THE El Niño-induced drought of 2023-2024 has influenced the governments of Zambia and Zimbabwe to seriously consider investing in coal-fired power plants.
The drought has significantly curtailed electricity generation at Kariba Dam, a massive man-made water reservoir shared by the two countries.
In Zambia, a second coal-fired power plant has been approved by the energy regulator to add on to the sole Maamba Thermal Power Plant.
In Zimbabwe, it was recently reported in the state and private media that funding of US$350 million has been secured for refurbishment of six generating units at Hwange Thermal Power Station and that work will commence soon.
The refurbishment of the six units comes hot on the heels of the completion of two new units at a cost of around US$1,4 billion. Thus, the outlay at Hwange Thermal Power Station in the immediate past and future will total at least US$1,7 billion.
Let us momentarily set aside the impact of climate change, partly caused by coal-fired power plants and concentrate on operational and maintenance costs.
For a start, there must be a mine to dig out the coal at a profit for the entire life span of a coal-fired power plant or until the coal deposits run out, whichever comes first.
Inevitably, coal mining requires specialised equipment, including drills, crushers, hoists, draglines, excavators and hydraulic supports. Most of these are imported at a significant cost.
The equipment must be routinely serviced by highly trained specialists. Coal mining also requires various consumables, including diesel, oils, lubricants, coolants, explosives, drill rods and a diverse array of service kits.
In addition, there is also the cost of the often highly unionised labour force. The establishment, operational and maintenance costs are passed on to the coal-fired power plant.
From the mine, the coal has to be transported to the power plant at a profit. The transporters have their own capital expenditure as well as operational and maintenance costs, including those on fuels, oils, service kits and labour.
At Hwange power station, the coal is transported by road from Makomo and Coalbrick Mines. The coal is also transported by a 6km conveyor belt from Hwange Colliery Company.
Coal-fired power plants are voracious consumers of water. The steam produced after heating water is used to turn the turbines of the generators. In an increasingly drying southern Africa, competition for water is becoming stiff among stakeholders, such as local authorities, wildlife and farmers.
Coal-fired power plants make the competition for water even stiffer. In addition to competing with other stakeholders, coal-fired power plants will have to incur the costs of pumping and storing of the water, and this includes investing in and maintaining water pumps, pipelines and reservoirs.
Finally, let us now turn to how coal-fired power plants will exacerbate climate change. Coal is arguably the dirtiest fossil fuel which emits the highest amount of carbon dioxide per unit mass compared to other forms, such as oil and gas.
The burning of coal also releases other dangerous substances, such as mercury, arsenic, soot, sulphur oxide, nitrogen oxide and lead. The impact of climate change due to burning of coal will be especially devastating to sub-Saharan Africa although the continent has historically contributed the least amount of GHGs.
Recurring droughts and other catastrophic weather events are directly linked to the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Therefore, in addition to the astronomical establishment, operational and maintenance costs, building new and expanding existing coal-fired power plants will inevitably worsen the impact of climate change, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
What better alternative source of electricity is available for US$1,7 billion than a coal-fired power plant? The Garissa Solar Power Station in Kenya, for example, was built at a cost of US$135 million and it produces 55MW of electricity.
By simple extrapolation, US$1,7 billion should be reasonable enough to set up a solar power plant that produces at least 690MW. The 690MW comes without the costs of mining and transporting coal as well as the consumption of voluminous amounts of water.
Using a conservative European Union average saving of 275g of carbon dioxide for every 1kWh of solar-produced electricity, a US$1,7 billion solar power plant would result in a saving of around 190 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per hour at peak production.
The governments of Zambia and Zimbabwe should, thus, carefully reconsider the environmental and financial consequences of coal-fired power plants compared to renewable, cleaner and cheaper-in-the-long-term alternative sources, especially solar energy.
Jinga is a certified ESG analyst and senior lecturer at Bindura University of Science Education. — percy.jinga@fulbrightmail.org