Generating sustainability

TUESDAY was a significant day for two reasons. On the one hand Sri Lanka ceremonially opened its first coal power plant with a glittering ceremony and on the other it was the more mundane World Water Day.

Behind the glamorous facade and political chest beating over how the Norochcholai Power Plant was opened over a year ahead of schedule lie a more worrying set of possibilities.

Most often, the justification provided by the World Bank and other international financial institutions for continuing to support fossil fuel generated power is that it brings much-needed electricity to the poor. Or that it’s cheap, efficient and is just the first part of a longer-term low carbon plan to address energy shortages.

But coal plants are rarely short-term; they tend to have life spans of decades. They are also not low carbon or environmentally friendly; facts that even the Power and Energy Minister admits. Indeed, from a social and environmental perspective, coal plants are a nightmare: air pollution from coal plants can cause severe respiratory illness in nearby communities; coal ash and other by-products can contaminate groundwater, and can thereby cause illness and water shortages in affected communities; the pollution and contamination can affect surrounding flora and fauna… the list goes on. If these harms are translated into costs, the idea that coal is cheap or efficient is more a myth than fact. Besides, big centralised fossil fuel generated power is not the only way to get electricity to the poor.

Everyone concedes that energy shortages are a serious issue. Chronic power shortages in the ’90s leading to power cuts are a recent memory. Moreover, it is understood that in order for the economy to flourish, power must be readily available at reasonable cost. If the latter concern is to be addressed, then we must question the balance between the environment and money. Low sulphur content coal – as the Power and Energy Ministry insists is being used now – is extremely expensive. The inaugural purchase of coal for the newly-renamed Lakvijaya Power Plant was anything but victorious with the Government shelling out US$ 7 million. Can these colossal costs result in cheap electricity to the consumer? Can they be sustained? And if not, what is the environmental fallout of using low grade coal and is Sri Lanka prepared to meet it?

The Government’s perspective is that since Sri Lanka is a low carbon emitting country, the addition of coal power plants will not matter. It does not at any point outline solutions for dealing with the environmental fallout of the nearby communities – apparently going by the principle that the safety and wellbeing of a few must be sacrificed for the greater glory of economic development.

The other dimension of this conundrum is that while the Government is spewing rhetoric about economic development, there are no plans to give power concessions to private sector businesses. It is mind boggling as to how economic growth can happen in a sustainable manner if businesses are not allowed to expand and increase exports. In fact, latest statistics show that there has been a consistent trend of decline in exports as a percentage of GDP for the past decade.

So if these massive projects do little to develop the economy and damage the environment significantly, then the development trajectory of Sri Lanka will be affected significantly. Moreover, the time has come to seriously consider alternative energy generation methods for a sustainable future.