The government's reported move to divert a portion of the development budget to finance clean-power generation is a welcome departure from treating renewable energy as a secondary concern. According to reports, the finance division has been asked to redirect Tk10 billion from allocations for some state-run bodies to support rooftop solar systems. The Power Division has also sought cooperation from private renewable-energy producers to add at least 5,000 megawatts (MW), particularly from solar sources. Given the severe power shortage now disrupting homes, industries and businesses, relocating development funds for an urgent programme of clean-power generation is undoubtedly a prudent move.
In fact, the present energy crisis has once again exposed the inherent weakness of a power generation regime that is built overwhelmingly on fossil fuels, a lion's share of which has to be imported. Bangladesh's domestic natural gas production has been falling for years. So, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), coal, furnace oil and diesel have increasingly become necessary to keep power plants running. But imported fuel is subject to uncertainties in the international market/geopolitics over which Bangladesh has little or no control. A war in the Middle East, disruption at an LNG terminal or an unusual rise in international fuel prices can suddenly turn into prolonged load-shedding at home. The ongoing crisis has shown precisely how vulnerable this arrangement is.
Consider the gas situation alone. Following repeated disruption at the Moheshkhali LNG terminal, national gas supply recently fell far short of demand and the power sector became an immediate casualty. At one stage, dozens of generating units faced fuel shortage while electricity shortfall widened. So, installed capacity on paper is of little comfort if the fuel required to operate the plants cannot be secured. One wonders, then, what is the use of adding more fossil-fuel-based generation capacity if the country cannot guarantee the fuel required to run those plants?
One might recall that successive governments were never short of promises about increasing the share of renewable energy. The Renewable Energy Policy of 2008 set the target of meeting 5.0 per cent of the country's power demand from renewables by 2015 and 10 per cent by 2020. Neither target was achieved. Years later, renewable energy still remains a marginal contributor while public investment continued to flow overwhelmingly towards fossil-fuel projects. So, the failure was not exactly due to lack of policy declarations. It was rather the absence of matching investment and implementation. Governments came and went, targets were announced and revised, but the basic energy structure remained about the same.
Now the BNP government has come up with its own promises. The Renewable Energy Policy 2025 envisages 20 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and 30 per cent by 2040. The government has also spoken of creating 10,000MW solar-generation capacity by 2030. No doubt, these are ambitious targets. But considering that present renewable capacity is still a small fraction of the country's total installed generation capacity, the distance to be covered is enormous. Will the latest targets, then, meet the same fate as those announced in the past? That will depend on whether the incumbent government is ready to treat renewable energy as an essential component of national energy security rather than as just another climate-related promise.
In this connection, the decision to abandon the proposed second 1,320MW coal-fired unit at Rampal and use the already-developed land for a 442MW grid-connected solar power plant is well taken. The existing Rampal plant beside the Sundarbans has remained controversial due to environmental concerns. The land earmarked for its second thermal unit can now be put to better use. More importantly, the decision signals that the government is willing to review the old fossil-fuel-based development plan.
But a few large solar projects here and some rooftop panels there will not by themselves resolve the structural energy crisis. Solar power has its limitations. It is intermittent and cannot produce at night without storage facilities. Land is also scarce in this densely populated country. So, the answer should lie in combining utility-scale solar with rooftop solar on factories, warehouses, government offices, schools and other buildings, floating solar on suitable water bodies, wind generation in the coastal belt and improved storage and grid management. At the same time, duties and regulatory barriers that make solar panels, inverters, batteries and other equipment unnecessarily expensive have to be removed. Notably, renewable-energy entrepreneurs themselves have identified the high import-stage duties on equipment as a major hurdle to faster expansion.
There is also the issue of financing. Investors will not put money into renewable-energy projects merely because the government says clean energy is a priority. They require predictable tariffs, affordable credit, stable policies, quick approval procedures and, above all, an electricity grid capable of absorbing intermittent renewable power. If the present move to divert development funds is to have any lasting meaning, it should lead to a permanent financing mechanism rather than remain an emergency measure taken only during a power crisis.
To be fair, the incumbent government has inherited an energy system whose weaknesses developed over decades. There is therefore no magic solution to the present crisis. For now, the government has little option but to manage imports, ration gas prudently and keep critical plants running. But if it assumes that the crisis will disappear once fuel supplies improve or geopolitical tensions ease, it would be repeating the same mistake committed by its predecessors. For Bangladesh's dependence on imported energy and the depletion of its domestic gas reserves will remain.
The government should therefore make good on its promise of substantially increasing the share of renewables before another, perhaps far worse, external energy shock strikes the country. To continue responding to every crisis by buying increasingly expensive LNG, coal or oil from abroad would be to treat the symptoms while leaving the disease untouched. Worse yet, each fresh shock would expose industries, businesses and ordinary consumers to another round of uncertainty.
The time has come to adopt a long-term strategy under which renewable energy would gradually become the mainstay of the country's energy source rather than an appendage to fossil fuel. The present crisis should be seen as an opportunity to begin that transition in earnest. Otherwise, once the immediate shortages disappear, renewables may again be pushed to the background until the next crisis arrives. By then the price of such procrastination may be still higher.
