IS COAL THE WAY TO GO IN GHANA?



Shortfall in power supply in Ghana has resulted in load shedding. Water level in the Akosombo dam is low. Source of energy generation is mixed. The nation derives its energy from hydro, thermal, gas, solar, wind etc. However, a large portion of the energy is hydro-generated. Hydro-generated energy is rain fed, so if enough rain did not fall water level in the dam falls resulting in load shedding, dubbed dumsor.

Low water level has caused load shedding in the past, through different administrations.

Because of the dynamic and rapid urbanization of the country and unreliability of rainfall, there is the obvious need for massive development of other sources of energy. Currently, some areas in the country are experiencing, twelve hours of light and 24 hours of darkness. The John Mahama administration is targeting a power generation of 5000 MW. As at May, 2015 the total installed capacity is 2846.5 MW.

A source of energy that has gained the interest of many is coal. This source is what I am interested in and will be the focus of this post, from the environmental viewpoint.

A partner to the Sunon Asogli Power Plant, Togbe Afede the XIV has announced plans by the company to go into the production of power using coal.

Togbe Afede said the current energy demand in the country requires other means of generating power for the citizenry.

Speaking to journalists after President Mahama toured the Sunon Asogli Power Plant on Tuesday (February 3, 2015); Togbe Afede said feasibility studies on the project are underway to ensure the production of 700 megawatts of coal in the first phase to ensure consistent power supply.

“Work has already started on feasibility studies to produce 700 megawatts of coal in the first phase,” he stated.

He also revealed that plans are far advanced to ensure coal generation of possibly 1,200 megawatts in the next phase.

Sunon Asogli Power Ghana Limited, a subsidiary of Shenzhan Energy Group Ltd., China, runs the Asogli power plant. It is an independent power plant (IPP) in Ghana. It has an installed capacity of 200MW (megawatts).

WHAT THEN IS COAL?

Coal (from the Old English term col, which has meant "mineral of fossilized carbon" since the 13th century) is a combustible black or brownish-black sedimentary rock usually occurring in rock strata in layers or veins called coal beds or coal seams. The harder forms, such as anthracite coal, can be regarded as metamorphic rock because of later exposure to elevated temperature and pressure. Coal is composed primarily of carbon along with variable quantities of other elements, chiefly hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen.

Throughout history, coal has been used as an energy resource, primarily burned for the production of electricity and/or heat, and is also used for industrial purposes, such as refining metals. A fossil fuel, coal forms when dead plant matter is converted into peat, which in turn is converted into lignite, then sub-bituminous coal, after that bituminous coal, and lastly anthracite. This involves biological and geological processes that take place over a long period.

Coal is the largest source of energy for the generation of electricity worldwide, as well as one of the largest worldwide anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide releases. In 1999, world gross carbon dioxide emissions from coal usage were 8,666 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

In 2011 China produced 3,520 million tonnes of coal – 49.5% of 7,695 million tonnes world coal production. In 2011 other large producers were United States (993 million tonnes), India (589), European Union (576) and Australia (416).

 ADVERSE EFFECTS OF COAL EXTRACTION AND USE

A number of adverse health, and environmental effects of coal burning exist, especially in power stations, and of coal mining, including:


MITIGATING THE ADVERSE EFFECTS

A new study finds that the Obama administration’s controversial plan to cut climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants could also reduce the number of premature deaths in the U.S. by about 3,500 a year, including 330 in Pennsylvania.

The study findings, published Monday (May 4, 2015) in Nature Climate Change — a peer-reviewed scientific journal — show Pennsylvania would experience the highest number of avoidable premature deaths annually, with Ohio (280) second and Texas (230) third.

The study by scientists from Harvard, Boston and Syracuse universities found that federal policies similar to the Clean Power Plan, intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels, would also cause a decline in lung disease and heart attacks. In Pennsylvania, that translates into 71 hospitalizations and 19 heart attacks avoided each year. Nationwide, the policies would result in 1,000 fewer hospitalizations and 220 fewer heart attacks.

“People are focused on climate control and mitigation, but in doing this study we wanted to bring attention to the additional benefits from carbon controls,” said Charles T. Driscoll, lead author of the study and a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Syracuse.

The study investigated three different scenarios for reducing carbon emissions, with the second closely resembling the proposed federal rule that is scheduled to be finalized this summer. The study reviewed the emissions history of 2,417 power plants and tracked emissions for the different scenarios using computer models.

That second scenario, Mr. Driscoll said, was developed prior to the Clean Power Plan proposal, but like that proposal uses a flexible array of options to reduce carbon emissions, and would result in lower annual and peak carbon and ground-level ozone emissions, the principal component of unhealthy smog. The biggest emissions reductions would occur in the northeastern U.S., especially in the Ohio River Valley, the study found.

“This can be pitched as a ‘two-fer,’ and states, if they think smartly, can implement a variety of options that can have ozone reduction benefits and benefits to their crops and forests, in addition to climate change and public health,” Mr. Driscoll said. “Pennsylvania, with its air quality challenges, would also expect to see many health benefits.”

Except for New York, which lies downwind from numerous coal-burning power plants and has a large population, the study found that states that would receive large health benefits from carbon controls are also those states that depend largely on coal-fired electricity. Therefore, it said, states with the greatest health benefits would also be those “where costs of the policy are likely to be greatest.”

Neither Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection nor the Allegheny County Health Department would comment, saying they had not had a chance to review the study. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a statement saying the study confirms its research and the health co-benefits of reducing carbon emissions, according to The Associated Press.

While the power industry has been critical of the proposed rule, saying it would result in job losses and possibly power shortages and doesn’t give the industry enough time to change to what would be a new power production mix, environmental organizations have supported the proposed plan.

Davitt Woodwell, president of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, said that while the council is still developing its position on the Clean Power Plan, its potential to provide co-benefits makes it very attractive.

PARTING SHOT

My parting shot is that if today, the USA which is gaining so much from coal is taking systematic steps to cut climate-changing carbon dioxide from coal burning, why should Ghana start using coal in the generation of power, with its concomitant adverse effects? The way to go is renewable energy!   

 

 

Source:

http://citifmonline.com/2015/02/14/

http://www.vraghana.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Don Hopey: dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983. Twitter: @donhopey

Comments

Post a Comment