South Africa Building Mega Coal-Fired Power Plant

by Will Alexander

South Africa’s application to the World Bank for a substantial loan of $3.75 billion for the completion of its large coal-fired Medupi power station could have serious consequences for the whole climate change issue. The situation has changed from years of endless discussions, to the first example of positive and probably controversial action.

The amount of the loan is about one fifth of the total cost of the power station. A decision on the application is expected within the next two weeks. Whatever the decision, it is sure to have major international implications on the whole climate change issue. The following is a short background summary. South Africa’s decision to proceed with the construction of coal-fired power stations is obviously a setback for the EU, UK, USA and other developed nations that have already committed themselves to make substantial and costly reductions in their emissions.

The Copenhagen conference last December was intended to formulate a binding international agreement whereby all nations would agree to limit their emissions of dangerous greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. The principal sources of these emissions are coal-burning power stations, liquid fuel burning transport, as well as heavy industry activities.

While the affluent western nations can impose these restrictions with minimum discomfort to their citizens, the nations of the rest of the world are unable to do so for two reasons. Firstly they do not have the necessary funds and technological expertise. Secondly, the implementation of these measures will have serious adverse effects on their national economies. This in turn will limit the measures required for a whole range of activities from the uplifting of the poor, all the way through to the establishment of economic competitiveness. It is this last factor that is rapidly becoming a major issue.

The Copenhagen conference was saved from complete disarray by the last-minute discussions between the leaders of the four BASIC developing nations, Brazil, South Africa, India and China, and US President Obama. The outcome was a weak non-binding agreement. There have been no subsequent developments in this direction. The likelihood that a binding international agreement will be reached in the foreseeable future is remote.

The science

The science was not an issue at Copenhagen but has now come to the forefront. It started with the leakage of hundreds of e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit last November. This unit was a major contributor to the determination of the changes in global temperatures claimed to be the consequence of human activities. The e-mails described a whole range of unscientific practices including the manipulation of the proxy data with the purpose of demonstrating that the present global temperatures are appreciably higher than at any time in history. A well-known example is the notorious hockey stick graph published by the IPCC in an earlier assessment report.

During the past four months the Internet has been awash with reports of fraudulent activities associated with the production of the IPCC’s assessment reports. These included the disclosure that the influential World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has itself been involved in a number of scientifically suspect practices. It has already admitted its complicity in some of them.

The concerns

It is very important to note that from the beginning, all the way through to the present, the principal climate change concerns were the possible effects on the natural environment, including irreversible damage to our unique plant and animal species.

Another important concern was the threats of increases in floods, droughts, threats to water supplies, as well as threats of widespread desertification of our subcontinent.

These issues had strong media interest and public support. The situation is about to change. The change will be precipitated by the outcome of South Africa’s application for a substantial loan from the World Bank for the construction of a large coal-fired power station.

South Africa’s position

The following information is from recent articles in the South African press. Climate change is not a political issue in South Africa. The press articles were neutral. There have not as yet been any editorial comments.

Attention started with a news report that the USA and UK were likely to oppose the loan. Even for an outsider like myself, I could appreciate that this action could have very serious implications on the relations between South Africa and these two major trading partners. I saw it as a possible ‘revenge’ tactic for South Africa’s position at Copenhagen.

I feel confident that at most, these two countries will refrain from voting, bearing in mind the possible international consequences of a ‘NO’ vote. Once the developed nations start using World Bank loans as a means for forcing developing nations to comply with emissions control targets, this could immediately result in a very dangerous deterioration in East vs. West relations. It would undermine the very purpose of the establishment of the United Nations.

There was an immediate reaction by the South African authorities. A media conference was held in which the Ministers of Energy and of Public Enterprises stated categorically that if the loan was refused this would have very serious consequences for South Africa’s economy. South African consumers already face increases in electricity costs of 25% per year for the next three years. Additional costs arising from the refusal of the loan will obviously have major adverse effects on our economy. The ministers set out South Africa’s future policy. In summary, they stated that South Africa would continue to rely on additional coal-fired power stations for the immediate future, followed by a switch to nuclear power stations thereafter. Renewable sources such as solar panels, wind turbines and biofuels are not an option for power generation on this scale for the foreseeable future. Subsequently the position of the

Department ofWater and Environmental Affairs was made very clear. While the movement towards clean energy will increase, coal will continue to play a major role in power generation in the foreseeable future. The construction of three more coal-fired power stations equivalent to the Medupi power station is foreseen before the switch to nuclear power.

The WWF’s reaction

One would have thought that the use of nuclear power as the only realistic alternative to coal would be heartily welcomed by the scientists in the natural sciences as well as by theWWF, Earthlife Africa and other NGOs. It is the cleanest route to follow. There are no dangerous emissions that could have adverse environmental consequences. Unlike solar and wind driven power the output is constant and not variable depending on the hours of sunlight or calm winds. Unlike the production of biofuels it will not interfere with agricultural production.

