African Development Bank breaks with anti-fossil fuel banks to fund coal power, prosperity
Paul Driessen and David Wojick
We recently explained how Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) use manmade climate change alarmism to justify lending policies that reject funding for fossil fuel electricity generation, promote expensive and unreliable renewable sources, and thereby help keep impoverished nations poor.
Now, in a daring show of humanity and common sense, the African Development Bank (AfDB) has broken ranks with the World Bank and its like-minded carbon colonialist brethren. The AfDB has announced that it will once again finance coal and natural gas power generation projects. As AfDB President Akinwumi Adesina puts it, “Africa must develop its energy sector with what it has.”
In a formal statement, Adesina noted: “The key challenge for Africa is the generation of power. The continent has the lowest electrification rate in the world. Power consumption per capita in Africa is estimated at 613 kWh per annum, compared to 6,500 kWh in Europe and 13,000 kWh in the United States. Power is the overriding African priority.
“The investment is expensive, yes, but the long-term returns will be much greater. To fast track universal access to electricity, the Bank is investing US$12 billion in the power sector and seeks to mobilize $45-$50 billion from other partners.”
Put in understandable everyday terms, those numbers mean the electricity that makes modern lives, jobs, productivity, living standards, health, communication, computers, entertainment and life spans possible is available to Africans a paltry 4.7% per capita of what Americans rely on. Just imagine having electricity available only 1 hour a day … 8 hours a week … 411 hours per year – at totally unpredictable times, for a few minutes, hours or days at a stretch when you have power. And at three times what Americans pay.
Try running your life that way – or with wind and solar systems that are just as sporadic and unreliable – and might increase your per capita electricity to 10 or 15% of US levels.
Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe and many other sub-Sahara African countries have vast coal deposits. South Africa’s state-owned utility Eskom estimates that South Africa’s 53 billion tons of coal reserves could meet its needs for 200 years! Many also have enormous natural gas resources.
Those fossil fuels must not be ignored and “kept in the ground,” to appease eco-imperialists.
The AfDB is being encouraged by the Trump Administration, which may partly account for the new policy. The Trump USAID is now running the Power Africa 2.0 program, a vital upgrade of the Obama era program that promoted renewable energy and strongly discouraged the use of affordable fossil fuels.
USAID says Power Africa 2.0 is “one of the largest public-private partnerships in development history, with more than $54 billion of commitments from its more than 150 public- and private-sector partners.”
The Obama program managed to facilitate financing for just 7,300 MW of electrical generating capacity (15% of what Germany generated with coal in 2016) – and most of that was from expensive, unreliable wind and solar units. Even Bloomberg said President Obama’s “signature initiative for Africa” fell “well short” of its goals, producing less than 5% of the new electricity it promised; and virtually all that power was intermittent, expensive wind and solar – leaving hundreds of millions of Africans “in the dark.”
The only fossil fuel theoretically allowed under the Obama Power Africa con was natural gas. And even then his Overseas Private Investment Corporation refused to support construction of a 130-MW power plant in Ghana that would burn clean natural gas that was being “flared” and wasted.
USAID Administrator Mark Green says the new Power Africa goal is 20,000 MW by 2020, using “affordable, reliable energy,” meaning coal in many cases. More broadly the Trump Administration has spearheaded creating a “global fossil fuel alliance.” Energy Secretary Rick Perry often refers to this as “new energy realism” in global power development, noting that fossil fuels are absolutely essential for developing countries, especially in those where many people still have no electricity. How refreshing.
Even in South Africa, the most electrified and advanced nation in sub-Saharan Africa, insufficient electricity means too frequent brownouts that hamper factory and mining output, and keep hospitals and schools far below optimal levels. Its maternal mortality rates are some 35 times higher than in the US, tuberculosis rates 230 times higher, and thousands still die every year from lung and intestinal diseases.
But World Bank carbon colonialists still rebuffed South Africa when it applied for a loan to finish its coal-fired Medupi power plant, despite its advanced clean coal and pollution control technologies. Claiming the project violated climate change and sustainability goals, the Center for American Progress, Sierra Club and other agitator groups pressured the bank to deny funding. The Obama Administration ultimately voted “present” and the loan was approved by a bare majority of other bank member nations.
Excluding South Africa, sub-Saharan nations “enjoy” a minuscule 181 kWh annual per capita electricity consumption – 1.4% of the average American’s! In fact, Africa is home to 16% of the world’s population – and 53% the world’s people without electricity. It’s no wonder Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania and other countries are taking charge of their own destinies and building dozens of coal-fired power plants.
