4 ms·

This is wishful thinking. Large parts of Africa is yet to become a developing economy. Once that happens, coal consumption is going to increase. Unfortunately,

This is wishful thinking. Large parts of Africa is yet to become a developing economy. Once that happens, coal consumption is going to increase. Unfortunately, it's the easiest and cheapest way to generate electric power.

deepnotderp 2y ago
Nah, nat gas is cheaper The problem is that not all parts of the world have access to cheap nat gas
- defrost 2y ago
  Is that with or without the external costs of additional CO2 releases?
  - onecommentman 2y ago
    Such external costs should only be included if the uncertainties on estimates of external costs of CO2 emissions are somehow represented. And I’m referring to factoring in all structural and parametric uncertainties inherent in climate models. Cutting to the chase, you can never factor in, or even meaningfully bound, those structural uncertainties. Not a big deal for million dollar investments, a big deal for trillion dollar investments. Modelers of all ilks generally avoid reporting the underlying uncertainties in their results. And when they do report them, they are woefully underestimated. Fine in the abstract, but not acceptable when trillions of dollars are at stake. Dollars that can be spent instead on direct low risk, high impact improvements in third world child health (clean air, clean water, infectious diseases, etc.). Maybe choose those that also mitigate climate impacts (as we currently understand them), but directly save the living children/people first. Keep on improving the models with scientific research, but don’t fool ourselves about the accuracy and completeness of such models for policy analysis. I’m old enough to remember the Club of Rome/Limits to Growth controversies.
    - defrost 2y ago
      The geophysics behind, say, the Santos Barrossa gas project appears pretty tight; the C02 emmissions estimates are directly tied to the economic feasibility estimate process .. if one is wrong then so is the other, if so it must be a bad investment and a foolish project? When the project’s offshore and gas processing emissions are factored in, the LNG produced from the Barossa field would have a total emissions intensity of 1.4 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of LNG produced. This makes the Barossa development the most emissions intensive LNG projects in Australia and the world ~ https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Santos-2022-Climate-Change-Report-A-Reality-Check_April-2022.pdf https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Santos-2022-Cli... At this point in time there's a clear understanding of the consequences of the current 11 billion tonne of CO2 equivilant emmissions released annually .. an increase in trapped solar heat energy that directly leads to increased storm intensity, climbing global mean tempretures, and edging closer to positive feedback thresholds which are significantly hard to reverse when crossed.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Is that with or without the external costs of additional CO2 releases? Without. But on a global scale those externalities aren't priced in. Particularly at the margin.
Filligree 2y ago
Africa is also one of the sunniest places around. With both solar and battery capacity still rapidly falling in price, and infrastructure generally being problematic in many African nations, it seems likely enough that they'll skip past to off-grid / micro-grid power.
defrost 2y ago
It's a statement of current fact. The future maybe different, but right now coal use has peaked and is starting to fall. See (for example) actual data [1]. > Once that happens .. you speculate, you engage in wishful thinking, you ignore actual resource consumption projections gathered globally over decades by major resource companies. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2023 https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2023
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Why would Africa install coal? It's way more expensive than solar, and coal makes them dependent on imports. Once installed, solar is independent energy.
- defrost 2y ago
  The same reason African nations build railways and ports they strictly don't need - China and various world banks are continuing what European countries used to do, cheap "upfront" capital loans for expensive infrastructure projects that benefit resource extractors and other that prey on small nations. https://www.seforall.org/press-releases/new-research-finds-usd-billions-to-coal-power-projects-in-africa-asia https://www.seforall.org/press-releases/new-research-finds-u... Your rational long term argument has little sway when key decision makers are bribed and offered a chance to retire to a mansion elsewhere on the planet.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    China pledged to stop funding coal plants in Africa a few years ago. More recently the seem to be aiming to fund green energy transitions abroad.
    - defrost 2y ago
      Nice pledge. As of today the majority of China's coal activity in Africa is directly related to China's mining activity in Africa to provide power for ectraction, processing and townships. That mining activity is 'small' in the sense that Chinese mining companies represent ~ 8 percent of Africa’s total output in the sector and are concentrated in just five countries: Guinea, Zambia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Resource extraction from those regions back to China is currently approx. $13 billion US (for resources that would likely cost 5x that cost if sourced from Canada or Australia) China is not alone and by no means the greatest extractor; Anglo-American alone accounts for more than double that 8% share.

