CMEC gets Sri Lanka coal power maintenance contract

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

http://www.economynext.com/CMEC_gets_Sri_Lanka_coal_power_maintenance_contract-3-9392-8.html

Dec 21, 2017 12:49 PM

ECONOMYNEXT – The Sri Lankan government had awarded a maintenance contract for its coal power station at Norochcholai to China Machinery Engineering Corporation (CMEC) which built the plant, a spokesman said.

The contract is for maintenance of turbine and related accessories in unit 02 of the Lak Vijaya Power Plant on the north-west coast.

The 900MW plant, which has failed several times, was built by China Machinery Engineering Corporation (CMEC) on a long term loan from the EXIM Bank of China.

Health Minister Rajitha Senaratna said the Cabinet of ministers this week approved a proposal by Power and Renewable Energy Minister Ranjith Siyambalapitiya to award the maintenance contract to CMEC.

The agreement, valid until September 2019, costs Rs 263.4 million.
(COLOMBO, December 21, 2017)

“Clean coal” versus liquified natural gas

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=177621

January 4, 2018, 10:19 pm

article_image

By Dr A.C.Visvalingam
President, CIMOGG
www.cimogg-srilanka.org
[email protected]

From the early 1970s, the highly-committed senior engineer Carlo Fernando lobbied sincerely, knowledgeably and forcefully to press the governments of the time to build one or two medium-sized coal-based power stations and not to go in for gas turbine or diesel engine-powered electricity generation. The thrust of his logic was that (1) Sri Lanka’s hydropower potential was limited and would soon be fully exploited, (2) the volume and timing of rainfall could not be accurately predicted, (3) the “base load” electricity demand would be best met by resorting to thermal power which is ideally suited for that purpose but hydropower, on account of its limited availability, should be employed only to meet peak loads over and above the “base load”, (4) coal power stations from reputed sources are robust and have a long life, with relatively simple maintenance requirements, as compared to petroleum-fuelled engines and gas turbines, (5) nuclear power was far too complex for Sri Lanka to handle, quite apart from its radiation dangers in the event of an accident, (6) wind power was highly variable and too expensive, (7) solar power could be effective during daylight hours but was expensive and inflexible because the electricity generated could not be stored economically for night-time use, and (8) coal was plentifully available and relatively cheap whereas liquified natural gas (LNG) was far more costly at that time. Wave power, tidal power, ocean thermal energy conversion, hot dry rock heat extraction etc were still far from reaching industrial application status. As things stood then, from a practical point of view, coal power was the choice that could be considered to have been the most suited for Sri Lanka.

 

During that time, there was relatively little strength in the hands of the environmental lobby and consequently the proponents of coal power wielded greater influence, although not so much as the petroleum lobby, in which greedy politicians had a “quick-return” interest, and still do. Meanwhile, coal power boiler manufacturers were working hard in a genuine effort to make coal more acceptable by finding ways and means of limiting the volumes of dust, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide that would emerge from the power station chimneys. Dealing with heavy metals like cadmium, lead and mercury was not considered to be economically feasible and was, therefore, not given much attention. The population of Sri Lanka then was very much less than it is now and, hence, it was possible to identify a few sites in sparsely populated, protected, coastal locations where coal could be unloaded and stored conveniently, where a good cooling water supply was available, and the spreading of coal dust from the point of unloading from ships to the releasing of the treated flue gases into the atmosphere could be expected to affect only a limited area with a small population. In this scenario, the “raw” cost of coal power generation was shown to be much lower than the costs associated with the alternatives then available, including LNG. However, the ground situation has greatly altered over the past 30-40 years and we need to examine this issue afresh.

