%202021_edited_edited.jpg)
THE EDITOR, Madam:
Jamaica’s industrial culture has long tolerated lax safety standards, and the 2021 Jamalco explosion is a glaring example. Despite clear warnings from monitoring instruments, trained personnel failed to act, resulting in an explosion that crippled a major power generator and forced the plant offline for over a year. Fortunately, this was not a nuclear accident – because nuclear has no room for such errors.
Prime Minister Andrew Holness’ enthusiasm for small modular reactors (SMRs) ignores both Jamaica’s troubling safety record and the global economic reality of SMRs. As The Guardian recently reported, UK Labour leader Keir Starmer’s SMR push has faced fierce opposition from experts, environmentalists, and even Labour-friendly green investors. Their reasons? SMRs remain unproven, their costs have ballooned even before construction, and the economies of scale that make large nuclear plants viable, work in reverse for small ones – making SMRs prohibitively expensive.
Independent analyses, including reports from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, confirm that SMRs’ levelised cost of electricity far exceeds that of renewables. The NuScale fiasco in the US – where SMR costs quadrupled before the project was cancelled – should serve as a cautionary tale. Are we ready to sink billions into an experimental technology, while ignoring the proven, rapidly falling costs of wind and solar?
Most importantly, renewables are already delivering lower electricity prices to both domestic and industrial consumers. The numbers do not lie – solar, farmed biomass, and wind-generated power are already cheaper than fossil fuels, and far cheaper than nuclear. No amount of ‘billioneering’ can change this reality. Nuclear is not, and never can be, a renewable energy source. No amount of fallacious salesmanship should fool Jamaica’s authorities into believing otherwise.
Jamaica’s own scientists have warned against SMRs, citing our vulnerability to earthquakes, hurricanes, and the impossibility of safely managing nuclear waste on a small island. Instead of chasing high-risk nuclear fantasies, the Government should update the Integrated Resource Plan to prioritise renewables – which are safer, cheaper, and quicker to deploy.
Jamaica cannot afford to gamble on nuclear. We must learn from past safety failures and invest in energy solutions that align with our economic and environmental future.
by DENNIS A. MINOTT, PhD
COMMENTS
Cliry 5 days ago edited
Developed countries have so much more options when it comes to energy. I am yet to be convinced solar is the long term solution.I wonder, where this radid tree 🌳 hugger gets his funding from?.
Alan Searchwell Cliry 4 days ago edited
What I wanna know is, who is funding the absolutely predictable stream of comments from folks with an obvious anti-renewable (and anti EV) agenda? We can rely on anti renewable comments from folks with handles like "Cliry", "VXtruth", "Insight4Sight", "XAMYCA", "Robert Campbell", "Mark Chue" and possibly others I may have forgotten. The reliability with which they post comment disparaging renewable energy and electric vehicles suggests that they have a stake in the oil and gas industry or that they are in the employ if someone who does.
VXtruth Alan Searchwell 3 days ago edited
I for one, not against it. Lol. You're simply projecting! I am against extremists who appear to be in favor, of one size fitting the economy on a one way street. Which ignores simple economic theory and well being of the country's long term economic industrial base. People must and should have an option, where energy is concerned!That simple! Doing the most for the widest possible bang for the buck.
VXtruth 6 days ago edited
If China's leaders were so, blessed to have had listen to this expert. Today China would still be a back water country! And that's no exaggeration.For if we look at China's safety records we see woefully inadequate history.Sadly human progress is littered with deadly failures. Not advocate of new mistakes, but risks and rewards share the same coin, as any other historical account where triumph came, not because people were unthinking, no. People didn't give up because of fear or special interests dooms day warning!Think car seat belt technology, and so many other safety features, that were born out if tragic accidents. Sigh.
I fail to see the obsession with solar and wind energy. It’s not as if these sources are without danger.
On January 16, 2025, a major fire broke out at the Moss Landing Power Plant in California, which stores excess solar electricity during the daytime for distribution at night. According to county supervisors, the blaze started when lithium batteries stored in the building caught fire, and flames rapidly spread between them.
Elevated levels of heavy metals were detected in nearby Elkhorn Slough. Officials stated that a plume released from the plant contained hydrogen fluoride, a toxic compound produced by the burning of lithium-ion batteries. Residents who were evacuated are now reporting respiratory problems, skin irritation, neurological symptoms, a metallic taste and smell, nosebleeds, and bleeding gums.
Sometimes, it’s best to stick with the devil you know rather than go searching for new demons.
Alan Searchwell Insight4Sight 5 days ago
This person has obviously done some research but could be accused of cherry picking the information the choose to highlight. The Moss Landing battery energy storage system (BESS) is the second largest such system in the world and the fire broke out in the first stage of the project which used batteries from a certain South Korean supplier that has faced fire issues with their products. The predominantly lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries coming out of China are far less likely to experience fire incidents and are the preferred choice for most new BESS as well as an increasing number of models of EVs.
At any rate the environmental damage and ill health effects of all battery fires combined pales in comparison to the environmental damage and health effects resulting from the extraction and use of fossil fuels over the last century and a half!
Dr. Minotts focus on renewable energy, which I share, stems from the FACT that solar PV in particular is the most accessible and affordable choice for new electricity generating capacity in most places in the world with the exception of locations at extreme latitudes. Even JPS has realized this and is currently in the early stages of implementing a 115 MW sloar PV project coupled with 171,5 MW of BESS.
