This column was co-written by Justin Guay of the Sierra Club International Program.
That's the question we have been asking the U.S. Government over and over, after discovering their steadfast support for plans to build an extremely expensive, extremely dirty coal plant in Kosovo. We first sounded the alarm over this project months ago and despite essentially admitting that our concerns are valid, the State Department and the World Bank are recklessly pushing forward a plan to leave the tiny country saddled with a heavily polluting new coal plant along with unsustainable levels of debt at a time when the EU's debt crisis threatens the global economy.
So how do we know the project is so bad? We commissioned expert analysis from a former chief Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement officer who found glaring flaws (check out our initial analysis here) in the project design.
First and foremost he found that the plant will likely cost 2-3 times what project proponents claim. These costs would be borne by a country struggling to rebuild after years of war and would take the form of foreign debt that will have to be repaid by raising rates on average citizens. This is eerily similar to what happened with the World Bank's last coal loan to Eskom and has led the nations leading nightly news program to ask probing questions about a "European Eskom."
Even worse, he found that Kosovo doesn't even need the power -- they simply don't have enough base load demand to justify such a large power project. In fact the project would lead to a generating capacity that is three times higher than existing demand and four times higher when corrected for avoidable losses.
This means Kosovo consumers (or the government) would have to service over a billion euro in debt at a time instead of investing in what Kosovo does need -- an upgrade of its leaky electricity grid (an ancient relic left over from the soviet era that loses up to 40 percent of its supplies) and new forms of peak power (juice to power the lights when people wake up and when they come home from work). Reducing the losses from this leaky bucket, combined with job creating energy efficiency programs, completely eliminates the need for a dirty, expensive new coal plant.
So how did State Department and the World Bank respond? Just months after we sent them our findings, the World Bank released a new report that supported our conclusions: a new coal plant will cost twice as much as they first estimated, and the country does indeed have significant clean energy potential. But, their central conclusion remained unchanged: Kosovo simply must have an expensive, un-needed, dirty new coal plant (you can see our rebuttal reaffirming that Kosovo doesn't need a new coal plant here).
Given this response, it is clear that exploring alternative energy options that don't threaten people's health, raise their rates, or threaten unsustainable levels of debt are simply not in the cards at the State Department or the World Bank. As a result the country has become an epicenter of a struggle between local communities and powerful international players over the future direction of their young country.
Our members are standing firm with the citizens of Kosovo demanding the State Department relinquish support for this dirty new coal plant.
This project would rob a young generation of Kosovo citizens of the clean, healthy future they deserve. Join us in telling the State Department No Coal in Kosovo.
Follow Mary Anne Hitt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/maryannehitt
Figure it out.
There is a reason why NATO stormed into factories and forced management and people out of those factories, power plants, institutions .... Put it on a scale, billions of dollars on one side and environment, "human rights" issues on the other side. We all know what has been and will prevail in Kosovo and Metohija.
No, the neglected Kosovo economy during the Serbian dictatorship in Kosovo from 1987 to 1999, caused the deterioration of the equipment. Kosovo is still attempting to recover from this. The key to a stable economy is a stable power supply, and that is what it is trying to achieve (with all the obstacles that Serbia is attempting to throw on the way).
When NATO stormed in, it found that all the factories had been sabotaged, and equipment had been taken back to Serbia (by Serbs, since Albanians had been expelled to Macedonia and Albania). No only equipment, but sadly, household appliances from Albanian homes ended up in Serbia as well.
By the way, why aren't there environmental concerns about the new Kolubara and Nikola Tesla coal plant plans in Serbia (700 MW each)?
As far as what will prevail in Kosovo, it will be the will of its citizens, definitely not the will of Serbia.
You know, your rhetoric may appeal to people who learned about Kosovo and Metohija from CNN and Fox news. I use to live there, my brother was born there, my wife was born and raised there ...
How about UNMIK?
Also, did anybody ask people of Kosovo and Metohija when Mrs. Jahjaga was “elected”? How did she become a president of KiM?
United States - 54% of its electricity is generated from coal - that would be 164 million people relying on coal as a source of power.
Kosovo - 90% of its electricity is generated from coal - that is 1.7 million people.
Please - give me a break. Focus on the big polluters, not on people of Kosovo, who can barely supply their homes with power for lights, TV, and other appliances 24 hours a day.
Have your "researchers" checked how many hundreds of millions of dollars are spent by this poor country for importing power from Bulgaria, Albania, even Serbia? How about the fact that consumption in Kosova is from households only?
Most of the factories/manufacturing plants in Kosova ARE UNABLE to operate due to lack of electrical power. Even with the households only on the grid, they were without power 50% of the time in the last 4 days, when the temperatures reached -24 C (-11 F)...
If the needs of Kosova do not justify this plant, have they checked the regional needs? Romania, Italy, Albania - they all have shortages - maybe Kosovo can fill this void?
While I sympathize your climate concerns and your global warming warnings (through beyond coal and beyond oil initiatives), at the same time, I would like to ask you to divert their energy into larger coal plants. Maybe Sierra Club can focus on its backyard first? You know how many coal plants are in the U.S. They can actually afford to convert to hydro, solar, wind, heck, even nuclear power.
The Kosova plant is merely a small dot in the ocean of the coal plants around the world. Or maybe, focus on China, that generates 48% of its power from coal.
Kosovo is very underdevelped, Building is booming, its population growth outpacing most, and its energy demands will out pace most of europe. In as much as emphasis on how kosovo doesnt need it right now...its naive...and maybe a little dishonest to think it wont. I also find it strange that while it insists that kosovo doesnt need it...that report mentions how kosovo imports power from albania... strange.
I do agree that Renovating and improving its existing plant should be a priority... but baseless and overly optimistic 'suggestions' that fall flat in the face of the fact kosovo happens to hold one of the largest lignite reserves in the world within its borders... dirty as it is, i find it hard to believe there isnt economic gain from exploiting what it already has... just as EU countries continue to do on a large scale ... if it was truly practical and the slightest bit less costly, first world economies would be all over the 'suggestions' themselves.