Power To The People

NAIMIBIA’s towering twins are now near permanently belching black smoke – no Meryl, not those twins! But not having DSTV Â… perhaps …

I mean the Van Eck power station; and sure evidence that the power problems so often denied are now real. It was also that time of the year again, the Windhoek Show.I love it as I can take my bag and go collecting annual reports, brochures full of promises and policy declarations and look at the latest wondrous offerings of the tourist industry at N$2 000 a night.All for free (well nearly) and even better now being an official geriatric, I get in for free.Life is good.But back to the twins.Namibia has now officially got a bit of a power problem, and one that is going to be with us for some years.But I am not in the blame business, I shall leave that to others – but someone has seriously goofed.The real question is how do we get out of the mire – what plans are in place? This is where the annual reports come in, the Electricity Control Board (ECB), which I had to collect, and NamPower (from Show) – both for 2006.Both well presented and full of good information although I find the heading “Ring Fencing the Electricity Undertakers” (ECB, page 23) as possibly having a greater application! So we, in the shortish term, are going to get power from Zambia – and the line from Katima to Livingstone is apparently up and running; but is it 220kV (NamPower, page 11) or 66kV (ECB, page 11)? And with the rate of expansion of the Copper Belt, how long will this apparent surplus last? Having spent over a month in Zambia last year, mainly the north-east, load shedding power cuts occurred every night just as it got dark! They were routine.Even more interesting is how are we going to get the power into our grid – via Rundu (ECB, page 11, 132kV) or direct to Gerus (NamPower, page 11, 400kV (DC?); there seems to be an information gap.It seems that immediate prospects are the more interventionist side of demand management as 49% of our power is for domestic use.We are going to be switched off even if N$14m worth of low-energy bulbs are dished out – a 20MW stopgap measure – fine.But why do Zambia and Tanzania already have a high penetration of these bulbs even in their more rural areas? Maybe there is a lesson here.What else? The ECB have longer term visions of fuel cells and solar chimneys – dream on.In the shorter term the use of 20 – 0100MW (sic) diesel or gas-powered generators, Kenya style, are coming in 2006 (ECB, page 10).Well at generating costs of N$1,50 / kWh (and more) in a time of fossil fuel price escalation seems an unlikely answer but … as they (ECB) say “expensive energy is better than no electricity as shortages in (sic) electricity stifles economic investment and growth”.Let’s hang on that statement and their acceptance of (implied) price.Options on the table are biased towards remaining dependent upon imported power – grid extension, Inga in DRC, Zambia, Zimbabwe, while local options, Baynes and Kudu appear mired in indecision and bureaucracy! All this talk about “import substitution” is obviously just that.Real alternatives that can change matters within a couple of years (probably best possible) are needed.A clue for one option is provided by NamPower (NamPower, bottom page 19) where they mention rehabilitation of Gove dam and the ECB (ECB, page 12) where they sing the praises of hydropower – a cash cow.Why not drop another 80MW generator in the existing hole at Ruacana – it was built in for that purpose? Sure, it would, without Gove, only provide power for about half a year while there is water – N$100m (?) and less than 2 years (?).Seems a good start.But the water flow in the Kunene is problematic as Gove dam is damaged – oh and by the way, it is OUR dam – it belongs to Namibia (unless someone quietly sold it)! We have seen photos of NamPower staff on the dam talking about fixing it (some time ago) – so why not fix it – what would it cost (?) – N$500m.Cheap at the price and work for Namibian contractors.Or perhaps the problem is someone is already using our dam for other purposes.Seems a bit of brave economic diplomacy is needed – but it would fill a gap.This would appear to be our best option – install the additional generator and fix Gove.Other short-term options for major inputs are thin on the ground.Kudu needs a pipe and price agreement.Baynes as it stands is a massive project – although fixing Gove and stabilising the flow should have the engineers thinking of less costly options! But there are more options – the first will have every environmentalist out of their comfort zones and into their gas-guzzlers – just as the lights go off! Nuclear power.We should not only put up a nuclear power plant on the coast around Mowe Bay but also build a waste storage facility and a fuel (re) processing plant.Sure, we do not have the skills, but we have the real estate and, of course the uranium.We keep talking about upgrading our primary products – well here is a chance.Produce and export commercial grade nuclear fuel.Create an international zone under the auspices of the IAEA, bring in people from countries who have a reputation for safe operation to build, operate and, eventually, transfer.As for storage, the need is to