Water and energy needs in a developing Nile Basin

Jul 22, 2013

The 1959 agreement with (North) Sudan allocated 18.5 Bn. cu.m. or 22% to the latter leaving the balance 12% for evaporation and seepage in the desert.

By Eng. Kant Ateenyi Kanyarusoke (M-ASHRAE; M-SASEE)

In my article of July 11, we saw how Egypt is fixated with a 55.5 Bn cu.m. flow or 66% of the annual rate at Aswan. The 1959 agreement with (North) Sudan allocated 18.5 Bn. cu.m. or 22% to the latter leaving the balance 12% for evaporation and seepage in the desert.

Upstream countries were completely ignored – it being asserted that they should simply rely on the rains that feed the river basin. Great Britain – then in charge of almost all the countries in the basin - agreed that as long as it was in charge, none of these countries would use the basin waters without Egypt’s ‘permission’.

But the problem now is that it is no longer in charge. Even at the time, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Burundi and Congo (present DRC) were out of ‘its’ territories. The agreement, therefore, was doomed to cause legal problems from the start. But for me now, as an engineer, I’ll focus on the techno economic issues.

The biggest techno-economic problem with the agreement was the premising on a static environment.

Constraining upstream countries to vagaries of nature through the weather is the most striking evidence of a lack of appreciation of situation dynamics at the time. Either global warming and socio-economic changes of upper Nile peoples were unknown or they were simply ignored.

Be that as it may, the upstream peoples today and tomorrow need to use the Nile waters for human sustenance; electricity generation; industrial production; agriculture, floods control and environment protection.

It is simply not acceptable that mid North Tanzanians, Kenyans and some Ethiopians should starve to death as the Nile drains their soils only for more than 50% of the water to evaporate in the desert just to let Egypt get the 1959 figure.

Nor is it right that East Ugandans, South Sudanese and some Ethiopians should endure annual floods when what it takes to prevent them includes damming.

On quality human life sustenance, the UN gives an annual 1000 cu.m. and 1700 cu.m. as the scarcity and stress per capita water limits respectively. Scarcity retards development; causes famine and degrades the environment.

At 1700 cu.m., communities stress as they have to rationalise any usage. Available population and basin hydrology data shows that in 1959, none of the riparian states had a scarcity problem. In current terminology, only Rwanda and Burundi would have been beginning to stress.

But this was not an issue then because they had subsistence rural economies – whose need for water-use optimisation was limited. The agreement may have, therefore, seemed not to cause immediate socio-economic problems.

Population growth and development aspirations of the basin populations were, however, bound to change this. As Table 1 shows, today in 2013 - Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and Egypt are already facing fresh water scarcity while Tanzania and Ethiopia are stressed.

In 2050, all peoples except North Sudanese will face scarcity. In spite of this, almost every country has developed a kind of vision to move closer into so called First World status by 2050 (Will there then be a 2nd or 3rd world?).

At present population growth rates, we must change our outlook both on water sourcing and also question our petty nationalistic instincts – if these dreams are to come to fruition. Hence a need for all countries concerned to ratify the new Nile waters treaty only as a first step.

Modern energy sourcing is the other area impacting the Nile waters. Here, no need belabouring the big untapped potential of hydro power in all upstream countries. More than 45 GW of ‘clean’ power could be produced only in the Ethiopian part of the basin (Middle East Magazine, Feb. 2013).

Total basin power potential could well exceed 150 GW (Economic Consulting Associates, 2009). There are many technical factors favouring hydroelectric generation upstream: One; that is where both hydraulic heads and flow rates are maximum – meaning more power per cubic metre of total basin water.

Two, because of cloud cover, higher relative humidities and lower ambient temperatures, evaporation losses from dam surfaces are minimal when compared with say those at the Senner and Aswan high dams.

These three factors, for example, are responsible for the fact that while Egypt can obtain solar still evaporation rates of 11 litre/m2 per day (Salim, 2012), one would be hard pressed to get 3 litre/m2 per day in Uganda and Ethiopia.

Thirdly, problems of silting are minimal since the river has not yet traversed big distances. This means construction, operation and dam maintenance costs are lower – culminating in a lower energy production cost.

Finally and most critically, the water is sure to proceed downstream after power generation anyway. This means the biggest percentage of water is available for reuse in the lower basin states, maximising equity.

Power projects on the Nile before the sudds need not worry downstream peoples because of the natural regulation mechanisms by the lakes and sudds mentioned in the first article.

In case of a temporary (by some accounts up to one year) water hold up, the thermal regulation valve mechanism of the sudds kicks in to maintain a constant flow. In fact it would rather be South Sudan complains because expansion and contraction of the evaporation area would genuinely affect the rain patterns in some of its states/provinces.

Finally on energy equity and development aspirations of the peoples: In 2008, first world countries had an annual per capita energy consumption of 8.48 MWh of electricity (International Energy Agency, 2011). Even if we suppose, the basin will not reach that level by 2050, but attain South Africa’s 4.77, the additional generation capacity at a transmission efficiency of say 85% is given in Figure 2 for the various basin people groups.

Egyptians need to add 64 GW to their present 25 while White and Blue Nilers must add 230 and 145 GW to their 2009 capacities. This power can only come from a properly coordinated use of the Nile waters and from other sources in a cooperative effort. In the final article, we suggest such efforts as opposed to recent military posturing by some actors.

Kant is a Pan Africanist Solar Engineer, Member of ASHRAE and of South Africa Society of Engineering Education (SASEE)

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});