Why coal powered electricity and not solar?

granca

Bronze
Aug 20, 2007
1,418
48
0
84
woulds one of you wiser people than me please explain why the RD is spending all this money on coal fired electricity generators especially with their expensive maitenance cost and relatively short life when money invested in solar electricity has none of these drawbacks?
 
May 12, 2005
8,564
270
0
Probably due to the higher cost of the solar infrastructure and the sheer amount of panels needed to generate the same amount of electricity as the coal plant.
 

dv8

Gold
Sep 27, 2006
31,270
359
0
woulds one of you wiser people than me please explain why the RD is spending all this money on coal fired electricity generators especially with their expensive maitenance cost and relatively short life when money invested in solar electricity has none of these drawbacks?

these are exact same drawbacks of solar power. it's still expensive to install, you need to maintain it and change batteries and panels too, eventually. this is not perpetuum mobile, you know.
 

Luperon

Who empowered China's crime against humanity?
Jun 28, 2004
4,328
176
63
Imagine how many panels would be stolen, no profit in stealing small amounts of coal.
 

KateP

Silver
May 28, 2004
2,846
6
38
Probably also someone high up making a good chunk of change off of the deal...
 

dv8

Gold
Sep 27, 2006
31,270
359
0
The Maldives manages to do it.

how is that relevant? one resort. on a tiny island. with more resources. donP also uses solar power only. but DR has around 10 million people. it's not that easy to take it off the grid.
 

drstock

Silver
Oct 29, 2010
2,777
436
83
Cabarete
It has always seemed to me that the DR should be an ideal place for using renewable energy: sun, wind, waves, tides, rivers - just about all sources are available.
 

Criss Colon

Platinum
Jan 2, 2002
21,843
188
0
34
yahoomail.com
Go back and read the 3rd. story footnoted at the end of your "Resort Story", not quite "Ready For PRIME TIME "yet!!!!!!!
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
 

Matilda

RIP Lindsay
Sep 13, 2006
5,485
316
63
how is that relevant? one resort. on a tiny island. with more resources. donP also uses solar power only. but DR has around 10 million people. it's not that easy to take it off the grid.

Actually the whole country is more or less on solar which is 2,500 islands. Not all occupied I give you but having 'tiny' islands brings with it many challenges. I don't think anyone is saying take the DR totally off the grid, but I think you will find a large amount of 'politics' are involved in the lack of solar power being used in this country.

Matilda
 

Criss Colon

Platinum
Jan 2, 2002
21,843
188
0
34
yahoomail.com
MATILDA, GO READ THE STORY ABOUT THE REAL PROJECTS lack of progress FOR THE ISLANDS.
A luxury resort does not equal a country!!!!
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
When solar is cost effective, and the same cost as fossil fuels, it will happen not until!!!!!!!!!!!
 

dv8

Gold
Sep 27, 2006
31,270
359
0
Actually the whole country is more or less on solar which is 2,500 islands. Not all occupied I give you but having 'tiny' islands brings with it many challenges. I don't think anyone is saying take the DR totally off the grid, but I think you will find a large amount of 'politics' are involved in the lack of solar power being used in this country.

you realize the entire population of maldives is less than 400k people, do you? that's less than santiago.

as far as politics is concerned, true enough. maybe companies dealing with renewable resources should pay more bribes. because i do not see change in the near future, even thou DR has a potential for the usage of green power.
 

PJT

Silver
Jan 8, 2002
3,278
37
48
Favors ?

The country would be better off with natural gas plants rather than coal fired units and much cleaner. The US and Trinidad and Tobago would be major players for the source of such fuel. Solar and wind power units do not have the capacity to meet the demand of large distribution zones that coal and gas fired plants are capable to secure. Solar and wind require to much up front financing and would take years to pay off. Solar and wind would be good to service small communities that are way beyond the reach of the national grid. The two coal fired units the country is now constructing have many questioning why coal? Only the government insiders know the reasons for the decision.

One of the previous posters suggested the reason coal fired was selected was "somebody was making a good chunk of change off the deal":bandit: You have to question who is in line for the contract for the removal of the toxic coal ash? Will there be tenders for that? You can bet your life there are party loyalists lining up in the corridors seeking favor for favors.

Regards,

PJT
 

Cdn_Gringo

Gold
Apr 29, 2014
7,779
614
113
The country would be better off with natural gas plants rather than coal fired units and much cleaner.

You really do not want large LNG tanker ships cruising into port here. The potential for disaster is off the charts especially in a country lacking any sort of formal safety standards enforcement, equipment and monitoring.

Nat. gas would make sense if the DR has a local supply of the stuff. Coal is dirty but at least it is inert. Solar is just not cost effective or efficient/reliable enough as a primary source for power generation yet. Solar is ok to supplement existing power generation during peak usage during the business day.
 
May 29, 2006
10,268
199
0
With NG, they have a line that goes offshore where it connects with the supply ships. Coal would have to be imported into the DR as well.

With about 25% of the power generated being stolen~mostly by barrio homes, subsidizing small scale off-grid power seems like an option to explore. They can use 12v DC for lights, skip the need for inverters and use off the rack solar trickle chargers.

I have a $30 inverter that plugs into my car's cigarette lighter. Looks like a Starbuck's Coffee Cup. Not a huge amount of amps, but enough to run a laptop.