Renewables in East and Horn of Africa - The Potential Contribution of Cogeneration
and Geothermal Technologies
A Regional Assessment
Authors:
Stephen Karekezi
Waeni Kithyoma
Geoffrey Muthee
Ezekiel Manyara
Jordan Lwimbuli
African Energy Policy Research Network (AFREPREN/FWD)
P.O. Box 30979, 00100 GPO, Elgeyo Marakwet Close,
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-2-566032 or 571467
Tel (mobile): 0733-734538
Fax: +254-2-561467 or 566231 or 3740524
E-mail: [email protected] OR [email protected]
Web site: www.afrepren.org
1
Brief Regional Profile: East and Horn of Africa
Selected indicators: East and Horn of Africa (2003)
Land area (Km2)
Capital city
Ethiopia
Uganda
Kenya
Tanzania
1,097,000
241,038
580,000
940,000
Addis Abba
Kampala
Nairobi
Dar es salaam
Population (million)
67
23.3
30.7
34.6
Population growth rate
2.7
2.6
2
2.9
Rural population as
percentage of the total
population
GDP (million US $)
85.1
82.6
65.7
65
7,933
8,086
9,993
6,784
45.3
23
20
48
7.7
5.6
1.1
6.2
100
293
Contribution of agriculture to
the national GDP (%)
GDP growth rate (%)
GNP per capita
Exchange rate (US$)
Main economic sector
Birr 8.8 = US$ 1
Ush 1, 880 = US$1
(March, 2003)
(January, 2003)
Agriculture, forestry, Agriculture, mining
manufacturing, fishing,
and quarrying,
mining.
manufacturing,
construction,
commerce.
350
270
Kshs. 76.25 = US$ 1
(April, 2003)
Tourism, agriculture,
forestry, mining,
manufacturing,
construction,
commerce.
Tsh1040.5 = US$1
(September 2003)
Agriculture, mining,
financial services,
tourism, commerce,
construction.
2
1.0 Overview of the Energy Sector in East and Horn of Africa
Countries in East and Horn of Africa meet the bulk of their energy needs from biomass energy
sources. Available statistics indicate that in the year 2001, biomass energy sources accounted for more
than 75% of total energy consumption in the region (IEA, 2003). The East and Horn of Africa region
is well endowed with significant energy resources, which include renewable energy resources (wind,
solar, biomass, hydro and geothermal) and conventional energy sources. The following table shows
the main energy resources of each of the countries.
Table 1: Energy Resources in East and Horn of Africa
Ethiopia
Energy sources
Uganda
Kenya
Tanzania
Biomass, natural gas, Biomass, Hydro, solar, Biomass, Geothermal,
hydro, imported oil,
imported petroleum, hydro, solar, imported
dung, geothermal
geothermal
coal, imported oil.
energy.
Biomass, Hydro, coal,
natural gas, imported
petroleum, solar, wind,
geothermal.
The East and Horn of Africa has one of the lowest levels of modern energy consumption. In the year
2001, modern energy consumption per capita for the region was estimated at less than 100kgoe. The
table below provides key indicators for modern energy use in the four countries in East and Horn of
Africa.
Table 2: Modern Energy in East and Horn of Africa
Indicator
Modern energy consumption per capita (Kgoe)
Installed capacity (MW)
Ethiopia
Uganda
Kenya
Tanzania
43.8
19.8
84
20.2
494
263
1194
863
1,812
1,575
4,563
2,770
Electricity consumption per capita (KWh)
22
42.2
128
63
System losses (%)
17
34
21
28
Electrification Levels (%) National
2
5
9
10
Urban
13
20
20
39
Rural
0.7
0.7
2
2
Electricity generation (GWh)
Sources: Nyoike, 2002; UNDP, 2002; AFREPREN/FWD, 2003a, 2003b; EIU, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c; NARC, 2002; Katyega,
2003; Marandu, 2003; Marandu, 2002; Ministry of Energy and Minerals, 2003; Kyokutamba, 2003; Kyokutamba, 2002a;
Mengistu, 2002; Wolde-Ghiorgis, 2002a; World Bank, 2003a, 2003b, 2002a, 2002b; IEA, 2002, AFREPREN, 2003
Electricity
Total installed electricity generation capacity in the region is about 2,833 MW, while total electricity
generation is about 10,824.7 GWh (AFREPREN Data and Statistics, 2003; Nyoike, 2003;
Kyokutamba, 2003; Katyega, 2003; Wolde, 2003; Teferra, 2003). The region has one of the lowest
average per capita electricity consumption levels in the world of about 63.08 kWh. Table 1.2 shows
electricity consumption per capita for other developing world regions.
3
Table 3: Electricity consumption per capita for selected developing regions of the world
Region
Electricity consumption per capita (kWh) – 1999
Latin America and the Caribbean
1,470
East Asia and the Pacific
816
South Asia
337
Sub Saharan Africa
435
East and Horn of Africa
72
Source: World Bank 2003, AFREPREN 2002, UEB 1999, and UNDP 2002
Electricity generation in the East and Horn of Africa heavily depend on hydro sources. As shown in the table
above, close to 70% of total electricity generated, comes from large and small hydro electricity generating units
(AFREPREN/FWD, 2003). Consequently, hydroelectric power (HEPs) consume the bulk of energy sector
investments. In the long run, the entire population of the involved economy service the loans although the power
projects do not benefit all citizens equally in the respective countries. Although HEPs projects cab have other
adverse impacts such as displacement of local inhabitants from from their agricultural land without proper
compensation. HEP still accounts for a dominant share of regional power investment. (Bhagavan, 1999;
Karekezi and Ranja, 1997)
Figure 1.1 Electricity Production in East and Horn of Africa (2000)
Bagasse-based
cogeneration
2.81%
Geothermal
3.25%
Thermal
21.49%
Hydro
72.45%
Source: Karekezi et al (eds.), 2002; AFREPREN, 2002; IEA, 2002
As shown in Figure , electricity generation in east and horn of Africa countries is mainly sourced
from hydro and thermal (primarily petroleum) sources, with very little use of geothermal and bagasse.
4
Tanzania
Kenya
Ethiopia
Diesel
Hydro
Other
Geothermal
ThermalDiesel
Hydro
Diesel
Gas
Turbine
Geothermal
Thermal
Hydro
Thermal
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Hydro
Megawatts (MW)
Figure 1.2: Installed Electricity Generation Capacity
Uganda
Source: AFREPREN, 2002; BCSE, 2003; Karekezi and Kithyoma, 2003; Kyokutamba, 2003; Wolde-Ghiorgis,
2003.
Most of the electricity generated is lost through technical and transmission inefficiencies, demonstrated by the
high system losses. The average national electrification rates are low with over 90% of the population having no
access to electricity. Table 1.3 shows electrification levels for east and horn of Africa countries.
Table 1.1
Electrification Levels
Country
National electrification levels (percentage)
Tanzania
10.0*
Kenya
9.8*
Uganda
5.0
Ethiopia
2.0
* 2002 data
Source: AFREPREN, 2002; BCSE, 2003; Republic of Kenya, 2002; Okumu, 2003; Kinuthia, 2003; Engorait, 2003
The electricity industry in East and Horn of Africa is characterized by a monopoly structure, dominated by
vertically integrated, state-owned power utilities. However, numerous developments have taken place in the
power sector over the years in the region, which have led to four countries commercialising their power sectors.
Table 1.4 shows the status of power sector reforms undertaken in East and Horn of Africa.
Table 1.2
Status of power sector reforms in Eastern African countries (2003)
Reform measures
Amendment of the Electricity Act
Corporatisation/Commercialisation
Establishment of Independent Regulator
Restructuring (unbundling)
Independent Power Producers
Full Privatisation of Generation
Full Privatisation of Distribution
Source: Authors compilation
Ethiopia
U
U
Tanzania
U
U
Kenya
U
U
U
U
U
Uganda
U
U
U
U
U
In the region, Kenya and Uganda have established independent regulators and unbundled their
operations in generation, transmission and distribution while Tanzania is the only country that has not
amended its Electricity Act. Ethiopia is the only country without independent power producers.
(Karekezi et al., 2003). Uganda has concessioned its generation facilities to ESKOM of South Africa.
Attempts to concession distribution in Uganda have stalled after disagreements on the terms between
the Government and the proposed concessionaire. Perhaps the most significant impact of power sector
reform in the region is the increased involvement of IPPs. With the exception of Kenya, the capacity
5
of IPPs (both implemented and proposed) is greater than the prevailing installed capacity (largely
from the state-owned utility). Figure 1.2 compares proposed capacity of IPPs with the prevailing
installed capacity of state-owned utilities.
Figure 1.3
Installed capacity (MW) of state owned utilities compared to IPPs for East and Horn of
Africa countries*
* There has been no IPP development in Ethiopia to date.
Source: Adapted from Karekezi and Kimani, 2002
Many of the IPPs have come into operation recently and are predominantly fossil-fuel-based. Kenya was the
first country in the region to have a renewable-based IPP, after the licensing of a geothermal IPP (OrPOWER
III).
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Kenya
Tanzania
Installed capacity of implented and planned IPPs
Uganda
Installed capacity of state-owned utilities
Fossil Fuels
The energy sector in east and horn of Africa is characterised by high levels of imports of petroleum products
accounting for significant proportions of export earnings (an average of 20-40% for non-oil exporting subSaharan African countries). The transport sector is the major consumer of oil accounting for 60% of total
consumption (IEA, 2003). The high oil import bill exposes east and horn of Africa’s energy sector to the
external energy price shocks.
Table 1.2: Petroleum imports in East and Horn of Africa, 2000
Country
Petroleum Imports in 000 Total Primary Energy
toe, 2000
Supply in ‘000 toe’,
2000
Kenya
1,024
3,353
Tanzania
938
1,185
Uganda
460
540
Ethiopia
1,171
1,391
Sources: EIU, 2001a, b; IEA, 2003
%
of
Petroleum
Import
to
Total
Energy Supply, 2000
4.57
6.58
6.49
6.06
Renewable Energy Technologies
The East and Horn of African region is well endowed with modest levels of renewable energy resources that can
be used to significantly diversify the region’s energy sector. These resources include wind, solar, biomass, small
and micro hydropower. Table 1.3 below presents the potential and current levels of renewable energy resource
exploitation available in the region.
Table1.3. Renewable energy technologies
Country
Kenya
Energy Resource
Wind
Solar
Biomass
Potential
3m/s
5.8 kWh/ m2/day
223.6 million tons
Installations
360 units
3,600 kWp
1,450,000 improved
stoves
Uganda
Wind
Solar
Biomass
4m/s
5 kWh/ m2/day
1,268.7 million tons
13units
152 kWp
52,000
improved
6
stoves
Tanzania
Wind
Solar
Biomass
2.5 - 4 m/s
4-8 kW/ m2/day
3,333.6 million tons
Ethiopia
Wind
Solar
Biomass
3.5 - 5.5 m/s
5 kWh/ m2/day
2,197.7 million tons
58 units
300 kWp
54,000
improved
stoves
200 units
1,200 kWp
45,000
improved
stoves
Sources: Karekezi and Ranja, 1997; Ngeleja, 2000, FAO, 2000
Renewables energy resources are cleaner options with fewer adverse compared to conventional
energy sources such as large-scale dams and fossil fuels. Most renewables are appropriate for the
scattered rural settlements in the region (Karekezi and Ranja, 1997). Previous attempts to electrify the
region through the use of PV have proved unsuccessful because of the high upfront costs involved to
install imported equipment. In addition, the power produced can only cater for lighting and powering
low voltage appliances (Karekezi, 2002).
Renewables and Poverty Alleviation
A growing number of energy analysts, especially within the AFREPREN Network, perceive certain
types of renewable energy technologies as important options for poverty alleviation. This is
particularly true of renewable energy technologies that are locally made and that provide thermal and
animate power. These sets of renewable energy technologies are not only affordable to the very poor
but can be a source of jobs, employment and enterprise creation for both the rural and urban poor in
east and horn of Africa. Examples of such renewable energy technologies include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Low cost efficient hand tools and animal drawn implements, which would increase the
agricultural productivity of rural areas of east and horn of Africa.
Low cost but more efficient biomass-based combustion technologies (e.g. improved cookstoves,
efficient charcoal kilns, brick making kilns, fish smokers, tea dryers and wood dryers).
Pico and micro hydro for shaft power that can be used to process agricultural produce and
increase its value, as well as for water pumping.
Ram pumps for irrigation, which increase agricultural outputs thus generating income to the rural
farmer
Solar dryers that can lower post-harvest losses and enable the rural farmer to market
his/her produce when prices are higher
Solar water pasteurizers that provide clean potable water and reduce water borne diseases,
which translates to increased availability of labour and thus increases agricultural output
and income.
Rationale and Motivation
Recent interest in renewable energy in the east and Horn of Africa is driven by, among others, the
following important developments. The first is the recent increase in oil prices, which, recently,
peaked to US$ 33.16 per barrel (Economist: Jan, 98 - Dec, 2000) at a time when Africa’s convertible
currency earnings are very low due to poor world market prices and decreased volumes of its
commodity exports. Consequently, it is estimated that in the year 2000, petroleum imports as a
percentage of export earnings doubled from about 15-20% to 30-40% for a number of African
countries (AFREPREN, 2001).
The second important development that has increased interest in renewables in the region is the
recurrent crises faced by most power utilities in the region. For example, in year 2000 alone, Ethiopia
Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Tanzania faced unprecedented power rationing which adversely affected
7
their economies. The rapid development of renewables is often mentioned as an important response
option for addressing the power problems faced by the region.
Two important global environment initiatives have also stimulated greater interest in renewables in
the region. The first was the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)
held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. At this Conference, an ambitious environment and
development document entitled "Agenda 21" was reviewed by one of the largest gathering of
Government Heads of States and, perhaps more importantly, was endorsed by a large number of
multi-nationals companies. Agenda 21 sought to operationalise the concept of sustainable
development. In addition, the Rio Conference provided the venue for the second important event, the
signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by 155
Governments (United Nations, 1992). The Convention came into force in early 1994 after ratification
by 50 States. The recent 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development further
underlined global interest in renewables.
Renewables featured in both Agenda 21 and the Climate Change Convention (United Nations, 1992).
Because of the important role of fossil fuels in the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (it
is estimated that the energy sector accounts for about half the global emissions of green-house gases)
and concomitant climate change concerns, renewables are perceived to constitute an important option
for mitigating and abating the emissions of greenhouse gases (Socolow, 1992).
The above perspective was, however, not initially shared by the many energy analysts in the east and
horn of Africa. In contrast to the industrialized world which is worried by the long-term global
environmental impact of current patterns of energy production and use, the east and horn of Africa is
largely pre-occupied with the immediate problems of reversing the persistent decline of their
centralized power systems as well a meeting the long-standing and pressing demands for a minimum
level of modern energy services for the majority of their poor - many of whom have no electricity and
continue to rely on inefficient and environmentally hazardous unprocessed biomass fuels.