Despite all this the WWF and other NGOs were vociferous in their objections to granting the loan. The WWF submitted its objections directly to the World Bank. The latest statement by the WWF is that the decision to go nuclear was solely motivated by South Africa’s desire to increase its status and give it more leverage in international political negotiations! Environmental considerations are no longer an issue.

The consequences

The WWF’s interference in the production of the IPCC’s assessment reports and now its objection to the future switch to nuclear power, can only damage its reputation and cooperation with the South African authorities. It is very clear that theWWFinitially used environmental conservation as the main motivation for its unhealthy actions. Now that South Africa and possibly other countries have expressed their policy of going nuclear in future, this cuts the ground from under its feet and threatens its survival.

This poses some very interesting consequences. The South African authorities have confirmed their commitment to reducing undesirable emissions as far as this is possible without adversely affecting our economic advancement. This places a restraint on those who practice climate change research. Until now there has been a close relationship between the Department of Environmental Affairs and the climate change fraternity. Climate change scientists freely expressed their views on the need to reduce our emissions otherwise the world is likely to be uninhabitable by the end of the century, so they claimed.

Now that South Africa has embarked on a policy that is likely to receive support from other African countries and other developing nations further afield, these scientists will have to control their outbursts or face the disapproval of the authorities and consequent threats to their research funding. Nor should they expect any support from those of us in the engineering sciences. The South African Institution of Civil Engineering has just held a very successful conference on the future actions required to overcome the growing backlog of infrastructural development in this country. It is most unlikely that engineers will be prepared to incorporate the suspect claims from the climate change scientists in their planning and operation procedures. I firmly believe that the World Bank’s decision is going to be make or break for this whole climate change issue, particularly in the light of all the other unfavorable developments in South Africa as well as internationally during the past four months.

The end is nigh

For more than the past 20 years I have searched in vain for scientifically believable evidence of large-scale environmental damage and threats to the African subcontinent’s water supplies that could be attributed to undesirable emissions from our coalfired power stations and other sources. There could only be one conclusion: The alarmist claims have no foundation in science.

I have often wondered how it will all end. These scientists flouted all the basic procedures for numerical modeling of complex processes. They obviously had no experience in time-series analyses. Nor were they familiar with the well documented multi-year anomalies in the hydrometeorological data. They rejected the periodicity in the data that has been known since biblical times and its synchronous linkage with variations in solar activity first reported more than 100 years ago. Computer model calibration and verification procedures are obviously beyond their knowledge horizon.

Even more importantly, they followed the now discredited Climategate policy of refusing to share their information and procedures with those who disagreed with them. They went even further by distributing vitriolic articles on these scientists. They even demanded that a UK scientific journal should not publish our papers that disagreed with their views.

Now they are about to experience the consequences. They can no longer rely on the authorities to support their extremist views. Fellow scientists particularly those in the applied sciences, are increasingly distancing themselves from the patently alarmist tactics. A committee of the UK Parliament has already heard evidence regarding the University of East Anglia’s role in the Climategate affair. The United Nations Secretary General has established a committee to report to him on the future activities of the IPCC. The UNFCCC and the IPCC cannot possibly survive in their present form. It now seems increasingly remote that a meaningful international accord will be reached in the foreseeable future whereby all nations agree to reduce their emissions to the required level. The whole climate change issue faces complete disintegration. The situation is well summarized by these two recent comments from the Internet.

The claim that the IPCC relies solely on peer-reviewed material in its reports isn’t even remotely true.

It is becoming difficult to keep pace with the speed at which the global warming scam is now unravelling.

Their activities must inevitably result in public enquiries, especially if these scientists oppose South Africa’s plans for the future prosperity of this country. I do not believe that they will be foolish enough to challenge South Africa’s request for the loan from the World Bank. Nor are they likely to challenge the activities of the externally funded institutions such as the WWF. Even sitting on the fence will have its dangers.

Footnote

It is public knowledge that South Africa had already developed nuclear weapons by the early 1990s. These were destroyed and the manufacturing facility dismantled under international supervision ahead of the change of government in 1994.

Subsequently a nuclear power station was constructed at Koeberg in the southwestern Cape. This is remote from the coalfields. There have been no life-threatening incidents since its construction. Nor has it caused any environmental damage. South Africa is presently pioneering the development of nuclear pebble bed reactors. We have an abundance of material for nuclear fuels.

In the meantime coal mining is a rapidly growing industry. We are among the top exporters. Our coal terminal at Richard’s Bay was recently expanded to meet the rising export demand, (Civil Engineering, May 2009).

We cannot allow these ignorant extremists with their destructive objectives to control our destiny.