 

One very important change that has taken place since the 1970s and 1980s is that the population has grown substantially and spread into areas that were sparsely populated three or four decades ago. A second significant factor is that there are now several individuals and organisations that are much more knowledgeable and vocal about the types and scale of the damage caused to our environment by power projects. Most of the recent newspaper articles inveighing against the promotion of “clean coal” have been written by scientists, engineers and environmentalists who have taken the trouble to study the physical and chemical analyses of the products of coal combustion to underpin their case, which is a strong one, against those who advocate the use of “clean coal”. The third matter that one cannot ignore is the unwelcome spread of coal dust during transport, handling, storage and combustion, against which nuisance there are currently several petitions filed by the public at Norochcholai, which make it clear that this is an issue that cannot be glossed over. We are not aware whether any detailed analyses and costings have been done on the environmental damage caused by coal dust and the removal of such dust to whatever extent may be practical. If even an approximate cost of the environmental degradation and public annoyance caused by coal during the various stages of transferring it from ships to boilers could be worked out and added to the “raw” cost of coal power, a fairer economic comparison may be made with sources of power that have fewer negative features, particularly LNG.

 

In the case of LNG, its shipping, unloading, transport, handling and combustion do not spread unwelcome oily black particulate matter over the surrounding countryside although the amount of carbon dioxide that is released would be of the same order as in the case of coal. Furthermore, burning LNG does not produce unwanted sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide and heavy metal combustion products.

 

Another key consideration is that Sri Lanka has no coal of its own and will forever be dependent on whichever sources are identified as producing the particular type of coal that is required for the particular design of the steam boiler that is selected. In contrast, over the past three or four decades, LNG has become more readily available from several sources and the design of the burners and boilers is not sensitive to the source of the LNG. Of the greatest relevance is the fact that Sri Lanka’s marine resources are known to include substantial natural gas reserves which, if developed with reasonable expedition, would be a fuel source that cannot be monopolised by cartels of foreign suppliers working in concert in the international markets to keep raising their prices as and when they please.

 

We need also to recognise that working out a cost for environmental degradation and public annoyance caused by the transporting, handling and burning of coal does not remove these undesirable effects. Avoiding these negative impacts altogether, ab initio, even at a higher cost by going for a cleaner fuel would be far better than creating these adverse impacts in the first place. In other words, minimising pollution from the outset is better than polluting first and trying to clean up the mess later.

 

Even the “solution” offered by planting trees to compensate for carbon dioxide emissions suffers from the same flaws whether the fuel be coal or LNG, namely, the large area of land required and the many years it would take for the trees to reach a size at which they would be effective, during which the power plants would have spewed out colossal amounts of carbon dioxide. Needless to say, renewable sources of power would be better but, as things stand at the moment, they cannot be relied upon to provide solid “base load” power any time soon.

 

It should be remembered that the government committed itself, as recently as in April 2016, to the international community by undertaking to base her development on a fossil-free agenda. We also understand that the Cabinet has already approved a Long Term Generation Plan for electrical power, covering the period 2017-2038. It was not many months ago that the public were informed that a firm decision had been taken to work with LNG and not coal. That decision must have been taken after a careful study and it is, therefore, surprising to learn that the government is being pressurised to go back to the plan to build two “clean coal” power plants. Whilst there are honest engineers who believe that coal power should be selected over LNG because they give a different weighting to the relative advantages and disadvantage of these two sources of heat energy, there may be some crooked political heavyweights who favour coal because it could prove to be a long-term godsend that would keep on yielding golden eggs for many years without leaving room to exploit our natural gas resources for power-production purposes. Taking all factors into account, the Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG) is of the view that LNG should prevail over “clean coal” until we get our renewable sources of energy fully mobilised, which, however, will take more than a decade or two of sustained effort.

 

 

CEB Requests PUCSL to Verify Calculations with CEB and Ministry before Publishing

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

http://www.ceb.lk/ceb-requests-pucsl-to-verify-calculations-with-ceb-and-ministry-before-publishing/?lang=si

The Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) recently uploaded a document titled “Electricity Generation Costs” to its website, indicating what it deemed as unit cost of generation from six selected plants including Coal power. As per the report, the unit cost of oil fired thermal plants, which were among the most expensive sources of power generation, is 45% cheaper than that of the proposed Coal power plant at Sampur. As PUCSL calculations could mislead public and decision makers, CEB sent a letter to PUCSL highlighting the mistakes and requesting a correction. CEB had also given in its reply the actual unit costs from the same list of plants, which significantly differ from PUCSL figures.

