Re: Latvia refuses to go green: new power station to return the country to dark ages of coal

From: Jim Blair (jeb_at_wisc.edu)
Date: 02/15/05 

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:58:37 -0600

"Aivo" <aivo_liiv03@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2de89362.0502150648.2c243140@posting.google.com...
> http://groups.msn.com/BalticLoyalist/latviarefusestogogreen.msnw
>
> Latvia refuses to go green: new power station to return the country to
> dark ages of coal
>
> A little known energy trivia fact is that Latvia imports 1/3 of its
> electricity. The country is electrically self-sufficient for only 1.5
> months in spring, when the Daugava is in flood and its hydropower
> stations harvest the glut of melting snow. At this time of the year
> Latvia goes almost completely green in the field of power generation.
> For the rest of the year the country relies heavily on electricity
> import from Estonia and Lithuania. As the Ignalina nuclear power
> station in Lithuania is slated for a shutdown in 2009, the imported
> power is likely to become dearer.
>
> To counter this the Latvian government is pressing for a new
> coal-burning co-generation plant to be built in Ventspils, Courland.
> The plant will produce heat for centralized district heating as well
> as electricity. The government 'experts' employ cynical rhetoric that
> while the cheapest way of generating electricity is to use natural gas
> from Russia this would increase Latvia's energy dependency on the
> eastern neighbour. According to them the coal can be bought anywhere;
> thus the country gets an 'alternative' source of energy. Naturally,
> the Latvians are very sensitive about the issue: already Russian gas
> provides 90% of centralized district heating needs.
>
> It is quite obvious the country needs a new generating capacity by
> 2009. But why does it have to be coal? It is claimed that to built
> the coal-burning co-generation plant would cost 1 million lats ($1.9)
> per 1 Megawatt of generating capacity. Naturally, the costs of
> procuring non indigenous coal are not taken into consideration by the
> politicians obsessed exclusively by short-term goals. Incidentally
> a 3 Mwatt wind turbine costs $5 million - which is quite compatible.
> For some reason the government advisors claim that wind has no future
> in Latvia, because the Gulf of Riga is not windy enough, completely
> ignoring the fact that Latvia also has 200+ km of the much windier
> Baltic Sea coast!
>
> But if the country needs a co-generation plant that in addition to
> electricity generation will also keep the city of Ventspils warm why
> not use the locally produced bio-mass? In many countries of the world
> special energy crops like willows, poplars and reeds are grown.
> Willows and poplars grow in coppices which are trimmed by special
> agricultural machines every 5 years. They do not have to be replanted
> for many decades, even centuries. Straw and methane from farm slurry
> and sewage can also be used. All of these fuels are renewable, would
> generate income locally, revitalize agriculture and create true energy
> independence. As it is green electricity it would make it possible to
> trade 'E.U. renewable obligation' certificates. In a sparsely
> populated country like Latvia there are virtually millions of acres of
> fallow land abandoned after the fall of Communism.
>
> It is not clear if the cellulose plant will be build in Latvia. But if
> it is, it would create 50% of waste timber that can be used to feed a
> 80 Mwatt plant.
>
> Why there are no plans to use the bio-mass fuels is more than strange.
> That is where the bourgeois beast of 'liberal' capitalism pokes its
> ugly snout though its shrouds of 'dimocracy'! Could it possibly be
> that coal would be imported by a major supplier who would give a
> substantial bribe to win a "competitive" contract from the government?
> It is no secret that all government officials anywhere in the world
> would grant a contract not to the supplier offering the best value but
> to one offering the biggest bribe. But the bio-mass growers are many
> and they are small: it would not be as convenient to extort bribes
> from them. In fact it may well be impossible: the farmers are local
> and simply do not need an import license for granting of which the
> government officials expect to receive bribes. Once more the
> despicable enemies of the people are undermining the future
> prosperity, freedom and possibly even lives of the people they are
> supposed to serve.
>
> http://groups.msn.com/BalticLoyalist/

Hi,

Interesting. Questions:

1-- Is Latvia a party to the Kyoto treaty? Does CO2 from imported power
count against them?

2-- On wind, the question is more timing than total. Here in Wisconsin, I
claim that wind cannot be a major source of our power. The winds speeds are
lowest when electricity demand is highest: during the summer and especially
hot summer evenings.

3-- On biomass. Aside from the fact that no one wants an ethanol or such
plant in their "back yard", how does the energy produced compare to the
energy imputs? When corn to ethanol was evaluated during the evergy crisis
or the 1970's in the USA, it was estimated that it took more calories (
mostly in diesel oil) to make the ethanol than were released when the
ethanol was burned. That may have changed when GMO corn is grown, but many
of the same people who want bio-energy also object to GMO crops.

                     ,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
                       (_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834

Relevant Pages