In the debate about CT Power and our energy policy in general – like in every other debate in this country – there is an automatic division of the participants into two categories: the good guys and the bad guys – the referees being none other than the good guys themselves. Repeat after me “renewable energy now!” and you are a good guy. Dare question the feasibility, cost, let alone the definition of renewable energy and you automatically find yourself with the bad lot.

Emotions have been running so high that it is difficult to look at the topic rationally. And Somduth Dulthumun’s unsolicited intervention unwittingly poured oil onto a fire which was already blazing with ethnic connotations.

In the CT Power debate, there are two major issues to be considered and they should be considered separately. First, the opacity in which the project has been shrouded for years. We don’t know who the promoters are and – more importantly – we don’t know what the terms of the contract are. We hear snippets of information here and there but we have not been given any official figures. This same opacity, by the way, characterises the contract between the Central Electricity Board and the Independent Power Producers, some of whom are today condemning the lack of visibility in CT Power.

The second issue is the one about coal and other fossil fuels vs renewable energy. It is nice to see the movement opposed to coal gathering momentum. We have to have people who are passionate about the environment. But there comes a point when we have to set our passions aside and look at the whole picture rationally.

When it comes to energy production, our options as a country are very limited. Forget about Bagasse, which is disappearing at a fast rate. Forget about gas which we don’t have and which is quite hard to describe as a “clean” source of fuel, in spite of the myth around it, and concentrate on the ‘cleanest’ form of energy – the sun. And here are some sobering facts:

Producing solar electricity releases more greenhouse gases than producing electricity by gas or even coal! Shocked? That’s probably because you forgot that to produce solar electricity, you need to first manufacture solar panels. And therein lies the problem: the long processes involved in manufacturing solar panels cause air pollution and heavy metal emissions and they consume energy. According to recent studies, manufacturing a solar system to put on the roof of your house uses a chemical that is “17,000 times stronger than carbon dioxide as a cause of global warming”. So, solar panels fi rst raise the amount of greenhouse gases and then they help to lower them! And it’s not just the manufacturing process which consumes huge amounts of energy and is highly polluting. Disposal of decommissioned unserviceable apparatus is also problematic as it contains toxic heavy metals and other noxious materials. Factor in the life expectancy of solar panels – or energy payback time – as some panels will be discarded before the solar cell has generated more energy than was needed to produce it – and you’ll get the full picture.

When you read the latest reports on this topic, read between the lines and do your own calculations. What is left out is more important than what was said. The not-in-my-back-yard syndrome should not be neglected. Guess where these panels are produced and where they will probably be dumped when no longer in use.

It is not our intention to run down renewable energy. The point is that the debate about our energy policy probably needs to be refocused and updated. And maybe the bad guys should also be allowed to have a say. That’s how we’ll get the full picture!