පසුගිය වසරේ අඛණ්ඩව විදුලිය දෙන්න බිලියන 60ක් වැය වුණා

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

http://www.mawbima.lk/print20170621MB20171230.php?id=8922

?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? 60?? ??? ????
?  2945 readers have read this article ! By mawbima2018-01-03
?????? ???????????

?????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??????? ?????? 60?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????????????? ?????? 6?? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ????????? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ?????.

?? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ?? ?? ???????.

????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??????????? ????? ???.

2018 ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????????? ????? ????? ????.

??? ???????? ????????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ???????? ????? ??????. ? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ??. 16?? ??? ???? ????????? ?????? ????? ??????? 4?? ?????? ?? ??????.

?? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ??????? ????????
??????? ????? ??. ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????
??????.

Thank you Govt, for the mess in the power sector

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/171231/business-times/thank-you-govt-for-the-mess-in-the-power-sector-275118.html

By Dr. Tilak Siyambalapitiya
You’ve done it for the fourth time in two decades

View(s): 645

 

Focus

Cancelling power plants is great fun. Even a child can do it. Building a new one, especially a large power plant and a new gas terminal, is so hard, and the Government is learning that the hard way. Learning for the fourth time, by exactly the same group of people running the Government; both now and then.

File picture of the Norochcholai Coal Power Station

In 1993, they kept shifting a major power plant from Trincomalee (east) to Mawella (south) to Norochcholai (west), as if Sri Lanka needs only one power plant for ever.

Then they meddled with a bid for a relatively tiny 40 MW power plant which was to be a stop gap measure, and the power system went into a great mess in 1996. Remember the 8-hour power cuts in 1996? That’s it.

From 1996 to 1999 they meddled with Norochcholai, in a red light, green light, red light cycle, and finally meddled with even the stop gap power plant to make up for the delay of Norochcholai, and then the country went into enormous blackouts in 2000 and 2001, months on end. The Government was thrown out of power, among other things, owing to mishandling of the power sector.

The meddling continued when the new Prime Minister finally “cancelled” Norochcholai power plant in 2002, and sent the Japanese away. He also “cancelled” the Upper Kotmale power plant in 2002. Then replaced them with two diesel power plants. Great, isn’t it?

Now in the fourth cycle of meddling with power plans, they cancelled the Trincomalee (Sampur) power plants in 2015 (not one but two power plants were cancelled). For three years, the President and the Prime Minister are still looking for that illusive “friend” or the “friendly country” to build a gas terminal for Sri Lanka, to make up for the cancelled power plants.

The political meddling is now amply supported by the legally established Public Utilities Commission (PUC) as well, giving legitimacy to what basically are political and commercial decisions to build, not to build or to shift power plants. By end November 2017, PUC proudly announced that 36 per cent of electricity production in the country over January-November 2017 came from diesel and fuel oil. If PUC’s efforts succeed (they will surely succeed, since that’s precisely what the politicians need), the country will report 50 per cent of electricity production from oil by 2020. Great, isn’t it, to again approach the status of an oil-rich, West Asian country to produce more and more electricity from oil?

The national energy balance says that the highest share of electricity produced from oil was in 2004, reaching 64 per cent in 2004, thanks to the Government of 2001-2004. The lowest share from oil was 18 per cent in 2015. The oil bill this year to produce electricity will exceed Rs. 80 billion, making the bond scam look like peanuts, and the power generation oil bill to look like coconuts.

Engineers do not know anything about power generation. Politicians and their hangers-on are the great planners of electricity systems. Short of putting their fingers in between two high voltage wires, they have done everything possible to change the power plans to suit their perceptions and commercial interests.

Now at the end of 2017, the reservoir storage is at an unhealthy 70 per cent; the inter-monsoon has ended. One unit of Norochcholai is down for long maintenance (note the PM sent the Japanese away in 2002, and a subsequent President got the Chinese to do it in 2005, of course to Chinese standards but for the Japanese price).
So the writing is on the wall.

