Why Lamu coal plant might not achieve promise

A coal plant in the US. Environmental concerns have forced many countries to shut down such facilities. [Courtesy]

The search for affordable energy will remain elusive for Kenya into the long term even after the Lamu coal-fired plant is constructed.

An analysis by the Sunday Standard finds mounting evidence from experts and industry data that the proposed plant will not yield cheaper energy as promised.

In fact, despite assurances from the Government, the US and China, Kenyan households and businesses will pay more for energy use once the plant is constructed and possibly well into the 29-year lifespan of the 1,050MW plant.

There are also concerns over damage to health and the environment even as other countries around the world cut back reliance on coal.

Already approved by the National Environment Management Authority (Nema) and Parliament, the plant is running more than three years behind schedule following opposition from the Lamu community and lobby groups.

This comes even as American Conglomerate General Electric (GE) formally entered the deal with a Sh50 billion stake in Amu Power, the consortium formed by Centum Investments, Gulf Energy and Chinese firm Investment and Power Construction Corporation.

GE will supply the key equipment for the coal-fired plant through its subsidiary GE Power. Amu Power says the deal will see the coal-fired plant improve operational efficiency and limit emissions. 

“We are bringing market-leading Ultra Super-Critical (USC) clean coal technology components and air quality controls systems for the Lamu Coal Power Plant,” said GE Power Chief Commercial Officer Michael Keroulle.

Burn less coal

He said USC technology will allow the plant to burn less coal per megawatt produced.

“The average efficiency in conversion for coal to electricity is around 33 per cent,” said Mr Keroulle. “An USC plant, and the one of Lamu in particular will operate at 43 per cent, which is 10 points higher than the best in the world.”

Overall, GE says the plant will achieve 30 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide compared to the global average.

“We have also implemented the highest standards of emissions control and technology so the plant emits local emissions more or less at the same level as a gas plant,” said Keroulle.

Local emissions include dust particles and noxious gases such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide that cause air pollution and acid rain when released into the atmosphere.

GE says the plant will be fitted with technology able to reduce these emissions by 99 per cent.

However, the scale of the carbon emissions anticipated from the power plant contrasted with industry experience in other economies casts a shadow of doubt over the claims of “clean coal”.

Depending on the type, coal contains between 60 and 80 per cent carbon. Carbon dioxide is thus the main byproduct of burning coal, with scientists estimating that nearly four grams of carbon dioxide are produced for every gram of carbon burnt. 

This carbon dioxide also comes from combusting fuel and is the main agent of global warming linked to climate change in the past few decades - hence the turn to renewables.

The global economy is expected to reach peak demand for coal in the next two years and countries are scaling back on investment in plants.

Britain this year revealed a plan to close down eight of its remaining coal power stations by 2025. Three plants were shut in 2016 alone and two others will be closed down later this year.

Economic realities

Despite President Trump’s promise of clean coal in the US, the resurgence has so far been defeated by economic realities.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a few months ago shot down proposals for government subsidies to nuclear and coal power plants, effectively paving the way for the decommissioning of the facilities in favour of renewables.

Analysts had estimated subsidising the plants would have cost US taxpayers $10.6 billion (Sh1 trillion) annually.

Coal proponents have for years championed technology meant to clean, capture and store carbon dioxide that can then be put into a variety of industrial uses.

However, carbon capture is still experimental and has been found to be ineffective in capturing all the emissions, and at the same time can lead to doubling of operational costs in power plants.

Recently the US abandoned the world’s largest clean coal power project after design flaws and an overstretched development budget made it clear the promise of cheap and clean coal could not be realised.

The $7.5 billion (Sh750 billion) Kemper coal power plant in Mississippi was hailed as the first clean coal plant built from scratch and fitted with carbon capture technology.

Company officials had also informed federal officials that the plant would operate at 80 per cent efficiency. Independent analysts revealed it could only achieve less than a third of this.

Project collapsed

The collapse of the project has greatly weakened the premise of clean coal and boosted the case for more investment in renewables.

When asked about the amount of investment and technology that will be used to capture, clean and store the carbon dioxide from the Lamu coal power plant, Amu Power and GE are evasive.

“Every combustion process has some CO2 that gets produced and we make sure these plants are carbon capture ready to the extent that the plants are ready to be retrofitted to do that when it is viable,” said George Njenga, GE’s regional executive for sub-Saharan Africa when asked if the company will fit the Lamu plant with the technology.

[email protected]