The high cost of electricity
continues to afflict every business and individual in Jamaica. Failing to
encourage solar solutions because they would affect the bottom line of JPS is a
short-sighted approach. In my letter to the Daily Gleaner, (below) published on
June 5, 2014, I recommended net-billing as a win-win option for JPS and
customers. However, it didn’t recommend how we could solve the peak demand
dilemma. I’m now suggesting that peak
demand for electricity could be reduced by the National Water Commission using
more solar generated electricity, produced by individual customers with
net-billing, who send electricity to JPS during the day.
NWC
is the single largest consumer of electricity in the public sector, accounting
for approximately 47% of public sector energy consumption. The average monthly
electricity consumption for the NWC is approximately 15,000,000 kWh, and it
spends approximately J$280 million per month on electricity. They have the
option of pumping water to tanks situated on higher ground during the day,
which would flow by gravity during the night. In other words, they can convert
solar energy into potential energy for use at night, so they wouldn’t have to
use electricity during the hours of peak demand.
Not
being an engineer, I don’t know about the practicality of turning pumps on and
off, but since it is done in times of water shortage, it must be possible. Where
NWC doesn’t have storage facilities, individuals could be provided with black tanks,
which many people already have, if that would be a more practical option than
building new storage facilities. The
inconvenience of having reduced water pressure during the hours of peak
electricity demand would be offset by the lower cost for both electricity and
water.
The rationale
for net-billing is set out in this letter:
Dear Sir,
With reference to your headline article,
“Solar Power Risk” in the Daily Gleaner of June 3, I think that our policy
decisions in relation to electricity should be based on long-term
considerations, such as the amount of foreign exchange spent on fossil fuels,
and the threat of global warming, rather than on return on investments.
My initial observation is that we
have failed to capitalize on the opportunities provided by solar energy. Neither
JPS nor OUR have educated the public on the win-win situation which is possible
with net-billing. More people might be interested in applying for net-billing
if the application process were quicker, and the steps involved, detailed instructions
for which are given on JPS website, were less onerous. Most people are unaware that you do not need
batteries to run a solar system if you have a grid-tie with JPS. In fact, going
that route is more environmentally friendly and less expensive as shown by the
calculation below.
On the whole, companies selling
solar systems encourage purchasers to buy batteries. Their pitch is that you
can cut your electricity bills and even get off the grid entirely. They also
tell you that JPS pays you only half of what you pay JPS per KWH, which is
true, but they don’t tell you that batteries would cost more. Also, most people
use more electricity in the summer than in the winter. To get off the grid
entirely, one would have to install sufficient panels to supply one’s summer
needs and then one would have excess in the winter. It would be better to be
able to send the excess to the grid in the winter and draw from JPS if
necessary in the summer.
My calculation is based on a monthly
average of 200 KWH being sent to JPS in the day, and drawn from JPS at night.
(It does not include the excess amounts being sent or drawn). Nor does it take
into account escalating costs. I make the optimistic assumption that a battery
bank will last for ten years.
Without
solar panels
200
KWH x Ja$40 = $8000 monthly x 12 = $96,000 annually x10 years = $960,000.00
With
solar panels and net billing (cost corresponding to half of $40.00)
200
KWH x $20 = $4000 monthly x 12 = 48,000 annually x 10 years =
$480,000.00
Savings:
$480,000.00
With
batteries, no net-billing, cost would be $0, but
Cost
of 16 batteries @ $40,000.00 each with life expectancy 10 years max = $640,000
In contrast, as Mr. John Kistle
states, JPS would be faced with the challenge of providing everybody with
electricity at peak hours after sunset, or on overcast days. Some of that
generating capacity would have to be turned off at peak sunshine hours, thus
reducing the return on whatever investment was made in a new power plant. However, solar power would cut down on the
amount of fuel needed to run the plant.
Given the importance of the cost of
electricity to all of us in Jamaica, perhaps there are some other things we can
do. Could there be a consensus, for example, on turning off our fridges during
peak hours? Or JPS charging different rates at peak hours?
I think that all stakeholders need
to be involved in making these hard decisions.
Yours truly,
Helen Williams
