Close Gallery
Power plant Palamara, La Vega
Zoom Picture

Santo Domingo. - The State-owned Power Companies (CDEEE) Monday announced that it has the bases for the call for tenders to buy energy generated with natural gas or coal, on its Website www.cdeee.gob.do.

It said the contents are available in English and Spanish, and explains the steps to access the details, for potential investors to participate in the process, and for the public.

The call for tenders aims to provide up to 1,500 megawatts of energy to the distributing companies, if adequate offers are received.

The CDEEE said the purchased energy will have to come from new generating plants, whose estimated cost will be around US$3.0 billion.

“The participation and access to the call for tenders are exclusively online, through our institutional Website, especially prepared for it. All required information and doubts will be the responsibility of the Bidding Committee via this platform. This measure was taken to confer the highest level of transparency to the process.”

Share / Recommend this article: FacebookFacebook Digg thisDigg this del.icio.usdel.icio.us TechnoratiTechnorati YahooYahoo Facebook
COMMENTS
25 comment(s)
Written by: josean, 6 Feb 2012 1:16 PM
From: United States, Fighting the Dictatorship of the Narco PLD Mafia; Guillermo Moreno President 2016

More election time BS!

This Purple Mafia could not recognize TRANSPREANCY if it hit them in the FACE!
Written by: Atabey, 6 Feb 2012 1:29 PM
From: United States, Bring DT Forum Back--
1,500 megawatts of energy!

Now that would surely mend much of the supply issues, especially for the industrial sector-think mining.
Written by: anthonyC, 6 Feb 2012 1:35 PM
From: United States
Written by: josean,
More election time BS!

This Purple Mafia could not recognize TRANSPREANCY if it hit them in the FACE!

How is that Election time B.S.?

Here is your chance to put your money where your extremely large and ignorant mouth is.

Put in a bid to generate Electricity in the D.R.
Written by: WalterPolo, 6 Feb 2012 1:48 PM
From: Dominican Republic, Puerto Plata
Put a bid to generate electricity, and pay huge secret commissions to get on the list.

Once you're among the chosen, kiss your money goodbye, because the CDEEEEEEEEEEEEEE will pay you when they decide to, dragging the bills forever.

A sucker trap if I ever saw one.
Written by: juanb, 6 Feb 2012 1:55 PM
From: Dominican Republic

Walter Polo:

+1
Written by: josean, 6 Feb 2012 2:37 PM
From: United States, Fighting the Dictatorship of the Narco PLD Mafia; Guillermo Moreno President 2016


Everything you wanted to know about DR’s CDEEE rip off but were afraid to ask!


"Who pays for the feast of the electricity sector?"



http://www.7dias.com.do/app/article.aspx?id=115149
Written by: poponlaburra, 6 Feb 2012 2:45 PM
From: Dominican Republic, popon@att.net
modern countries are staying away from coal coal energy plants mining and becasue the highly contamination coal produce in general.

Bad move to use a coal plant.
Written by: RoyStone, 6 Feb 2012 4:13 PM
From: Australia
poponlaburra, really?
Which "modern" countries and what "contamination"?
Written by: anthonyC, 6 Feb 2012 5:54 PM
From: United States
Josie just b*tches and moans from his mom's basement in New Jersey but doesn't lift a finger to anything about it. I guess he is too busy cashing his welfare check
Written by: anthonyC, 6 Feb 2012 7:00 PM
From: United States
There is the Josie we all know and love.........Jealous, Bitter, ignorant and Bigoted!

Written by: RonEvane This user is banned, 7 Feb 2012 4:07 AM
From: United States, Gaithersburg, Maryland

To Josean, everything and anything done by the government, is a conspiracy to rip off the public.
Written by: stillhere, 7 Feb 2012 12:43 PM
From: Dominican Republic
Yes while a lot countries are moving away from coal, as people are becoming aware of this massively subsidized industry, with millions given to it to fund "clean coal" tech with no results...

Some of the simplest economic costs of coal come in the form of subsidies and tax breaks which are not reflected in the market price of coal (for example the estimated $4.6 billion in coal-related subsidies in the 2009 stimulus package).

