Kenya is to mine one billion metric tonnes of coal to feed the national electricity grid with 2,700MW by 2023. The executive director of Greenpeace Africa, Michael O’Brien Onyeka, spoke to David Njagi on why coal is not a sustainable source for Africa’s energy needs.

-------------------------------------

Why do you hold that coal is not a sustainable option to meet Africa’s electricity generation needs?

We are not against coal as a source of energy, but, compared with other available energy sources like wind, solar, biodiesel, geothermal and hydro, Africa should keep away from coal. This is because coal mining has a serious impact on the planet, our economy and health.

It takes a lot of processes to convert coal from its raw state to an energy source. Mining coal destroys the environment because the process needs water and corrosive chemicals to release the mineral from the ground. The spent water runs off as acid mine drainage, polluting soils, rivers and other water sources.

A cooling system that uses lots of water is also needed in the process of generating electricity from coal. Our calculation is that on average, a medium to big coal plant will consume around 10,000 litres of water per second.

When compared with the fact that we are living on a water scarce continent, where we should be using water to irrigate our farms, spending this volume on an energy source when there are viable alternatives is not sustainable.

Is the potential damage that serious?

I always use Venus as an example of a planet that has suffered runaway climate change. Venus is a warmed-up planet and is always at boiling point. It has water but the planet is so hot that the water evaporates.

That may be the direction in which we are heading because when we talk about global warming, it means planet Earth is warming.

At the moment, the climate is massively different compared to 20 years ago. Extreme weather conditions are presently causing a myriad problems.

In Australia and the US, there were places that never experienced major natural disasters like tornadoes, but today such the calamities are very common.

When the planet warms, the surface of the water evaporates faster. Currently, earth has only warmed 0.8 degrees since the Industrial Revolution.

Scientists have confirmed that at the rate we are destroying our planet, there will be two degrees warming by the end of the century.

The two degrees warming is a hopeful estimate if we stop extracting fossil fuels. If at 0.8 degrees natural disasters are destabilising the planet, what will happen when we hit the two degrees mark?

If we do not stop extracting fossil fuels, we are going to see up to four degrees warming, a mark that scientists confirm will annihilate the earth because it will either be too hot or too cold for mankind, animals and biodiversity to survive.

The population will have doubled and agriculture will collapse.

We need to think in the long term and cut down on our consumption for the sake of future generations.   

African governments have invited investment in coal mining. Is Africa getting it wrong?

Scientists have been saying that fossil fuels are not the future: That 80 per cent of known fossil fuel reserves should be left where they are in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The World Bank in 2012 said that a centralised grid system is not suitable for Africa. It is too expensive to  build and maintain.

In the past three years, Germany has generated lots of energy through the rooftop revolution. The country is now switching off its nuclear and coal power plants. If a big industrial country like Germany can do that, why not Africa?

The entry of energy investors into Africa is because they are running out of markets in Europe.  They are running around Africa offering us “buy one get one free” incentives for nuclear energy and coal power plants.

Why can’t governments provide incentives in the construction industry? Big buildings receive lots of free solar, which can be tapped to generate energy.
The sun provides us with enough energy to power the world 10 times over. So why are we not tapping that, when the technology exists?

Communities are convinced that when coal extraction begins, it will change their economic fortunes. Is this a misconception?

They need to be aware of the whole value chain of coal production. For instance, in South Africa’s Guateng Province, there are serious acid mine drainage problems because it has been a major coal mining area since the 1800s.

Currently, there is water scarcity because the few water sources have been polluted by the drainage seepage from old, abandoned coal mines. 

There are no coal mining experts in Africa. Hence, when investors from China, Texas, Europe, the US and Canada win mining contracts in Africa, they send all the profits back home, including the expertise.

After 20 or 30 years, the mine is abandoned and the host country is left to deal with the environmental consequences. This is what we are seeing in South Africa.

I advise governments to research on fracking in Texas to find out whether the state has benefited or it is presently regretting it.
[Fracking is shorthand for hydraulic fracturing, a type of oil drilling used commercially in the US for oil and natural gas production.]

From our experience of over 40 years campaigning against fossil fuels, we have dozens of case studies showing that communities may not harvest dividends, unless effective mechanisms are put in place early to ensure strict environmental protection is part and parcel of the mining process.

If not, the host community will suffer massively in two decades. Africa does not want to make this mistake.

How will Greenpeace Africa convince governments that coal mining is not sustainable?

We work with institutions like the African Union but we have no implementing power. We can only lobby; but we can’t force governments to stop fossil fuel extraction.

We hope by mobilising a critical mass of citizens, communities will be sensitised.

We are worried that information is not reaching civilians and that states are not being truthful through either omission or commission.

The public is not being allowed informed consent by showing them the worst case scenario they could experience, enabling them to make choices.