By Siyabonga Gama

President Cyril Ramaphosa announced in one of his newsletters that the country would be hastily moving away from environmentally damaging fossil fuels in order to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement.

Alignment with global climate objectives is crucial because it would enable us to increase our resilience to extreme weather events. In this regard, he announced that South Africa had accepted a donation of $8.5 billion (approximately R130 billion) from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, and the United States to assist it in transitioning rapidly to clean fuels. This was pledged at the 26th United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Glasgow.

South Africa is among a group of developing nations that rely on coal for energy production and, as a result, have high energy-related emission factors.  India, Indonesia, and Australia are three major coal-dependent nations. Other developing nations, such as Mexico, Egypt, Turkey, and Ukraine, are dependent on natural gas and therefore have lower emission factors.

Energy-related emission factors refer to carbon monoxide (CO2) emissions at the point of combustion from the energy sector. Coal-fired power plants generate 90% of Eskom’s base load electricity in South Africa. Renewable energy sources such as wind, hydrogen, gas, and solar, which currently contribute 10%, are a cleaner energy option.

The main disadvantage of renewables is that they are more expensive than Eskom’s base load due to the cost of system integration, but they are also intermittent and unreliable, so they cannot be classified as base load or relied on for a steady supply of electricity.

The South African economy has been hamstrung since the re-emergence of load shedding in 2018, which has recently intensified, resulting in Stage 6 load shedding that is currently being experienced daily. This appears to be the result of Eskom’s poorly planned maintenance philosophy in general, rather than the age of the plants themselves, as the Eskom plants are largely within global lifecycle norms of 60 years.

When South Africa decommissions its coal-fired plants, Eskom’s generation capacity will decrease by 22,000 MW by 2035. Currently, the country has approximately 50,000 MW, Eskom has a normal capacity of 46,000 MW, and renewables account for approximately 6,000 MW. It is extremely concerning that the 22,000MW that could be eliminated by 2035 will be replaced by renewables, as the target for renewables has increased to 32,000MW.

In the 13 years leading up to 2035, we must ask how renewables will be used to create base load and what must be done immediately to ensure this capacity is created. The chosen option is to shut down all coal-fired power plants, with no new coal-fired plants ever being constructed in South Africa. Is this the best course of action for a nation with an abundance of inexpensive coal? Have we investigated whether there is a cheaper and cleaner alternative to renewable energy?

It is important to note that the estimated cost of decommissioning a power plant at 2020 prices is approximately R20 billion ($1.3 billion) per site. It is estimated that it would cost R377 billion ($25 billion) to shut down all of Eskom’s coal-fired power plants.

South Africa contributes only 1.09% of global emissions.  We do not dismiss this because South Africa is the 15th most polluting country, accounting for 390 million tonnes of CO2 emissions. However, as of 2020, South Africa’s CO2 emissions per capita were 6.9, significantly lower than those of Germany (7.7), China (8.2), Japan (8.4), the United States (13.7), Australia (15.2), and Saudi Arabia (17). Some countries outperform South Africa in terms of per capita emissions, including Italy (5.9), the United Kingdom (5.5), India (1.9), and Indonesia 2.3.

You will notice that I mentioned India and Indonesia as key coal-dependent countries in terms of electricity generation. An astounding case study of how India has used Emissions Abatement Technologies over the last 5 years by simply attaching the technology to existing generation power units is available. This means that you can rely on coal while emitting less CO2.

This leads one to the conclusion that there is a lack of critical discourse in South Africa regarding the availability of clean coal technology with low emissions that is undergoing final testing and could reduce CO2 emissions by up to 80%. This would reduce South Africa’s CO2 emissions from 1,000 per kilowatt-hour to 200 per kilowatt-hour. If this can be achieved, coal will be a less harmful fossil fuel and we will be immediately in line with global climate goals.

South Africa has vast coal reserves that are more affordable than any other energy source. In our current context, where plant unavailability at Eskom has caused untold suffering due to load shedding, the only credible way to end load shedding is to retrofit existing generation plants (the current Eskom fleet) with emission abatement technology, while pursuing renewables as part of the energy mix objective. There must be an effective balance between renewable and conventional energy generation technologies, as both play important roles.

Existing generation plant retrofitting accomplishes two goals: a) It restores and extends the life of the current fleet at optimal cost and shortest lead time.

b) It reduces CO2 emissions by as much as 80%. This would reduce annual emissions to 270 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2027.

Whereas we require R377 billion to shut down our coal-fired power plant, we should not accept R130 billion to never construct new coal plants as part of the so-called “Just Transition.” The current approach will result in an R247 billion black hole for the country, as we will only receive a pitiful $8.5 billion even though the actual cost to discontinue the use of coal to generate electricity would exceed $25 billion.

The case of Ghana’s energy transformation, in which they introduced renewables too quickly, resulted in a complete shutdown of the national power supply, and load shedding has continued unabated since then.  Regardless, should South Africa even consider shutting down its coal-fired power plants when there is now emission abatement technology that will allow us to meet global climate goals? We don’t have to reinvent the wheel; India has already done so remarkably well!

Is it necessary for South Africa to appease G7 members at the expense of developing its coal resources? Due to the inexpensive coal inputs utilised in the generation process, Eskom was for many years both a world-class and the most cost-effective power utility in the world. Is it not noble, given the new technologies available, to continue using coal and insist on clean coal so that emissions can be drastically reduced?

The solution involves converting existing power plants to clean fossil fuel plants, extending their life cycle, and ensuring that Eskom pays off its debt and participates in an ownership model for repurposed assets moving forward.

Our current challenge should be to ensure that coal-based emissions abatement technology is adopted as a sustainable and cost-effective solution to ensure that South Africa’s natural coal resources are exploited for the benefit of its citizens.

Siyabonga Gama writes in his personal capacity.