Although the contribution of east and horn of Africa countries to global greenhouse emissions
(GHGs) is, on a per capita basis, there is growing realization that the region is likely to be disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. Of particular concern is the dependence of
the poor in the east and horn of Africa on rain-fed agriculture, which is believed to be already under
threat from unpredictable weather patterns triggered by what appears to be climate change. The recent
floods that adversely affected parts of the east and horn of Africa appear to indicate that the impact of
climate change may already be a reality.
In spite of the growing evidence of climate change, the position of the African energy community on
the climate change question has not been unanimous. Support for renewables was, at best, lukewarm
on the part of energy experts from oil-exporting African countries such Algeria, Angola, Cameroon,
Nigeria and Libya. In spite of the continued divergence on the part of African energy analysts on how
to respond to the climate change challenge, the consensus around the further development of
renewables appears to be growing. The challenge of engendering a consensus on renewable energy
development appears to be less onerous than that faced by the African energy efficiency community.
As mentioned earlier, renewables featured high on the agenda of the Johannesburg World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002. In the UN-led implementation plan of action for the
WSSD, dubbed WEHAB (which stands for Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity), top
priority was given to the renewables and other alternative forms of energy services (WEHAB
Working Group, 2002). One of the targets proposed at WSSD was for every country to commit itself
to meeting 10% of its national energy supply from renewables. Although the 10% target was not
agreed to at the summit, there is growing interest in renewable energy technologies at national level in
many eastern and horn of African countries.
Approach and Methodology:
8
To address aforementioned challenges, a study on the “Status of Renewables in Africa” with the
following key objectives:
1. To examine viability of 10% renewable energy technology target proposed at the Johannesburg
WSSD Summit in selected African Countries
2. To assess the benefits and drawbacks of the 10% renewable energy technology target in Eastern
Africa
Other objectives of the study include:
-
Review the status and potential of renewable energy technologies in 4 Eastern African
countries
Investigate the impact of renewable energy technologies on debt and balance of payments
Document other benefits of renewables such as job and enterprise creation
Provide empirical/database for detailed analysis of sustainable energy technologies in the
region
Disseminate findings of the study to key stakeholders and the general public
To tackle the study, a two-step approach was adopted. The first step involved assessing how 10% of
electricity supply in the country could be met using renewables. The technologies to be considered in
this step are cogeneration, and geothermal electricity generation. The idea was to assess the potential
for each technology contributing 5%, to make up the 10% target.
The second step will assess how 10% of total energy supply in the country could be met using
renewables. A wider range of renewables will be covered in this case, with special emphasis on
renewables that have significant impact on poverty alleviation.
The methodology for the study is outlined below:
Technical Assessment: The gross energy potential and technical potential of key renewable energy
technologies was assessed. The installed capacity, cost, job creation potential and enterprise creation
potential of each key renewable energy technology was also determined.
Economic/Policy Assessment: This upstream macro-economic and policy assessment was reviewed,
and included the following indicators:
•
•
•
Contribution of conventional energy investment to debt build up
The impact of renewables on energy imports
Role of RETs in job creation, enterprise creation and poverty alleviation
This report is a compilation of studies on the first phased of the project, which assessed the potential
contribution of renewables to the energy sector in the region. The contribution of two technologies to
the electricity sector is assessed: geothermal and biomass-based cogeneration. Part II covers
geothermal, while Part III discusses cogeneration. Part IV provides background data on the electricity
sector and renewables in sub-Saharan Africa.
9
Part II: The Potential Contribution of Geothermal Energy to the
Electricity Sector in East and Horn of Africa
10
1.0 Geothermal energy in East and Horn of Africa
1.1
Overview of Geothermal Energy
Geothermal energy is the natural heat from the earth’s interior stored in rocks and water within the
earth’s crust. Geothermal energy is mainly used for electricity generation, and direct applications
Geothermal power exploitation has numerous advantages over other energy sources. Among the
benefits of geothermal power are the near zero emissions (true for modern closed cycle systems that
re-inject water back to the earth’s crust), and the little space required for geothermal power
development compared to other energy sources such as coal fired plants.
Advantages of Geothermal
Geothermal energy is clean, renewable, uses little land, decreases deforestation, increases energy
diversity and provides local jobs for construction, operation and maintenance. Geothermal is a
renewable source of energy with low levels of emissions, near zero (true for modern closed cycle
systems that re-inject water back to the earth’s crust). They can be sited in farmland or forests and can
share land with cattle and wildlife. The Hell’s Gate National Park in Kenya was established around an
existing 45 MWe Olkaria I geothermal power station. Land uses in the park include livestock grazing,
growing of foodstuffs and flowers, and conservation of wildlife and birds. A second geothermal plant,
a 64 MW Olkaria II, was approved for installation in the park in 1994 after extensive environmental
impact analysis, and an additional power station, Olkaria III, was commissioned in 2000.
Compared to other renewable energy sources, geothermal power plants require relatively little land. A
geothermal energy plant occupies the least space per MW of electricity generated. Figure 1 shows the
land occupied in m2 per MW per year for 30 years. Geothermal power plants require approximately
11% of the total land used by coal fired plants and 12 - 30% of land occupied by other renewable
technologies (Bronick, 2001). This makes geothermal energy a competitive renewable energy source
in terms of economic utilisation of land space.
Figure 1
Land occupied in m2 per MW per year for 30 years
Technology
Geothermal
Wind (Land
with
turbines and
roads)
Photovoltaic
Solar
Thermal
Coal
including
pit coal
mining
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Source: Bronicki, 2001
Geothermal installations don’t require damming of rivers or harvesting of forests, and there are no mineshafts,
tunnels, open pits, waste heaps or oil spills. Table 1 compares acreage requirements by technology and shows
that an entire geothermal field uses only 1 – 8 acres per MW versus 5 – 10 acres per MW for nuclear plants and
19 acres per MW for coal plants.
Table 1
Comparison of land requirement for baseload power generation
Requirement
Geothermal
Nuclear
Coal
Source: Shibaki, 2003
Power source land (acre/MW)
1–8
5 – 10
19
11
The energy supply can be unlimited as resource supply can be indefinite especially if good re-injection practices
are maintained. In addition, geothermal resources are usually located in otherwise unproductive areas, far from
hydropower resources. Geothermal plants are built on modular basis, with most projects including one or more
15 – 50 MW turbines. The modular nature of the technology lowers the risk of geothermal development.
Geothermal plants take a shorter duration to install than conventional energy plants. Typical payback periods are
15 years delivering power at 5 – 10c/kWh. Costs then fall by 50 – 70 % to just cover operating and maintenance
for the remaining 15 – 30 years. Operation costs are very low because fuel costs are eliminated. In comparison,
fossil fuel station capital costs are usually significantly cheaper, but have high fuel costs (Shibaki, 2003).
Unlike solar, wind and hydro-based renewable power, geothermal power plant operations are independent of
fluctuations in daily and seasonal weather. This makes it a more reliable source than conventional energy
sources. Geothermal power plants operate at well over 90% availability all year round. Geothermal plants are
benign with respect to water pollution. Production and injection wells are lined with steel casing and cement to
isolate fluids from the environment. Spent thermal waters are injected back into the reservoirs from which the
fluids were derived. This practice neatly solves the water-disposal problem while helping to bolster reservoir
pressure and prolong the resource’s productive existence.
Fluids from geothermal energy development contain dissolved gases, mainly carbon dioxide and hydrogen
sulphide, small amounts of ammonia, hydrogen, nitrogen, methane and radon, and minor quantities of volatile
species of boron, arsenic, and mercury. Geothermal power provides significant environmental advantage over
fossil fuel power sources in terms of air emissions because geothermal energy production does not release
nitrogen oxides, and sulphur dioxide, and releases less carbon dioxide than fossil- fuelled power. The reduction
in nitrogen and sulphur emissions reduces local and regional impacts of acid rain, and reduction in carbondioxide emissions reduce contributions to potential global climate change (Shibaki, 2003).
Geothermal power plant carbon dioxide emissions can vary from plant to plant depending on both the
characteristics of the reservoir fluid and the type of power generation plant. Binary plants have no carbon
dioxide emissions, while dry steam and flash steam plants have carbon dioxide emissions on the order of 0.2
lb/kWh, less than one tenth of the carbon dioxide emissions of coal- fired generation. According to the
Geothermal Energy Association, improved and increased injection to sustain geothermal reservoirs has helped
reduce carbon dioxide emissions from geothermal power plants (Shibaki, 2003).
1.2
Disadvantages of Geothermal
The initial capital outlay required for geothermal energy development is significant. Geothermal power plants
incur high capital costs at the beginning of the project. Therefore they are typically at an economic disadvantage
to conventional fossil fuel power plants. Fossil fuel plants have lower up- front capital costs, but incur fuel costs
for the life of the plant.
Geothermal drilling is much more difficult and expensive than conventional petroleum drilling. This is because
of the high temperature and corrosive nature of geothermal fluids, as well as the hard and abrasive nature of
reservoir rocks found in geothermal environments. Each geothermal well costs $1 – 4 million to drill, and a
geothermal field may consist of 10 – 100 wells. Drilling can account for 30 – 50% of a geothermal project’s
cost. (Shibaki, 2003). Most of the components are sourced from offshore countries. Some parts of the system
require regular servicing. Pipes are subject to corrosion, which can be problematic
Geothermal fluids contain dissolved gases, mainly carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide, small amounts of
ammonia, hydrogen, nitrogen, methane and radon, and minor quantities of volatile species of boron, arsenic, and
mercury (shibaki, 2003). These gases have been identified with acid rain and climate change, although this is
rarely the case with geothermal plants, due to the miniscule amounts.
Noise occurs during exploration drilling and construction phases. Noise levels from these operations can range
from 45 to 120 decibels (dBa). Noise levels in quiet suburban residences are in the order of 50 dBa, and noise
levels in noisy urban environments are typically 80 to 90 dBa. Site workers are normally protected by wearing
ear mufflers. However, with best practices, noise levels can be kept to below 65 dBa, and construction noise
should be practically indistinguishable from other background noises at distances of one kilometer (Shibaki,
2003).
12
2.0 Status of Geothermal Energy Development in East and Horn of Africa
At an international level, approximately 8,100 MW of geothermal power is generated out of a global potential of
60,000 MW (Mariita, 2002; Bronicki, 2001). Using today’s technology, Africa has the potential to generate
6,500 MW of energy from geothermal power. Out of this potential, only 127 MW has been tapped in Kenya,
and less than 2 MW1 in Ethiopia. Table 2 shows the geothermal potential in east and horn of Africa countries
have in geothermal generation.
Table 2
Geothermal potential for selected African countries
Country
Potential generation in MW
Kenya
2,000
Ethiopia
>1,000
Djibouti
230-860
Tanzania
150
Uganda
450
Source: Gwang’ombe 2004, Kamese 2004, Wolde 2004, Mbuthi 2004, BCSE, 2003
Varying levels of geothermal exploration and research has been undertaken in Djibouti, Eritrea, Uganda,
Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi and Madagascar but the potential for grid connected electrification is highest in
Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.
2.1
Tanzania
In Tanzania the geothermal resources are fairly small. Geothermal exploration was carried out between 1976-79
by SWECO, a Swedish Consult Group in collaboration with Virkir-Orkint of Iceland. Reconnaissance missions
and surface exploration were carried out in the north (near Arusha, Lake Natron, Lake Manyara and Maji Moto)
and in the south (Mbeya region), while a Tanzanian company carried out exploration in the Rufiji area. The
objective of these missions was to make a preliminary appraisal of the existence and feasibility of exploiting
geothermal resources in Tanzania. The Arusha and Mbeya regions were singled out for further exploration.
Approximately 50 hot springs were mapped which are associated with block faulting and recent volcanicity. The
results were considered promising and SWECO/Virkir/Sida prepared a draft geothermal development plan. The
Government of Tanzania is committed to participate in a private sector led initiative in geothermal energy
development. There are plans for further exploration and analysis of selected geothermal prospects, at Arusha,
Mbeya and Rufiji. First Energy Company (FEC) developed plans for a 6 MW plant in Rufiji and is looking for
an international partner for implementation of the project (BCSE, 2003).
In Tanzania, thermal prospects appear in two extreme geological settings. However, there is no evidence of high
temperature hydrothermal system in the northern part of the country. The region is characterised by a few low
temperature advective systems discharging alkaline waters of similar composition. The region around Lake
Natron transfers high-grade heat of at least 50 MW but none of the low temperature systems appears to have
economic potential at present (Hochstein, et. al., 2002). In Southern Tanzania, probably three hydrothermal
systems occur within the northern Malawi rift. They derive heat from hot rocks beneath the Rungwe volcanic
fields. At the terminus of the outflows, there are associated thermal springs. High temperatures cannot be
expected in the close proximity of these outflows. The Songwe River thermal area constitutes a viable low
temperature resource as indicated by its natural heat output of 10MW (Hochstein, et. al., 2002). There are other
regions with lower prospects of between 1 and 5 MW that are marginal for direct utilisation. The Rungwe and
southwest Usanga basins discharge little heat and derive from small, low temperature reservoirs.
2.2
Uganda
Geothermal energy studies in Uganda date back to 1930. Between 1993 and 1994, explorations were carried out
on three geothermal energy prospects in the western branch of the Eastern Rift Valley under “Geothermal
Energy Exploration I” (GEEP I). Table 3 shows the geothermal prospects studied under GEEP I.
Table 1
Prospect
Katwe
1
Geothermal Prospects Studied Under GEEP I
Characteristics
•
High sub-surface temperatures
The geothermal plant in Ethiopia has been discontinued due to technical problems at the plant. There are,
however, plans to rehabilitate it.
13
Prospect
Buranga
Kibiro
Characteristics
•
Proximity to the national grid
•
Desirable geological characteristics
•
Large volumes of water at 120-150o C
•
Attractive prospects for electricity generation and drying of agricultural produce
•
Simple geologic structure
•
Sub-surface temperatures above 200o C
•
Located near a population of about one million without electricity
Source: EAPIC EAMIC, 2003
The Government of Uganda plans to commission the second phase of Geothermal Energy Exploration II (GEEP
II) once the Uganda Alternative Energy Resources Assessment and Utilization Study (UAERAUS) study is
completed. The key objective of UAERAUS is to formulate a long-term integrated least cost Alternative Energy
Resources Development Program (AERDP) for Uganda. Pre-feasibility and feasibility studies will be conducted
on one or two of the selected prospect areas.
