Blog

Alarm!! Coal power in PNG - Dirty Seas and Dirty Sky - Why?

On 28 Sep, 2015 By ACTNOW

Mercury and arsenic to be dumped into the sea at Lae, Madang and Port Moresby

Sulphur and fine particles to fill the air and lungs of nearby populations

Carbon emissions to increase climate change impacts

A number of companies are believed to be proposing polluting coal burning power stations  in Port Moresby, Lae and Madang.  Whether these proposed power plants use coal from PNG (which is undeveloped and could be very expensive to produce, requiring barging operations and shallow draught ships of small capacity), or import dirty overseas coal, the environmental and social impacts would be devastating.

It is understood that the resource companies promoting the use of coal-fired power plants are the same companies that want to mine PNG coal.  Potential users of coal appear to ignore the fact that coal is a highly harmful way to make power.  The proposing companies are ignoring the reality that the cost of coal power in PNG would be higher than gas, hydro and other renewable power sources, when transport, necessary emissions control, handling of toxic ash and disposal problems of the mercury and arsenic in coal are taken into account.

The proposed power locations can be seen in the picture above from Mayur Resources.  Other coal companies that may be involved include Pacific Mining Partners, who have angered the Watur people; and Waterford Limited.  It is not known who the customers for this polluting power would be; but 100 MW is more than any existing mine or customer could use.  The whole current power load on the Ramu Grid is about 100 MW already, and is well fulfilled by clean power sources, existing and planned.

The costs quoted by the companies involved are also highly misleading - they are “mine mouth” costs for a useless power plant in the Gulf.  The cost of coal power in Lae or Madang would need to include expensive barging, shipping in the shallow waters of the Gulf, and a 1000 mile journey to Lae or Madang.  A coal import terminal (with dust and mercury and other runoff emissions) is required for any coal power plant.  All of these things make coal much more expensive than cleaner and cheaper alternatives.

If the power plants in Port Moresby, Lae and Madang import low cost (i.e. high and high sulphur) coal from overseas, or expensive and sulphur bearing coal from PNG, the result in Lae or Madang would be the same:

  • High levels of sulphur and nitrogen oxide in emissions, causing lung problems and asthma for local populations.  There is a reason coal generation is kept away from populations as far as possible - it kills (see articles at the end of this document)
  • High levels of ultrafine particles (Particulate matter 2.5 or PM 2.5) which contain mercury, arsenic, lead and other heavy metals, and is so fine it is very hard and very, very expensive to remove from the power plant exhaust.  These particles can be easily breathed deep into the lungs, where they enter the bloodstream and cause major health and mortality issues
  • A large area required for the power plants, with a large ash settling pond.  Coal ash is different from other ash from fuels such as sugarcane, wood or grass, as it contains very high amounts of mercury, lead, arsenic and other heavy metals.  The chance of accidental or deliberate discharge of these heavy metals into the sea is very high, and the effect on coastal communities of eating fish which have accumulated these heavy metals would be devastating (see what happened with mercury at Minamata Bay)
  • Higher costs for power, as the necessary emissions control required to partly control the sulphur emissions and collect the ash with heavy metals is expensive, as would be a coal terminal and large ash settling pond.  A way to dispose of the toxic ash would need to be found which did not involve releasing it to the sea1).
  • The potential of PNG to produce power from renewable and low cost sources such as hydro, gas, and biomass would be ignored.
  • The proposed plants would be in contraventions of all PNG’s policies on low emissions and low cost power, and the provision of employment and landowner participation in power generation.
  • Loss of revenue to the PNG Ports areas, as the sites would then not be suitable for food storage or processing, due to the proximity of heavy metal contamination and sulphur and other emissions
  • A total loss of any credibility that Papua New Guinea has on dealing with critical climate change issues and showing leadership to its neighbours.  Coal is the major cause of global warming and CO2 emissions.

The coastal communities and populations of any town with possible coal generation should be alarmed and let the authorities know they want clean power at a low price, not coal power at a low or high price. 

Citizens of these areas should know that if these plans are allowed to proceed, the health impacts would be staggering and severe - they should let Ministers, PNG Power and the media know that a dirty power plant which creates no jobs and pollutes the clean air and water of Papua New Guinea is not for them.

Some Internet References on the deadly nature of coal, and climate change: