American energy firm GE Power has bought a Sh40 billion stake in the Centum-fronted 1,050MW Lamu coal-fired electricity generation plant. GE Power’s Chief Commercial Manager Michael Keroulle’ yesterday said the deal will see the American conglomerate allocated 20 per cent shares of Amu Power. The fresh capital injection will be used for acquisition of plant machinery, a boiler and steam turbine generator built using GEs latest clean coal technology as well as air quality control systems.
“The technology greatly reduces emission of Sulphur Oxides, Nitrogen Oxides and particulates (dusts) to levels comparable to gas fired power plants,” he said.
Mr Keroulle’ spoke after he represented GE in signing a deal with the project’s developer Gulf Energy. The coal plant is to be set up in the next 42 months. It is expected to create 2,000 direct jobs and employ another 14,000 indirectly within Lamu. Amu Power Chief Executive Francis Njogu said GE’s entry through allocation of new shares will enable Amu Power to retain its mix of shareholders notably Centum Investment Company, Gulf Energy, China Huadian, Sichuan Number 3 Power Construction Company and Sichuan Electric Power Design and Consulting Company. The firm has a contract with the Kenyan government project where it expects to deliver its power to the national grid at US Cents 7.81/kWh for the next 20 years.
“GE is at the heart of Amu Power and its latest technology will address concerns raised by locals on pollution while enabling us to efficiently produce power with the least downtimes. “They (GE) will not only supply and install the plant but will offer aftersales services during the tenure of the project,” said Mr Njogu.
The project has faced criticism and severe opposition where locals backed by environmentalists have contested its implementation, especially after Amu Power obtained National Environmental Management Authority (Nema) approvals.
But its implementation suffered a setback after the project’s opponents filed an appeal at the Nema Tribunal in March 2016. The Amu Power boss expressed optimism that the pending appeal before the Nema Tribunal will be concluded soon to enable them embark on the project.
“We have wasted 4 years but GE’s revolutionary technology has been worth the long wait. The technology is far much better than what GE has installed in other coal-fired plants across the world,” he said
Wacha kudanganywa. Coal is the base power that drives manufacturing industries in the west. Coal plants in the usa accounts for 35% and Germany is 45%. Why, its cheap, reliable and consistent power. No country on earth industrialized without it. Now Kenya just wants to produce 1050MW to power lappset and the whole of North Kenya with cheap power using clean coal technology. This is not the relic 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s or 90’s coal plants that pollute the environment. All its emissions will be captured and minimized either chemically or through underground filtration as its pumped 100’s of meters in the ground for the soil to filter the carbon monoxide naturally. This is also a first since its now a joint usa/China/Kenyan private companies project. GE promised that with the $100 million environmental bond imposed on the plant, their clean coal technology will maintain lower emission than even the global favorite natural gas power plants.
[ATTACH=full]171706[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]171707[/ATTACH]
What I can guarantee is we should never expect cheap power in the nearest future, or even 100 years from now. Huko ndio babas and mamas of cartels live and however much power we add on the grid, inefficiencies, both intended and non-intended will ensure we continue paying through the nose. Another thing Spear you forgot to add is that no country achieved industrialization with expensive power.
Two, that same USA has no coal plants that are successfully running a ‘clean coal’ energy production as you can see below
[ATTACH=full]171777[/ATTACH]
Three, the technologies you’ve mentioned even if implemented to the T don’t make a big difference in reduction of environmental destruction effects, the highest reduction being aroun 7% in some China. It also only counts for reduction during coal burning, not coal mining and transportation.
Buda, on this one, you’re wrong. And both your kids and mine will suffer.
Reduction from 35% to 30% is hardly called rapidly. Besides that 5% is taken up by natural gas.
The clean coal technology hasn’t yet been done in the USA but its taking place in China and Germany. You haven’t proved it doesn’t work, you just mentioned a blanket statement. How will the science fail? GE is even issuing $100 million bond to guarantee emission will be below gas.
That quote you made about it hurting us and our kids is just the same thing environmentalist say to evoke emotions. Let them prove it doesn’t work. Let the brains work not emotions. A coal plant of 1050MW is nothing, too small but the power is great.
We have to industrialize and for that we need cheap power. One coal plant is a start.
A 5% reduction is 50,000MW spear. That is 50 times what our coal plant will produce. Per year. If that isn’t rapid to you, I don’t know what is.
I didn’t give a blanket statement, I showed you that the US, where GE comes from, has failed to implement and prove that clean coal works in practically.
Germany has reduced its energy supply from coal by over 13%( That is 6000MW) in the last two years. They are looking to have a 65% natural clean sources of energy by 2030. They’re push away from coal is both an international legal requirement and a move to cut costs as well(coal emissions are taxed regardless of ‘cleanliness’)
China has clearly said that they are movin away from coal but have also said that they don’t mind selling other countries coal factories and tech. Does this make sense to you?
You did not address the ‘cleaness’ of clean coal the way I did. Environmental factors still remain.
Spear, what do I stand to gain by having less power generated in this country as a citizen? Why don’t you look further into why it’s not a good plan for us?
Kindly post the research to show how much better ‘clean’ coal is that normal coal. I gave you a 7% figure. But 7% of less shit is still shit.
For those that want to know how clean coal works, here’s a simple video
Yes I like facts. Now we are talking and learning.