2.3
Ethiopia
Usable geothermal energy potentials have been known to exist in Ethiopia. Two areas [Aluto-Langano (Lakes
District) and Tendaho (Northern Afar) geothermal fields] have been subjected to deep exploratory drilling. A
feasibility study began in Ethiopia in 1981 and a construction contract awarded to ORMAT International in
1996 at the Aluto Langano geothermal plant. Between 1993 and 1998, a total of six wells were drilled at the
Tendaho geothermal fields (BCSE, 2003). Feasibility studies at this region indicated that four productive wells
could supply steam for a 5 MW pilot plant (BCSE, 2003). The Aluto Langano plant was constructed in 1997 and
started operations in July 1998. However, due to operational problems associated with low quality of steam, the
geothermal plant had to close down. The plant started by yielding 4.1 MW and the output slowly declined to
0.82 MW. Eventually the plant was closed in June 2002. The operations were characterised by decreasing
pressures, and the problematic operation has since discouraged Ethiopian leaders from considering the
construction of additional geothermal plants despite the large potential. Ethiopia’s geothermal power installed
capacity is 8.5 MW. Table 4 shows the level of geothermal exploitation in Kenya and Ethiopia.
Table 2
Level of geothermal power exploitation in Kenya and Ethiopia
Country
Kenya
Potential generation (MW)
2000
Installed Capacity (MW)
127
Available (MW)
127
Source: BCSE, 2003; Fridleifsson, 2001
Ethiopia
>1000
8.5
Nil
Ethiopia’s proposed geothermal development plans include refurbishment of the Aluto-Langano pilot plant,
development of the 5-20 MW Tendaho geothermal field, and further exploration and analysis of the prospects
that are at advanced exploration stage.
2.4
Kenya
Kenya was the first country in Africa to invest and exploit geothermal resources for electricity generation.
Geothermal investigations in Olkaria in the Rift valley began in 1956 when a consortium of two companies
undertook two exploratory drillings. Two tunnels were drilled without any marked success. It was not until the
end of the following decade that interest in geothermal power revived. Investigations were carried out between
1970 and 1972 and further work carried out on the two exploratory wells at Olkaria. Drilling started in earnest in
1973 and by 1975, four more wells had been drilled in the area. A feasibility study carried out to evaluate
Olkaria’s potential for generating electricity found that the geothermal field covered 80 km2 and steam for
25,000 MW years. So far, 103 geothermal wells have been drilled in Kenya for exploration, production,
monitoring and re-injection. Of these, 97 wells are in the Olkaria area and the rest in the Eburru field. Kenya has
involved both the private and public sector in the development of geothermal energy (BCSE, 2003). The
installed capacity presently stands at 127 MW, of which 12 MW is exploited by ORMAT International, a private
14
power company. Olkaria I has steam of 69 MW but it is presently producing only 45 MW (BCSE, 2003). An
additional 70 MW2 power station (Olkaria II) owned by KENGEN is feeding into the grid.
Several sites have been prospected for geothermal power development. Reconnaissance studies and citing of
wells have been carried out on all the sites. Complete surface studies have only been carried out on three
prospected sites while drilling of wells has only been carried out on the Olkaria Domes (BCSE, 2003). Electric
application of geothermal energy in Kenya over the last 20 years has demonstrated high levels of availability of
above 98%. Kenya’s Least Cost Power Development Plan foresees an additional 484 MW generated from
geothermal resources by the year 2019 (BCSE, 2003; Fridleifsson, 2002). Geothermal development plans in
Kenya target at accelerated appraisal drilling including six additional deep wells in south of Olkaria Domes
(Olkaria IV). Donors provided a credit amounting to Shs 1.37 billion to evaluate the performance of Olkaria IV,
which will contribute to an additional 70 MW to the grid on completion (Ministry of Energy, 2003). The
government plans to involve the private sector in future geothermal developments.
2
The Olkaria II Geothermal Power Station was initially designed to generate 64 MW using 2X 32 MW
geothermal turbines. However in order to obtain maximum benefits of new technology, tendering included
design by the bidder, the terms of reference being the ability to generate the highest generation from the
available steam. The successful design was for using 2 x 34.84 MW single flow, six stage, condensing turbines
which consume the same amount of steam as the old design of 2 x 32 MW units. (Source: The East African
Standard Friday, March 26th 2004)
15
3.0 Analysis of the Geothermal Option: A regional perspective
3.1
Technical and Economic Assessment
3.1.1
Theoretical Geothermal Potential
The combined theoretical geothermal energy potential in the east and horn region is estimated at 3,300 MW.
Geothermal explorations carried out in northern Tanzania indicate the existence of geothermal resources, which
could be used for industrial/power generation purposes. Similar explorations with same results have been done
in the southern and coastal regions of Tanzania, but the amount of electricity that would be generated from these
sources has not yet been quantified (Hochstein et al, 2000).
Uganda’s theoretical geothermal potential is estimated to be about 450 MW (BCSE, 2003). However, the
potential is likely to be higher than the estimate, since new sites continue to be discovered e.g. in Karamoja and
west Nile. The geothermal energy potential in Ethiopia is >1000 MW (Acquatter, 1996b), while in Kenya; the
potential is estimated at 2,000 MW. Out of the more than thirteen geothermal prospects identified in Kenya,
exploration drilling has only been done at two fields -Olkaria and Eburru. Therefore, the theoretical potential
could surpass 2,000 MW. Table 2.1 summarizes geothermal potential in the East and Horn of Africa with the
installed electricity capacity.
Table 4:
Geothermal potential as a percentage of total installed potential
Country
Installed electricity
generation capacity
Total potential for
geothermal energy
1503
2,000
Geothermal potential as a
percentage of installed
electricity generation
capacity
17.4
161.8
Tanzania
Kenya
863
1,236
Ethiopia
494
>1,000
141.7
Uganda
263
450
171.1
2,814
3,300
117.3
East and Horn of Africa
Source: Authors compilation
3.1.2
Technical Geothermal Potential
Tanzania has not been able to carry out detailed studies on geothermal potential and exploration activities are
ongoing. Therefore the technical potential is not yet known. A geothermal exploration project has been
proposed, whose objectives include the preparation of technical and financial/investment plans for the
installation of an appropriately sized geothermal power plant, and also study the feasibility of direct-use of the
same geothermal resource(s) in industry and agriculture. Similarly, the technical potential of geothermal in
Uganda is unknown; explorations are still under way and will lead to the drilling stage, which will eventually
determine the country’s geothermal technical potential.
Total geothermal resource potential in Ethiopia is estimated to be over 1,000 MW (BCSE, 2003). Exploration
has been centred in two main areas, Aluto-Langano -the site of the pilot geothermal power plant and the
Tendaho geothermal fields.
Taking into account problems related to technically inaccessible prospects, owing to rugged terrains and
inaccessibility, among other factors, Kenya currently has a technical potential to generate over 964 MW
(Omenda, 2001). With the on-going global advances in improving geothermal exploitation technologies, much
higher technical potential may become evident over time. Over the 20 years the Olkaria geothermal plant has
been in operation, the average level of efficiency has been considerably high at above 90%.
3.1.3
Installed Geothermal Capacity
Only Kenya and Ethiopia have utilised geothermal energy for electricity generation in the region. Kenya’s
installed geothermal energy capacity presently stands at 127 MW, while Ethiopia’s is 8.52 MW. (As mentioned
earlier, after commissioning, the Ethiopian pilot plant started by yielding 4.1 MW and had to be shut down in
3
Recent studies indicate a geothermal power potential of 150 MW (Rufiji >100 and Mbeya >50) though studies
on geothermal potential in the country and exploration activities are ongoing around the Rift Valley mainly in
the areas of Lake Manyara, Lake Natron, Lake Eyasi, Ngorongoro Crater and Musoma.
16
June 2002 after a year of operation due to very low power generation of 0.82 MW.) The installed geothermal
capacity in Kenya is equivalent to 10% of the country’s total installed capacity.
Both Uganda and Tanzania have not been able to exploit their geothermal energy resources. On a regional scale,
only about 4.54% of the total installed electricity generation capacity is obtained from geothermal energy
(BCSE, 2003). This is illustrated in table 2.2. However, the proven geothermal energy potential for all countries
in the region (excluding Tanzania, whose geothermal potential has not been verified) exceeds the total current
installed electricity generation capacity.
Table 6: Geothermal energy installation as a proportion of total installed electricity capacity
Country
Installed electricity
generation capacity
Geothermal installed
capacity
Tanzania
863
-
Kenya
1194
Ethiopia
494
Uganda
263
East and Horn of Africa
2814
Percentage of total installed
-
127
8.5
135.5
10.6
1.7
4.8
Source: Authors compilation
3.1.4
Potential for Local Assembly and Manufacture
Globally, three geothermal technologies are available for exploiting geothermal energy resources. These are;
Flash plants; Binary cycle plants and Hybrid flash and binary cycle plants. Flash plants are conventionally
applied in moderate to high temperature liquid dominated resources and are the most common plants worldwide.
Typically flash condensing geothermal power plants varies in size from 5 MWe to over 100 MWe. Binary plants
are conventionally applied to moderate-temperature and low-temperature liquid-dominated resources. Medium
temperature systems may also be exploited using binary fluid plants. This relatively new technology can be used
with sources down to 800C but elaborate equipment and technical training is required. The hybrid cycle power
plants achieves higher overall utilisation efficiencies as the conventional steam turbine is more efficient at
generating power from high temperature steam, and the binary cycle from the low temperature separated water.
The plant design selected is dependent on the temperatures and pressures of the reservoir while the plant sizing
and technology selection for geothermal plant is determined by the geothermal resource and its characteristics.
Based on the range of equipment for geothermal power plant and associated technical activities as presented in
Table 7, there is a potential for local manufacture and/or assembly of some of these power plant components.
17
Table 7: Major Equipment for Geothermal Power Plants
Type of Energy Conversion System
Equipment
Steam and/or Brine Supply:
Down hole pumps
Wellhead valves & controls
Silencers
Sand / particulate remover
Steam piping
Steam cyclone separators
Flash vessels
Brine piping
Brine booster pumps
Final moisture separator
Heat Exchangers:
Evaporators
Condensers
Turbine-Generator & Controls
Steam turbine
Organic vapour turbine
Dual-admission turbine
Control system
Plant Pumps:
Condensate
Cooling water circulation
Brine Injection
Non-condensable Gas Removal System:
Steam-jet ejectors
Compressors
Vacuum pumps
Cooling Towers:
Wet type
Dry type
Dry Steam
Single Flash
Double Flash
Basic Binary
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No (Poss.)
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Poss.
Yes
No (Poss.)
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Poss.
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Poss.
No
No
Yes (No)
No
Yes (No)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes (No)
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes (No)
Yes (No)
No
Yes (No)
Yes (No)
No (Poss.)
Yes
Poss.
Poss.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Poss.
Poss.
Yes
Poss.
Poss.
Yes
Poss.
Poss.
No
No
No
Yes (No)
No
Yes (No)
No
Yes
No
Poss.
Poss.
Note: Yes=generally used, No=generally not used, Poss.=possibly used under certain circumstances
Currently no country in the East and Horn of Africa manufactures these parts but potential for future local
manufacture is high. All tools and equipment for geothermal resource exploration and development in the
region are imported. Table 8 shows the countries from where geothermal plant materials were sourced for
Kenya’s geothermal plants.
Table 8: Kenya’s geothermal plant construction materials by country of origin
Material
Turbines
Pipes
Control
Transmission
Source: Consultations on field visit, 2003
3.1.5
Country of Origin
Japan
New Zealand
USA
Germany
Cost of Geothermal Energy
Geothermal plants are relatively capital- intensive, with low variable costs and no fuel costs. Capital costs are
the fixed costs for power plant construction. These consist of the cost of land, drilling of exploratory and steam
field wells, and physical plant, including buildings and power- generating turbines. Drilling costs are often high
and associated with significant risk. The capital cost for geothermal power plants ranges from $1,150 to $3,000
per installed kW, depending on the resource temperature, chemistry, and technology employed (Shibaki, 2003).
These costs may decrease over time with additional technology development. Plant lifetimes are typically 30 –
45 years. Financing is often structured such that the project pays back its capital costs in the first 15 years. Costs
then fall by 50 – 70%, to cover just operations and maintenance for the remaining 15 – 30 years that the facility
operates. Table 2.5 shows the costs for geothermal plants based on the quality of the geothermal resource.
Table 9: Geothermal power direct capital costs
Plant Size
Small plants (<5MW)
Medium plants (5–30MW)
High-Quality Resource (US$)
1,600-2,300
1,300-2,100
Medium-Quality Resource (US$)
1,800–3,000
1,600-2,500
18
Large plants (>30MW)
1,150-1,750
1,350-2,200
Source: Shibaki, 2003)
Table 11 the costs shows of installed geothermal plants in east and horn of Africa.
Table 11
Installed geothermal plants in east and horn of Africa
Geothermal Plant
Olkaria I (Kenya)
Olkaria II (Kenya)
Installed
Capacity
Flash technology
Flash technology
Generating
Technology Used
45 MW
64 MW
Olkaria III (Kenya)
binary cycle
12 MW
technology
Aluto Langano
binary cycle
8.5 MW
(Ethiopia)
technology
*These are costs for only part of the plant
Source: Authors compilation
3.1.6
Total Cost (US$
million)
36
163.5
Cost of Energy
US$ 800 per kW
US$ 2,554.68 per
kW
US$35*
16.5
Year of
Commissioning
1981
2004
2000
US$ 1,941.76 per
kW
1998
Job and Enterprise Creation Potential
Geothermal resource development and exploitation can create significant job and enterprise opportunities both
directly and indirectly. In 2002, the 45 MW plant at Olkaria I employed a total of 493 people, comprising of 15
scientists, 21 engineers, 82 technicians, 175 artisans/craftsmen and 200 support staff (Mariita, 2002). This
translates to 10.96 jobs/MW in operations and maintenance. The estimated jobs that can be generated from
geothermal energy development based on potential in east and horn of Africa is presented in the table below:
Job creation potential of geothermal energy in east and horn of Africa
Country
Tanzania
Kenya
Ethiopia
Total potential for geothermal
energy (MW)
150
2,000
1,000
Uganda
East and Horn of Africa
Estimated jobs created (10
jobs/MW)
1,500
20,000
10,000
450
4,500
3,300
33,000
Source: Authors estimates
Geothermal energy development would result in a wide range of enterprises, which would also offer
employment opportunities. The range of enterprises is shown in Table 12.
Table 12: Range of enterprises that can be created based on geothermal energy development
Processing Industries
Fish processing
Fish farming
Crop processing
Horticulture
Mineral water industry
Chemical recovery from the brine
Salt processing
Service Industries
Tourist attractions
Health baths (spas)
Heated swimming pools
Kenya has, on a modest scale, employed direct use of geothermal in floriculture (green house heating for roses),
this is on an experimental basis and poultry farming (hatching of chicken). For decades, Kenya has also used
geothermal heat to dry pyrethrum flowers at Eburru. Continued development of geothermal will lead to further
establishment of horticulture and poultry farming.