As Professor Rosemary Falcon points out, clean coal is not just feasible; it is also about the cheapest way to generate electricity on a continent where twice as many people as live in the United States are without power. Her “sustainable coal research group” developed a process that separates poor-quality coal from better fuel, crushes it and removes components that don’t burn well. Burning it in advanced power plants generates more electricity with “less ash, less fumes, more heat and a longer burn.” That’s clean coal.
Every country could do this, if they had the “political will” to do so, says Nigerian Sam Bada, a member of Falcon’s team. “I am tired of being lectured by people in rich countries who have never lived a day without electricity. Maybe they should just go home and turn off their fridge, hot water, laptops and lights. Then live like that for a month and tell us, who have suffered for years, not to burn coal.”
All this helps explain why the AfDB is doing what all MDBs should do. It has committed $12 billion to a “New Deal on Energy for Africa” program. As Mr. Adesina says, “Africa has a lot of energy potential, but potential doesn’t create anything. We cannot continue to accept Africa being referred to as the ‘dark continent.’ We need to … accelerate our plans to light up and power Africa.”
It helps explain why Africa, China, India, Indonesia and others refuse to reject coal and gas – and rely on “green” energy technologies that don’t exist … except in classrooms, computer models, IPCC reports, Al Gore lectures, and renewable energy company promotional literature.
Claims that 97% of scientists agree that we face a manmade climate change “tipping point” are right only if they are talking about the bureaucrats, activists and climatologists who take taxpayer and foundation money and blame humans for supposed climate chaos. Beyond their narrow confines, rational scientific discussions rage over global warming and cooling, floods, droughts, extreme weather, carbon dioxide enrichment and a host of related issues: here, here, here, here, here and here, to cite just a few places.
And how can anyone compare alleged climate problems with very real, immediate, lethal Third World problems caused and perpetuated by being forced to continue relying on wood, charcoal and dung – the fuels of poverty, misery, disease and early death? People in these countries are not expendable laboratory animals, on which to test renewable energy schemes. They must no longer be treated that way.
Many countries signed the Paris treaty because they were promised countless billions in “mitigation, adaptation and compensation” payments. The Green Climate Fund is now all but defunct. Its director has resigned, and virtually no one is contributing to it. That should be another loud global wake-up call.
Developing countries increasingly realize they are largely on their own. Other nations should follow their lead, and end this tragic fascination with green energy pixie dust. The world still needs oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric power – the fuels of modern living standards, prosperity, health and life!
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of books and articles on energy, climate change and economic development. David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science and logic in public policy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How can we invest our money to fund electrical generation and distribution in sub-Saharan Africa?
I have a question for anyone with experience in the poorer sections of Africa: just how much use will a rural area get from a new power station a hundred miles away? I would think the infrastructure to deliver that power is completely lacking and the cost of building and maintaining it is more than the power plant itself. Then there’s the problem that to make use of electricity, the people will have to buy electric appliances and other gadgets.
IMHO, what would provide more immediate relief would be liquid fuels (e.g. kerosene) for cooking and boiling water, together with simple, rugged stoves.
But I have no experience with rural Africa so I’d be interested in hearing from those who do.
Alan Watt, Cliamate Denialist Level 7
Look at your own community. Mankind migrates to where life is easiest and cheapest. That’s why we have towns and cities in the west. That’s why they are growing.
One of the principle attractions to communities is cheap energy. It provides jobs, income, sanitation, health, education etc.
A bit like America 200 years ago. People colonised remote areas in the hope prosperity would emerge. Cattle and farming was a start, but it was remote and diverse. It wasn’t really until cheap, abundant, reliable electricity arrived that people moved to within it’s reach.
Africa is no different. It takes investment to encourage prosperity. And prosperity is inevitably centralised. Provide the source of prosperity and people will migrate towards it.
I wonder if the determinant isn’t the climate? Need water and weather to cooperate to produce civilization. Maybe that translates to easiest and cheapest but it is obtuse to put it so crudely. Anytime you are combatting weather, extreme heat, extreme cold on a regular basis, that limits what ever civilization can accomplish.
katesisco
The Romans and Egyptians managed pretty well in extreme heat.
Most major cities are around rivers, especially estuaries where goods can be landed easily. So before cheap fossil fuels that may have been the determinant. Presumably these communities had the income to afford communal power, sewage, clean water etc. before outlying communities therefore development would have been faster.
