Economics and ecology of dirty energy
Open pit coal mining.
The power that lights our houses and streets, runs factories equipment is clean. What is dirty or controversial is what produces it.
The shortage of electricity has made people's day-to-day living unbearable. Worse still is the looming threat of further shortages, unless new gas fields are discovered soon (estimated gas supply is short by 10% of the estimated 2 trillion cubic feet).
The current installed capacity of electricity generation in the national grid is just over 5,200 MW, in addition to about 1,800 MW being harnessed by various industrial plants for their internal use.
These factory need-based private power generating plants -- of 100 KW to 10/15MW capacity-- are installed to circumvent supply disruption from the national grid. The actual power available at peak hours (6pm to 11pm) is around 3,500 MW, which falls short of the peak demand of nearly 5,000 MW.
To offset this shortage and also keep pace with increasing demands, the energy source that is fast raising its ugly head in policy discourses and design is coal -- environmentally the most unfriendly alternative -- the dirtiest of all energy sources.
The Draft Coal Policy (August 13 article by Sharier Khan) on "Mine Bangla Proposal" --much to our consternation -- fails to show serious concern about the havoc caused to the soil, life forms and surrounding vegetation, by open-pit coal (OPC) mining.
The most economical technique of coal extraction depends on the depth and quality of the seams, and also on the geology and environmental factors of the area being mined. The extraction process can operate on the surface, called surface mining (also open-pit or opencast mining), or underground.
Most coal seams are too deep underground, inhibiting OPC mining. That is why underground mining accounts for about 60% of world coal production. However, we're concerned here about OPC mining in Phulbari, and its environmental fallout.
When coal seams are near the surface, it becomes relatively economical to extract coal using opencut, or strip mining. The method exposes the coal by the advancement of an open pit or strip. The earth above the coal seam(s) is called overburden.
The mining is done by drilling holes into a strip of overburden. The drilled holes are then filled with explosives and blasted. The dislodged overburden is then removed and placed into the previously mined (and now empty) strip. When all the overburden is removed, the underlying coal seam will be exposed as a strip known as a "block." This block of coal may be drilled and blasted (if hard), or otherwise transported to the coal preparation (or wash) plant. Once this strip is empty of coal, the process is repeated with a new strip next to it.
Although OPC mining is more productive than underground mining, the method is unappealing because it can cover many square kilometers -- which would invariably contaminate a vast area of arable land and the surroundings.
OPC mining is considered an extremely disruptive human intervention to natural soil conditions, which changes the topology and disrupts the ecosystems. The adverse ecological and human health impact of OPC extraction renders it both economically and environmentally dangerous.
The danger of OPC mining is from fly ash -- a by-product of the combustion of coal. Coal also contains toxic trace metals such as arsenic, chromium, nickel, lead, mercury and zinc and, when burned, many of these metals can concentrate in the fly ash, sometimes reaching levels of 100 times the concentration found in coal itself.
These metals can leach from fly ash accumulated via atmospheric deposition, or when illegally dumped in local ponds/rivers, and cause toxic metal pollution in sediments.
National leaders of the mineral resources and port protection committee had rightly opined -- on May 30, 2006 -- that food security in the district would be affected if the coal in Phulbari was extracted by OPC mining method. They warned that about 40 square miles in four upazilas in the district would be spoiled in the process (DS May 31, 2006).
Phulbari has reserves of at least 572 million tonnes of coal. If the government goes for extraction, it will last for 30 years and about 50,000 people will be relocated, according to officials of Asia Energy.
The law ministry's revision to the draft coal policy says: "Once the government acquires a piece of land, it can't be returned to the original owner." It then says: "The government can, however, restore the land and allow its agricultural use." Aren't these self- contradictory and hypocritical statements, especially when it comes to doing agriculture by the government rather than returning the land to its original owners?
Restoring the land for agriculture isn't credible, based on existing experience and evidence. Restoration could never happen in a polluted piece of land or degraded wetlands; it is only mitigation that can occur in the aftermath. For example, Brownfield redevelopment project in Massachusetts, USA, which spent an enormous amount of money to clean up and reclaim the polluted industrial sites, is just one of numerous examples that could be considered for a serious case study by the proponents of "polluted land restoration."
From our research, we can safely contend that any assurance by the government to "restore the land and allow its agricultural use" is not pragmatic -- in fact, it may prove deceptive and ruinous. Besides, where would the government get the huge amount of money for land restoration when money is needed for other pressing priorities?
Our recommendations:
- Policy makers may look into the US Geological Society's unique design plan that provides information on water resources in 60 important river basins and aquifers across the country. Together, these areas account for 60% - 70% of the water served by public water supplies.
- The government mustn't dilly-dally in implementing the 6-point demand signed after the August 30, 2006 Phulbari carnage, squashing any suspicions of foreign conspiracy.
According to the Draft Coal Policy, the discovered coal fields of Barapukuria, Phulbari, Khalashpir, and Dighipara can cater to the 136 to 450 million ton (MT) need till 2030 or so to support a GDP growth rate of 5.5 to 8%.
The question is, what happens after 2030? Nuclear energy is, by far, the most promising alternative, given that the development of other renewable energy sources faces the challenge of providing sufficient amounts of electricity to be a meaningful contributor toward decreasing the world's growing power shortages.
At present, nuclear energy provides nearly a fifth of the world's electricity, without harmful by-products. Nearly 80% of France's energy source is nuclear. The clear, long-term salvation from energy shortage for Bangladesh is nuclear -- unquestionably (DS June 22, 2006, Nuclear energy -- Abdullah Dewan).
Comments