deepnotderp 2y ago

Nah, nat gas is cheaper The problem is that not all parts of the world have access to cheap nat gas

defrost 2y ago
Is that with or without the external costs of additional CO2 releases?
- onecommentman 2y ago
  Such external costs should only be included if the uncertainties on estimates of external costs of CO2 emissions are somehow represented. And I’m referring to factoring in all structural and parametric uncertainties inherent in climate models. Cutting to the chase, you can never factor in, or even meaningfully bound, those structural uncertainties. Not a big deal for million dollar investments, a big deal for trillion dollar investments. Modelers of all ilks generally avoid reporting the underlying uncertainties in their results. And when they do report them, they are woefully underestimated. Fine in the abstract, but not acceptable when trillions of dollars are at stake. Dollars that can be spent instead on direct low risk, high impact improvements in third world child health (clean air, clean water, infectious diseases, etc.). Maybe choose those that also mitigate climate impacts (as we currently understand them), but directly save the living children/people first. Keep on improving the models with scientific research, but don’t fool ourselves about the accuracy and completeness of such models for policy analysis. I’m old enough to remember the Club of Rome/Limits to Growth controversies.
  - defrost 2y ago
    The geophysics behind, say, the Santos Barrossa gas project appears pretty tight; the C02 emmissions estimates are directly tied to the economic feasibility estimate process .. if one is wrong then so is the other, if so it must be a bad investment and a foolish project? When the project’s offshore and gas processing emissions are factored in, the LNG produced from the Barossa field would have a total emissions intensity of 1.4 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of LNG produced. This makes the Barossa development the most emissions intensive LNG projects in Australia and the world ~ https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Santos-2022-Climate-Change-Report-A-Reality-Check_April-2022.pdf https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Santos-2022-Cli... At this point in time there's a clear understanding of the consequences of the current 11 billion tonne of CO2 equivilant emmissions released annually .. an increase in trapped solar heat energy that directly leads to increased storm intensity, climbing global mean tempretures, and edging closer to positive feedback thresholds which are significantly hard to reverse when crossed.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Is that with or without the external costs of additional CO2 releases? Without. But on a global scale those externalities aren't priced in. Particularly at the margin.

Filligree 2y ago

Africa is also one of the sunniest places around. With both solar and battery capacity still rapidly falling in price, and infrastructure generally being problematic in many African nations, it seems likely enough that they'll skip past to off-grid / micro-grid power.

defrost 2y ago

It's a statement of current fact. The future maybe different, but right now coal use has peaked and is starting to fall. See (for example) actual data [1]. > Once that happens .. you speculate, you engage in wishful thinking, you ignore actual resource consumption projections gathered globally over decades by major resource companies. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2023 https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2023

bryanlarsen 2y ago

Why would Africa install coal? It's way more expensive than solar, and coal makes them dependent on imports. Once installed, solar is independent energy.

defrost 2y ago
The same reason African nations build railways and ports they strictly don't need - China and various world banks are continuing what European countries used to do, cheap "upfront" capital loans for expensive infrastructure projects that benefit resource extractors and other that prey on small nations. https://www.seforall.org/press-releases/new-research-finds-usd-billions-to-coal-power-projects-in-africa-asia https://www.seforall.org/press-releases/new-research-finds-u... Your rational long term argument has little sway when key decision makers are bribed and offered a chance to retire to a mansion elsewhere on the planet.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  China pledged to stop funding coal plants in Africa a few years ago. More recently the seem to be aiming to fund green energy transitions abroad.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Nice pledge. As of today the majority of China's coal activity in Africa is directly related to China's mining activity in Africa to provide power for ectraction, processing and townships. That mining activity is 'small' in the sense that Chinese mining companies represent ~ 8 percent of Africa’s total output in the sector and are concentrated in just five countries: Guinea, Zambia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Resource extraction from those regions back to China is currently approx. $13 billion US (for resources that would likely cost 5x that cost if sourced from Canada or Australia) China is not alone and by no means the greatest extractor; Anglo-American alone accounts for more than double that 8% share.