Africa's Distributed Power is the Blueprint for Just and Economic Energy Infrastructure

Our focus this week comes in a response to the Heartland Institute article on how environmental justice has come to the forefront in Africa. Dr. James Rust, a nuclear engineer, has made the argument that environmentalists are bringing an environmental injustice to the continent by not seeing the economic, health, and benefits of boosting the fossil fuel industry into the mix as Africa continues to urbanize at a rapid pace. He also argues that renewable energy costs will stunt Africa’s development. Dr. Rust sees the concern of electricity shortages attributed to fossil fuel policy, however we have another take on his claims.

Simply put, Dr. Rust’s credibility on other environmental topics could be thoroughly derailed through our previous research and findings in this course. He argues that 2014 was not the hottest year on record due to satellite temperature readings. He claims that Urban Island Heating Effect was not accounted for in surface station readings, but I find that claim difficult after chapters 14/15 of A Vast Machine shows that our GCMs are formatted to utilize surface stations to model areas that are a compilation of stations in and outside of that “zone”. Also, we know that the big “aha” moment climate deniers pushed in the past with global climate showed fault in satellite readings from the University of Alabama (Climate Wars, Episode 2).

However, we do want to focus our attention particularly to the situation in Africa. He’s absolutely right about there being an electricity shortage there. According to the African Business Review, blackouts due to electricity shortages are costing Africa’s economy 80 billion dollars every month. Fossil fuels could possibly be a quick fix, but as an engineers we have to evaluate the external costs and social impacts behind it’s implementation. Renewables are seen as “costly” and introducing new environmental issues to the region (land use). With that, how exactly do we “power” Africa?

First and foremost, fossil fuels are not the answer. The external cost of the energy industry is blatantly obvious in South Africa, where the fossil fuel industry is failing to power the entire country. In addition, it has also enabled environmental distribution injustice by allowing 12 coal fire plants to line up in the Mpumalanga Province under one energy company, Eskom. While Dr. Rust cites an article that points to the World Bank lending the company $3.8 billion to help bolster its economy, what has Eskom got to show for it? If you guessed more health issues, then you are absolutely right. Greenpeace has released a report indicating that those 12 coal fire plants lead to 2700 premature deaths each year. Eskom isn’t even being asked to comply with remotely decent emission standards until late 2015. A July 2014 report by local environmental justice NGO Ground Work found that in Mpumalanga’s Highveld area, the health risks related to outdoor air pollution resulting from Eskom’s emissions were three times higher than those associated with burning coal indoors. The report also found that 51 percent of all hospital admissions and deaths in the area due to outdoor air pollution could be attributed to emissions from Eskom’s power stations.

Outside of South Africa, many countries are not even on the grid. The International Energy Agency estimates that 585 million people do not have access to energy. That means that we are left to deal with the issue of grid infrastructure being the first cost associated with energy being brought to the region. On the other hand, we could focus our efforts towards distributed power. Distributed power is power that would be produced right at home for many Africans. In fact, we see distributed power through the use of fossil fuels in effect in many of these countries with energy poverty. Nobody is arguing that this method of energy production has been downright awful for the economy and health of the people. The previously noted Forbes article mentioned how household air pollution is the cause of 600,000 deaths per year in Africa. What about distributed renewables?

One issue that’s been arising with renewables is cost. The return on investment for renewables is undeniable. The large-scale plants will cost a ton. We mentioned earlier that the infrastructure would have to be reworked to implement large-scale plants. However, the BBC points out that entrepreneurs are able to sell solar power at the same rate as the distributed coal power used through generators now. According to the link, solar energy companies are able to sell power to households for roughly $0.45 per day, in contrast to the kerosene methods being powered for at least $0.50 per day. Solar companies like Juabar and M-Kopa Solar are adding roughly 4,000 homes per week through distributed solar power. These companies have thrived due to their respective national governments not taxing them.

Despite the low costs, Africa can be in the position to have an amazing load of capital to help support the region. Let’s not forget the President’s Power Africa initiative, bolstering an impressive 7 billion dollars from the U.S. alone to support Africa up until 2018. Along with another 9 billion from the private sector, there is no doubt that Africa has the pieces in place to implement a carbon free energy base. The only issue with Power Africa is that it does include U.S. government contributions to the oil and gas industry. We want to see this reworked to contribute solely to renewable energy developments.

Let’s not ignore the other values of having this type of energy structure in place. This method of distributed power prevents the issues associated with the U.S.’s current environmental justice movement.  Of course, the carbon distribution will be relieved without the issue of having carbon-based plants near homes. In addition, it brings the power and influence in decision to the community. People are signing up for this because they can apply the power as needed (by purchasing it) and understand its implementation. Unlike the disrespect and the lack of inclusion African-Americans currently face in the U.S. (Wright, Living in Cancer Alley), Africans are able to choose between unhealthy indoor pollution and sustainable energy sources. Another company called Sun Edison just recently hosted a New York webinar yesterday called the “Eradication of Darkness.” The focus is to really use science and investments to develop mini-grids for African communities. An article by CleanTechnica shows how businesses are truly focused on educating African communities on energy use. CleanTechnica noted that representatives emphasized giving communities a true knowledge base to operate their equipment.