Geothermal development in Uganda could be very beneficial to the country, in particular, to the government and
local communities. Geothermal resources are located in rural areas and can thus facilitate low cost rural
electrification. Geothermal lends itself to a number of industrial applications among them fish and crop
processing (BCSE 2003). Geothermal development can give rise to several enterprises in Uganda due to the
high water temperatures, the mineral content of the brine and the location of geothermal resources in the
country. These enterprises are not limited to, but include development of the mineral water industry, chemical
19
recovery from the brine, salt processing industry, tourism, agro processing industry, fish processing and hot
water supply. The districts of Kasese, Bushenyi, Kamwenge, Kyenjojo and Kabarole, which are in close
proximity to the geothermal prospect (Buranga), have a total population of 2,277,006 (population census, 2002)
which will offer a good market for the geothermal energy. In addition, enterprise creation in the rural areas
could curb rural – urban migration, rampant in Uganda.
3.2
3.2.1
Economic, Policy and Gender Impacts of Geothermal Development
The Impact of Renewables on National Debt
All countries in East and Horn of Africa have significant national debts. A proportion of these debts are linked
to energy sector development, mostly for large-scale hydro power plants investments and credit to finance
petroleum imports. Geothermal energy investment costs can be lower than those of hydro and can reduce the
debt linked to hydro projects.
Uganda is among the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) of the world. Its external debt burden is estimated
at US $ 4 billion. This debt has been accumulating over time and the conventional energy sector has been one of
the sectors that has contributed to these loans. In addition, a national energy plan developed in 1999 by British
consultants and approved by the Government of Uganda will require it to secure loan funding amounting to US
$ 1.6 billion to meet the energy plan requirements. Almost all the projects under this energy plan are large
hydropower projects including the Bujagali and Karuma hydropower projects. Geothermal generation can help
the reduce the debt burden associated with energy development, as it is cheaper to produce geothermal per mega
watt compared to hydro electricity power.
The other advantage of geothermal energy is that its modular nature allows a country to develop its energy
resources incrementally, therefore spreading out the investment cost. This allows a country to plan for
geothermal energy development based on availability of resources and reflecting incremental increase in
demand. For example, Kenya started with a 15MW plant at Olkaria I, which increased over time to 30MW then
45MW, and eventually over 120MW. The modular nature of geothermal also allows for adoption of improved
technologies. The initial 15MW plant at Olkaria was an open circuit plant, with some environmental problems.
However, the consequent phases of the plant adopted the closed circuit technology, thereby largely eliminating
associated environmental problems.
3.2.2
The Impact of Renewables on Balance of Payments
Geothermal power does not use imported fossil fuels thus saving foreign exchange. All the four countries in the
east and horn of Africa have geothermal resources, which could prove to be an important source of power and
revenue. Geothermal projects can reduce the economic pressure of fuel imports, while offering local
infrastructure development and employment. One of the most important economic aspects of geothermal energy
is that it is generated with indigenous resources, reducing a nation’s dependence on imported energy, thereby
reducing trade deficits which in turn retains wealth within the country and promotes healthier economies.
Geothermal can help governments in east and horn of Africa reduce their foreign exchange expenditure on the
importation of fossil fuels. This is especially true in cases where geothermal energy replaces electricity
generated from fossil fuels.
3.2.3
The Impact of Renewables on Poverty Reduction
Geothermal development will lead to both direct jobs as well as indirect jobs arising from other enterprises that
will come up as a result of the geothermal development. Geothermal prospects are located in rural and remote
areas, where poverty levels are particularly high. Development of geothermal would improve on rural
household incomes. Small and medium enterprises, a major source of employment, can play a major role in
geothermal development and associated secondary industries. Improved employment opportunities in rural
areas where geothermal development is taking place can greatly improve the socio-economic status of local
communities. In Kenya, KenGen and OrPower 4 Inc geothermal companies have employees from the local
Maasai community. KenGen has also participated in improving the public infrastructure by constructing roads,
building schools, health centres, shops and providing telephone service in a remote area.
3.3
The Impact of Geothermal on Other Development Sectors
20
Geothermal energy can provide electricity to meet energy needs for basic social services. Electricity from
geothermal energy can be used to power water pumps for household water supply and irrigation, electrify rural
schools and power hospital equipment alongside refrigeration of vaccines.
Many rural communities near geothermal sites do not have access to safe and clean water. Development of
geothermal can help improve the provision of power required for pumping of treated water, which is safe and
clean. Geothermal can also provide hot water thereby saving on the time women spend looking for fire wood to
boil water thus decreasing fire wood demand which in truant could assist in the conservation of the
environment. Improved quantity and quality of water supply can greatly improve the livelihoods of many of the
rural communities. In Kenya, KenGen, the owners of the Olkaria I geothermal power plant have provided water
tanks to the local Maasai community living around the geothermal plant and 90% of them draw water from
these tanks. (Mariita, 2002).
Geothermal plant development often include the building of social facilities such as hospitals. Many rural
women and children die due to lack of easy access to good medical facilities. Geothermal development could
facilitate the provision of improved medical services and facilities thereby reducing the high maternal and infant
mortality rates in rural areas.
Geothermal energy can widen electricity access and enhance education standards, especially in rural areas that
lack electricity. Some of the beneficiaries will be the girl children whose work-load on fuel wood collection and
cooking will be reduced. By providing good efficient lighting in rural areas, rural children can be able to study
effectively and compete with their counterparts in urban areas with electricity supply. Access and use of the
computer and internet facilities can be improved thus enabling rural communities to share and learn from
experiences worldwide.
Many rural women in east and horn of Africa depend on farming for their livelihoods while their husbands look
for casual or formal employment. Provision of electricity from geothermal to power agricultural processing
plants can greatly improve incomes of rural women and consequently their livelihoods. The processing plants
can not only improve market access for local agricultural produce but also improve food security in the country.
Post harvest crop losses have a great impact on the agriculture sector and a major contributing factor to food
insecurity in the country. The establishment of agro-processing industries in rural areas can minimise post
harvest crop losses. In addition, geothermal can lead to the adoption of higher value rural productive activities
such as fish and flower farming.
Geothermal power development can strengthen security of electricity supply. Geothermal power is not affected
by drought, and records availability levels of over 90%. Geothermal energy is, therefore, advantageous over
hydro which is prone to drought leading to significant economic losses. For example, during the drought of
1998-2000 that crippled Kenya’s hydropower plants, geothermal came to the rescue with the country two
geothermal power plants at Olkaria offered continuous base-load power with almost 100% availability,
unaffected by the prevailing weather. A secure and affordable supply of electricity is crucial to economic
development. Without a reliable supply of electricity, the export-oriented industrial development strategy that
countries in the region are actively pursuing will not be feasible. Geothermal power could play an important
role in strengthening economic development.
21
4.0 Key Conclusions – Viability of 5% Geothermal Target
Based on the technical and economic and policy assessments presented, geothermal energy development is a
viable energy option, and would yield significant benefits to countries in the region.
The achievement of a 5 % target for electricity generation from geothermal in each of the countries in east and
horn of Africa is technically viable, based on the technical potential. Based on the technical potential of
geothermal in the 4 countries in the region, the 5% target is viable, as shown in the table below. In the case of
Kenya, the 5% target has already been surpassed with geothermal providing around 10% of the National Power
Supply.
Table 4.1
Country
Tanzania
Uganda
Ethiopia
Kenya
Viability of 5% target
Installed electricity
capacity
863 MW
326 MW
494 MW
1236 MW
5% of current
installed capacity
43.15 MW
16.3 MW
24.7 MW
61.8 MW
Technical geothermal
potential
150 MW
450 MW
700 MW
2000 MW
Viability of 5%
target
Viable
Viable
Viable
Viable
Geothermal energy is also economically viable. Geothermal electricity is now Kenya’s least cost power option,
showing that geothermal can compete cost competitively with other energy forms.
There are multiple benefits that can be derived from the 5% geothermal development. Geothermal plants take up
the least land space compared to other electricity generating technologies. Therefore if a 5% geothermal energy
development is adopted in the region, there will be more efficient land use that will lead to the environment’s
conservation. This is particularly true since there are no forests logging and displacement of the ecosystems. In
addition the near zero emissions ensures no pollution.
Geothermal development will ensure that countries in the region have a fair energy balance mix. In addition, it
will replace electricity generated from fossil fuel whose use has adverse negative effects. Power outages
occasioned by low generation will become minimal, since geothermal plants have been known to operate at
higher percentages of availability, unhindered by climatic conditions such as drought which adversely affects
hydro power. Their modular nature will make it easy for the region to match its geothermal power development
with demand.
The economies of the east and horn of Africa region can improve due to geothermal development. Installations
of the plants in its self can generate jobs both directly and indirectly. Industries can be set up to take advantage
of cheaper power in remote areas where the geothermal resources are located. All these can stimulate economic
income that with important spill over effects to national economies.
The high initial capital cost and associated risks of exploration and development poses a major draw back to the
5% geothermal development in the region. One has to invest in drilling a number of wells in order to assess the
economic geothermal power potential for a particular prospect. These up-front costs of locating and drilling
geothermal power reservoirs constitute a major barrier to the development of geothermal in the region.
Countries in the east and horn of Africa have not yet developed local industries to manufacture geothermal
components. The manufacture of components of geothermal plants locally could greatly reduce the capital cost
of geothermal plants.
22
5.0 Recommendations
As discussed in the previous section, the benefits of geothermal energy development far outstrip its drawbacks.
The following recommendations would ensure the increased development of geothermal energy in the region.
•
Higher policy priority – Renewables in general are yet to receive the requisite policy attention. Based
on the potential benefits of geothermal, there is a strong case for ensuring that geothermal is given
higher priority in power sector development plans.
•
Higher budgetary allocation – One way of measuring higher priority given to renewables is higher
budget allocations.
•
Promote information exchange – Kenya, as a country in the region that has successfully demonstrated
the use of geothermal, provides a model example that other countries can emulate.
•
Policies that allow for private participation – Given the significant amounts of investment required to
develop geothermal energy (especially the exploration stage), there is need to encourage the private
sector to invest in geothermal energy development. Creation of supportive policies would be a key step
in encouraging development of geothermal energy.
•
Manufacturers and SMEs - The local manufacture and assembly of geothermal equipment could result
in significant reduction of costs. By partnering with their counterparts in the North, SMEs in the east
and horn of Africa could gain capacity in local assembly and manufacture.
•
Financial Institutions and Micro Finance Institutions – These could assist in providing credit to meet
the investment cost of geothermal development.
•
Large private sector – Large scale industries located close to geothermal resources could invest in
geothermal energy to meet their energy needs. An example is in Kenya, where one of the large flower
farms Oserian, plans to construct a 2MW geothermal plant to provide electricity and heat energy to its
form and associated agro processing facilities.
•
From an environmental and economic perspective, civil society and other stakeholders need to lobby
Government in the region and development partners to encourage greater attention to geothermal
resource development. The use of data contained in this study could provide additional rationale for
lobbying for the wider adoption of geothermal in the regions electricity water.
•
There is need to educate local communities on the benefits of geothermal energy. This can be done
through establishment of demonstration units at grass root levels that would used as models for the
communities to learn from.
23
References
AFREPREN/FWD, 2003a. AFREPREN Energy Data Handbook. AFREPREN Secretariat, Nairobi.
Kenya.
AFREPREN/FWD, 2003b. Draft Proposal, The Regional Launching Workshop for Eastern Africa.
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Initiative (REEEP). AFREPREN Secretariat, Nairobi.
Kenya.
BCSE, 2003. Geothermal Market Assessment Report, “The Eastern Africa Market Assessment
Acceleration” Geothermal Conference Agenda. Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE),
Washington, DC.
Daily Nation, 2003. Reflections of a Working Nation, First year. Article Published by the Nation
Media Group on 15th December 2003. Nairobi, Kenya.
EAPIC/ EAMIC, 2003. Conference Proceedings for the 5th Annual East African Power and Mining
Industry Convention, 2003. 5th – 7th August 2003, Kampala, Uganda.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) 2000 Country Profile-Kenya . EIU. London.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) 2003 d. country Profile-Uganda. EIU. London.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), 2003a. Country Report- Tanzania. EIU, London.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), 2003b. Country Report- Uganda. EIU, London.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), 2003c. Country Report-Kenya. EIU, London
Engorait, S. P., 2003: Meeting the Challenges of Increased Private Sector Investments and Increased
Access, Updated 3rd Draft Research Report, Energy Sector Reform Theme Group. AFREPREN,
Nairobi, Kenya.
Fridleifsson, I. B., 2001, “Geothermal Energy: Experience of Iceland and Opportunities for Africa”.
Article Published in the Renewable Energy Technologies: Potential for Africa Booklet, United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Nairobi, Kenya.
Godfrey, B., 2003: Status of Geothermal Exploration in Uganda, Presentation at the Workshop on
Geothermal Energy for Uganda. EAPIC/EAMIC Conference, Kampala, Uganda.
Hochstein, M.P., Temu, E.P., Moshy, C.M.A., 2002. Geothermal Resources of Tanzania. Proceedings
of the World Geothermal Congress, 2000. Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan. Document Downloaded from the
International Geothermal Association Website www.iga.igg.cnr.it/pdf
IEA, 2002., World Energy Outlook 2002. Energy and Poverty, Rue de la Federation, Paris, France.
IEA, 2003., Energy Balances for Non-OECD Countries. International Energy Agency. Paris, France.
Kamfor, 2002. Study on Kenya’s Energy Demand, Supply and Policy Strategy for Households, Small
Scale Industries and Service Establishment. Kamfor Company Limited. Nairobi, Kenya.
Karekezi, S., 2002. ‘ Poverty and Energy in Africa- a brief Review’, Energy Policy, Vol. 30 Nos. 1112, Special Issue – Africa: Improving Modern Energy Services for the Poor. Oxford: Elsevier Science
Limited
24
Karekezi, S., Kimani, J., Mutiga, A., Amenya, S., 2003, (Unpublished). Energy Services for the Poor
in East and Horn of Africa – Sub-Regional “Energy Access Study of East Africa. Prepared for the
Energy Access Working Group, Global Network for Sustainable Development. African Energy Policy
Research Network (AFREPREN). Nairobi, Kenya.
Katyega, M., 2003, Country Data for Validation: Tanzania. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
KPLC, 2001/2002., Annual Reports and Accounts, 2001/2002. Kenya Power and Lighting Company
(KPLC). Nairobi, Kenya.
Kyokutamba, J., 2002a. Country Data for Validation: Uganda. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Kyokutamba, J., 2002b. Energy Services Among Urban Poor Households in Uganda. AFREPREN,
Nairobi.
Kyokutamba, J., 2002c (Ed.)., Energy Services for Small Scale Enterprises in Uganda- Proceedings of
a National Policy Seminar. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Kyokutamba, J., 2003. Country Data for Validation: Uganda. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Mamo, T., 2002. Geothermal Exploration in Ethiopia: Ethiopia Country Report presented at the
World Geothermal Congress 2000. Kyushu, Japan. Document Downloaded from the International
Geothermal Association Website www.iga.igg.cnr.it/pdf/0931
Marandu E., 2003: Submission Data for Country Validation, 2003. Energy Sector Reform Theme
Group. AFREPREN, Nairobi, Kenya.
