Comments on: Rwanda’s bold power play http://www.marcgunther.com/2010/03/04/rwandas-bold-power-play/ This blog is about the impact of business on society. Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:11:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: George Nowak http://www.marcgunther.com/2010/03/04/rwandas-bold-power-play/comment-page-1/#comment-284551 George Nowak Mon, 29 Mar 2010 01:44:51 +0000 http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=3792#comment-284551 The give-away in the comments by Fox is that the "technology is simple" for gas extraction from Lake Kivu. Not if you are up to date with the requirements. It is not, at least not since the legacy method of extraction has been effectively banned. This was because of its severe long-term potential for de-stabilisation of Lake Kivu. Is ContourGlobal compliant with the latest requirements for lake gas extraction? The legacy method which ContourGlobal is planning to use is also a low-recovery method with less than 25% of the available energy (methane) being put to use and more than 75% being released via shallow water to atmosphere and producing a greenhouse gas cloud over the lake. If this legacy-based method was used exclusively, the lake's useful energy output would probably be limited to 200MW for 40-50 years whereas newer high-tech and efficient methods could produce as much as 1000MW for the next 50 years from the lake. More damning than this is the effect of the legacy (C-G) method on the lake itself. Firstly the method results in the total mixing of the lakes waters from top to bottom, destroying the multiple density layers that are the best defence mechanism of the lake against gas eruptions in the long-term future, perhaps 2-4 generations from now. Secondly, the lifting of the deep-waters towards the surface results in a radical increase of nutrients, currently trapped in the deep, into the surface (biozone) layers. These nutrients will rapidly consume all biozone oxygen, leaving the lake as a green, stinking eutrophic soup. Without oxygen, the 60m deep biozone layer no longer converts methane and hydrogen sulfide to their relatively harmless oxidised derivatives. Hydrogen sulphide is toxic and will affect anyone on the lake and anyone near it. The small fishing industry that relies on algae-eating limnothrassa fish will collapse as they are wiped out with seasonal oxygen depletion. Whether the lack of fish or the dangers of eruptions is first to chase the fishermen and their small communities away from the lake, there must be a serious concern whether ContourGlobal has embraced the principles of public safety, environmental preservation and social benefit that are supposed to precede the commercial benefits to gas developers on Lake Kivu. I submit that their story might be more about greenwash, and not green energy. I think Marc Gunther has been sucked unwittingly into supporting a flaky cause here. Dig a little deeper Marc as our research does not support the views expressed in this possibly gloss-over article. The give-away in the comments by Fox is that the “technology is simple” for gas extraction from Lake Kivu. Not if you are up to date with the requirements.

It is not, at least not since the legacy method of extraction has been effectively banned. This was because of its severe long-term potential for de-stabilisation of Lake Kivu. Is ContourGlobal compliant with the latest requirements for lake gas extraction?

The legacy method which ContourGlobal is planning to use is also a low-recovery method with less than 25% of the available energy (methane) being put to use and more than 75% being released via shallow water to atmosphere and producing a greenhouse gas cloud over the lake.

If this legacy-based method was used exclusively, the lake’s useful energy output would probably be limited to 200MW for 40-50 years whereas newer high-tech and efficient methods could produce as much as 1000MW for the next 50 years from the lake.

More damning than this is the effect of the legacy (C-G) method on the lake itself. Firstly the method results in the total mixing of the lakes waters from top to bottom, destroying the multiple density layers that are the best defence mechanism of the lake against gas eruptions in the long-term future, perhaps 2-4 generations from now.

Secondly, the lifting of the deep-waters towards the surface results in a radical increase of nutrients, currently trapped in the deep, into the surface (biozone) layers. These nutrients will rapidly consume all biozone oxygen, leaving the lake as a green, stinking eutrophic soup. Without oxygen, the 60m deep biozone layer no longer converts methane and hydrogen sulfide to their relatively harmless oxidised derivatives. Hydrogen sulphide is toxic and will affect anyone on the lake and anyone near it.

The small fishing industry that relies on algae-eating limnothrassa fish will collapse as they are wiped out with seasonal oxygen depletion.

Whether the lack of fish or the dangers of eruptions is first to chase the fishermen and their small communities away from the lake, there must be a serious concern whether ContourGlobal has embraced the principles of public safety, environmental preservation and social benefit that are supposed to precede the commercial benefits to gas developers on Lake Kivu.

I submit that their story might be more about greenwash, and not green energy. I think Marc Gunther has been sucked unwittingly into supporting a flaky cause here. Dig a little deeper Marc as our research does not support the views expressed in this possibly gloss-over article.

]]>