director-General shall not later than three years after the appointed date, submit to the Board a comprehensive Renewable Energy Resource Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as “the Plan”) based on the results of the survey and the renewable resource assessment carried out under section 7.

(5) Upon approval of the Plan by the Cabinet of Ministers, the Minister shall cause such Plan to be published in the Gazette and it shall come into operation on the date of such publication or on such later date as may be specified therein.

It is interesting to find out whether such a Plan has indeed been prepared by the SLSEA and gazetted, and if so, the President should be aware of it. Otherwise, it is time its management too is changed if the President wishes to see that “generation of renewable energy should be carried out expeditiously”.

 

SRI LANKA’S POTENTIAL FOR RE SYSTEMS

Sri Lanka has a large number of reservoirs both ancient and recently built. Those in the North, North Central and Eastern Provinces where the solar insolation is high with area more than 1000 ha add up to more than 50,000 ha. Since solar PV panels require about 1 ha for every 1 MW of installed capacity, installation of solar panels covering at least 10 % of the area of the reservoirs has the potential to install 5,000 MW of capacity generating about 8,800 GWh of electricity annually.

An all-island Wind Energy Resource Atlas of Sri Lanka developed by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) of USA in 2003, indicates that nearly 5,000 km2 of windy areas with good-to-excellent wind resource potential exist in Sri Lanka. Using a conservative assumption of 5 MW per km2, this windy land could support almost 20,000 MW of potential installed capacity (SLSEA Website). Even if 10% of this amount or 2,000 MW capacity is utilized, it will generate about 5,200 GWh of energy annually.

It is clear therefore that Sri Lanka has the resources to develop more than 14,000 GWh of energy from RE projects, solar and wind alone above what has been already committed. In addition, it is possible to develop modern technologies to utilize biomass energy more efficiently in industries reducing the demand for oil. With these RE resources, the amount required to meet the 70% share in total electricity generation by 2030 could be achieved comfortably. Coordination and cooperation among stakeholder institutes such as the CEB, SLSEA, PUCSL, Irrigation Department and land authorities are prerequisites for realizing this target.

 

FUNDING FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS

The CEB has not shown any interest in utilizing funding for the development of RE systems offered by foreign sources. Under the International Solar Alliance, India has offered a USD 100 million credit line for the development of solar projects and has assigned a company in India to help Sri Lanka to build a solar park. This is a good opportunity to get one of the two planned solar parks built. Apparently, the CEB has not expressed any willingness to accept this offer.

Under the Paris Agreement, funding is available to developing countries for building RE projects that will save Carbon emissions. However, it is necessary for the host institution to prepare a suitable project proposal and submit it to the Secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) through the Ministry of Environment, which is the National Focal Point of UNFCCC, to seek the funding. The Writer’s understanding that neither the CEB nor the SLSEA has taken any initiative to prepare a proposal to seek funding for this purpose. The Environment Ministry’s Climate Change Secretariat is partly responsible for this lapse.

 

CONCLUSION

The President has clearly given his targets for achieving RE share by 2030 as 70% in the power sector. In order to achieve this target, the country has to generate 22,000 GWh from RE sources in 2030. Regrettably, the CEB or the SLSEA has taken only a lackadaisical attitude towards developing RE projects rather than an aggressive approach necessary to meet the President’s target. However, the country has enough RE potential to meet this shortfall comfortably, provided necessary regulatory system is in place and the responsible professionals are enthusiastic in developing them.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Putting people back into ‘development’ – a challenge for South

Published

on

In need of swift empowerment; working people of Sri Lanka.

Should Sri Lanka consider an 18th IMF programme? Some academicians exploring Sri Lanka’s development prospects in depth are raising this issue. It is yet to emerge as a hot topic among policy and decision-making circles in this country but common sense would sooner rather than later dictate that it be taken up for discussion by the wider public and a decision arrived at.

The issue of an 18th IMF programme was raised with some urgency locally by none other than Dr. Ganeshan Wignaraja,Visiting Senior Fellow, ODI Global London, one of whose presentations, made at the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo, was highlighted in this column last week, May 7th. An IMF programme is far from the ideal way out for a bankrupt country such as Sri Lanka but a policy of economic pragmatism would indicate that there is no other way out for Sri Lanka. Such a programme is the proverbial ‘Bird in the hand’ for Sri Lanka and it may be compelled to avail of it to get itself out of the morass of economic failures it is bogged down in currently.