Marandu, E., 2002. Country Data for Validation: Tanzania. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Mariita, N., 2002. The Socio-Economic and Environmental Impact of Geothermal Energy on the
Rural Poor in Kenya. AFREPREN Occasional Paper Number 12. AFREPREN/FED, Nairobi, Kenya.
Mengistu, T., 2002., Power Sector Reforms in Ethiopia: Options for Promoting Local Investments in
Rural Electrification? Energy Policy, Vol. 30 Nos. 11-12, Special Issue – Africa: Improving Modern
Energy Services for the Poor. Oxford: Elsevier Science Limited
Mengistu, T., 2003: Submission Data for Country Validation, 2003. Energy Sector Reform Theme
Group. AFREPREN, Nairobi, Kenya.
Meseret, T., 2003: Overview of Geothermal Resource Utilization and Potential in Eastern and Horn of
Africa. Presentation of made at a Conference. EAPIC/EAMIC Conference, Kampala, Uganda.
Ministry of Energy and Minerals, 2003. 2003/2003 Budget Speech to Tanzanian Parliament by
Minister for Energy and Minerals.
Ministry of Energy, 2003. Draft National Energy: 2003. Ministry of Energy, Kenya.
Mugadu, E. I., 2003. Geothermal Energy in the Development of Uganda, Proceedings of World
Geothermal Congress. Kyushu, Japan..
NARC, 2002. The Election Manifesto, National Rainbow Coalition. NARC, Nairobi, Kenya.
Nyoike, P., 2002. ‘Is the Kenyan Electricity Regulatory Board Autonomous?’ Energy Policy, Vol. 30
Nos. 11-12, Special Issue – Africa: Improving Modern Energy Services for the Poor. Oxford: Elsevier
Science Limited
Okumu, D., 2003. Electricity Data Submission. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
25
UEB 1999: Uganda Electricity Board (UEB) Annual Reports and Accounts. Kampala, Uganda.
UIA, 2003. Uganda Investment Authority (UIA). Investing in Uganda’s Energy Sector. Document
downloaded from UIA website, www.ugandainvest.com
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2002. Human Development Indicators. Oxford
University Press, New York, USA.
Wolde- Ghiorgis, 2002a., Data and Statistics 2002- Renewable Energy for Rural Development.
AFREPREN/FWD, Nairobi, Kenya.
Wolde-Ghiorgis, 2001., Data and Statistics 2001- Renewable Energy for Rural Development.
AFREPREN/FWD, Nairobi, Kenya.
Wolde-Ghiorgis, 2002b., Renewable Energy for Rural Development in Ethiopia: The Case for New
Energy Policies and Institutional Reform . Energy Policy, Vol. 30 Nos. 11-12, Special Issue – Africa:
Improving Modern Energy Services for the Poor. Oxford: Elsevier Science Limited
World Bank, 1998- Operations Evaluation Department. Document downloaded from the World Bank
Website. www.worldbank.org
World Bank, 2002a., Poverty Dynamics In Africa- Growth, Distribution and Poverty In Africa.
Messages from the 1990s.World Bank, Washington D.C. USA.
World Bank, 2002b., World Development Indicators. World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank, 2002c. African Development Indicators. World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank, 2003a., World Development Indicators. World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank, 2003b, African Development Indicators. World Bank, Washington, DC.
26
Part III: Potential Contribution of Cogeneration to the Electricity Sector
in East and Horn of Africa
27
Chapter 1:
1.1
Status of Cogeneration in Eastern and Horn of Africa
Overview of Cogeneration Technology
Cogeneration is the simultaneous production of electricity and process heat from a single dynamic machine. The
machine heats up steam that drives a turbine to produce electricity. Various forms of biomass can be used to fuel
this machine including bagasse from sugar industries and wastes from other agro industries like paper and pulp,
palm wood and rice. For instance, in the cane milling industries, cane stalks are shredded and crushed to extract
cane juice while bagasse is sent to the boiler to provide steam and electricity for the factory. This report focuses
mainly on the use of sugarcane waste for cogeneration, although in some cases the use of forest waste-based
cogeneration is covered.
Broadly, there are two types of cogeneration technology in practice: bottoming cycle and topping cycle
cogeneration. In the former, primary heat is used directly at a high temperature for process requirements. The
low heat-grade waste heat is then used to generate electricity at low efficiency due to low steam pressure and
temperature. On the other hand, in the latter, primary heat at high temperature steam end of the Rankine cycle is
used to generate high pressure and high temperature steam and electricity (Quevauvilliers, 2003; Gwang’ombe,
2003).
There are four technologies for production of process heat and electricity in sugar factories. These are:
• Back pressure steam turbine, exhausting steam (this is the most commonly used technology)
• Condensing steam turbine with extraction of steam
• Combination of any of these steam processes with a gas turbine and a heat recovery steam generator
• Combination of any of the steam processes with a gas turbine and a heat recovery stream generator
with supplementary firing
The figure below illustrates the thermal conversion routes of biomass to generate electricity and process heat.
Figure 1.1: Thermal conversion routes of biomass
BIOMASS
STORAGE
FUEL PREPARATION
COMBUSTION
THERMAL ENERGY
GASIFICATION
CHEMICAL ENERGY
PROCESS HEAT
STEAM
MECHANICAL POWER
ELECTRIC POWER
Source: Twente University
Electricity available from sugar factories and other agro-industries evolve in four stages. First, an agro-firm
attains own generation status when electricity from cogeneration is used to supplement or replace supply of
electricity from the grid. Secondly, own generation can evolve to intermittent power supply to the grid. Here,
excess electricity from cogeneration is available only when capacity permits and can be exported to the national
grid. Thirdly, continuous power supply is achieved when electricity is available throughout the year from the
agro-industry except during off-crop seasons. Lastly, firm generation status is achieved when commercial
generation is available to the national grid on a continuous basis providing an agreed amount of energy and
power. During the crop season, the cogeneration plant uses bagasse and other agro-wastes like trash to generate
electricity. During the off-crop season, the cogeneration plant can use other fuels such as coal or fossil fuels in
order to meet the agreed export of energy (Yuko et al, 2004; Gwang’ombe, 2004; Deepchand, 2002)
28
Globally, cogeneration technology has been practiced for about a century now. But its intensive application to
export electricity to national grids was prompted by, among other factors, the two international oil crises that
shook the world in the early and late 1970s, which encourage the shift from electricity generation for selfsufficiency in agro-industries, to generation for export to national grid. In addition, today’s competitive world
market for sugar and other agro products require business diversification, consequences more agro-industries are
considering power export as another by-product of agro processing (Karekezi and Ranja, 1997; Rabah, 2000)
The Eastern and Southern African region produces about 50 million tonnes of sugarcane annually (Deepchand,
2000). This is approximately about 60% of Africa’s total sugarcane production. It is estimated that sugar
factories in the Eastern and Southern African countries have the potential of producing electricity in the range of
between 2,500 GWh (continuous power) to 5,500 GWh (firm power) annually (Ibid, 2000).
The development of cogeneration in the Mauritian sugar sector provides a model example (Box 1) in the region
on the potential of cogeneration in the power sector. As demonstrated by the Mauritius experience, cogeneration
can no longer be perceived as an “intermittent” source of electricity, but can shoulder a significant proportion of
the electricity base load.
Box 1: Cogeneration in Mauritius.
The Mauritian experience in cogeneration is one of the success stories in Africa. As a result of extensive use of co-generation in
Mauritius, the country's sugar industry is self-sufficient in electricity and sells excess power to the national grid. In 1998, close to 25%
of the country's electricity was generated from sugar industry, largely using bagasse, a by-product of the sugar industry (Deepchand,
2001). By 2002, electricity generation from sugar estates stood at 40% (half of it from bagasse) of the total electricity demand in
country (Veragoo, 2003).
Government support and involvement has been instrumental in the development of a cogeneration programme in Mauritius. First, in
1985, the Sugar Sector Package Deal Act (1985), was enacted to encourage the production of bagasse for the generation of electricity.
The Sugar Industry Efficiency Act (1988) provided tax incentives for investments in the generation of electricity and encouraged small
planters to provide bagasse for electricity generation. Three years later, the Bagasse Energy Development Programme (BEDP) for the
sugar industry was initiated. In 1994, the Mauritian Government abolished the sugar export duty, an additional incentive to the
industry. A year later, foreign exchange controls were removed and the centralization of the sugar industry was accelerated. These
measures have resulted in the steady growth of bagasse-based electricity to the country’s electricity sector.
Bagasse-based Cogeneration development in Mauritius has delivered a number of benefits including reduced dependence on imported
oil, diversification in electricity generation and improved efficiency in the power sector in general. Using a wide variety of innovative
revenue sharing measures, the co-generation industry has worked closely with the Government of Mauritius to ensure that substantial
benefits flow to all key stakeholders of the sugar economy, including the poor smallholder sugar farmer. The equitable revenue
sharing policies that are in place in Mauritius provide a model for emulation in ongoing and planned modern biomass energy projects
in Africa.
Sources: Veragoo, 2003; Deepchand, 2001.
Although Mauritius does not fall under the East and Horn of African region, it provides a good example of
cogeneration model that can be replicated to other countries in the region. Although cogeneration technology
accrues a number of possible benefits as demonstrated by the Mauritius example, it has not been used
intensively as will be demonstrated later in the report.
1.2
Benefits of Cogeneration Technology
Cogeneration technology can minimise the impact of foreign exchange rate fluctuations and world oil prices on
electricity tariffs. The Mauritian experience demonstrates that electricity generated from cogeneration can have
a fixed and stable price. For example, since 1982, the price of electricity from cogeneration plants has remained
the same as per the original power purchase agreement. For about six continuous power plants, 56% of the unit
electricity price is fixed (Deepchand, 2000).
Secondly, the farmer a benefits from additional revenue from sale of cane trash, as only minimal additional
effort is required for harvesting the trash4. Regional economies need to emulate the Mauritius example where a
wide variety of innovative revenue sharing measures have been instated. Here the co-generation industry works
closely with the Government to ensure that substantial benefits trickle down to all key stakeholders of the sugar
economy, including the poor small-scale sugar cane farmer (Veragoo, 2003; Deepchand, 2002; Yuko et al,
2003).
4
Trash from sugar cane include leaves and cane heads that are currently burnt in sugar cane farms in many countries in the region (Yuko, et al,
2004;Gwang’ombe, 2004;Wolde-Ghiorgis, 2004;Baanabe, 2001)
29
Thirdly, investment in cogeneration can spur growth in other areas. Other sugarcane by-products such as
medicinal and power alcohol, yeast, paper industrial particle boards, and animal fodder require electricity as a
major input. Hence availability of lower cost electricity near to the factories can reduce industrial running costs
thereby improving the sector profitability (Yuko, et al, 2003)
Fourthly, the use of cogeneration reduces carbon emission and green house gases. Boilers and firing equipment
used in cogeneration are more efficient than traditional thermal generators that are commonly used in cane
milling factories in the region. In addition, sugarcane plants absorbs carbon dioxide during growth. Furthermore,
cogeneration can eliminate dumping of bagasse waste as currently practiced in some factories produces methane
and other green house gasses (Yuko et al, 2003)
Above all, the use of cogeneration technology can save substantial amounts of foreign exchange. This is because
cogeneration utilizes locally available resource, bagasse to generate electricity. Regionally, over 5% of total
energy used in various economies is imported: either as fossil fuel or ready-to-use electricity to complement
national grids (EIU, 2002a, b, c, d; IEA, 2003)
1.3
Status of Cogeneration in East and Horn of Africa
As mentioned earlier, cogeneration in many countries of the region is still in its embryonic stages limited to
generation for internal factory use only. However, there is significant potential to further develop this
technology, especially in the sugar industry. Estimates indicate that a significant portion of the installed
electricity generation capacity in the East and Horn of African countries could be met by bagasse-based
cogeneration (Table 1.1)
Table 1.1:
Total Installed Capacity Vs Cogeneration Potential in East and Southern Africa, 2001
Country
Installed Capacity
(MW) 2001
Ethiopia
Kenya
Malawi
Mauritius
Sudan
Tanzania
Uganda
Zimbabwe
Total
493
1,194
306
517
638
863
318
1,961
6,290
Electricity
generation (GWh)
2001
1,812
4,563
1,072
1,715
2,450
2,748
1,575
7,906
23,841
Co generation potential
Electricity generation
% of national electricity
(GWh)
generation
150.33
8.30
530.33
11.62
250.80
23.40
586.67
34.21
643.50
26.27
100.83
3.67
173.43
11.01
686.40
8.68
3,122.29
13.10
Source: AFREPREN, 2003; Deepchand, 2001; Karekezi and Kimani, 2002.
Using 2001 electricity generation figures, it is estimated that the cogerneration industry could meet 10% of
electricity needs of the Eastern and Southern Africa, (Figure 1.2).
30
Figure 1.2: Cogeneration Potential (as % of National Generation)
Cogeneration Potential (as % of National Generation),2001
Cogeneration Potential as % to Total National Electricity
Generation
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Tanzania
Ethiopia
Uganda
Kenya
Country
Sources: AFREPREN, 2003; Deepchand, 2001; Karekezi and Kimani, 2002.
Despite this substantial cogeneration potential, this technology has not fully been developed in the East and
Horn of Africa. Table 1.1 below present the current installed cogeneration capacity in the region.
Table 1.2:
Cogeneration installed capacity in the East and Horn of Africa
Country
Installed cogeneration capacity (MW)
Ethiopia
13.4
Kenya
36.5
Tanzania
35.8
Uganda
10.0
East and Horn of Africa
95.7
Sources: Gwang’ombe, 2004; Yuko et al, 2004; Kamese, 2004, Engorait, 2004; Wolde-Ghiorgis, 2004
The following section briefly describes the status of cogeneration in each of the individual countries in the
region.
1.3.1
Uganda
In Uganda, there are three sugar factories producing an average of 130,000 tonnes of sugar annually. Kakira
sugar factory in the Eastern Uganda has a rated capacity of 3,000 tonnes of cane per day with an installed
capacity of 4.5MW of electricity. Kinyara Sugar Works (KSW) with 2,000 tonnes of cane per day has an
installed capacity of 2MW, and the Sugar Corporation of Uganda with 2,500 tonnes of cane per day has 4MW
installed capacity (Baanabe, 2001). These factories produce electricity from cogeneration to meet most of their
internal factory demand. Currently, KSW is negotiating for a power supply agreement with Uganda Electricity
Board (UEB) to supply 7.5MW (Kalebbo, 2001; Baanabe, 2001). Table 1.2 below shows the current status of
electricity generation from cogeneration and total proposed increment capacities in Uganda.