How did you arrive at 5% is 50000MW. Like I mentioned earlier that 5% is also taken up by natural gas which isn’t renewable energy. Clean coal emission are lower than natural gas.
The usa has no clean coal since it has taken a backward stance on global warming. It has walked out of Kyoto and Paris agreements on reduction of carbon emissions. Its even disputing that global warming is a result of emissions or if its even taking place. So GE hasn’t failed to implement it in the USA, their governments has said they don’t need it and their old plants are just OK.
China on the other hand is rapidly implementing clean energy and will spend $750 billion in 5 years to replace its old plants to new ones that emit less carbon. Clean coal technology is a joint usa/China technology currently being implemented in China.
Germany has reduced production of electricity from its old coal plants buts its building newer clean coal plants called Lignite. Four plants have been built so far. Germany is producing less power from its old coal plants but its importing a lot of nuclear power from France to cover for it. Ironically its switching off its older nuclear plants next to the sea.
So far their is nothing scientific you have said that disputes clean coal, even your video clip is very vague on the same. Its typical environmentalist, less on facts/science and heavy on fear. Since old coal plants which openly omit to the sky causes negative environmental effects then let’s ban them as is. Well this plant wouldn’t emit anything to the sky or air. Coal byproducts when it burns is Sulphur and carbon monoxide. Sulphur will be neutralized chemically and the carbon monoxide will be pumped deep into the ground to be filtered back naturally. The illustration is below.
Why coal? Its very cheap at between 3-5 cents. Its very reliable at 97% output and constant which means no fluctuations. Which means its better than geothermal and only nuclear power rivals it. The plant can be switched on and off in less than 10 mins. Its perfect for industry. Kenya will never industrialize with 12-15 cents power.
The US has a total supply of 1,073 GW of electricity. 5% of that is 50,000MW. We’re talking about reduction in coal, not increase in gas.
I brought up the US because you brought it up to back your argument and you’re now excluding it as being backward.
Spear, Lignite is the dirtiest of all the types of coal that one can mine. You state here that it’s the cleanest. Another fact.
[ATTACH=full]171799[/ATTACH]
I clearly stated that the video was to help people understand how ‘clean coal’ comes about.
I’ve also given you percentages of clean coal vs kawaida coal and you have not given any scientific back up to your clean coal argument.
Simply branding stances as being environmentalist allows you to not explore further into what the effects on the environment will be.
Again, you haven’t spoken on the environmental impact of ‘clean’ coal.
You have also avoided talking about carbon tax as a cost.
Clearly you haven’t even watched that clip otherwise your questions wouldn’t the same. IGCC technology, carbon capture, elimination of pollutants, coal to gas boilers, gas to steam and steam to steam boilers to improve on effective power generation without pollution. Its all there yet you still ask what scientific proof?
Try are read widely, just quoting WWF on environmental issues is just listening to one side of the debate and closing your brain for the other side of the information. Therefore your info will never be balanced.
Spear, I watched the video. Did it occur to you that it’s posted by a pro coal lobbying group(so much for the balanced info that you say I’m not presenting), in Kentucky, in the US, where, according to your own words, is backward.
Did you read any of the links I posted?
I’m not disputing the science behind it, so all the tech words that you’ll bandy here are okay. I’m disputing the efficacy of the process.
The same information in your video is in the video that I posted.
Please post a link of your choice showing how lignite is ‘clean coal’.
You said that you were interested in learning but you keep shifting goalposts every time I counter any of your points.
But it is good because the goal here was not to convince you, it’s to convince any other reader who will see this because they will see how your argument flows in reverse.
Good, that’s all I wanted, you admit that their is no disputing the science. Whether it has been done in the USA or not doesn’t take anything from it. Your link has zero scientific proof or reference to proof otherwise. Its been implemented in China and the same here. Even better the science is still evolving and getting better. Whether you agree or not isn’t the point. It works is the point. Everything is a balance, pro and against. Protect the environment but also provides means for progress, jobs and manufacturing. Now let’s forget the generalization. Let’s go to the specifics of Lamu clean coal plant. The EIA report was very meticulous on all the concerns of all parties. It took account of coal power generation from last century to present. It incorporated all available science to protect the environment from the same and still make this small plant feasible. All the scaremongering from WWF and other environmental activist is duly noted and answered. Get a good Wi-Fi speed and download the full report, plans and details below on that link.
“Clean coal” really? that’s like “painless cancer”. Given NEMA’s undisputable record in keeping our environment safe, I can guarantee you it will be dirty coal by the second year of operation
No I read everything, I enjoy reading and debating. Iron sharpens iron. However it hasn’t changed my mind. The Lamu coal plant ESIA reports are there. So far no one has challenged it here, elsewhere or in court. Why? The only way to disprove science is giving counter facts backed by science. It can’t be by dislike. Its all there, design, implementation, counter measures, independent monitoring etc. That’s why it passed the first case at Environmental Tribunal. Now the environmental activist learnt they can’t argue against it so they shifted to discredit the possess of public participation. The surrounding villages has 500-700 young, youth and old people in 20kms radius. The public participation involved national, county and local people. At least 50 locals showed up. However the activist want the appeal to overturn the first ruling since not everyone showed up. Incredibly they wanted everyone to be consulted individually. That’s a strong stretch since its not a requirement that everyone must attend and if not it doesn’t means it didn’t happen.