While local economic growth possibilities are far from encouraging at present, such prospects globally are far from bright as well. Some of the more thought-provoking data in the latter regard were disclosed by Dr. Wignaraja. For example, ‘The IMF’s April 2026 World Economic Outlook projects global growth slowing to 3.1 percent in 2026; with downside risks dominating: prolonged conflict, geopolitical fragmentation, renewed trade tensions, bearing down hardest on emergent and developing economies.’

However, as is known, an ‘IMF bailout’ is fraught with huge risks for the people of a developing country. ‘The Silver Bullet’ brings hardships for the people usually and they would be required by their governments to increasingly ‘tighten their belts’ and brace for perhaps indefinite material hardships and discontent. For Sri Lanka, the cost of living is unsettlingly high and 20 percent of the population is languishing below the poverty line of $ 3.65 per day.

These statistics should help put the spotlight on the people of a country, who are theoretically the subjects and beneficiaries of development, and one of the main reasons, in so far as democracies are concerned, for the existence of governments. Placing people at the centre of the development process is urgently needed in the global South and shifting the focus to other considerations would be tantamount to governments dabbling in misplaced priorities.

Technocrats are needed for the propelling of economic growth but a Southern country’s main approach to development cannot be entirely technocratic in nature. The well being of the people and how it is affected by such growth strategies need to be prime focuses in discussions on development. Accordingly, discourses on how poverty alleviation could be facilitated need urgent initiation and perpetuation. There is no getting away from people’s empowerment.

In the South over the decades, the above themes have been, more or less, allowed to lapse in discussions on development. With economic liberalization and ‘market economics’ being allowed to eclipse development, correctly understood, people’s well being could be said to have been downplayed by Southern governments.

The development issues of Southern publics could be also said to have been compounded over the years as a result of the hemisphere lacking a single and effective ‘voice’ that could consistently and forcefully take up its questions with the global powers and institutions that matter. That is, the South lacks an all-embracing, umbrella organization that could bring together and muster the collective will of the South and work towards the realization of its best interests.

This columnist has time and again brought up the need for concerned Southern sections to explore the potential within the now virtually moribund Non-Aligned Movement to reactivate itself and fill the above lacuna in the South’s organizational and mobilization capability. In its heyday NAM not only possessed this institutional capability but had ample ‘voice power’ in the form of its founding fathers, with Jawaharlal Nehru of India, for example, proving a power to reckon with in this regard. The lack of such leaders at present needs to be factored in as well as accounting for the South’s lack of power and presence in the deliberative forums of the world that have a bearing on the hemisphere’s well being.

The Executive Director of the RCSS, Ambassador (Retd) Ravinatha Aryasinha, articulated some interesting thoughts on the above and related questions at a forum a couple of months back. Speaking at the launching of the book authored by Prof. Gamini Keerewella titled, ‘Reimagining International Relations from a Global South Perspective’, at the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies, Colombo, Amb. Aryasinha said, among other things: ‘Historically, there is a precedent that has been realized by the Non-Aligned group of countries – unfortunately, rather than being reformed and modified at the end of the Cold War, it has been tossed away.’

The inability of the nominally existent NAM to come out of its state of veritable paralysis and voice and act in the name of the South in the current international crises lends credence to the view that the organization has allowed itself to be ‘tossed away.’ The challenge before NAM is to prove that it is by no means a spent force.

As indicted, NAM needs vibrant voices that could advocate value-based advancement for the global South. Moral principles need to triumph over Realpolitik. Such transformative changes could come to pass if there is a fresh meeting of enlightened minds within the South. Pakistan by offering to mediate in the ongoing conflict between the US and Iran, for instance, proved that there are still states within the South that could look beyond narrow self-interest and work towards some collective goals. Hopefully, Pakistan’s example will be emulated.

Along with Pakistan some Gulf states have shown willingness to work towards a de-escalation of the present hostilities in West Asia. This could be a beginning for the undertaking of more ambitious, collective projects by the South that have as their goals political solutions to current international crises. These developments prove that the South is not bereft of visionary thinking that could lay the basis for a measure of world peace. That is, there are grounds to be hopeful.

