Power station not the answer (From Western Telegraph)

Power station not the answer

DEAR EDITOR, - Debbie James' February 18th article announced that importing LNG here could result in a gas-fired power station at Pennar. 'Good news'! she implied. I disagree.

Energy Efficiency: The LNG liquefying-shipping-re-vaporising process causes 30% of the gas extracted in the Gulf to be consumed en route to the UK gas network. Burn the remaining 70% in a 50% efficient combined cycle power station, and just 35% is turned into electricity, while the rest is thrown away: good news?

National Security: Compare generating power from imported LNG (35% net efficiency) with burning UK-mined coal at over 40% efficiency. As for our balance of payments ... ?

Common sense: A power station dumps heat into the sea at Pennar, while at South Hook, ExxonMobil burns natural gas to heat the LNG re-vaporisation units. Where's the logic? If LNG comes to the Haven, we should exploit it using Combined Heat and Power (CHP) technology. With CHP the inevitable (Laws of Thermodynamics) waste heat from the electricity generators is recovered and sold to industry and households: the energy efficiency is over 75%. We already have CHP here: Petroplus plans to restart its plant to re-vaporise its LNG imports; Withybush Hospital co-generates power and heat.

Texaco has warned that its Pembroke refinery stays open only while it pays its way: gas-fired CHP sited there would generate electricity and sell it affordable steam; ditto for Total Fina Elf, and ExxonMobil South Hook LNG. Furthermore, LNG or no, we should be evaluating CHP plus community heating schemes for our towns - note that CHP can exploit 'green' resources such as wood waste or even farm slurry!

CHRISTOPHER JESSOP Independent energy consultant 1 West End, Marloes.