Today it’s a recognised phenomenon that people are migrating into cities as agriculture is mechanised and jobs are fewer. You will of course note these people are not moving away from cheap energy.
And of course, its a thumbnail sketch, there are many reasons why people move towards a city although I doubt climate is one of them assuming they have adequate access to energy and jobs where they are.
If climate was a determinant, why would so many live in equatorial regions. Or for that matter in Canada, Sweden, Norway etc.?
I spent time in Africa. Saddest thing in the world is to see the damage done by NGO’s and Green Marxist to keep a country dark and hungry. The EU is also just as evil in the things they force on Africa . The EU voted against a capital investment in mega farming so the continent could grow their own food. The Greenies got involved along with the union farmers and stopped the deal. No modernization for those who have no power on the world stage.
jjs
The EU doesn’t want a competitor the size of Africa on its doorstep.
Exactly. My wife has been doing TB research in Africa for the last 10 years (also a lot of other places). She was in Uganda, Zimbabwe, Namibia and of course South Africa. In all these places she personally experienced the waste and damage caused by NGOs. She was told in Zimbabwe that “Trump was doing the right thing” by cutting off NGO funding from the CDC.
It seems the the previous administration was more interested in spreading the wealth instead of producing results.
Paul Driessen and David Wojick,
Excellent article, Gentlemen!
I’ve just stumbled across an interesting article, The Earth’s Carrying Capacity for Human Life Is Not Fixed, which expresses a similar sentiment.
The prophets of environmental doom, from Malthus to Ehrlich to Suzuki have imagined that humans, in the same manner as protozoa, would breed past the resources necessary to maintain their population. The article points out that humans behave nothing like protozoa in that respect.
It disgusts me to say this, but the left has to learn to treat third world populations like fully functioning human beings rather than like protozoa.
commieBob
Dream on mate.
The left considers no one other than (unwittingly) it’s elite as more than protozoa.
Hahahaha – Paul’s go-to quote is from the head of the Fossil Fuel Foundation, who has spent her entire career in coal research. No bias here!
And? Explain why she is wrong, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.
This from the guy who quotes the UN on climate change?
Self awareness has been surgically removed.
Chris
Better than quoting those who know nothing of Fossil Fuel.
Like you.
‘Try running your life that way’ – that’s exactly what global warmist believers are trying to achieve for everyone in the West
The World Bank seems to have relaxed it’s view on financing fossil fuel projects – From a RNS released on 22 June 2018:
“Edenville Energy plc (AIM: EDL), the company developing a coal project in southwest Tanzania, is pleased to note that it has been announced that US$455 million of World Bank funding has been approved for the Zambia-Tanzania-Kenya (ZTK) power transmission line.Â
This funding will allow the construction of high voltage power infrastructure, which specifically includes the transmission line from Sumbawanga to Tunduma and the associated Sumbawanga substation near to the Company’s Rukwa project area in southwest Tanzania.
Edenville believes that this news, in conjunction with the Company’s operational mining activities, has the potential to be transformational for the Company’s planned Rukwa Coal to Power project…..”
American and European liberals simply don’t care about people who live in Africa as much as they care about the sense of superiority they feel when implementing their elitist dogma on the unwashed masses.
Sticking poor African nations whose people live on the cusp of survival with expensive and unreliable electricity? Are you kidding me?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/20471/carbon-monoxide-over-africa
Massive amounts of CO for decades from burning plant material.
Here you see the stupidity behind the plan to force pit toilets on Africa to generate profits for the western world.
Does anyone besides me see the tragedy here?
ALL the schemes for pit toilet waste collection to a central site for composting fail. WHY? Same as in China’s towers that were to use composting toilets. NO DRY MATERIAL TO USE.
AND Africa has been BURNING ITS DRY PLANT MATERIAL FOR DECADES INSTEAD OF CREATING A MARKET FOR THE MATERIAL TO BE USED IN COMPOSTING TOILETS.
Does anybody see this?
Prepare the dry material for use in composting toilets, sell it to the cities for use in its toilet areas, compost locally without having to send to a central location, then send it back to the farms in 6 months for spring planting.
THE FARMERS PROFIT FROM SELLING THE MATERIAL, THE CITIES PROFIT BY SANITATION, THE COMPOST IS SOLD BACK TO THE FARMERS AND THE CO PRODUCTION FROM BURNING STOPS.
The excellence of this idea fails because it does not directly enrich the western world. Stupid, stupid, stupid.