Only a miracle can save Lanka from power cuts in 2018. Actually, there is no need for a miracle; if the country has adequate money, the same decision-makers will be very happy to award contract for more diesel power plants, and extend the contracts for existing ones they have already ordered.

Remember who cancelled the two power plants in Trincomalee in 2015, which were to produce electricity from 2019. If they were allowed to be built, the upcoming agony in 2018 would be short-lived. But now, the agony will continue (for the electricity customer and the economy), but the party will continue (for the decision-makers).

So when the electricity costs increase, the Government will say (and has already said) that electricity prices will not be increased. What they do not say is that costs of additional diesel power plants would be paid for possibly from telecom taxes or by cutting off expenses on health and education.

Either way, the customer and the economy will surely be the losers. I do not have to explain who the winners are.

Dr. Thilak Siyabalapitiya -31st Dec 2017 Divayina

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

aa

විදුලි බිල වැඩි වන්නේ නෑ- මෙගාවෝට් 500ක් ඉතිරි කිරීමේ වැඩපිළිවෙලක්-මිශ්‍ර ජනන සැලැස්මක්

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????????? ??????? ????? ???? ??????? ????????? ?? ???? ???? 500 ????? ????? ??????????? ?? ???? ???????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ??????????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ???? ?????.

??????????? ?????????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????????? ??????? ???????????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???.

?? ?????? ??????? ?????. ???????? ??????????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????????. ????? ????? ????? ???????? ??????????. ?????????????? ?????? ???? ????????? ???????????? ??? ??????. ?? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????. ???????? ????? 79%??. ??? 99.7%?? ????? ???????. ??????? ????? ????  ????? ?? 99.7% ???? ??????. ?????? ?? ??????? 6800?? ?????? ???? ?????  ?????, ??? 6800? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????.

??? ?? ??????? ????????? ????? ????, ??.??.100 ????????? ???. ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???????????? ??? ??????. ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ? ?? ???? ??????????? ????? ??????????? ?????. ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ???????.

????? ?????????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????? ???. ????????? ??? ???? ??????. ?????????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???????. ???????? ???? ?????????? 17?? ?????? ?? ???????. ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ????.

??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ???. ?? ?????? ??. ?? ????????????? 24?? ??????.?? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ???????.?????????? ??????????? ?????. ??? ???? ??????. ???????????? ???? ??? ????? ??????. ??? ???? ?????????. ????? ????????? ??? ???????. ???? ????? ????? ?????.

????????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ??????.???? ??????? ????? ??????? ????????? ???? ????.???.???.??.???????? ??????? ??????? ???????,??????? ??? ??? ???? ???????.??.??.40?? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????????? ????? ?? ???????. ????????????? ???? ??? ????
??????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ???????.

??????? ????????? ?? ???????? 500 ????? ????? ??????????? ?????. ? ???? ???????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ?????.???.?.??.???? ????????. ??????? ??????? ????????? ???????. ????????? ??.???? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????????????? ??????? ?? ??????.

?????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ???????? ???? ?????. ???????????? ????? ??? 4?? ??????? ?????. ????????? ????? ??? 6?? 4?? ??? ??????? ?????. ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??. ?????? ????? ?????????? ??????? ?????. 2050 ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ???????????? ???? ??????????? ?????. ????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????????? ?????. ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? 60 ?????? ????. ??? ??????? ???????? ?????, ??? ???? ???????? ????? ?????? 6?? ?????. ???? ?????? 54?? ????? ???. ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????.??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ??.?????? ??? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ??????”


Incorrect Electricity Generation Costs Published in the PUCSL Website

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

Click to view    thumbnail of SCN_0005

Over estimating the unit Cost of Puttalam Coal Power Plant (PCPP) by 165%

Subsequent clarifications sought by CEB staff have revealed that to arrive at the total of Rs 18.60/kWh, you have first calculated a unit cost of Rs 14.60/kWh based on costs submitted by CEB for October- December 2017 BST filing and further added Rs 4.0/kWh to the same as “finance cost”. However, the unit cost of PCPP based on actuals as per our accounting records is only Rs 8.58/kWh (for 20 16), Rs 11.34/kWh (for Jan-Aug 20 17) and NOT Rs 18.60/kWh as per your report.
We have given below following observations on your calculation, which resulted in the highly
inflated unit cost of generation for PCPP.

