More Power

A new 4,000 MW power plant for Karachi in sight:

Under the agreement, the CDGK will provide 400 acres land to the company for the installation of the power plant and 50 acres for the establishment of the desalination plant in Korangi. In the first phase, the company will complete the installation of the power plant with a 2,000 mega watts capacity in a period of 18 months.

Good going CDGK. Karachi needs a lot of power – and a lot less of power theft which is currently to the tune of Rs 2 billion per month (source KESC).

28 Comments so far

  1. FAS (unregistered) on February 13th, 2008 @ 7:00 pm

    Good work by CDGK. They are on the right track


  2. shahab (unregistered) on February 13th, 2008 @ 7:02 pm

    The company listed in the article will build the desalination plant. What company is going to build the 4,000 MW electricity plant? Also how is it going to generate the electricity: coal, natural gas, … ?


  3. fahmed (unregistered) on February 13th, 2008 @ 7:17 pm

    can’t be natural gas cu’s we don’t have much to go around! most probably oil.


  4. Abdul Sami (unregistered) on February 13th, 2008 @ 7:22 pm

    ^FAHMED:

    the Chairman of Global EnviroScience Technologies, Martin Lizer, addressing the ceremony, said that, being one of the biggest firms of the world, his company will install pollution-free plants in Karachi


  5. fahmed (unregistered) on February 13th, 2008 @ 7:24 pm

    I will be gratefull to Allah if they add even 1000MW.

    I hope it’s not just one of those MOU’s which does not get anywhere and is only good for the photo show.

    MOU is not the actual agreement. until the achieve the financial close i won’t believe it!!!


  6. fahmed (unregistered) on February 13th, 2008 @ 7:29 pm

    Abdul Sami:

    it can’t be gas…if it is then the plant would be closed for at least 300 days every year as there won’t be any gas to run it.

    i have dealt with KESC and their bin qasim plant was converted to gas 4-4 years back but they hardly got the gas pressure to run it on gas. that was 4-5 years back and now the gas shortage is acute so forget about gas fired power plant.

    can’t be wind either! not practical for 4000 MW of wind power plants. would be veryyyy expensive.


  7. ali-en (unregistered) on February 13th, 2008 @ 8:40 pm

    The desalination is a definite plus, however I’m having second thoughts about the power plant. The article doesn’t mention what fuel would the plant be run on–but considering the land area needed for it (400 acres), and since it’s being called pollution-free, I suppose it’s wind powered.

    Although it’s a good plan in the long-term, I think that it would’ve been more practical to use clean coal-powered plants right now, considering that fuel’s stocks in Pakistan. Furthermore, currently wind power is borderline unaffordable for the city govt if used on a large scale.

    And ideal solution would be a waste-to-energy technology, such as incineration or gasification, and although their prices are also higher than coal in Pakistan, they’re more affordable and effective than wind power in both the short- and long-term. Best of all, gasification (as well as efficient incineration) are virtually emission-free and significantly reduce landfill space (up to 90%) yet provide energy. Materials such as sewage and industrial waste are able to be used for gasification. Pakistan is already plagued with waste disposal issues.

    This is IF the plant is wind powered. If it is oil powered, then God help us. And efficiency (current efficiency rate of power plants is a staggeringly low 33%) and control on power theft are always top priorities, regardless of which fuel is the plant run on.


  8. AH (unregistered) on February 13th, 2008 @ 8:45 pm

    I hope that this turns out to be a viable project because we could certainly use more electricity and water. However, having viewed the company’s web site and the bio of its chairman , I am not filled with the highest confidence.

    In fact, on the company’s web site, they don’t even list the "installation of the power plant(s)" as one of their core competencies. The company says that "GET, Inc. manufactures a full range of standard and custom water purification and recycling equipment …"

    Of course, this could be the wrong company or they may not have updated their web site, which would be surprising since this is "one of the biggest firms of the world." Fingers are crossed.


  9. AH (unregistered) on February 13th, 2008 @ 8:54 pm

    FYI: here are the links if anyone’s interested
    Company web site: http://www.get-inc.com/
    Chairman’s Bio: http://www.get-inc.com/key_get_personnel.htm


  10. Concerned (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 12:50 am

    Just a bit of info for ppl, I think the power will be generated from the deselination plant (steam).

    The bit abt the power plant is prob exagerated because that is the need of the hour.


  11. Reality_check (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 2:20 am

    I agree with CONCERNED it seems that power generation was higlighted for political expedience, it looks more a desalination plant coupled with the power generation unit, rather than the other way round, the power plant might be sub-contracted to another firm. Remember the project is in MoU state, we will see if and when it materializes.


  12. AH (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 2:29 am

    That could very well be true, i.e. the power generation point was highlighted for political expediency.

    However, if that’s the case then why say that "in the first phase, the company will complete the installation of the power plant." If you were going to first build the desalination plant and were using the power plant for political purposes, then shouldn’t the MoU state that the desalination plant would be built first?


  13. zee (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 4:15 am

    The power would probably come from the steam that they use. Good stuff. 4000MW is a LOT of powerin 18 months. I hope it doesn’t get pinned by corrupt politicians.


  14. Ah (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 5:01 am

    Zee, as I noted in an earlier post, I would be very surprised if this company gets the power plant finished on time. The reason has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the company, which does not look to have any experience in making these plants.


  15. MB (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 9:56 am

    Now this is more like what KARACHI ask for.
    Well done CDGK. We need more !!!