Table 1.2:
Current Cogeneration Installed Capacity in Uganda (MW)
Sugar Factory
Kakira Sugar Works (1985) Ltd.
Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd.
Kinyara Sugar Works
Total
Current Cogeneration capacity
(MW)
4
4
2
10
Current Cogeneration Installed Capacity
as % of total National Capacity (776MW)
1.20
1.20
0.60
3.06
31
Source: Kamese, 2004
32
With liberalization and a favourable policy framework, existing sugar factories are planning to double their
cogeneration capacity in Uganda (Kamese, 2004)
1.3.2
Tanzania
The estimated cogeneration potential in Tanzania is over 315 GWh per year. Currently, the country has an
installed capacity of 35.825 MW from both sugar and forest industries. Table 1.3 below present a summary of
existing biomass fuelled power plants in Tanzania
Table 1.3:
Existing Biomass Fuelled Power Plants in Tanzania
Name of the plant
Current Cogeneration capacity
(MW)
Kilombero Sugar Plant K1
Kilombero Sugar Plant K2
Mtibwa Sugar Estate
Tanganyika Planting Company
Kagera Sugar Company
Sao Hill Saw Mill
Tanganyika Wattle Company (TANWAT)
Total
Source: Gwang’ombe, 2004
6.000
2.800
13.000
5.000
5.500
1.025
2.500
35.825
Current Cogeneration Installed
Capacity as % of total National
Capacity (863MW)
0.7
0.3
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.1
0.3
2.95
With the exception of TANWAT (Box 2) which exports between 1,400 and 2,100 kVA of electricity to
TANESCO, the above agro-industries generate electricity primarily for internal factory cogeneration with some
limited electrifying of their neighbourhoods (Ariss, 2003; Ngeleja, 2003; Gwang’ombe, 2004). Once the
envisaged that 10MW condensing turbine will be installed in Sao Hill sawmill, the above existing cogeneration
capacity will increase significantly (Libaba, 2004)
1.3.3
Kenya
Cogeneration technology in Kenya is widely practised in the western part of Kenya where sugar factories use
bagasse as a primary fuel. A total of seven (7) companies use cogeneration. Currently, these western Kenya
sugar companies produce on average of 1.8million tonnes of bagasse per annum, 60% of which is used as boiler
fuel for steam generation, with electricity being generated from surplus steam. The remaining 40% of the
bagasse is simply off usually at a cost (Yuko et al, 2003; Rabah, 2000). Table 1.4 below presents a summary of
the operations of the western Kenya sugar factories during the year 2002.
Table 1.4:
Company
Current installed capacity of cogeneration plants in Kenya, 2002
Current Cogeneration capacity
(MW)
Western
1.0
Muhoroni
3.0
Nzoia
4.5
Mumias
15.0
Chenuilil
6.0
Sony
7.0
Total
36.5
Source: Yuko et al, 2004
Current Cogeneration Installed Capacity as % of total
National Capacity (1,236MW)
0.08
0.24
0.36
1.21
0.49
0.57
2.95
Due to various managerial problems, only Mumias Sugar Company among the seven companies is selfsufficient in electricity from cogeneration with a small surplus capacity of 2.5 MW for export to the national
grid. The remaining sugar companies are net importers of electricity from the national grid (Rabah, 2000; Yuko
et al, 2003; Githinji and Maina, 2003). According to the recent press release, the Ministry of Energy is currently
at advanced stages of negotiations with sugar companies and it is hoped that soon the two parties will sign a
power purchase agreement (PPA). This step will encourage sugar companies to install larger and more efficient
boilers to enable them to fully utilise all bagasse produced; first to ensure self-sufficiency in electricity supply
and second to generate surplus electricity for export to the national grid (Omondi, 2004)
33
1.3.4
Ethiopia
In Ethiopia, bagasse based cogeneration for export of electricity the national grid is not yet practiced. All the
existing sugar factories (Metahara, Wonji/Shoa, Finchaa) adequately co-generate electricity to meet internal
power needs. Some of the companies, they use electricity from the national utility, the Ethiopian Electric Power
Company (EEPCo) for their irrigation, and surrounding residential areas.
During crop season, the Finchaa Sugar factory (FSF) located about 335 km away from Addis Ababa, cogenerates electricity not only for internal factory use, but also to power its irrigation systems as well as
sorrounding, towns and villages. Currently, FSF generates 5.46 MW both for the plant and outside loads while
working at crushing rate of 4,000 TCD (Tonnes of cane per day) and with ethanol plant in full production (with
the maximum capacity of 45,000 lts per day) (Worku, 2004). Table 1.5 below presents the current cogeneration
installed capacity in Ethiopia from two sugar factories.
Table 1.5:
Current Cogeneration Installed Capacity in Ethiopia (MW)
Factory
Finchaa Sugar Factory (FSF)
Shoa Sugar Factory (SSF)
Total
Source: Wolde-Ghiorgis, 2004
Current Cogeneration capacity
(MW)
7.0
6.4
13.4
Current Cogeneration Installed Capacity as % of
total National Capacity (493MW)
1.4
1.3
2.7
34
Chapter 2.0 Analysis of the Cogeneration Option: A Regional Approach
This section analyses the potential contribution of cogeneration in meeting 5% of the electricity supply in East
and Horn of Africa countries. The first section discusses the technical potential of cogeneration in the region.
2.1
Technical Assessment
2.1.1
Theoretical Potential
Cogeneration potential in the East and Horn of Africa can be examined at two levels: theoretical and actual
potential. Table 2.1 below presents theoretical cogeneration potential. This is the total amount of electricity that
can be generated if all available sugar bagasse residues were used for electricity generation.
Table 2.1
Country
Theoretical Cogeneration Potential in the East and Horn of Africa, 2001
Total residue available for
cogeneration (tons)
Electricity potential
(MW)5
National Installed
Capacity MW
Tanzania
16,100,000
395
863
Kenya
14,300,000
350
1236
Uganda*
1,707,000
42
326
Ethiopia
17,500,000
429
494
*Quantified residue from sugar cane factories only
Sources: Yuko et al, 2003; Gwang’ombe, 2003; Worku, 2003; Baanabe, 2001; Engorait, 2004
Cogeneration
Potential as a %age
Installed Capacity
45.8
28.3
12.9
86.8
According to various country studies conducted in the region, the East and Horn of Africa has two major
sources of agro residue: forest and sugarcane. According to Gwang’ombe (2004), sugar industries in Tanzania,
can contribute to about 20% of the current national generating capacity. In addition, the country is well endowed
with forest resource that can further add to the available potential from the sugar industry. Nationally, there is a
woody growing stock of about 4.39billion m3 with mean annual increment of 140 million m3 in Tanzania.
Hence, hypothetically, for biomass residue, there exists about 15 million tons/annum of crop residue and 1.1
million tons/ annum of forest residue available to fuel co generators (Gwang’ombe, 2004)
The positive performance of both TANWAT (Box 2) and Saohill forest cogeneration plants over the years (
about seven years) is a clear indication that forest based cogeneration can make a significant contribution to
national power needs (Ngeleja, 2003; Harris, 2003). According to a preliminary study compiled (in the
northwest of Tanzania) by RIPLY (Tanzania) Ltd, 2001, there is enough waste for a 4.5MW forest cogeneration
plant at division 3 of Saohill forest plantation. Both Buhindi and Rubya forest plantations around Lake Victoria
have sufficient wood waste to generate about 2MW. Rondo and Ukaguru have access to ample land to plant fast
growing trees for about 2MW-electricity cogeneration plants. It is anticipated that agro residue potential
available for cogeneration will increase as more studies are conducted (Ngeleja, 2003).
Box 2: Tanzania Wood Project
Tanzania’s forest resources cover about 33.6 million ha, most of which are miombo type woodland. Tanganyika Wattle Company
(TANWAT) a private company has the largest forest plantations in the country of about 15,000 ha. The forest estate comprises of
8,000ha of wattle trees, 4,000ha pine trees and 1,000ha eucalyptus trees. Founded in 1949, TANWAT operates a 2,500kWh biomass
fired power station at its factory site situated near Njombe town in the southern highlands of Tanzania. The station generates 13.147
GWh; with 41,687tons of biomass burned. The station was commissioned in 1995 (Ariss, 2003; Ngeleja, 2003)
The TANWAT power station provides sufficient power to meet various needs of the company i.e. the wattle factory, sawmill and
timber treatment plant including associated offices and housing. In addition, the surplus power produced is made available to a
neighboring tea estate and the rest sold to TANESCO. Currently, the maximum power supplied from TANWAT to TANESCO varies
between 1,400 and 2,100 kVA. In the year 2002, the station supplied 4.349 GWh of electricity to the national utility, TANESCO
(Ariss, 2003)
Sources: Ngeleja, 2003; Ariss, 2003
5
1tonne yields 100kWh. To convert electricity from kWh to MW the following conversion formula was used:
1000kWh=1MWh
1GWh/(0.85*X200**X24***)=GW
key
*Systems losses estimated at 15%
**Crop session ranges between 6 and 8 months in a year (roughly an average of 200 days)
***It is assumed that the cogeneration plant is operates the whole day (24hrs)
35
Currently, sugar industries based residue available for electricity cogeneration in Kenya is estimated at
1.8millions tones annually. Out of this annually available residue, only 60% is used as a boiler fuel for steam
and partly for electricity generation. The rest, 40% is disposed off at times at a cost usually borne by the sugar
factory (Githinji and Maina, 2003; Yuko et al, 2003; Rabah, 2000).
In Uganda, there are three sugar factories that produce an average of 455,000 tonnes of bagasse annually after
processing sugar. These are: Kakira Sugar Works in Eastern Uganda, Sugar Corporation of Uganda, and
Kinyara Sugar Works. Despite the enormous biomass available in the country, Uganda’s total cogeneration
potential from agro-residue is not known. There are several biomass-based industries that would have played an
important role in cogeneration; especially the wood, tea and coffee industries, but their potential is not known.
Currently, cogeneration is only carried out in the three industries; even for these industries, little is known about
their full cogeneration potential (Baanabe, 2001; Kamese, 2004).
Ethiopia generates between 15 and 20million tonnes of residue annually. Assuming that this entire residue is
made available for electricity generation, the country is capable of generating 1,750 GWh per year (WoldeGhiorgis, 2003; Worku, 2004).
Since not all available agro wastes in the country is used for cogeneration due to technical inefficiency, poor
collection of wastes among other factors, the following section discusses actual technical potential that considers
only agro wastes that can be viably collected and made available for electricity generation purposes.
2.1.2
Technical Cogeneration Potential
Most of the regional sugar factories tend to use small bagasse-fired back-pressure steam- Rankine cycle turbine
systems supplied with steam at 1.5-2.5 MPa, typically about 350-500kg steam, with low electricity generation of
between 15-25kWh/ton of cane milled. The system is made inefficient on purpose to ensure that all bagasse is
consumed to meet factory energy demands, and no excess bagasse is accumulated (Gwang’ombe, 2004; Yuko,
et al, 2003)
Table 2.2 below provides a summary on the current status of cogeneration in the East and Horn of Africa
Table 2.2:
Country
Current status of Cogeneration in East and Horn of Africa
Total Potential for
Cogeneration: Energy
(MW) 2001
Current cogeneration
installed capacity
(MW)
Tanzania*
77
Kenya
350
Uganda *
42
Ethiopia
429
Key
*Quantified residue from sugar cane factories only
Source: AFREPREN, 2003
35.825
36.500
10.000
13.400
Cogeneration potential
as a percentage of total
installed electricity
generation capacity
8.9
28.3
12.9
87.0
Current cogeneration
installed capacity as %
of total potential
46.5
10.4
23.8
3.1
As shown in the table above, technical cogeneration potential available in the region is well above 5%. This
shows that if well-harnessed, available potential is capable of meeting the overall 5% target of electricity supply
without considering other renewable energy sources.
2.2
Economic Assessment
2.2.1
Investment costs
Theoretical and actual electricity potential to be generated from cogeneration technology might not materialize
unless the relevant costs involved have been appraised to determine their financial viability. In any economy,
this is influenced by various factors that include, host country’s political and macro-economic environment,
legal and regulatory framework, the power sector structure of the country, and the rate of return on investment.
As stated earlier, there are various cogeneration technology possibilities available for adoption for electricity
generation purposes. Table 2.3 The following presents a summary of gross investment costs required to meet the
5% target for countries in the East and Horn of Africa. Depending on the technology used, investment costs
range between US$26 million and US$217million to achieve the 5% target of total electricity generation
(Gwang’ombe, 2004).
36
Table 2.3:
Estimated cost of Cogeneration Investment to Meet 5% Electricity Generation Target
Country
Total installed electricity
generating capacity (MW)
863
1,236
776
493
Installed capacity required to
meet 5% target (p.a.) (MW)
43.15
61.80
16.30
24.65
Investment Cost (millions of
US$)*
69.04-151.03
98.88-216.30
26.08-57.05
39.44-86.28
Tanzania
Kenya
Uganda
Ethiopia
Key
*Investment costs for cogeneration ranges from 1,600USD/kW and 3,500USD/kW (Gwang’ombe, 2004; Deepchand, 2001)
Sources: Authors compilation
The investment requirements reflected in the table above is not conclusive due to a number of inherent costs that
it omits. These cost estimates reflect only the capital costs for the equipment that is required to be installed in
order to meet the 5% electricity generation target. First, it does not include training costs to obtain the relevant
skill and expertise incase the cogeneration option to be adopted is not currently used in a particular sugar
factory. Secondly, the investment costs here do not include the costs of expanding sugar plantations to ensure
sufficient cane supply to cogeneration plants.
Currently, most sugar milling factories incur unnecessary cost in the transportation and disposal of excess
bagasse. For instance, in Uganda, it costs up to 5US$/ton to transport bagasse waste for disposal (Kalebbo,
2001). If such costs are saved, they would be used to reduce some of the factory upgrading costs required to
generate electricity for export toe grid.
Due to poor corporate performance of most of the sugar factories in the region, internal financing might not be
possible as a result of poor financial performance. However, many of the sugar companies are undergoing
radical reform which could lead to greater profitability in the near future thus providing a sound financial base
for cogeneration investment. This leaves them with the option of sourcing funds for external finances. The funds
can be acquired as loans from local financial institutions as the funds seem to be modest and affordable by
regional economies.
2.2.2
Energy and Foreign Exchange Savings
Countries in the region rely on scarce convertible currency reserves to procure energy resources. Financial
reserves are needed for either installing new electricity generating plants or importing fossil fuels or electricity
from other countries. Cogeneration, which utilizes locally available resource, bagasse, can assist in reducing the
use of scarce convertible currencies required for energy. The use of cogeneration would significantly reduce the
need to import fossil fuels. Tables 2.4 and 2.5 present a summary of expected electricity and fossil fuel import
savings that could be realized through the wide scale use of cogeneration option in Tanzania and Kenya for the
year 2001.
