RODNEY George believes that his company’s reciprocating engines are a good deal more efficient than the combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) being proposed for use by Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS).

The vice president of Wartsila Caribbean, which is the listed supplier for at least three of the bids presently before the Office of Utilities Regulations (OUR), said that reciprocating engines could save over US$100 million a year more than the proposed CCGT, and that’s even without LNG.

“Bogue is a living example where the CCGT plant has a combined cycle efficiency of only 40 per cent,” said George. “In comparison, the JEP (Jamaica Energy Partners) West Kingston plant with Wartsila reciprocating engines, have a simple cycle efficiency of close to 45 per cent… regardless of what fuel is utilised, be it LNG, LPG, or ADO, the efficiency quotient remains the same.”

Five entities have presented proposals to the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) in response to its announcement in February that it would review proposals to supply generation capacity.

In late 2011, JPS was awarded the right to construct a 360-megawatt (MW) Combined Cycle plant. Following a request for proposal (RFP) from the OUR, JPS emerged as the sole bidder to supply new generating capacity to the national grid on a build, own and operate basis.

The award was assigned to South Jamaica Power Company (SJPC) whose shareholding consisted of JPS, and JPS’s major shareholders.

On February 1, 2013, the OUR informed the JPS and its shareholders that the RFP process with JPS in relation to the 360-megawatt (MW) project was at an end after the deadline to facilitate the provision of project agreements, identify the supplier of natural gas (LNG) for the project and provide a renewed bid security was missed.

JPS had submitted three proposals for consideration by the OUR, according to the power company’s CEO, Kelly Tomblin.

The proposals are for the construction of 360 MW of new generation capacity, using combined cycle technology and a combination of fuel sources: natural gas as primary fuel, with Automotive Diesel Oil (ADO) as backup fuel; natural gas as primary fuel with inlet air cooling power enhancement, and ADO as backup fuel; and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) as the primary fuel.

Despite suggestions to the contrary, JPS is confident that combined cycle technology is of far greater benefit to the country than other options being considered, such as diesel engine technology, according to the JPS boss.

“While we haven’t seen the other proposals, our information shows that CCGT not only offers lower overall costs through greater efficiency and lower operating and maintenance costs. It is also more environmentally friendly,” Tomblin said. “Although JPS and the GOJ continue to evaluate all potential gas supply options, if the immediate supply options for LNG do not result in the desired reduction in electricity charges, LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) is a great option.

“LPG is more accessible right now and can be easily incorporated in our long-term plans for fuel diversification and price reduction,” she added. “The current prices show LPG providing attractive cost reductions for our customers.”

In the meantime, George proposes that the use of backup liquid fuel such as heavy fuel oil (HFO) is “not far-fetched given the uncertainty of securing LNG or LPG supplies”.

“The efficiency difference takes on special significance when liquid fuel has to be utilised,” he said. “If CCGT is the technology choice then it is relegated to burning the most expensive liquid fuel — ADO — which cost anywhere between US$26- $30 per MMBTU.

“On the other hand, with the reciprocating engine combined cycle (Wartsila FlexicycleTM) heavy fuel oil (HFO) will be the fuel of choice which cost between US$18-$20 per MMBTU.”

He estimates that for a 360-MW plant the fuel savings by choosing the reciprocating engine technology is approximately US$113 million per year (based on an ADO price of US$26 per MMBTU (million British Thermal Units) and HFO price of US$20 per MMBTU).

George said that the CCGT loses way more generating capacity should a gas turbine go offline — 100 MW compared to 17 MW for the reciprocating plant should one generating unit goes down.

He also said that the reciprocating units load four times as fast as the CCGT, allowing for more flexible operations needed to support the build out in renewable energy, while the life cycle cost, which takes into account capital, operating, maintenance, and financing costs, is lower and “will be reflected in the power price submitted by the prospective bidders”.

— BO