  16. Sam (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 10:06 am

    Fingers are crossed but i am just worry kh yeh MOU bhi kahin green busses jaisa na ho ( but hope for the best


  17. fahmed (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 11:44 am

    "The power would probably come from the steam that they use. Good stuff. 4000MW is a LOT of powerin 18 months. I hope it doesn’t get pinned by corrupt politicians."

    @ZEE

    all power plants generate power by steam. steam turns the turbines and in this way power is genereated.

    in nuclear power plants the steam is generated by heating water through nuclear fuel. in thermal / caol plants steam is generated by these fuel…etc

    @ AH

    "I think that it would’ve been more practical to use clean coal-powered plants right now"

    dear AH kindly note that coal is the worst polluter as far as power generation fuwl is concerned.

    it can’t be wind power as the news report indicated that the total dbudget is less then 3 Billion USD.

    4000W of wind power may cost more then 8-10 billion USD easily.

    it is many times costlier then other forms of power generation all our foreign exchange reserves would be neede just for this project if it is wind power.


  18. fahmed (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 11:52 am

    all power plants generate power by steam except ofcourse hydel and wind where water and wind are used to turn the turbines.


  19. AH (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 4:19 pm

    Fahmed, re-read my postings because I never said that "I think that it would’ve been more practical to use clean coal-powered plants right now."


  20. fahmed (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 7:42 pm

    i am really surprised that my comments are being deleted.


  21. fahmed (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 7:45 pm

    @AH

    Sorry, i meant to reply to ALI-EN!

    @ALI-EN

    dear AH kindly note that coal is the worst polluter as far as power generation fuwl is concerned.

    it can’t be wind power as the news report indicated that the total dbudget is less then 3 Billion USD.

    4000W of wind power may cost more then 8-10 billion USD easily.

    it is many times costlier then other forms of power generation all our foreign exchange reserves would be neede just for this project if it is wind power.


  22. fahmed (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 7:46 pm

    @AH

    Sorry, i meant to reply to ALI-EN!

    @ALI-EN

    dear AH kindly note that coal is the worst polluter as far as power generation fuel is concerned.

    it can’t be wind power as the news report indicated that the total dbudget is less then 3 Billion USD.

    4000W of wind power may cost more then 8-10 billion USD easily.

    it is many times costlier then other forms of power generation all our foreign exchange reserves would be neede just for this project if it is wind power.


  23. fahmed (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 7:47 pm

    @ALI-EN

    indly note that coal is the worst polluter as far as power generation fuel is concerned.

    it can’t be wind power as the news report indicated that the total dbudget is less then 3 Billion USD.

    4000W of wind power may cost more then 8-10 billion USD easily.

    it is many times costlier then other forms of power generation all our foreign exchange reserves would be neede just for this project if it is wind power.


  24. fahmed (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 7:57 pm

    i would like to mention that pakistan has installed a 300MW nuclear plant at chashma for more then 1.3 billion USD!!!!! which is based on a chinese desighn which china has itself discontinued because of problems.

    we could have easily installed a thermal plant of 1300 MW for that amount and the nuclear power plant has to be closed down for maintenance about every 2 years for almost 04 months. nuclear waste is another issue.

    to top it all we have started antother 300 MW chashnup-2.

    for a total of 600 MW of power plant costing more then 2.6 billion USD we could have installed almost 3000 MW of conventional power plant!

    it just does not make sense.

    just to clarify a misconseption that nuclear power is a safe and uninterrupted form of energy and would not be discountinued…etc a few years back there was a severe drougt in france and acute water shortage resulted in the closure of most of it nuclear power plants as there was no water to be used in the cooling of power plants.

    france produces a majority of it’s power from nuclear plants. nuclear plants can not function without an reliable supply of water in sufficient qty’s. if there is no rainfall and the canals run dry then the nuclear plants are also shut!


  25. Reality_check (unregistered) on February 14th, 2008 @ 9:51 pm

    The problem is that all the current methods of power generation cause great damage to the environment, including, coal, thermal, nuclear and of course dams.
    Until alternate methods like solar, wind, ocean waves and geo-thermal become viable we will have to choose lesser of the above evils. It’s a catch 22, but we have to get going.

    The wise thing to do would be to adopt lifestyle changes, take queue from construction methods that were prevalent a century or so ago, that had better temperature regulation techniques than the ones we are using now, but unfortunately, currently our society is no where close to even discussing these issues, let alone work for change.


  26. ali-en (unregistered) on February 16th, 2008 @ 1:39 am

    @ FAHMED

    "dear AH kindly note that coal is the worst polluter as far as power generation fuwl is concerned."

    Correction: not necessarily. Although conventional coal-powered are terrible polluters, recent technology has come up with clean coal burning techniques (I specifically used the word "clean" in my post). Do a quick Googling and you’ll find lots of links, and I mean legitimate links. Meanwhile let me see if I can post them up here right now.


  27. fahmed (unregistered) on February 16th, 2008 @ 4:28 am

    @ALI-EN

    I would appreciate if you could give a few links. it would be a pleasent surprise if coal has turned out to be the cleanest fuel for power gen.

    but i guest there is a catch in this to!

    maybe that is a theory stil, if it’s true then the world’s power gen problems would be solved.

    but i guess it would be the most expensive one.!


  28. umair (unregistered) on February 17th, 2008 @ 5:04 pm

    I strongly think that effluent treatment plants (waster water treatment) is our present day solution for water needs. This is the cheapest way. No way can we afford desalination plants. I hope our decision makers take the experts into confidence before announcing grandiose schemes that serve the purpose of getting them popularity.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.