Hopefully we can see Africa serve as the energy model for the world to see. The lack of infrastructure development could be a blessing in disguise for the environmental justice movement. From a recent visit I had with President Olafur Grimmson of Iceland, we hope that President Obama sees his Power Africa initiative as a shining example of how community oriented business should be in America.

Climate Change from a Marketing Perspective

Our ability to analyze and model the earth’s climate is simply amazing.  Since the 15^th century, we have strived to make sense of what is happening to the planet. In 18^th century, meteorologists traveled the world to figure out ways to collect data and maintain accuracies. The 19^th century brought us the standardization of temperature recordings, implementation of computerized modeling, the beginning of a physical model of the earth, and of course views from space. The question remains, how do we go about communicating all of this to the 21^st century? How do we paint the big picture for the world to see? Do we minimalize the strenuous equations for the sake of public understanding? Or do we strive to educate the public more and more? The fact is that climate “deniers” have succeeded in telling history a completely different way.

            First, I believe we have to do better marketing in the advertisement industry. We have to outline the non-political truths about climate change.  Use real time evidence of change and real human impact other than the polar caps melting. It is clear that advertising of another region in ruins is started to fade as we see technology detach human emotions. Neat things like showing how carbon dioxide works in the atmosphere in Climate Wars (see 21:00 mark).  Teach the basics as to how it necessarily works. Show that temperature recordings from thousands of years ago are possible with science that attracts interest, like the ice core. We are not tree-huggers, but rather people who are hoping to be able to slow down the record-high temperatures and the drastic storms.

            In addition, use integrity in saying that we must change as a tool.  Make it clear that there is opposition that has skewed what is going on. We have to say more than: “it’s the rich people selling us lies.” In comparison, look at the success of the grassroots campaign of President Obama during his first election. He made clear that it’s through our community-based efforts that we can produce change.  He polarized the Republican party, and in a sense have not allowed them to speak to their true values because they opposed him so staunchly.  The public needs to know that it’s a long road to even slow down what is happening now, but it’s never too late to make efforts to stop the out of control CO2 emissions.

            We have to be honest about how changing the rules on C02 emissions is going to challenge American businesses. It’s going to change the way we live our daily lives. However, there are some things that are going to stay relatively the same. We’ve been honest to our US Government, but A Vast Machine (Edwards, 2010) has clearly shown that they have stood along the side of America as it stands today. They showed us in 1996 that they valued American business over efficiency with the failure to purchase advanced Japanese supercomputers to enhance our Global Circulation Models over American computers (Chapter 7).  The third episode of climate wars showed us that the Bush Administration blatantly hired someone to cover the science behind climate change.  Be honest to the people of this country so that we can move forward.

            Religion has been a loud voice in this country for years. There is no doubt that it has impacted our culture and value systems. We have worked to make sure that it has not intermixed into our politics, but at some instances, it has become inevitable. People have been able to manipulate the science to paint it as another belief system here in our country. I say all of this for two reasons.  First, we can easily market how this is not the case with all of the other science that has led to modernized developments that we see today. We know science isn’t exact. We also know that it doesn’t have to be exact for it to be accurate. It doesn’t have to be exact for there to be policy surrounding what we know about science. The “inversion” of analysis/data in A Vast Machine might be the hardest thing to swallow as climate scientists. We have to show that the inversions are simply showing the same trends from previous methodologies and that they have still left behind consistent truths about our current climate. Secondly, as naïve as these claims sound, they are probably the most important to take down in front of the public eye.  These false claims are the scapegoats that many Americans take because the issue is larger than us.

            This leads me to the final point to mention as we attempt to market the importance of climate change. We must publish a plan. This has to be an interdisciplinary, multi-faceted plan to stop global warming. The public has to see a solution to the issue that we are bringing, instead of just noting that there is a problem. The plan must include a focus in education at younger levels. As we can see, this takes more than scientists to produce change. It takes business people, lawyers, researchers, architects, engineers and teachers. It should include how we go about our day-to-day lives. No, it should not be a new culture that we invent to make people change their lives. It should be a true focus in industry.  The plan could have demonstrations done by our most wealthy influencers, our celebrities. Imagine if kids watched LeBron James bike to Quicken Loans arena because it’s healthy and because he wants to lower C02 emissions. Imagine if you saw a press release that Ray Lewis issued talking about small things on climate change that can have large impact. Imagine if Steven Spielberg put together a film that changed our opinions for decades.  Social media would buzz if celebrities added on a “hashtagged” fact after #Blacklivesmatter is posted.  Our voice must be heard, but it won’t go far if we don’t change the way we market our science.