dig holes in a stable environment.We have those skills and a tradition from our own mining industry; there are plenty of skilled Namibian miners available.Access needs would justify Mowe Bay as a port facility.Renting safe storage for toxic nuclear waste is a massive revenue opportunity.Low loss DC transmission technology ameliorates the power loss distribution factor.Yes safety is a naturally a concern but modern technology (ICT, telemetrics, basic understanding) has improved since the early days when concerns were much more real.Yes there are Constitutional matters and international commitments to be addressed.But if we are to overcome poverty we need money and our GDP to grow massively; our present tax base in the medium term does not look that secure.Decisions – I await the howls of protest, any better ideas.The second option grows from the ECB comment about “expensive electricity is better than no electricity …”and its acceptance of a need for local generation at “high” cost.I estimate from press reports that Van Eck costs of generation exceed N$1 / kWh by a good margin – gone are the days of 30c imports! And, to some extent, Namibia is in this situation due to Cabinet reluctance to allow electricity rates to escalate fast enough to generate investment funds – an understandable point of view when considering the poor but there are alternatives, especially as so many urban households are on pre-paid meters.But ….A realistic pricing and volume purchase policy would open the doors to all sorts of alternatives – mainly renewables.California did this years ago and has many small power generators on US10c / kWh.But more important is that the poor and unemployed who could benefit from this situation – there is a window of opportunity.Utilisation of encroaching bush (renewable), which covers about a third of Namibia, mainly in the north / central areas.Harvesting methods exist and costs are known already; conversion technologies exist.The missing link – a pricing policy with a commitment to purchase.Get these right (ECB already accepts higher prices) and every town, village and settlement could have its own 50 – 500kW (or even bigger) generator and sell it to the RED! Done right there is opportunity for the poor to have an opportunity to cut bush and make enough to break free of the poverty trap – and yes, it is hard work! Think about it , 1 – 2 kg of wood has the potential to provide 1 kWh of electricity.Short of money? Well ECB staff benefits average about N$400 000 (including low cost staff) and NamPower sits on N$1.6 billion in investments – which is where they get their profit! No doubt another international conference will solve our problems – and a few external consultants! And now? Chris Smith csmith@mweb.com.naIt was also that time of the year again, the Windhoek Show.I love it as I can take my bag and go collecting annual reports, brochures full of promises and policy declarations and look at the latest wondrous offerings of the tourist industry at N$2 000 a night.All for free (well nearly) and even better now being an official geriatric, I get in for free.Life is good.But back to the twins.Namibia has now officially got a bit of a power problem, and one that is going to be with us for some years.But I am not in the blame business, I shall leave that to others – but someone has seriously goofed.The real question is how do we get out of the mire – what plans are in place? This is where the annual reports come in, the Electricity Control Board (ECB), which I had to collect, and NamPower (from Show) – both for 2006.Both well presented and full of good information although I find the heading “Ring Fencing the Electricity Undertakers” (ECB, page 23) as possibly having a greater application! So we, in the shortish term, are going to get power from Zambia – and the line from Katima to Livingstone is apparently up and running; but is it 220kV (NamPower, page 11) or 66kV (ECB, page 11)? And with the rate of expansion of the Copper Belt, how long will this apparent surplus last? Having spent over a month in Zambia last year, mainly the north-east, load shedding power cuts occurred every night just as it got dark! They were routine.Even more interesting is how are we going to get the power into our grid – via Rundu (ECB, page 11, 132kV) or direct to Gerus (NamPower, page 11, 400kV (DC?); there seems to be an information gap.It seems that immediate prospects are the more interventionist side of demand management as 49% of our power is for domestic use.We are going to be switched off even if N$14m worth of low-energy bulbs are dished out – a 20MW stopgap measure – fine.But why do Zambia and Tanzania already have a high penetration of these bulbs even in their more rural areas? Maybe there is a lesson here.What else? The ECB have longer term visions of fuel cells and solar chimneys – dream on.In the shorter term the use of 20 – 0100MW (sic) diesel or gas-powered generators, Kenya style, are coming in 2006 (ECB, page 10).Well at generating costs of N$1,50 / kWh (and more) in a time of fossil fuel price escalation seems an unlikely answer but … as they (ECB) say “expensive energy is better than no electricity as shortages in (sic) electricity stifles economic investment and