Renewables are the way forward, says ministry
(CNS): The Ministry of Sustainability has said that the draft revised National Energy Policy makes it clear that renewable energy is the way forward for Cayman and that any use of other fuels is expected to be just an interim measure that should not increase the cost of bills. The comments follow the revelation that CUC is still likely to be using more fossil fuels than green energy for the next 25 years.
Despite the government’s goal to have all of Cayman’s electricity supplied from green sources within the next 27 years, the local power supplier is still investing in both the conversion of its existing engines and the necessary supply equipment to bring in natural gas.
In response to questions from CNS, a ministry spokesperson pointed to the Fuel Sector Strategy section of the draft updated National Energy Policy, which states that the sector should, where it is proven to be economically advantageous and prudent, consider and promote the introduction of alternative transitional fuels in the mix of fuels used for electricity generation.
The NEP also states in this section that to “manage the cost of the transition to 100% renewable energy for generation, the government will evaluate the best economic options for achieving this objective over the policy horizon and, where it is determined to be prudent and achieves the objective of balancing environmental and consumers’ interests, consider the use of transitional fuels such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) or compressed natural gas (CNG) for power generation if doing so does not obligate consumers to pay for new fossil fuel infrastructure in the long term and at the expense of renewable energy investments”.
The policy aims to balance input from industry stakeholders with the interests of consumers and Cayman’s natural environment.
“Transitional fuels are expected to be just that — an interim measure,” the ministry spokesperson stated. “The draft updated National Energy Policy is clear that renewable energy is the way forward for the Cayman Islands and sets a new, proposed national target of 100% renewable energy by 2050.”
CUC told CNS last week that it is committed to reducing Cayman’s carbon footprint and wants to ensure that any changes made in this direction are done in a manner that has a positive impact. The power company maintains that introducing natural gas into Cayman’s energy mix before 2050 will be cost-effective, despite the volatility of the supply chain and prices. And regardless of environmental concerns associated with methane, the main component of natural gas, CUC believes it will still be better than continuing with diesel.
A spokesperson from CUC said the company “will work in every way possible to do its part” to make the transition to 100% renewable energy by 2050. However, it is not clear when CUC plans to commission further battery storage, which will be needed for the total transition to renewables.
This summer, CUC released six megawatts for the rooftop solar programmes, which brought the total capacity offered for rooftop solar to just 24MW. This, coupled with the 5MW Solar Farm in Bodden Town, is all CUC says it can handle to maintain grid stability until its first battery facility is completed.
“Our battery programme is well on its way and is targeted to be completed in early 2024, which will allow for increased solar energy on the grid on customer’s rooftops,” CUC said. The company and the NEP “contemplates that in this transition period, it would be advantageous to utilise the cleanest and most cost-effective fuel, and it has been determined that Natural Gas is that fuel”.
Nevertheless, there are significant environmental concerns regarding natural gas because of the amount of methane leakage associated with it during the extraction and supply. And while burning gas to make electricity may be marginally better than diesel as it produces less carbon emissions, it is still the third most carbon-intensive method of generating electricity, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Methane is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide and has driven more than a quarter of global warming so far. However, CUC said that with the conversion of the engines for efficiency and to run on natural gas, it was taking “active, incremental steps to a greener Grand Cayman and lowering costs for our customers as soon as possible”.
Once the battery facility is complete, it will facilitate up to a total of 20MW in addition to 8MW from the waste-to-energy facility and the existing solar. This means a total capacity of around 60MW of power is in the pipeline to come from green energy, which only accounts for around one-third of the power CUC can currently generate.
CUC has said it is also committed to large-scale utility solar, though it appears it will take some time for this to advance. In 2019, OfReg announced that for large-scale solar to be offered on Grand Cayman, there would be a competitive bid process.
“CUC has drafted and looked at multiple different designs for utility-scale solar that will best suit the needs of Grand Cayman,” the company told CNS. “CUC has also looked at storage options for overnight use of electricity generated by solar panels and has aligned with global best practices for the deployment of solar on a large scale. The company anxiously awaits the bid process to be initiated by OfReg for the opportunity to implement low-cost, large-scale, clean solar energy.”
CUC said that the bidding process will allow it to openly provide details on the plans that the company has for renewable energy and “demonstrate to the public its commitment to finding affordable, reliable, and environmentally friendly energy for the people of Grand Cayman”.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Energy, Policy, Politics, Science & Nature
More destruction of foliage and trees. Our government…..smh!