Solar panels can be very toxic. Where do we get rid of them, at the end of their life?
Dennis A Minott, PhD Insight4Sight 6 days ago
Sir, drop the pretense of intellectual gravitas. You claim to "fail to see"—and indeed, your failure to see is no surprise. Perhaps a stronger primary school foundation in science would have helped, or maybe your real issue is that you're peddling a self-serving narrative.
Even an able first-form student in Jamaica knows that lithium—the key component of lithium-ion batteries—is the lightest of metals. It has a density of 0.534 g/cm³, lighter than even potassium (0.862 g/cm³) and sodium (0.968 g/cm³). The claim that "heavy metals" were released from burning lithium batteries is, at best, uninformed and, at worst, a deliberate distortion.
So what is it? Are you simply unaware, or are you twisting facts to suit an agenda? Because if this clumsy billioneering attempt at discrediting renewables isn't a textbook example of misinformation, I don't know what is.
Sir, I mistook your infamous "Sigh" for another emission of your wind (like LOL) in the musical note of C minor. To be honest, you so often do this when it comes to nuclear SMRs that I thought it best to respectfully add what follows to our conversations on this Disqus blog:Money Can Talk Foolishness and Fart in C Minor
They say money talks, but nobody warned us it could talk foolishness. And worse—fart in C minor.
Give a man a million dollars, and suddenly he’s a philosopher, an economist, and a lifestyle coach rolled into one. He’ll tweet about “grind culture” while sipping overpriced coffee, believing he has unlocked the secrets of the universe—when, in fact, he has only unlocked the premium version of his favorite streaming app.
Money has a way of amplifying nonsense. Politicians with deep pockets can make the most absurd ideas sound like gospel. Billioneerers convince us that Small Modular Reactors powering Casinos on Navy Island matter more than clean drinking water in Windsor. And let’s not forget the financial gurus who promise riches if we “manifest abundance”—usually by buying their book or daily tuning into their Youtube channels. (Remember to press the Subscribe button)But the real kicker? Money doesn’t just talk nonsense; it has its own musical gas. Every bad investment, every economic crash, every overhyped IPO—flatulent blunders in the key of C minor, a somber and brooding soundtrack to the foolishness.
In the end, money isn’t wisdom. It’s just an amplifier. In the wrong hands, it turns whispers of foolishness into loud, lingering echoes—and sometimes, an inescapable stench.
Alan, Trevor, Carlos, PMac, Tim, Beverly, Diana, Your Grace, Prof., and all my other thoughtful fellow readers, the energy transition is no longer a technological or economic question—it is a battle of influence. The loudest voices against renewables are not impartial experts but billioneering individuals with financial stakes, ideological commitments, or personal prestige tied to the old energy order.
But history moves forward, not backward. Renewable energy is not only the future—it is the present. The challenge is not whether the transition will happen, but how quickly. This opposition from wealthy, educated detractors is merely resistance from those who stand to lose power in a cleaner, more democratic energy era.Sharpen your small axes for this conscience war and keep pressing on. Big trees can tumble. Their scepticism will not stop progress. It will only make them footnotes in the story of a Jamaica, and indeed, a world that chose a better path, my friends.
Fellow Readers,
Let's address the recent comments from "Vx Truth," "Insight4Sight," "Cliry," and the soon-to-appear "Robert Campbell." Your concerns, subdued as they may be, deserve a response.First, to accusations of funding: I, Dennis Minott, have never been funded by any entity for my advocacy. My employing allegiance lies solely with Christian conscience, integrity, and patriotism. I have never sought nor received compensation for my contributions to public discourse. My 40+ years of verifiable experience as a consultant with the UN, OAS, CDB, A-QuEST, CARICOM, The AAJ, PCJ, BOJ, GOJ, The JLP, Bodles, ALCAN, The Governments of China, the Pilipinas, Malasia, and Haiti, Jamaica's Min Ed, JAPPS, Jamaica Broilers, JBI, SRC, Caribbean Broilers, USAID, ENERPLAN, and VERDE/SIEMPRE, alongside research in energy and fraud detection, speak for themselves. Labelling me a "tree hugger" doesn't negate fact-checkable credentials.Regarding SMRs versus renewables, the evidence is clear: renewables are safer, cheaper, and quicker to deploy, especially given Jamaica's vulnerabilities. Peddling misinformation about "heavy metals" released from lithium batteries, as "Insight4Sight" attempts, only reveals a lack of basic scientific understanding or, worse, a deliberate distortion of facts.I urge you to reconsider your positions, seek verifiable data, and prioritize Jamaica's future over potentially self-serving narratives from billioneering phantoms
Sir, drop the pretense of intellectual gravitas. You claim to "fail to see"—and indeed, your failure to see is no surprise. Perhaps a stronger primary school foundation in science would have helped, or maybe your real issue is that you're peddling a self-serving narrative.
Even an able first-form student in Jamaica knows that lithium—the key component of lithium-ion batteries—is the lightest of metals. It has a density of 0.534 g/cm³, lighter than even potassium (0.862 g/cm³) and sodium (0.968 g/cm³). The claim that "heavy metals" were released from burning lithium batteries is, at best, uninformed and, at worst, a deliberate distortion.
So what is it? Are you simply unaware, or are you twisting facts to suit an agenda? Because if this clumsy billioneering attempt at discrediting renewables isn't a textbook example of misinformation, I don't know what is.
.
Comments