I. You have added a “finance cost” of Rs 4.0/kWh (pertaining to the repayment of the USD million 1,346 loan) where Rs 4.0/kWh include both the loan interest payment and principal (capital) repayment components. However, it is fundamentally wrong in considering the capital component of loan repayment as an expense when the other costs considered
already include Rs 6.7 billion as depreciation of assets of PCPP for 2017. Including repayment of loan capital had added an additional cost of Rs 14.6 billion thus severely inflating unit cost of Coal.

2. What is being calculated as Bulk Supply Tariff (BST) at present is a forecasted BST and not what is known hs the Actual BST. Hence, what is submitted by CEB for BST calculations too are estimated c~sts based on budgeted values. As there are provisions in the approved Tariff Methodology to adjust the forecast BST with actual BST later, for BST calculation purposes,
using of budgeted costs are acceptable. However, it would be misleading to use the same forecasted costs and use them to calculate unit cost of Coal power. It is even more misleading to do so without understanding what are the individual budgeted cost components submitted by CEB. For example, PUCSL has included a budgeted expenditure of Rs 4 billion for a
project in 2017 to extend Coal storage yard to arrive at the Rs 18.60/kWh unit cost. It is principally wrong to include such a large capital expenditure as a cost occurring in one year and use it to calculate the unit cost of a plant without spreading it to the remaining duration of the power plant.
3. As per the actual loan agreement for PCPP, the agreed loan interest rate is 2% whereas PUCSL has assumed a higher interest rate of 6.35% in calculating the PCPP unit cost, thus unduly overstating the unit cost of Coal power.
4. BST filing process for October to December 2017 starts in advance (required to start about 4 months in advance as per gazetted “Procedure for Review and Adjustment of Tariff’) and hence, a forecasted energy dispatch is used for the BST filing. As per forecasted dispatch submitted by CEB for Oct-Dec 2017 BST, the monthly estimated generation from PCPP for
October 2017 was 344.5 GWh whereas the actual dispatch for October is 475.2GWh. As the forecasted dispatch is lower than actual, the unit cost for Coal in your report (calculated based on the forecast) is higher than actual. This too further highlights our concern under #2 above of using forecasted values for BST filing to do unit cost calculations of power plants and publishing them instead of actuals.

Over Estimating Unit cost of 500MW Sampur Plant by 230%

1. We note that you have referred to the Sampur plant as “SOOMW Sampur- signed PPA”, which
is a conventional subcritical power plant having a capital cost ofUSD 1, 169/kW. However, you have considered for your calculation a capital cost of USD 1,786/kW citing CEB Long Term Generation Expansion Plan, without realizing that the latter capital cost is for an advanced subcritical high efficient power plant. As you have failed to realize the technological difference between the two power plant technologies, you have overestimated the capital cost of Sampur Coal plant in your calculations by Rs million 43,138.
2. Further, you have used a fuel rate of 0.44kg/kWh for your calculations whereas for the type of
plant that you have considered for calculations (advanced subcritical high efficient power
plant), the fuel rate should be 0.38kg/kWh.
3. You considered O&M cost ofSampur plant as same as the O&M cost of Norochcholai plant based on recent BST filing and hence the 4 billion coal yard extension project cost of Puttlam plant (mentioned before) too had inadvertently gone as an annual O&M cost to calculate the Sampur unit cost.
The correctly estimated unit cost for Sampur Coal plant as per our own calculations is only Rs 14.52/kWh and hence your figures have inflated the cost by 230%. However, without any detailed analysis, a cursory glance would have revealed that the unit cost of a base load coal steam plant could not be as high as Rs 33 per unit as even an off-the-shelf standby-by generator could generate a unit of electricity at a comparable cost.

