— Geotechnical Engineer, Charles Ceres

THE Amaila Falls Hydropower Project (AFHP) would be a heavy burden to tax payers should the project be given the go-ahead in its current configuration, Civil, Geotechnical and Groundwater Hydrology Engineer, Charles Ceres has said.According to him, while Guyana continues to push for a ‘green’ economy and a ‘green’ footprint, the Amaila Falls Project, at this stage of the country’s development, is not viable.

However, he said that solar, wind and biomass are cheaper and just as effective options of renewable energy.

Providing his professional opinion after studying the ‘Review of the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project in Guyana’ Report, which was done by Norconsult, a Norwegian engineering and design consultancy firm, the geo-technical engineer said that the flaws and risks, which have been pointed out by the independent review are significant and fatal and negate the efficacy of the development of this site.

According to him, the risks and flaws in the design of the project will threaten its long-term effectiveness and prove too costly and burdensome to the people of Guyana and the country as a small developing state.

“The question is; do we need Amaila at this stage? I think it is an onerous burden on our resources to spend that kind of money on Amaila Falls when we can spend less money for the same volume of power. What we need at this stage of our development is more power and more power should come from a mix of resources that are readily available to us,” he posited.

Through these means, Ceres noted that the country can still achieve its goal of having a ‘green’ economy.

“It doesn’t compromise that objective and for us to move to Amaila is too costly. It is a burden on taxpayers… I think that we are staring down the barrel of a potential Skeldon II Project again and I don’t think that we should be doing that,” he contended.

The current configuration of the project is not viable on two counts – one, it is too costly, and secondly, it will not satisfy the power demands of the country, he reiterated. According to the report on the project, by 2025, the country would have to build another hydropower plant.

Speaking directly to some of the issues, which were identified by Norconsult, Ceres said the matter of an absence of any sediment handling methodology in the design of the plant is a ‘fatal flaw’.

“There is no provision in the design for the removal of sediment from the reservoir. So it is conceivable that we can have a reservoir, which is filled with sediment by the time this project is handed over to Guyana. So where there is this claim that we are going to have access to free electricity, if this reservoir ‘sediment up’ within that period we have access to no electricity, because there is no mechanism to remove sediment,” he explained.

CRITICAL SECTION MISSING

At most high powered plants, there are sediment removal facilities in the base of the reservoir, however, this critical section was missing, Ceres lamented.

Another major concern pointed out by the geotechnical engineer was the distance between the site and the transmission centre in Georgetown. The report clearly states that a financial hurdle, for realising AFHP, is the 270-280 km long transmission line required from the project site to the main dispatch centre in Georgetown.

The cost structure of the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contract shows that the line adds about 44 percent to the construction costs of the power plant itself, which again is reflected in the energy tariff.

“Now if we do that, that transmission line is incapable of servicing the second plant. We will need to expand the capacity of that transmission line so that in itself is an impediment against the development of the future of hydropower development facilities in that area,” Ceres explained.

ABSENCE OF FLY WHEEL

He further pointed out that the absence of a fly wheel, an energy storage mechanism, which is a critical element of the project, is another major flaw.

The flywheel maintains the rotational speed for relatively small variations in load since it would force the turbine to keep turning. In its current configuration, the project would not be able to self-regulate and as such, a flywheel would be needed.

Further to this, Norconsult would have recommended that three years of geotechnical and geological works be done around the site to determine the risks and viability of the output of the plant. However, Ceres explained that the investment needed in these three years does not provide any assurance of success. It could end up becoming costly with no results to show, he says.

“They have also identified the fact that we should be examining an underground powerhouse as opposed to an above ground powerhouse. There are implications for that because they have mentioned the fact that there will be need for more geological work and geotechnical work on the site to determine that there isn’t a fatal flaw in going underground,” he lamented.

The engineer added that the level of uncertainty is a significant risk for such a large investment.

“Incurring these additional expenses do not provide a guarantee that whatever solution they come up with would be viable because it is still in its exploratory stage,” he noted.

CHEAPER, LESS RISKY OPTIONS

Ceres is, however, maintaining that there are cheaper and less risky options, which can be pursued, all in keeping with the country’s ‘green’ agenda.

“We have looked at biomass in Guyana and you know we can generate power for all the Essequibo Coast from biomass from rice husk? We have enough rice husk on the Essequibo and the Corentyne to generate as much as six megawatts of power but I don’t think anyone has looked at those as options,” he said.

The development of the other energy options in Guyana, the engineer said, would, however, only take shape with acceptance by the Guyanese people that there are several other resources that can provide energy to the country.

“For too long, the discussion has been only about hydropower. We haven’t looked at the other mixes that we can put together to satisfy the power of the country. We should be examining the total mix that is available to us; solar, wind and biomass. I think we need to have this discussion because people seem to think that Amaila is the only solution.”

Meanwhile, Head of the Project Management Office of the Ministry of the Presidency, Marlon Bristol, in an invited comment, said that the Government’s concerns over the project have been vindicated. He noted that the flaws identified, do not auger well for the country, given the cost implications.

“If you go to the report they will tell you that… [it] identifies all the design issues, which has major cost implications and by cost implications I mean it has implications for the total cost, which is now estimated at US$858M. I think they tried to revise it down to $851M, but it’s still fairly high and that does not consider, in my opinion, the cost of rectifying all the design issues identified,” Bristol said.

He noted too that it would take approximately six years before that project comes to fruition.

“I think at the end of the day the Government has to be very responsible in the action that it takes and at this moment in time and given the current configuration I don’t think it will be possible to take the risk associated with the potential cost increase from rectifying some of the design issues and the fact that it would have implications for the tariffs up front,” Bristol said.