37
As mentioned earlier, all oil/petroleum products consumed in the East and Horn of Africa are imported as these
countries do not have commercial deposits that can be economically used. Unfortunately, fossil fuel account for
over 70% of commercial energy used in the region. As shown in the previous table the use of agro-waste basedcogeneration could reduce fossil fuels used in power generation by close to 10%.
Economies in the East and Horn of Africa can save significant amounts of foreign exchange if they can revert to
cogeneration. In effect, this would reduce energy import bills mostly fossil fuel and electricity discussed earlier.
Through the multiplier effect, the savings made can be used to develop other sectors and the general welfare of
the economy. For instance, in 2002 the Kenyan exchequer used approximately Ksh.40 billion to import 2.37
million tonnes of crude petroleum and fuels, including lubricants. This accounted for 31.4% of the total
merchandise export earnings net of oil export (Karekezi and Ranja, 1997; Wandera, 20046). These funds could
have been used in developing other sectors e.g. health, water, education and agriculture.
2.3
Linkages: Cogeneration and other Sectors in the Economy
2.3.1
Agriculture
According to Deepchand (2001), cogeneration of bagasse energy in Mauritius on a commercial basis is a winwin situation for all stakeholders in the sugar industry. The co generator secures an additional stream, revenue,
60% of which is tax exempt and initial allowances thereto. In addition, the cogenerator is entitled to a share of
50% of the BTPF on a pro rata basis, with respect to the cogenerators electricity export. On the other hand, the
agricultural and non-agricultural workers of the sugar factories and estates as well as their respective staff, and
the employees of the parastatal organizations dealing with the sugar industry all benefit from increased returns
arising from the export of co generated electricity (Gboney, 2003).
The main negative agricultural impacts from trash and agro-waste collection include loss of cane field due to
additional soil compaction caused by trash recovery operations, increased cost of farm inputs (fertilizer
application), soil erosion and loss of soil quality due to reduced nutrient recycling. To abate these negative
impacts in the agricultural sector, it is advisable for cane out growers and factory plantations to practice crop
rotation (Macedo et al, 2001; Karekezi and Ranja, 1997) and other ecological practices that minimise the use of
pesticides and fertilizers.
2.3.2
Health
A significant proportion of the population lack proper health care due to absence of electricity in remote areas.
Cogeneration together with other renewable energy technologies in decentralized minigrids can be used by the
rural health clinics for lighting and vaccine refrigeration. This can reduce child and maternal mortality due to
increased immunization coverage.
6
Media information need to be treated with care until crosschecked with various source authorities. “KenGen gets Grant” by Noel Wandera. Nation Media
Group, Thursday, March 11, 2004
38
2.3.3
Education
Like health clinics, most of the rural off-grid schools do not have electricity. These schools could benefit from
reliable electricity from cogeneration plants. Modern benefits from electricity will not only attract more students
and improve student performance, but will also retain quality teachers and staff currently unwilling to be posted
in the un-electrified areas. In the evenings, the school facilities can be utilized for other social services such as
adult education, health education or recreational activities.
2.3.4
Environment
Increased electricity generation in sugar factories has a positive environmental impact. It would reduce greenhouse gases, emissions. For example in Mauritius, the impact of bagasse energy projects on the environment
have been quantified; in the short term, the bagasse projects avoided the use of 215,000 tonnes of coal, the
emission of 650,000 tonnes of CO2 and the generation of 35,000 tonnes of coal ash. In the long term, the figures
will be 375,000 tonnes of coal, 1,130,000 tonnes of CO2 and 60,000 tonnes of coal ash when the target of
110kWh per a tonne of cane in energy will be achieved (Deepchand, 2001). The wider use of cogeneration in
East and Horn of African countries could yield significant environmental benefits.
2.4
Opportunity Cost of the Cogeneration Option
In business, opportunity cost refers to the cost of the best forgone alternative. In this section, we will the
opportunity cost of investing in cogeneration rather to large scale hydro electricity generating units to
supplement available power from the national grid national grid. As we will see, investment in cogeneration
units looks more attractive and worth considering in the East and Horn of African than promoting/relying on
large scale hydro. According to Karekezi and Kimani, (2003), benefits from cogeneration option make it
attractive for adoption in the East and Horn of Africa.
Firstly, large scale hydro stations are not linked to the incremental growth in demand of the power sector. This
could lead to over-capacity in generation, which is expensive for the economy. Cogeneration is, on the other
hand, well suited to match the annual incremental growth in demand as they are modular in nature, which is
usually relatively modest (less than 20 MW per year in many Eastern and Southern African countries).
Secondly, large scale hydro development is generally a high-tech endeavour, which requires heavy capital
investment, both of which effectively dissuades local investors. For instance, during the power crisis of 2000 in
Kenya prompted by the drought which adversely affected large scale hydro, it prompted the government to
expensively import diesel generators to bridge the electricity demand gap created by drought that affected HEPs.
In contrast, cogeneration plant on the other hand, involves technology that can easily be locally managed. In
addition, the capital requirements are modest as they are an integral part of the agro-industries. Furthermore,
acquiring modern cogeneration equipments means entire refurbishment of the agro-industry for higher
productivity of the primary product.
Thirdly, large-scale capital-intensive thermal/diesel-based IPP developments invariably attract the politically
connected rent-seeking class. The controversial coal-based IPP deals in Zimbabwe involving YTL and in
Tanzania involving IPTL are classical examples of the disarray that the rent-seeking class can cause. There is,
therefore, a case to examine smaller IPPs, such as cogeneration plants, which are less capital intensive and
provide ideal entry points for local participation in a privatised electricity industry.
In many African countries, power sector reforms appear to have alienated local private investment in the power
sector. Current trends indicate that, in the medium-term, the exit of the state from the electricity industry would
effectively hand over the entire electricity industry to non-national operators. In the long-term, this is likely to
be an unsustainable arrangement. Without significant local involvement, it is possible that reforms may be
reversed in the future mainly because there would be no significant local stakeholder group. In addition, a well
thought-through strategy for local participation could provide the basis for developing sophisticated local
cogeneration industry.
The amendments of the Electricity Act, a direct result of power sector reforms, have created opportunities for
the establishment of independent power distributors (IPDs). Although cogenerators are reluctant to venture into
the electricity distribution business (for the simple reason that electricity generation is what they do best), there
are opportunities for bulk sale of electricity to IPDs for onward retailing. This could lead to the establishment of
mini-grids that would provide electricity to the rural population, in the sugar belts, that the national utilities have
39
failed to reach. The low-tech and modest capital requirements of mini-grids could provide an ideal entry point
for local involvement in the power sector.
The drought that affected the majority of the hydro-dependent Eastern and Southern African countries, during
the 1997-2000 period, served as a wake-up call for urgent diversification of the region’s sources of electricity
generation. In Kenya, for example, the negative impact of the drought forced the Kenya Power and Lighting
Company to agree to purchase 2.5 MW of surplus power from Mumias Sugar Company. This sugar company
and others in the sugar belt had, in previous years, failed to persuade the utility to buy their surplus power. It
should, however, be noted that drought could also affect cogeneration, due to reduced sugarcane yield.
Diversification of sources would only work, if the cogeneration industry were not located in the same climatic
zones as the hydro power station. This is the case in Kenya.
40
Chapter 3.0 Key Conclusions
3.1
Technical viability
This study has demonstrated that achieving 5% from cogeneration is viable, based on the theoretical potential.
Table 3.1 presents a summary of technical viability assessment of the cogeneration technology in the East and
Horn of Africa
Table 3.1
Country
Technical viability assessment of cogeneration in the East and Horn of Africa
Installed Capacity
(MW)
863
1,236
776
493
Cogeneration
Potential (MW)
77
350
42
429
5%
Viable
Tanzania*
43.15
Yes
Kenya
61.80
Yes
Uganda*
16.30
Yes
Ethiopia
24.65
Yes
Key
*Quantified residue from sugar factories only
Sources: Gwang’ombe, 2004; Yuko et al, 2004; Kamese, 2004, Engorait, 2004; Wolde-Ghiorgis, 2004
From the table, technically available cogeneration potential is higher than the 5% target. indicating that
cogeneration option is viable in the short run. Table 3.2 present the details of technical viability in depth
Table 3.2 Technical Viability of Meeting the 5% Electricity Target From Cogeneration
Country
Installed capacity
required to meet 5%
target (p.a.) (MW)
Current installed
capacity from
Cogeneration (MW)
Balance required to
meet the 5% Target of
national generating
capacity
Tanzania
43.15
35.8
7.35
Kenya
61.80
36.5
25.3
Uganda
16.30
11
5.3
Ethiopia
24.65
13.4
11.25
Source: AFREPREN, 2003; Yuko, 2004; Kamese, 2004; Gwang’ombe, 2004
% Balance required to
meet the 5% Target of
national generating
capacity
0.9
2.1
1.9
2.3
As shown in previous table 3.2, based on the current installed cogeneration capacity countries in the region only
need to obtain less than one half of the current installed capacity so as to achieve the 5% target. This however
does not include the internal power requirements for the agro-industries. Therefore, there is need to set a higher
electricity installation target to first achieve internal self-sufficiency before exporting the surplus to the national
grid. From various country study findings discussed in chapter 3, technically the 5% target seems feasible.
Logically, technical potential can be assessed in three ways: waste potential, skill and expertise and requisite
technology in agro- processing industries.
3.1.1
Waste availability/potential
Sugar cane trash that can be available for cogeneration include tops, leaves and bagasse. Usually, tops and
leaves are left in the sugarcane fields like manure whereas bagasse is the by-product available after shredding
the cane. The amount of trash in the cane depends on the cane variety, age, soil and weather conditions. Three of
the most extensively planted varieties include SP79-1011, SP80-1842, and RB72454 that can be harvested at
three stages: 1st, 3rd and 5th. Table 3.3 below presents average sample results for sugarcane waste (tops, dry
and green leaves) as the supplementary fuel to increase the power -generating capacity of sugar mills
41
Table 3.3:
Sample Results From Various Sugar Cane Varieties
Variety
Stage of cut
Productivity in stalks (t/ha)
Dry trash (t/ha)
SP-791011
1st *
3rd
5th
1st *
3rd
5th
1st *
3rd
5th
120
91.5
84.2
135.8
100.5
91.6
134.3
99.8
78.2
104.0
17.8
15.0
13.7
14.6
12.6
10.5
17.2
14.9
13.6
14.4
SP-801842
RB-72454
Average
* year-and -half old cane
Source: Macedo etal, 2001.
Trash/stalk ratio
(%)
15
16
16
11
13
11
13
15
17
14
This approach of using sugar cane trash is aimed at implementing projects of large conventional cogeneration
systems in the mills fuelled only with sugar-cane residues.
In the East and Horn of Africa, cogeneration of electricity from sugarcane waste is only available between 6 and
9 months during any calendar year. In addition, sugar production largely depends on rain fed production. This
prompts electricity distribution utilities to charge higher tariffs in order to cater for the off-crop season when the
agro-industries do not generate electricity. This is a barrier that needs to be addressed in order make
cogeneration an attractive option. However, significant amount of electricity can be generated during this period
from irrigated plantations and this can minimise the use of costly electricity generation using fossil fuels thermal
power plants. Countries of the East and Horn of Africa can emulate the irrigation option that has been practiced
and proved successful in other countries such as Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Sudan (Karekezi and Ranja,
1997; Deepchand, 2001)
Harvesting and cane recovery in the East and Horn of Africa is not technologically advanced due to the lack of
mechanized harvesting methods practiced in other regions of the world. This includes the use of whole cane
harvesters and chopped cane harvesters. Cane stocks are harvested manually before being loaded to the waiting
trucks for haulage (See Figure 3.1 below). In addition, from the country study findings, most of cane out
growers are small scale holders who do not have reliable access to appropriate farm inputs to augment their farm
output to increase trash availability. This is due to lack of access to appropriate credit financing mechanisms.
Above all, cogeneration initiatives are not centralized resulting in failures to capture the benefits from largescale operations.
Figure 3.1
Current Inefficient Cane Harvesting and Haulage Method in the East and Horn of
Africa
42
In order to maximize trash available for cogeneration, mechanized cane harvesting can be used to minimize the
current cane wastage. Transporting of the harvested cane is also inefficient because sugar plantations are located
in rural areas without a reliable infrastructure of all-weather roads. This requires redirection of investment
towards improved rural infrastructure. One option to ensure efficient cane haulage for processing is to gravel all
roads in the cane producing areas.
The figure 3.2 below illustrates various options available in the sugar cane harvesting and haulage to maximize
trash recovery
Figure 3.2:
Available waste collection options for sugar cane harvesting to maximize trash recovery
Whole green cane
harvesting
Chopped green cane harvesting
Cane and trash on soil
Route A
Cane and trash
transported
Trash separated from the
cane at the mill station
Route B
Route C
Cane and trash picked
Trash baled and
transported to the mill
No cleaning by
harvester
Cane cleaned
& harvester
Cane and trash Trans
loaded to truck field
stations
Cane chopped and cleaned
:trash on soil and cane in the
truck
Trash
Trash
Route D
Cane
Cane
Chopped cane
transported tote mill
Cane and trash transported
to the mill
Trash baled and
transported tot
the mill
Chopped cane
transported to the
mill
Cane cleaned from trash at
mill a station
Source: Macedo et al, 2001.
From the figure above, routes A and B, (whole cane harvesting and haulage) are the main cane harvesting
methods used in the region. But since whole cane harvesting has lower performance when operating unburnt
cane in high productivity areas, they need to be abandoned. Route D seems to be expensive in that it will require
high technology equipment to clean cane from trash at the milling station. Route C seems to be an optimal
option where the cane is chopped, cleaned and transported separately from trash that is baled before being
transported to the milling station. This is an indication that if regional sugar factories consider sugar cane trash
as a viable fuel supplementary to bagasse, it will permit year-round power generation in sugar cane mills
(Macedo et al, 2001).
3.1.2
Technology
The efficiency of electricity generation in many sugar mills in the East and Horn of Africa is poor due to low
steam pressure and temperature. In most plants, the crushing capacity is old and inefficient with 20-40barspressure capacity. The technology option used in various sugar factories is the backpressure steam-Rankine
cycle turbine system with steam at 1.5-2.5MPa resulting in low electricity generation of between 15 and
25kWh/ton of cane. For the current technology to support the estimated 5% target of electricity from
cogeneration, milling industries in the East and Horn of African region need to upgrade their crushing capacity
to a technical efficiency of about 45 to 60 bars steam pressure in the range of 4400C to 4650C so as to step up
electricity generation to about 200kWh per tonne of bagasse. In addition, instead of limiting electricity
generation to milling period only, the agro-industries can develop civil sheds where excess agro waste is stored.