True Cost of Wind and Solar

Unlike for the case of Coal plants, we fully agree with the costs of Rs 10.07/kWh for Wind and Rs11.86/kWh for Solar as published in your report. We are very happy to note that you have finally agreed with the CEB position that current prices that are paid under feed-in-tariff schemes for Solar and Wind (above Rs. 22/kWh as per 2016, 2017 actual payments made) do not reflect the true costs and the actual costs are in the range as indicated in your report. We hope you too would appreciate CEB’s pioneering effort to move away from feed-in-tariffs and move for competitive bidding for Solar and Wind, which resulted in the prices that you have published. However, we invite you to note that tariffs paid at present as feed in tariffs for Wind and Solar are twice the true cost for Solar and Wind (as in your report). We hope you too as the regulator
would do all that is possible to gradually bring down prices of Solar and Wind to the level to reflect the true costs as indicated in your report. We also trust that you would also do all what is possible to recommend lower prices for such technologies (reflecting the true costs as in your report) if and when you are called upon to device noncompetitive tariffs for Solar and Wind in the future.

විදුලියත් අනතුරු අඟවයි

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

???? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ‘?-??????’ ?????? ??? ???? ?? (12??) ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??????? ??.??.?. ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????.
???? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? 60% ??? 120% ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? 2014 ?????? ?????? ???? ? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? 225?? ??? ??? ???????.

??? ???????? ?????? ??????????? ????? ??? 7 1/2? ??? ????? ??????????????? ??.??.?. ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ?? 12(1) ??????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????.
?? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ????????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????????.

??.??.?. ??? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ?????, ???? ??????? ?????, ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ???????????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??.??.?. ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? (11??) ????? ????? ???????? ??.??.?. ????????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? (12??) ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???????????? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????????.

?? (12??) ????? ????????? ?.??.?. ??.???? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ??????????????? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???????.
??????, ??????? ???????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ?????????? ?? ?? ?????????.

http://www.mawbima.lk/print20170621MB20171230.php?id=8060

 

Sri Lanka should renegotiate unfair private power deals

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka should renegotiate better terms for private power purchase (PPPs) agreements done at a time the ethnic war had increased risks for investors in the country, an official said.

“Some PPPs could have been done better,” Thilan Wijesinghe, chairman of the National Agency for Public-Private Partnership in the Ministry of Finance & Mass Media said.

“The country had a war risk premium then,” he said in response to a question on fairness in risk allocation in some of the PPPs negotiated during war-time.

These had allowed the private sector to recover costs and make profits from power plants on just capacity charges alone without any obligation to improve efficiency and cost.

Wijesinghe said that in 1996 he worked closely with the Ceylon Electricity Board in formulating Sri Lanka’s first private power purchase agreements.

“At that time every single PPP was done through an RFP (request for proposals) process. We did not have unsolicited proposals,” he told a recent forum.

Wijesinghe said that when peace dawned in the early 2000s after a ceasefire agreement, he realised government negotiators had not been well advised in putting clauses in the PPPs that covered peace-time operations.

“When the risk – return scenario changes there must be renegotiation,” Wijesinghe told the Energy Forum 2017 held by the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL), the regulator. “These (PPPs) need to be renegotiated.”

Wijesinghe said he believed any agreement could be renegotiated, referring to how the government was able to renegotiate the ‘Port City’ reclamation project with China.

“I believe any contract can be renegotiated – it’s a matter of risk-reward assessment.”

Wijesinghe said Sri Lanka need to learn from the experiences of private sector entry into telecommunications and port terminal operations that had led to major improvements in efficiency.
(COLOMBO, December 11, 2017)
http://www.economynext.com/Sri_Lanka_should_renegotiate_unfair_private_power_deals-3-9339.html

 

CMEC-CEB to jointly develop 400MW LNG power plant in H’tota

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

China Machinery Engineering Corporation (CMEC) and state-run utility, the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), are to jointly develop a 400 megawatt liquefied natural gas (LNG) power plant in Hambantota, a cabinet spokesperson told reporters yesterday in Colombo.