The CIG should take control and align money and policy priority with these soundbites: use crown land to host the solar arrays and direct CUC to use this power first and pass through that state-subsidized energy to Cayman’s consumers, lowering bills. PACT will face revolt from the elite dividend-placated donor class, while perhaps finally, legitimately, winning over voters on a material accomplishment. Would be a few years from reality though.
Agreed and makes perfect sense!
Let’s wipe out the remaining of the mangroves out east to produce 1/5th of the power that CUC currently produces via generators.
joke
Energy policies are pretty useless really. With CUC being given an exclusive contract to supply electricity they will do it on their terms and in the interest of their shareholders and profit.
CUC DOES NOT HAVE AN EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT TO SUPPLY ELECTRICITY. They have not had that for many, many years.
Do they own the BT solar farm? No.
Do they own the many rooftop solar panels? No.
Will they own the waste to energy plant? No.
They do have the exclusive rights to distribute the electricity produced from various sources.
They compete with other companies to create new electricity production requirements. I do not work for them and would prefer my bill to reduce, but give credit where it is due. They provide a very good service.
Sorry, correction to supply electricity distribution, but let us not forget that contributing to the grid is capped in their favour, so for all intents and purposes they are the monopoly.
Fossil fuels are renewable.
Dear Lord, get a basic education.
Prove him wrong.
It is you that needs an education. Go read how fossil fuels are created (hint it has nothing to do with fossils)
Now tell that the fossil fuel burning, profit driven electricity monopoly.
And the diesel burning fishing vessels.
Is the Ministry of sustainability Sustainable..?
As it does not generate any income, its very existence is presumably dependent on non sustainable activities for its income.
The way forward is voting him out of power, bringing some common sense back to politics, removing the NGO activist lobby and banning ESG and #UN2030.
Do you up-thumbers understand what this poster is saying? “Ban ESG”: – Ban Environmental, Societal and (good) Governance in industry & commerce.
“Ban UN2030”: – Ban doing good in the world in a sustainable fashion whilst saving the planet – see https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda for more details.
How can anyone support those ideals?
Because ESG is based upon an elitist lie and a universal fraud promulgated by the very ones who are the worst of the worst. ESG is an experiment in “greenwashing” corporate greed as a marketing stunt and as a PR ploy.
Anyone who genuinely wants and can clearly see the need for positive and productive ways forward is cognizant of the fact that one of the first things which are necessary is to tear down the walls of secrecy within a banking/financial services industry which anonymously domiciles, promulgates, facilitates, exacerbates, and is remunerated by the proliferation of all manner of injustice, multi-hued levels of criminality, inequity and the negative consequences of profligate corporate greed across the globe.
Those who are members of the Spider’s Web have less of a right to pontificate to others about any semblance of a moral and/or ethical compass than the duppy of Hitler himself has to show up and pontificate at an anti-Semitism conference.
What you refer to is the antithesis of, and a charlatanistic misrepresentation of, anything and/or everything conceivably beneficial to all of man and womankind, except for those who are themselves at the root of the problems which ESG disingenuously and falsely purports itself to address.
All that which is kept in the dark will one day have no choice but to be subjected to the sanitizing qualities of sunlight. Until then, ESG is and shall remain the subversive tool of modern-day pirates in neck ties and fine suits whose survival depends upon a parasitical existence of financial vampirism.
Monopolly is that you? I cringe every time.. Brudda, your style of writing with 10x the amount of words as necessary could be spotted from Spot Bay. Might as well stick to one alias.
Here’s how you avoid the word vomit with one paragraph, Monopolly:
Your comment criticizes ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) initiatives, alleging that they are a deceptive marketing strategy for corporate greed. It suggests that true progress requires transparency in the financial industry and accuses ESG advocates of hypocrisy. Overall, it argues that ESG is a tool for financial exploitation.
Do you have any specific evidence to back up these sweeping generalizations?
As verbose as your comment was and yet u managed to neglect to present any evidence to support your pretentious prattle…
ffs is/was accurate.
The high school spelling bee ended about 27 years ago, RSD.
#BanESG Jail all Involved.
yawn…more waffle and obvious platitudes…
That’s why I always fart in a jar.