Concerns over thermal power plant
MBABANE – There are growing concerns from some residents of Lubhuku (Mpaka) and members of the public that the proposed coal-fuelled thermal power plant might do more harm than good.
This comes after some residents highlighted that the issue of the power plant using an enormous amount of water to operate was of great concern because Lubhuku was located in a dry and arid region, Lubombo.
The power plant is proposed upstream of the Mbuluzi River and will use the water for cooling and streaming generation. According to a concerned resident, the Mbuluzi River was already being extensively used yet it was located in a region prone to water scarcity.
Challenge
“Sisenkingeni ngekubuka kwami sisi, lendzawo akusiyo vele lenemanti but sibonga makunemvula ngobe ngaphandle kwayo sisebaleni,” said another resident, which translates to; “We foresee a challenge regarding this proposed project because we already reside in a region where we can only be grateful when there is rain because most of the time our water sources are barely adequate.”
Meanwhile, the Eswatini Climate Coalition, through a blog report on the proposed plant, stated that, in their nature, coal thermal power plants used enormous amount of water and the use of the Mbuluzi River posed a threat to the surrounding areas because the river was already highly affected by intensive use by the sugar industry, as well as residents in the water-scarce lowveld.
According to the Background Information Document for feasibility studies of the Lubhuku Thermal Power Plant, the plant is a proposed 300 megawatt (MW) coal-fired power station in Eswatini. In 2018, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy launched the Eswatini Energy Masterplan 20202035, which also included plans for the 300MW project. The planned coalfuelled plant also requires the revival of the nearby coal mines to operate, such as the recently launched Mpaka Coal Mine which, according to Communications Officer in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy Sikelela Khoza, had been granted a prospecting licence.
“The 300MW power plant is proposed to be implemented in two phases, consisting of two 100MW generators in phase I and one 100MW in phase II,” reads part of the document.
According to the Eswatini Environment Authority, the feasibility study or report on the power plant was scrutinised by the authority and recommendations were made and sent to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy. However, the revised report was yet to be returned by the ministry to the authority, with the loopholes pointed out being resolved.
When EEA Communications Officer Belusile Mhlanga was reached for comment, she said the ministry had not yet resubmitted and she would let this reporter know in due time. Besides the water issue, the Eswatini Climate Coalition, in their report on Lubhuku, pointed out that the neighbouring communities, and the Lubumbo Region would be at severe risk from the emissions of the Lubhuku power plant – but the effects would be felt even beyond the country as air pollution knows no borders.
Emissions
“The emissions issues, these are of paramount importance. Particulate matter and noxious gases that will be emitted during coal burning will have negative health impacts on the Lubombo communities and surrounding areas,” reads the coalition’s report.
When Communications Officer in the ministry, Khoza, was questioned on the concerns raised about the proposed thermal power plant as well as the potential environmental issues, he said the ministry wished to advise that stakeholders must wait for all processes to be completed.
“These include the environmental impact assessments for the Lubhuku Thermal Power Plant, which will take into consideration all the issues that you raised above. At this point, it is premature to pre-empt what the report will entail,” said Khoza.
Some of the residents also mentioned that they were not as informed as they thought they should be about the proposed Lubhuku project such that they were not even aware of the pros and cons.
“The truth is, we do not know much about this power station except for what we hear on the radio and at least once we were informed in passing during a community meeting that there would be such a development, but I would not tell you really whether it is beneficial to us or not, because we really haven’t been told much,” said another resident.
Some residents went to the extent of requesting this reporter for job opportunities because they were not even aware if that was a potential possibility.
The Eswatini Climate Coalition, in their assessment of the feasibility study on the plant, also raised the issue of climate change due to the potential burning of coal. “Such a project will greatly increase Eswatini’s carbon and sulphur emissions and be directly contradicting our own climate change mitigation measures,” reads part of the assessment by the coalition.
“Pursuing a coal project would essentially uproot all our collective mitigation measures thus far, putting us at risk of not meeting our own national goals or timelines– not to mention potentially jeopardising our involvement in the SGDs, losing climate action funding, and dissuading ‘green investors’,” stated the coalition. It has previously been reported that Eswatini’s submission of its revised Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) has been recognised and this was done ahead of the recently held COP26.
COP26 is the annual UN climate change conference. However, despite all the concerns raised about Lubhuku, the Background Information Document on the power plant also highlights the benefits of the development, which include job opportunities as there were promises of increased employment and reduced poverty, which are inclusive of vulnerable groups such as child-headed homesteads, women and the physically challenged. It is also mentioned that there’s a need for the country to reduce reliance on imported energy and focus on local production through the country’s abundant natural resource in the form of coal. During a live Facebook discussion by The Connect on the proposed power plant in December 2020, some members of the public raised their concerns about the power plant.
Contributor
“I have read that coal fired plants contribute 1.241 million metric tonnes of CO2. This includes 114 pounds of lead, traces of uranium and 720 tonnes of carbon monoxide. Coal alone is reportedly the contributor of 72 per cent of greenhouse gases. Why, therefore, should we go for such a killer of the environment not just ours but that of our future children?” commented one Facebook user. Another user stated that there were many options beyond the coal and to suggest that coal was the only option was simply incorrect and incredibly dangerous.
“Renewable energy is much more diverse and sustainable, waste-to-energy, and others, which could be used, to provide the base load, or be used above energy imports while transitioning. To simply look at how to supply energy to mines and industrial agriculture, is also very problematic and to continue dependence on extractive industries, which are destructive on every level, and will keep countries of the South indebted and in poverty,” she said.