The construction of the power plant was aimed at providing electricity to the industrial zone to be established in Hambantota.As the National Policies and Economic Affairs Minister, the proposal made by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in this regard, has been approved by the cabinet of ministers.The industrial zone is developed with the objective of feeding the Hambantota port, which is also run by the Chinese.The government has said 95 percent of the land to be identified for the industrial zone will be state land.

http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/CMEC-CEB-to-jointly-develop-MW-LNG-power-plant-in-H-tota-141740.html

CEB irks Sri Lanka cricket legend and lights up twitter

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka cricket legend Kumar Sangakkara publicly grouching about the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) not answering his calls has sparked a social media storm with both helpful tips and barbs thrown at him.

Five days after complaining that the CEB was not taking his calls, Sangakkara thanked the electricity utility in a tweet on Tuesday. His initial tweet triggered 106 comments, 121 re-tweets and 1,700 likes.

“Has anyone in Colombo been able to get through to the Ceylon Electricity Board offices? They don’t seem to be answering the phones at all,” Sangakkara complained on December 1 as millions of people were without electricity.

The effects of cyclone Ockhi had brought down power lines disrupting supplies to over 800,000 homes, hotels and businesses and the CEB was forced to draft in the services of the army to clear fallen trees and restore electricity.

Sangakkara’s fans offered him CEB hotline numbers as well as the power and energy ministry emergency helpline while some were irritated that the cricket legend was expecting favoured treatment during a natural disaster.

“You have endorsed so many mobile networks, which one are you using to call CEB,” a twitter user asked Sangakkara. “I used a SLT landline and had no problem whatsoever. They also gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for the delay in restoring service. It is not cricket to criticise unfairly. UNFAIR.”

That comment by a user identified as @Rohanperera73 apparently got under the skin of Sangakkara who replied with a terse: “wow. Aren’t you a superstar.” That provoked an angry rebuttal: “It is the superstars who are agitated when their phone is not answered. We, the commoners, are used to standing in line for service. Match-fixing superstars don’t have patience, Think they are owed priority. As Ranatunga sys, should investigate 2011 WC debacle at Wankhede. SAD.”

It was apparently a reference to Sri Lanka’s World Cup winning skipper Arjuna Ranatunga’s recent call for an investigation into how the island lost the finals to India in a match many thought Sangakkara’s team was on its way to win when suddenly the course of the game changed dramatically.

There was no direct response from Sangakkara to the sniping, but he appeared to take the advice of many fans who gave him the correct hotline numbers, but posted another tweet saying he was having lousy luck. “thank you. When I call and am on hold waiting for my turn the line cuts off suddenly when I’m the next in line. Wil kp tryingne,” he said.

@dumindaaxsb offered this advice to Sangakkara: “Use Auto-Redial, that’s the only way to call any CEB office in #lka during down times.” He added a link to download an auto redial app.

A fan in India suggested that Sri Lankans, including Sangakkara,  were better off than Indians  @Salmangondekar said: “Here in India we don’t even have helpline numbers.”

@mandeep_karetha advised Sangakkara to have a cup of Ceylon tea and possibly recover his patience.

on Tuesday, Sangakkara thanked the CEB: “Many thanks to the Ceylon Electricity Board Homagama. Got through to them and they explained that they were responding to an overwhelming amount of requests. They assured that power will be restored at the soonest. Sometimes all you need is a proper explanation.

A few minutes later he said: “And power has been restored. Thank you again to the CEB.”

Another fan advised Sangakkara against rushing to criticize the CEB. @shibs_123 said: “Next time pls dont be hasty to taking to social media for small issues:)”

At least one twitter user complained that Sangakkara had blocked him after he responded to what he thought was unfair criticism of the CEB during a national calamity.

Sangakkara may have considered criticism offensive, but left on his twitter feed several comments containing disparaging remarks on several, including the President. (COLOMBO, December 6, 2017)
http://www.economynext.com/CEB_irks_Sri_Lanka_cricket_legend_and_lights_up_twitter-3-9306-10.html Continue reading “CEB irks Sri Lanka cricket legend and lights up twitter” →

CEB vigilant over power disruption caused by weather-related incidents

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

WE REPORT. YOU DECIDE

The Ministry of Power and Energy says, around 50,000 people have been affected owing to power failures caused due to inclement weather.