Written by: MrThelmoAlmeydaRancier, 7 Feb 2012 12:44 PM
From: United States, NJ
For that much money the gvt could have the FRENCH build, maintain and supply more energy than the total energy output by the DR presently generating . All they need is to move in 2 atomic reactors and take over CDEEE. There would be no more botellas and all the consummers would have to pay their share ,including gvt agencies. There would be no more subsidies instead tax them accordingly . Instead of paying off, the gvt would be recieving . Those that can not afford it go back to candle light and make more babies.
Written by: RoyStone, 7 Feb 2012 12:59 PM
From: Australia
stillhere, are yo kidding?
Coal is still Australia's greatest net income earner. Subsidies for CO2 sequestration is nothing compared to wind-power, solar-power, bio-power, wank-power, etc.
When the world wakes up to the AGW con, CO2 sequestration will not be needed, and wind-power, solar-power, bio-power, wank-power, etc. will still be nonviable.
Written by: RoyStone, 7 Feb 2012 1:08 PM
From: Australia
Absolutely, Thelmo,
And if global carbon-trading becomes a reality, the Dominican Republic could also sell its credits.

(and but cheep, high-quality Uranium from Australia, in return for beautiful Dominican women who want to escape from selfish macho Dominican men)
More rocks please.
Written by: MrThelmoAlmeydaRancier, 7 Feb 2012 1:21 PM
From: United States, NJ
stillhere:

There are not such thing as "clean coal" tech .the closeset would be the pulverization process and all coal furnices must have it in order to burn more efficiently, but not necessarly cleaner.

It is a reality that all modern countries except CHINA are moving away from coal,including the 3rd world countries due to the toxidity ,pollution and filthiness. Only DR would come up with such a stupid idea due to the cheapness of such fuel and the kick back "comision" they could obtain from
the coal producing countries such as COLOMBIA .
Written by: RobertoJose, 7 Feb 2012 1:26 PM
From: United States, FREEPORT, Long Island.... ((You're blind to the fact that you're blind))
Why, so they can subsidize to the mining companies......
Written by: RoyStone, 7 Feb 2012 1:42 PM
From: Australia
"toxidity ,pollution and filthiness" Thelmo?
There are none of these from modern coal-fired power-stations with electrostatic-precipittors, scrubbers, etc, unless you consider forest-and-crop-food, (and what you breath out) CO2 a pollutant.
This is the only reason to move away from coal.

The problem is, the people who are most paranoid about CO2, are even more paranoid about nuclear power. There is evidence for and against AGW. There is no real evidence against nuclear power. The Chernobyl disaster, the only major disaster caused by nuclear, is no more argument against nuclear power than the Hindenburg disaster is against travel by air. Both are obsolete technologies.
Written by: MrThelmoAlmeydaRancier, 7 Feb 2012 1:49 PM
From: United States, NJ
The only use at the present are the bi-product of coal but not as a fuel. For instance the GERMANS were getting liquid fuel out of it during WW2 ,when they were run out of RUMANIA where they were getting their oil from..Definetey cant' make steel with out it.
That is why PA was the biggest mining state of the union in the first half of last century since 50%
of the homes were heated by coal and we used to produce 50% of the world's steel then.


Written by: stillhere, 7 Feb 2012 2:19 PM
From: Dominican Republic
Roy as from the last time the topic of nuclear power came up you posted about "artificial-basalt technology" ... I looked around then and did again now but still can't find anything about "artificial-basalt technology" and the safe storage of nuclear waste... could you please post a link to your findings?? Your statement shows up when you put it to goggle though.... second from the bottom of the page...
Roy the money put into "clean coal" by governments far out ways the money put into wind, solar and other clean power tech by governments...
Written by: RoyStone, 7 Feb 2012 11:44 PM
From: Australia
Sorry, stillhere,
I should have said "artificial volcanic glass, burred in basalt".
I couldn't find the original reference, but found the following:

"After reprocessing, the highly radioactive waste can be heated to produce a powder, a process called calcining. This powder is mixed with glass to encapsulate (or lock-in) the waste, a process called vitrification. The liquid glass is then poured into stainless steel canisters for storage - and to this day, that is where the nuclear cycle ends."

"Extensive research and testing have shown that the waste can be tightly sealed and buried deep underground, in stable rock formations, such as granite. Once the waste has been buried for about 1,000 years, its radioactivity will have reduced to about that of naturally occurring uranium ore."

http://www.uraniumsa.org/fuel_cycle/waste.htm
Written by: MrThelmoAlmeydaRancier, 8 Feb 2012 7:04 PM
From: United States, NJ
Roy :

Very interesting article above on "THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE" I see why they all want to stay away from nuclear power.
Post Your Comment | Not a member? Create your account | Lost your password?
Write your opinion here. Please keep your comment relevant to this article. Please note that any comments which contain offensive language or discriminatory expressions may be edited/removed.
You must log in to post a comment:
Username Password