Methane gas from Lake Kivu - Rwanda
Another excellent report from BBC (Story was featured in tonights’ world newscast). This time the possibility of energy independence for Rwanda by use of methane gas from Lake Kivu. On to the blurb:
Three hundred metres below the surface are an estimated 55 billion cubic metres of methane gas.
The Rwandan government has signed an $80m deal with an international consortium, Dane Associates, to start exploiting the methane.
The aim is to double Rwanda’s electricity supply within two years.
But in the longer term, the potential is even higher. Methane could increase Rwanda’s energy production by more than 20 times.
“We are talking of more than 700 megawatts of energy supply which goes far beyond what our country needs. It could be used for export purposes, or regional sharing,” said Albert Butare, Minister of Energy.
The technology required is already available.
A brewery next to Lake Kivu has used methane from a pilot plant to power its boilers for more than two decades.
Pardon me for a little self (kenya) interest here. With the EAC’s plans to expand the integration to include Burundi and Rwanda in July 2007, say it with me…”Yay!”. A close partnership with Rwanda could be helpful in procuring power or complementing our current energy generation capacity. Someone, please send a fruit basket and tea to Albert Butare, the energy minister in Rwanda.
To sustain our economic growth the EAC is an important strategic arrangement. Please tell me this doesn’t put a smile on your face. No? How about the fact that we have a Ghanaian who is impressed by kenya’s role in EAC? Not doing it for you? O.k you are on your own there.
Reality check: This would mean that the EAC would need to consider a harmonized electricity grid, because electricity transmission losses could be substantial. It is doable i think, though would be quite a challenge. The grid in North America covers so much square footage and is a complex network of many power plants. Some rough math based on the numbers available from wikipedia. Total area (excluding water masses)in square miles comprising EAC is 701,028 sq mi, or 1,816,122 kilometres squared. Total size of US 9,631,420 square km/3,718,695 sq mi. well…it helps to illustrate that it is possible to have a grid that controls the electricity in several states whose total size is greater than that of the EAC countries put together. Remember the 2003 NorthAmerican blackout? the total area affected by the North American blackout was 9300 square miles/24000 square kilometres. That area is just a tad smaller than the size of Burundi (27, 830 sq. km).
In keeping with my affinity for renewable energy the power plants comprising this dream grid would include something like the CSP and geothermal generation in Kenya.
I am worried that Africa that is clearly bound tol suffer most from climate change have countries like Rwanda still thinking of options of releasing more green house gases into the atmosphere not to mention water-born wastes and general pollution.
Read this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases and many others and you will agree that the cost of controlling effects of the gases in 20 years far outwiegh the short term opositive benefits.
Polluter pays principle will now not only apply to the Americans but myopic Africans.
Comment by
Matthew — May 4, 2007 @ 8:55 am
Uganda is going though a diesel shortage and the price of petrol and diesel is about $5/gallon. For manufacturers (and anyone using electricity) it is very expensive to process anything here - It is estimated that the cost of electricity here is about 27 US cents per kwh - compare that to kenya (9c) and tanzania (11c). on top of that you add the cost and 12 days transport it take for a lorry to reach Mombasa!
so it is important for land locked countries (Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, S. Sudan - and the eastern half of Congo) to generate power localy. Things are looking up for Uganda which will have a new dam and oil commercially produced in a few years which may ease some of these costs.
as for grids Kenya & Tz are supposed to build grids to meet at the border (I think Arusha) at some point in the future and Kengen has also been selling electricity to Ug, I believe
Comment by
Bankelele — May 4, 2007 @ 9:12 am
@ Matthew - Well, for one i agree with you that climate change will and actually it has already had some impact on Africa, simplest example i can point to is the thinning of snow caps in Kilimanjaro. Now the next part of your comment…It is true that methane gas is a greenhouse gas but it is also a a clean burning fuel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_gas) that could have the capacity to generate fuel for Rwanda over a period of 200years. I am wont to differ with you on the statement “controlling effects of the gases in 20 years far outwiegh the short term opositive benefits.” Please see the costs bankelele has shared above….The price of energy in land locked countries such as uganda, burundi and rwanda is quite high. Use of methane to generate electricity will help alleviate the energy crunch felt there. As for your statement “Polluter pays principle will now not only apply to the Americans but myopic Africans.” I would request that you restate it…not sure i get you on this one because we know pollution is happening all over the world but you can not even begin to compare the level of CO2 pollution by the US to that of subsaharan Africa… I would also like to keep things civil and would ask you to elaborate on the ‘myopic africans’ comment. I sense abit of condescension on your part…is that the case? I also just found this piece on climate change from economist…check it out. specifically the bit on power generation
Comment by
AfroMusing — May 4, 2007 @ 9:39 am
This is now an old story but Matthew sounds like he needs an “out of Africa” education from his poor third world relatives.
Firstly, with the latest (African-developed) technology for extracting the methane from Lake Kivu, there is no direct greenhouse gas releases from the extraction process and less release of GHG from the combustion of methane in power plants than would derive from diesel & oil (the current power source) or coal-generated power.
Extraction of methane is essential to stabilise the lake, where currently methane and carbon dioxide content is in excess of 50% saturated. Any closer to saturation and the lake overturn may be triggered by a seismic or geological event. (The lake is in a rift valley, subject to tectonic rifting and is consequently home to two live volcanoes on the lake’s north shore) The overturn may release about 3 billion tons of Carbon (GHG) equivalent in 24 hours. This release equates to 40% of the planet’s annual release of carbon. Casualties may be 2-4 million people depending on wind direction or lack of wind, mostly from asphyxiation but also substantially from drowning as the lake water level rises 20-50m with enormous tsunamis.
Now as for water pollution, there is none. The gas extraction and power generation cycle has no impact on lake waters, other than reducing gas loading, and the only effluents from power generation are carbon dioxide and water vapour. There are no sulphur compounds produced or released. Far from polluter paying, the proposed gas extraction may earn CDM credits for up to 3 million tons of GHG reduction annually.
Matthew, start worrying about your own carbon footprint because it’s probably larger than this entire project’s. As for polluter pays, this “polluter” may get paid many millions for cleaning up the planet. And the reward for saving millions of lives some time in the future?…..Just a slice of peace of mind. A last hint, go to the optician and ask for a myopia check, you probably need it.
Comment by
Mukwa — July 3, 2007 @ 5:29 am