The Spokesperson of the Ministry, Sulakshana Jayawardena, said the staff at the CEB are working on restoring the supply of electricity to affected areas.

The electricity supply had initially been disrupted to nearly one million people due to the adverse weather.

 

Rs. 29 billion shock for Ceylon Electricity Board CEB

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

The Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) is set to incur a loss of Rs 29 billion this year. Latest statistics show that the sales revenue is at Rs 206 billion while other income took the figure to Rs 222 billion. The expenditure has been placed at Rs 287 leaving a deficit of 65 billion. Allowing for depreciation it would work out to the loss of Rs 29 billion.
This is besides the CEB requiring a further Rs 50 billion to buy emergency power.
These developments come at a time when the CEB has not launched any major programmes to enhance the country’s power output since 2014.

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/article/1036308/rs-29-billion-shock-for-ceylon-electricity-board-ceb

 

ආපදා තත්ත්වයෙන් පූර්ණ හානි වූ නිවාසවලට නොමිලේ විදුලි සැපයුම

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

WE REPORT. YOU DECIDE

???? ?????????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????.

??? ?????????????? ?.??. ??????? ???? ??????? ???, ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ??? 6? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ?.

????? ??? ????? ?????? ???????????? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???.

?? ??? ????????? ?????? ????????? ????? 95 ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ? ?????????????????? ????? ????.

??? ???????, ?? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?.

?, ???? ?????? ???????? ????? ????.

????, ?????? ??????????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ?? ? ??? ????? ????.

???????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? 835??.

ආපදා තත්ත්වයෙන් පූර්ණ හානි වූ නිවාසවලට නොමිලේ විදුලි සැපයුම

CEB to brighten lives of the weather battered


CEB Engineers file writ application against PUCSL

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

Two Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) Engineers have filed a writ application in the Court of Appeal, seeking a ‘Stay’ order on the implementation of the country’s long term power generation plan.

The move follows a dispute between the CEB and the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL), the country’s power sector regulator, over the generation plan approved by the latter.

The petition, filed on October 19, names 11 respondents. Those named include senior officials of the PUCSL, CEB, the Ministry of Power & Renewable Energy, and its Minister Ranjith Siyambalapitiya.

The petitioners argue that 1st respondent, PUCSL, has neglected and failed to comply with procedural requirements, when approving the CEB’s Least Cost Long Term Generation Expansion Plan (LCLTGEP) 2018-2037. The petitioners further allege that the 1st respondent had also acted arbitrarily by amending the generation plan without first consulting the transmission licensee; the CEB, and forcing conditions of its own on the CEB regarding the plan. They argue that the 1st respondent has no powers whatsoever to do so.

The petitioners also claim that, the PUCSL and its officials had acted with ulterior motives to discredit coal power generating plants and promote Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) plants.

The petitioners are seeking an interim injunction staying the decision document of the PUCSL on the implementation of the LCLTGEP 2018-2037, until the final determination of their application.

The petition is due to be taken up for hearing on Tuesday.

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/171126/news/ceb-engineers-file-writ-application-against-pucsl-270168.html

විදුලි සැර වැදීමෙන් විදුලි සේවකයන් දෙදෙනෙකුට තුවාල

Posted by admin on with 0 Comment

 

????? ???? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ??????????????? ?????? ??? ???????? ????? ???? ???????.

??????????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????.

????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????????????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ????? ??????????? ????? ?????? ?? ??.

????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??? ????? ????????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ???????? ??????? ????????? ?????.

????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???.

http://www.hirunews.lk/sinhala/176772/%E0%B7%80%E0%B7%92%E0%B6%AF%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%92-%E0%B7%83%E0%B7%90%E0%B6%BB-%E0%B7%80%E0%B7%90%E0%B6%AF%E0%B7%93%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%99%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%8A-%E0%B7%83%E0%B7%9A%E0%B7%80%E0%B6%9A%E0%B6%BA%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%8A-%E0%B6%AF%E0%B7%99%E0%B6%AF%E0%B7%99%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%99%E0%B6%9A%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%A7-%E0%B6%AD%E0%B7%94%E0%B7%80%E0%B7%8F%E0%B6%BD