Environmental concerns

Shortly after the release of the plan Dr Janaka Ratnasiri, Former Chief Technical Adviser of the

Ministry of Environment, described the proposed coal-building program as an “environmentally

damaging plan” and impracticable. As the proposed power plants would be based on imported

coal they would need to be located on the coast and would need adequate land both for the plant

and to dump up the waste coal ash. Ratnasiri estimated that if all 16 of the proposed plants were

built there would be over 1.235 million tonnes of ash collected annually from the 16 plants.[2]

“The enhancement of the concentration of particulates at ground level could be determined by

carrying out dispersion modelling and local expertise is available to carry out this task.

Regrettably, CEB has failed to get this exercise done. An enhancement of particulates in air will

increase the risk of people exposed being subject to respiratory ailments, particularly the elderly

and children. The government will have to spend billions of rupees more for the treatment of

these people, but this cost has been ignored when working out the so called “least cost” options.

For people in these provinces who are already suffering from kidney disease, it is nothing but

falling from the frying pan to the fire,” Ratnasiri said. “Sri Lanka has gazetted the Ambient Air

Quality (AAQ) Standards and it is essential that these standards are not violated. The LTGE Plan

has not addressed the issue of how the ambient air quality will deteriorate with the installation of

so many coal plants.”[2]

Ratnasiri said the CEB's report narrowly focussed on the costs of power generation but not the

total economic cost. “What has been included is the cost to the CEB only, but what should have

been included are the costs both to the CEB and the government. The damage caused to the

environment as well as to human health has not been considered in the Plan, this too is a cost. It

is estimated that over 4,500 tonnes of coal ash will be collected a day from all the 16 plants.

Their safe disposal will cost an enormous amount. In addition to this direct cost, there are hidden

costs caused by the leaching of heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium, arsenic and also

radioactive substances from the ash dumps into the water table. None of these issues has been

considered in the Plan,” he said.[2]

However, Additional General Manager of the CEB, M C Wickremasekera, dismissed suggestions

that the proposed plants would release significant amounts of mercury, nickel, chromium and

zinc, claiming that the imported coal currently used did not contain measurable amounts of these

elements.[2]

Economic concerns

R Anil Cabraal, Director, KMRI Lanka (Pvt) Ltd and Board Member, Energy Forum of Sri Lanka

raised concerns about the economic consequences of the proposed coal building plans. "The

risks and high costs the country faced due to over dependence on hydro power generation and

then oil was significant. There is a need to avoid similar concentrations with coal," he said. "From

a macro economic perspective coal over dependence also contributes to an adverse balance of

trade," he said.[2]

Imported coal, which is denominated in US dollars, would become more expensive if the Sri

Lankan rupee deprectiated, “Already, the expansion plan assumption of exchange rate of LKR

114 per USD has been exceeded, as the exchange rate today is about 15 percent higher at LKR

131 per USD, thus, further increasing the cost of coal electricity,” Cabraal said.[2]

Wickremasekera defended the economics of coal and invoked the intermittency of solar. “Prices

of all commodities will increase in the long run. However, our next option is petroleum and that is

a much higher cost than coal, as we have economically harnessed all available resources.

Hence, after considering all other options, we decided to opt for coal. As far as other renewable

power sources are concerned, solar is a rather uncertain energy source. For instance, if solar

produces 500 MW, then on a day that there is cloud cover it could reduce to nothing at all. We

must have an alternate source of energy to meet the demand. So, under these conditions we

have opted for the most viable option,” Wickremasekera said