NAM needs to see it as its responsibility to make good use of these hopeful signs to bring the South together once again and work towards the realization of its founding principles, such as initiating value-based international politics and laying the basis for the collective economic betterment of Southern people.

Continue Reading

Features

Artificial Intelligence in Academia: Menace or Tool?

Published

on

(The author is on X as @sasmester)

I have often been told by university colleagues how soulless and dangerous ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI) is to academia and humanity. They lament that students no longer read anything as they can now get various AI programmes to summarise what is recommended which is mostly in the English language to Sinhala or Tamil or get easier versions in English itself. They get their assignments and even dissertations fully or partially written by AI. And I am led to believe that universities do not have reliable detection software to assess plagiarism and academic fraud that have been committed using AI beyond the software freely available on the internet with their own limitations. This is due to financial restrictions in these institutions. Even these common malpractices have been done mostly with the aid of free AI programmes which are readily available, which means cheating in this sense is free and mostly safe. For teachers, this is a ‘menace’ in the same way ‘copying’ once was. But its implications are far worse.

But given the global investments made over AI, it cannot be wished away despite the enormous negative impact its use has on the environment, particularly due to its massive demand for energy. So, AI is with us to stay, and it has a considerable role to play in human civilisation even though like most innovations and inventions, this too carries its own burden of negativity. In this context, instead of demonising AI and lamenting its replacement of human agency and ingenuity, one needs to think seriously about how to deal with and engage with it reflectively and pragmatically as there is much it can offer if people are intelligent enough to make rational and sensible choices.

When I am making these observations, I am restricting myself to a handful of practices involving only writing both in university-based examination processes and in the fields of creative writing.

My initial introduction to AI was through the Research Methods class I used to teach in New Delhi. In 2022, this class was supposed to go to Dharmshala in Uttar Pradesh for fieldwork training, and we needed to write a funding proposal quickly. One of the students in the class, already familiar with ChatGPT introduced by OpenAI as a free programme in 2022, did the proposal with its help before the two-hour class was over. I edited it soon after and sent it off to the university administration for funding which we received. That stint of field work was completed in five days and was the most detailed work undertaken as a training programme up to that time in the university which had considerable output ranging from a documentary film to a detailed ethnography based on the findings.

While the technical details, the format of the proposal and its basic writing were done by AI due to the time constraints the class faced, its fine-tuning was done by me and a few students. AI could not then and even now cannot undertake that level of specificity without close human intervention. But the film, the ethnography and the actual process of research had nothing to do with AI. It was the result of human labour, thinking, planning and at times creativity and ingenuity. This was an early example of how AI could coexist in an academic environment if its technical usefulness was clearly understood and potential for excesses was also understood. But this was a time, easily accessible AI was just emerging, and we did not know much about it. But I was fortunate enough to have intelligent students in my class who gave me a crash course into this kind of AI use, which I followed up with my own reading and experimentation later on. As a result, I am keener now to see how it can be used for the betterment of academic practice rather than taking an uncritically demonising position, which I know will not lead anywhere.

But how is this possible? The lamentations of my colleagues about the abuse of AI in academic practice is not unfounded. It is a serious threat that remains mostly unaddressed not only in our country but almost everywhere else in the world too. This is mostly because the advancements of AI even in day-to-day free usage have far exceeded any thoughts for actionable codes of ethics to ensure its practice is sensible and ethical. At the same time, I cannot see why a student should not use AI to correct his spelling and grammar in assignments. I also cannot see why a student cannot seek AI’s help to secure research material from secondary sources available online which I have been doing for years. For instance, the originals of specific books and rare manuscripts might not be available in any repositories in our part of the world. In such situations, what AI might find us is all we have access to in a world where we are restricted in our mobility due to semi-racist visa regimes of failed empires and former superpowers as well as our own lack of ability to travel due to our own unenviable economic conditions. But unfortunately, the materials we need are often only available in research centers and libraries in those nations.