growth”.Let’s hang on that statement and their acceptance of (implied) price.Options on the table are biased towards remaining dependent upon imported power – grid extension, Inga in DRC, Zambia, Zimbabwe, while local options, Baynes and Kudu appear mired in indecision and bureaucracy! All this talk about “import substitution” is obviously just that.Real alternatives that can change matters within a couple of years (probably best possible) are needed.A clue for one option is provided by NamPower (NamPower, bottom page 19) where they mention rehabilitation of Gove dam and the ECB (ECB, page 12) where they sing the praises of hydropower – a cash cow.Why not drop another 80MW generator in the existing hole at Ruacana – it was built in for that purpose? Sure, it would, without Gove, only provide power for about half a year while there is water – N$100m (?) and less than 2 years (?).Seems a good start.But the water flow in the Kunene is problematic as Gove dam is damaged – oh and by the way, it is OUR dam – it belongs to Namibia (unless someone quietly sold it)! We have seen photos of NamPower staff on the dam talking about fixing it (some time ago) – so why not fix it – what would it cost (?) – N$500m.Cheap at the price and work for Namibian contractors.Or perhaps the problem is someone is already using our dam for other purposes.Seems a bit of brave economic diplomacy is needed – but it would fill a gap.This would appear to be our best option – install the additional generator and fix Gove.Other short-term options for major inputs are thin on the ground.Kudu needs a pipe and price agreement.Baynes as it stands is a massive project – although fixing Gove and stabilising the flow should have the engineers thinking of less costly options! But there are more options – the first will have every environmentalist out of their comfort zones and into their gas-guzzlers – just as the lights go off! Nuclear power.We should not only put up a nuclear power plant on the coast around Mowe Bay but also build a waste storage facility and a fuel (re) processing plant.Sure, we do not have the skills, but we have the real estate and, of course the uranium.We keep talking about upgrading our primary products – well here is a chance.Produce and export commercial grade nuclear fuel.Create an international zone under the auspices of the IAEA, bring in people from countries who have a reputation for safe operation to build, operate and, eventually, transfer.As for storage, the need is to dig holes in a stable environment.We have those skills and a tradition from our own mining industry; there are plenty of skilled Namibian miners available.Access needs would justify Mowe Bay as a port facility.Renting safe storage for toxic nuclear waste is a massive revenue opportunity.Low loss DC transmission technology ameliorates the power loss distribution factor.Yes safety is a naturally a concern but modern technology (ICT, telemetrics, basic understanding) has improved since the early days when concerns were much more real.Yes there are Constitutional matters and international commitments to be addressed.But if we are to overcome poverty we need money and our GDP to grow massively; our present tax base in the medium term does not look that secure.Decisions – I await the howls of protest, any better ideas.The second option grows from the ECB comment about “expensive electricity is better than no electricity …”and its acceptance of a need for local generation at “high” cost.I estimate from press reports that Van Eck costs of generation exceed N$1 / kWh by a good margin – gone are the days of 30c imports! And, to some extent, Namibia is in this situation due to Cabinet reluctance to allow electricity rates to escalate fast enough to generate investment funds – an understandable point of view when considering the poor but there are alternatives, especially as so many urban households are on pre-paid meters.But ….A realistic pricing and volume purchase policy would open the doors to all sorts of alternatives – mainly renewables.California did this years ago and has many small power generators on US10c / kWh.But more important is that the poor and unemployed who could benefit from this situation – there is a window of opportunity.Utilisation of encroaching bush (renewable), which covers about a third of Namibia, mainly in the north / central areas.Harvesting methods exist and costs are known already; conversion technologies exist.The missing link – a pricing policy with a commitment to purchase.Get these right (ECB already accepts higher prices) and every town, village and settlement could have its own 50 – 500kW (or even bigger) generator and sell it to the RED! Done right there is opportunity for the poor to have an opportunity to cut bush and make enough to break free of the poverty trap – and yes, it is hard work! Think about it , 1 – 2 kg of wood has the potential to provide 1 kWh of electricity.Short of money? Well ECB staff benefits average about N$400 000 (including low cost staff) and NamPower sits on N$1.6 billion in investments – which is where they get their profit! No doubt another international conference will solve our problems – and a few external consultants! And now? Chris Smith csmith@mweb.com.na