This can be used to fuel the cogeneration plant during the off-crop session. (Quevauvilliers, 2003)
3.1.3
Skill and expertise
It is evident from the cogeneration option assessment in chapter 3, that the processes do not require retraining of
the personnel in charge of the cogeneration plant/section of the agro-industry. This is because the cogeneration
process is an integral part of any agro-industry. The only additional step in trying to achieve the 5% electricity
generation target is to reorient the agro-industry operations philosophy. Instead of generating electricity for
43
internal use only, the philosophy will focus on electricity self sufficiency and exporting surplus to the national
utility.
3.2
Economic Viability
In carrying out the economic evaluation to ascertain the economic viability of cogeneration technology, cash
flow and overall assessment of the predictability of the economy of the host country are assessed. Major factors
considered include plant capital investment, annual fixed charges, annual variable costs and total annual cost. In
addition, there is also need to assess the financial viability that entails the involved economy's political and
macro-economic environment, legal and regulatory environment, structure of the host country's power sector,
return on investment taxes, duties and levies and tariff structure (Gboney, 2003).
Projected foreign exchange savings from fossil fuel imports would if directed to cogeneration would reduce
most of the upfront costs required to adopt this technology. For Kenya and Ethiopia, the projected foreign
exchange savings effectively cover the cogeneration investment cost to meet 5% target. on the other hand,
although projected savings cannot cover these costs effectively in Uganda and Tanzania, huge energy sector
budget allocation that is normally allocated for conventional energy can be used to boost cogeneration in these
countries. For instance, in Uganda, cogeneration investment cost accounts for about 1.3% of conventional
energy budget allocations (Kamese, 2004).
3.3
Challenges facing the Cogeneration in the East and Horn of Africa
Cogeneration is a viable technology for increasing the region’s electricity, and would lead to several key
benefits as discussed earlier. However, cogeneration technology faces diverse policy and institutional challenges
that hinder its smooth development. These include legal and regulatory framework of the power sector, power
policy pricing and power purchase agreements (PPAs). The following subsection examines these challenges in
turn.
3.3.1
Legal and Regulatory Framework
One of the glaring challenges is the monopoly status of national utilities in the region. Although most of these
utilities have been unbundled, they still remain under a holding company of the formerly vertically integrated
utility. This situation is expected to hinder cogenerators’ open access to the grid.
Secondly, many of the newly established regulatory agencies have been effectively captured by the national
utilities. This has been witnessed in Malawi where half of the board members of the regulatory board belong to
the board of the national utility. Most utility investment portfolio focus on large-scale thermal and hydro at the
expense of small scale energy technologies that might serve the majority of economy. This adverse combination
proves to be an important barrier to the rapid growth of the cogeneration industry (Karekezi and Kimani, 2003;
Matinga, 2001; Chiwaya, 2001).
3.3.2
Power Pricing Policy
Cogenerators need a competitive price for exporting their electricity to the national grid. Unfortunately, their
floor price of about USc 6 per kWh proves to be higher than hydro generated power that costs as low as USc 3
per kWh.
Furthermore, cogeneration of electricity can only be available between 6 and 9 months during any calendar year
when sugar cane crop is available. Additionally, sugar production in the region largely depends on rain fed
production. This prompts national utilities to charge higher tariffs in order to cater for the off-session when the
agro-industries do generate electricity. This is a significant barrier to overcome in order to ensure successful
dissemination of the cogeneration option. However minimise the use of costly electricity generation options like
fossil fuels thermal power plants greater recourse to irrigation can overcome this barrier and would require the
establishment of an enabling policy environment (Yuko et al, 2003; Engorait, 2004; Gwang’ombe, 2004;
Worku, 2004)
44
Chapter 4.0 Study Recommendations
Cogeneration option to supplement current grid electricity in the region will be realized when stakeholders
effectively address the previous highlighted challenges. In effect, this will provide the basis for rapid growth in
the cogeneration industry which, through backward and forward linkages will impact positively to all sectors of
the region’s economies. The following recommendations could lead to greater development of cogeneration in
the region.
4.1
Recommendations to policy makers
•
Preparing and implementing national Sugar Sector Strategic Plans, that outlines the development of the
entire sugar sector including cogeneration
•
Developing appropriate Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) in conjunction with the cogenerators
•
Creation of an enabling legislation is an integral and essential requirement to encourage viable
cogeneration of electricity by sugar factories using bagasse that is a renewable resource.
•
Creating incentives for cogenerators e.g. instituting tax exemption on revenue arising from the
provisions of surplus power from renewable energy sources, tax concessions on capital equipment for
cogeneration and introduction of performance linked rebates on export duty payable by the corporate
sector be it on optimising land use for crop diversification or efficiency on sugar recovery; as well as
use in cane-processing coupled with energy export to the national grid.
•
Setting the guidelines for centralisation of the cogeneration activities in various economies, which will
result in reduction of operating costs as well as promoting and enhancing electricity export to the
national grid.
•
Institution of incentive bonuses that could also be considered at the beginning of each milling season to
mitigate unnecessary power outages by the mills. Conversely, penalties could be applied, based on the
duration of outages.
•
Maintenance of good infrastructure (road, port and rail networks) in the agricultural areas to ensure
reliable deliverance of agro-products to the mills for processing.
4.2
Recommendations for implementers (manufacturers, SMEs financial institutions,
informal investors, micro entrepreneurs, micro finance institutions, large private sector)
•
Increase investment in equipment with high crushing capacity, pressure and temperature levels
•
Operate cogeneration units as independent units to provide power for the parent agro-industry and
export the surplus to the national grid.
•
Increase awareness among private sector investors on opportunities for developing cogeneration
systems from available bioenergy resources.
•
Provide credit facilities available within the country to encourage more cogeneration systems
investments
•
Provide financial concessions on investments into or improvement of cogeneration equipment
•
Provide affordable loan facilities to cane producers so as to enable them access farm inputs and
increase cane production.
4.3 Recommendations for lobbyists (civil societies, CBOs, NGOs etc)
•
Create an institutional framework within their operations to support renewable energy initiatives like
cogeneration.
45
•
Promote public awareness of the importance of renewable energy technologies like cogeneration to
other sectors of the economy (the environment, health, agriculture, education, energy and foreign
sectors)
•
Ensure that governments institute supportive legislation such as energy pricing in order to make RETs
more attractive
•
Ensure that the initiatives in setting up new or improving the existing cogeneration facilities, are such
that they motivate productivity and efficiency in the industry, and social development
•
Advocate for the use of local resources and technologies over imported and foreign technologies.
•
Cogeneration plants particularly those based on biomass are a good candidate for UN climate
convention related financing mechanism. Interested investors in cogeneration should be encouraged to
pursue climate related financing opportunities (GEF, CDM, Carbon Prototype Fund etc)
4.4. Recommendations for end users (existing and potential users and customers)
•
Increase awareness on benefits of cogeneration to other end users
46
Chapter 5.0 References
AFREPREN/FWD., 2003. African Energy Data Handbook; African Energy Policy Research Network,
Nairobi.
African Development Bank (ADB) (undated), African Energy Program: Sectoral Report-Coal, African
Development Bank.
Baanabe, J., 2001. Establishment of the Cogeneration Potential and Identification of Barriers to its
Development in Uganda. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Bhagavan, R. M. (ed.), 1999. Reforming the Power Sector in Africa. Zed Books Ltd., New York.
Bw’Obuya, M. N., 2001. The Socio-Economic and Environmental Impact of Geothermal Energy on the
Rural Poor in Kenya: AFREPREN Occasional Paper No. 12. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 2003. Economic Survey 2003. CBS, Nairobi.
Deepchand, K., 2001. Bagasse-based Energy Cogeneration in Mauritius-A model for Eastern and Southern
Africa:AFREPREN Occasional Paper No. 2. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Deepchand, K., 2002. Opportunities for Cogeneration in a Reforming African Power Sector. : AFREPREN
Occasional Paper No. 21. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Dube, I., 2002. Energy Services for the Urban Poor Theme Group: Country Data and Statistics CompilationZimbabwe. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) 2002a. Country Profile: Kenya. EIU, London.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) 2002b. Country Profile: Uganda. EIU, London.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) 2002c. Country Profile: Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Djibouti. EIU,
London.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) 2002c. Country Profile: Tanzania; Comoros. EIU, London.
Engurait, S. P., 2003.Energy Sector Reform Theme Group, Country Data and Statistics CompilationUganda. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Financial Times Energy, 2001. Global Private Power Update 2001. Platts. London.
Gboney, W., 2002. Economic and Financial Viability of Cogeneration Power Plants and Financing Options:
in AFREPREN Occasional Paper No. 21 (48-54). AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Ghiorgis, W., 2002. Renewables and Energy for Rural Development Theme Group: Country Data and
Statistics-Ethiopia. African Energy Policy Research Network (AFREPREN/FWD), Nairobi.
Gwang’ombe, F., 2004. Renewables Energy Technologies in Tanzania: Biomass Based Cogeneration.
African Energy Policy Research Network (AFREPREN/FWD), Nairobi.
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2003. Energy Statistics and Balances of Non-OECD Countries. 20002001. IEA, Paris.
Karekezi S. and Ranja T. 1997.Renewables Energy Technologies in Africa. Zed Books Ltd, London.
Karekezi S. and Kimani J., 2002. “Impact of Power Sector Reform on the Poor” in the Energy Policy Journal
– Special Issue, Vol 30, No. 11-12, Elsevier Science Limited, Oxford.
47
Karekezi S. and Kithyoma W., 2002. “Renewable Energy Strategies for Rural Africa: is a PV-led renewable
energy strategy the right approach for providing modern energy to the rural poor of sub-Saharan
Africa?” in the Energy Policy Journal – Special Issue, Vol 30, No. 11-12 (1071-1086), Elsevier
Science Limited, Oxford.
Karekezi S. and Majoro L., 2002. “Improving Modern Energy Services for Africa’s Urban Poor” in the
Energy Policy Journal – Special Issue, Vol 30, No. 11-12(1015-1028), Elsevier Science Limited,
Oxford.
Karekezi, S. and Teferra, M., (Eds.) 2002. Capacity Building for a Reforming African Power Sector. Zed
Books Ltd., London.
Karekezi, S., Mapako, M., and Teferra, M., (Eds.) 2002. Africa: Improving modern energy services for the
poor, Energy Policy Journal – Special Issue, Vol 30, No. 11-12, Elsevier Science Limited, Oxford.
Katyega, M., 2002. Energy Services for the Urban Poor Theme Group: Country Data and Statistics
Compilaiton-Tanzania. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Katyega, M., 2003. Energy Services for the Urban Poor Theme Group: Country Data and Statistics
Compilation-Tanzania. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Kebede, B., 2002. Energy Services for the Urban Poor Theme Group: Country Data and Statistics
Compilation-Ethiopia. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Kenya Power and Lighting Company Ltd. (KPLC), 2002. Report and Accounts for the year ended 30th June
2002. KPLC, Nairobi
Kenya Power and Lighting Company Ltd.(KPLC), 2003. Report and Accounts for the year ended 30th June
2003.KPLC, Nairobi
Kyokutamba, J., 2002. Energy Services for the Urban Poor Theme Group: Country Data and Statistics
Compilation- Uganda. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Mao Y. and Hall D., 1994. Biomass Energy Coal in Africa, Zed Books Ltd. London, United Kingdom.
Marandu, E., 2002. Energy Sector Reforms Theme Group: Country Data and Statistics CompilationTanzania. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Marandu, E., 2003. Energy Sector Reforms Theme Group: Country Data and Statistics CompilationTanzania. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Matinga, M., 2001. Energy Sector Reforms Theme Group: Country Data and Statistics Compilation Malawi. AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Ngeleja, J., 2001. The Role of Private Sector and Local Participation in the Development of Cogeneration.
AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Nyoike, P., 2002. Energy Sector Reforms Theme Group: Country Data and Statistics Compilation -Kenya.
AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Quevauvilliers, M., 2003. Advanced Cogeneration Plant: The Case of CTBV: AFREPREN Occasional Paper
21(35-41).AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Rabah, K., 2000. Application of Sugarcane Residues as Biofuel for Cogeneration of Electricity in Kenya.
Eastern Mediterranean University Gazimagusa, Mersin.
Rivalland, R., 2002. Cogeneration; The IPP Perspective: AFREPREN Occasional Paper 21(21-24).
AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Teferra, M., 2002. Energy Sector Reforms Theme Group: Country Data and Statistics-Ethiopia.
AFREPREN, Nairobi.
48
Teferra, M., 2003. . Energy Sector Reforms Theme Group: Country Data and Statistics-Ethiopia.
AFREPREN, Nairobi.
Turyahikayo G., 1995. Renewable Energy Technologies Dissemination in Uganda: Working Paper 18,
AFREPREN, Nairobi.
World Bank, 2003. African Development Indicators 2003. World Bank, Washington D.C.
Yuko, D. N., Ogwayo, A.W., Litondo, J.M. and Misango, Q.B., 2003. Revitalising the Sugar Industry,
Strengthening the Power Sector: Putting the sweetness back into the sugar industry-electricity
generation from sugarcane residual fuels. M &E Consulting Engineers, Nairobi
49
Chapter 6.0 Appendices
Regional data and statistics.
Appendix 1:
Urban and Rural Electrification Levels in Selected sub-Saharan African countries
Ethiopia
Moza m bique**
Kenya
Country
Uganda
Zam bia*
Tanzania
Malawi
Zim babwe
S. Africa***
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% Electrified
Urban
Rural
Sources: Karekezi and Kimani, 2002, AFREPREN/FWD, 2001b; Teferra, 2000; Mapako, 2000; Kayo, 2001; Mbewe, 2000;
Chiwaya, 2001; Dube, 2001; World Bank, 1996; NER, 2001
50
Appendix 2:
Electricity losses in selected African countries
Nominal Target
6
Country
South Africa
Botswana
8
Lesotho
8
Zambia
11
Zimbabwe
11
12
Tanzania
Malawi
17
Eritrea
17
Kenya
19
Ethiopia
19
28
Angola
32
Sudan
40
Uganda
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
System Losses (%)
Source: Karekezi and Kimani, 2002
Appendix 3:
Electrification Levels in Regional Africa
Average Access to Electricity in Regional Africa,2000
North Africa
91.5
66.1
Region
South Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
24.0
East and Horn of Africa
6.7
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Average % access to electricity
Source: World Bank, 2003; IEA, 2003
51
Appendix 4:
Energy Production and Consumption by Type in the East and Horn of Africa, 2001
Petroleum Production ('000' toe)
Country Indigenous production TFC* Imported deficit
Ethiopia
1,142
1,161
Kenya
2,069
2,069
Tanzania
846
916
Uganda
460
460
*TFC = Total Final Consumption
**CRW=Combustibles Renewables and Waste
Source: IEA, 2003
CRW**('000' toe)
Indigenous production
TFC
Imported deficit
17,842
17,186
12,024
8,620
12,777
11,406
9,000
6,550
Ele
Indigenous produ
156
378
241
450