Similarly, when it comes to academic prose, it makes no sense now to take years to translate works from multiple languages to Sinhala and Tamil. This has always been a time-consuming, cumbersome and expensive process. Non-availability of Sinhala and English translations of core originals in languages such as English, French, German and so on has been a long-term problem for our country. But this can now be done well – at least from English to our languages – quite quickly and with a very low margin for error by using specific AI programmes which are meant to do precisely this. What this means is a quick expansion of knowledge in local languages which would have ordinarily taken years to achieve or might not have been possible at all. But still, this needs significant human intervention and time towards perfection. However, I do not think AI-based translations work as well for fiction and poetry or creative works more generally. But the ability for AI to emulate nuance and feeling in language is fast emerging. These are two clear examples of improving technical abilities in research and writing in which AI can be of help.

But looking for sources of information with help the help of AI or using it as a tool to undertake essential translations from one language to another is quite different from simply using it without ascertaining the accuracy of collected information, getting AI to do all your work without any reflection or without any hard work at all, including engaging AI to do the final product in a writing assignment — be that a term paper or a work of fiction. If one proceeds in this direction, as many unfortunately do nowadays, then, our ability to think and be creative as a species will become diminished over time and our sense of humanity itself will take a toll. This is what my colleagues worry about when they say AI is making younger generations soulless.

It is here that ethical practices on how to use AI responsibly without compromising our sense of humanity must play a central role. But these ethical practices must be formally written and taught, followed by viable programmes for detection and publication if unethical practices are followed. This needs to be the case particularly in teaching institutions as well as the broader domain of creative writing. After all, what is the fun in reading a novel or a collection of poetry written by AI?

It is time people began to think about what AI can do in their own fields without falling prey to its power and their own laziness. This brings to my mind Geoffrey Hinton’s words: “There is no chance of stopping AI’s development. But we need to ensure alignment; to ensure it is beneficial to us …” Similarly, as Yann LeCun observed, “AI is not just about replicating human intelligence; it’s about creating intelligent systems that can surpass human limitations.” In this sense, it is up to us to find our edge in creativity and common sense to find the most sensible way forward in using AI.

Continue Reading

Features

Engelbert’s 90th birthday bash

Published

on

The legendary Engelbert Humperdinck, who is known for his hit songs such as ‘A Man Without Love’, ‘Release Me’, ‘Spanish Eyes’, ‘The Last Waltz’, ‘Am I That Easy To Forget’, ‘Ten Guitars’ and ‘I Can’t Stop Loving You’, turned 90 on 02 May, 2026, and there were some lovely Hollywood-related celebrations.

Before his birthday, Engelbert’s new single ‘I’ve Got You’ was released – on 23 April – and Engelbert had this to say: “‘I’ve Got You’ is especially close to my heart. It speaks to love, loyalty, and the quiet strength we find in one another”.

The main birthday event was held at The Starlight Cabaret, in Los Angeles, California, and Sri Lankan Raju Rasiah, now based in the States, and his wife Renuka, who are personal friends of Engelbert, were invited to participate in the celebrations, along with Ingrid Melicon – also a Sri Lankan, now domiciled in America.

The invitation said “An evening of music, memories and celebration. Let’s make it a night to remember!” And it certainly turned out to be a night never ever to be forgotten!

Invitees experienced a “magical entrance” with Engelbert’s name lighting up the screen and showing him performing his hit songs.

The invitees were also presented with a unique gift – a necklace with Engelbert’s face, engraved with the words “Remember, I Love You.”

Engelbert’s son, Bradley Dorsey, sang a tribute song ‘Only You’ for his dad, while Eddy Fisher’s daughters, Tricia and Joely, also got on stage to entertaining the distinguish gathering.

Engelbert didn’t perform but got on stage for the cutting of the birthday cake.

There was also a video compilation of birthday wishes from fellow celebrities, and the lineup included Gloria Gaynor, Micky Dolenz, Wayne Newton, Pat Boone, Lulu, Judy Collins, Deana Martin, Angélica María, Rupert Everett, Matt Goss, and more.

Birthday boy Engelbert Humperdinck

At 90, Engelbert is still performing. He’s on THE CELEBRATION TOUR for his 90th year, with over 50 international dates in 2026, including Australia, Germany, the US, and Canada. He’ll be at Massey Hall in, Toronto, on 06 October, 2026. He said: “The stage is my home… Canada has always been a highlight”.

He performed 60+ concerts, worldwide, in 2025, and says karaoke keeps his songs fresh: “Most of my songs are on karaoke because people love to sing them”.

 

Continue Reading

Trending