News24

Eskom key reason SA is big polluter

2011-11-24 23:14

Johannesburg - The coal-powered national electricity company is frank about its role in making South Africa the continent's worst contributor to global warming, but Eskom says it also has plans and pledges in place to ensure it does its part to save the world.

The state-owned utility company's actions and decisions can ripple across the continent. Eskom is Africa's biggest power utility, accounting for more than 60% of all the electricity generated on the continent, according to the World Bank. It also exports across southern Africa.

Critics and even supporters say Eskom should have started its move toward renewable sources of energy earlier, and now needs to set its ambitions higher.

South Africa emits more global warming gases than any other country on the continent and is the 13th largest emitter in the world, according to US government analysis.

The independent Carbon Disclosure Project, which tracks climate change information, says emissions from electricity generation - almost solely from Eskom - accounted for 45% of South Africa's emissions last year.

"Why do we emit so much?" said Steve Lennon, a top Eskom executive. "It's because we are 90% dependent on coal."

"That's an uncomfortable position for us at Eskom," Lennon told The Associated Press.

Coal is cheap and readily available, said Tasneem Essop, a former provincial environment minister in South Africa who will lead the World Wildlife Fund's international team at international climate change talks next week in South Africa.

After scepticism about renewables, she said Eskom "has ramped up ambitions, but we believe that can be strengthened."

Coal 90%

Eskom is determined to increase its use of renewable energy sources like hydro, solar and wind, which now account for less than 5% of electricity generated in South Africa, Lennon said.

The South African government has pledged to get its greenhouse gas emissions to a third less than what could be expected by 2020 if it continued its current usage and growth patterns, and to 42% less than what could be expected by 2025.

The government also has set a goal of doubling its power generating capacity by 2030 to more than 89 000MW. The cheapest way to do that, Lennon said, would be to continue relying on coal. Instead, proposals announced in May call for about 46% of the generating capacity to come from coal and more than 26% from renewable sources such as hydro, wind and solar.

"We'll see just a fundamental shift from a coal-based power sector to one that is a nicely balanced and diversified power sector," Lennon said.

South Africa is increasingly compared to emerging economies with big carbon footprints like China and India. In China, the energy mix includes 80% coal and 7% wind, hydro and solar. In India, it includes just under 55% coal, and about 32% hydro and other renewables.

If China and India are ahead when it comes to renewable energy, South African Environment Minister Edna Molewa said, her country can now benefit from their experience. South Africa has to balance its need to develop with its responsibility to help the world combat global warming, she told AP.

Energy is scarce across Africa, said the World Bank's sustainable development director for the continent, Jamal Saghir. That means not just factories, but schools and hospitals aren't operating at top potential.

Coal will eventually have to be phased out, but it cannot be overlooked now any more than wind and solar, Saghir said.

Development loans

When it comes to renewable energy, "should we do more? Yes. Should we be more ambitious? Yes," Saghir said. He said the South African government and Eskom are headed in that direction.

In September, Eskom and the African Development Bank signed agreements for a total of $365m in loans for Eskom's first large-scale renewable wind and solar projects. A month later, the World Bank weighed in with $250m more in funding for those cutting edge renewable projects.

Eskom expects to start building the wind farm next year. It may take two or three more years of planning and design work before it can start building the solar plant.

Now, the company is building two new coal-fired plants. The Medupi plant is to be completed by 2015 and the Kusile plant by 2016. Eskom also has brought a coal-fired power station back into service, and two other stations that had been closed will soon be producing power again.

South Africa has severe power problems that came to a head in 2008, when shortages led to frequent and widespread blackouts that angered consumers and worried investors. The government fears supplies will be tight for the next few years.

The World Bank was so concerned, in 2010 it approved a $3.75bn loan to help South Africa finish Medupi, despite opposition from environmental groups. While most of the loan, $3.05bn, was for Medupi, wind and solar power projects were allocated $475m of the total.

The World Bank's Saghir said the loan was made to help address threats to recovery and development across southern Africa.

Melita Steele, a climate change expert in South Africa with the Greenpeace environmental activist group, said the international community should stop funding any coal projects.

"You can just invest in renewables," she said.

Talk is cheap


The power crisis sharpened focus on energy efficiency. Consumers from small households to big mines are being encouraged to switch to energy efficient light bulbs and set goals for reducing consumption.

A programme to encourage home owners to switch to solar water heaters by subsidising the costs of the units started off slowly, with just 50 000 installed in three years. Lennon said he believes the government-set target of 1 million by 2015 can still be met.

At Eskom itself, solar panels began powering offices at three coal power plants this month.

The fact that there are more blueprints than actual projects is frustrating for Greenpeace's Steele.

"All we can see at this moment is talk," said Steele. Coal would not be considered cheap if the costs of global warming, pollution and other factors were included in its tally, she said.

"Talk is cheap. Coal is expensive."

Comments
  • daneel.uys - 2011-11-25 07:37

    Nuclear energy is the future! People need electricity,solar and wind will not generate enough!

      Sheik - 2011-11-25 08:05

      I agree Nuclear energy is the only way.

  • swavka - 2011-11-25 07:58

    SA will always generate electricity from coal for the simple reason that Chancellor House has a lot invested in coal mines all over the southern continent, so they a generating big time revenue. Do you really think that they actually give two s*its about greenhouse gases/climate change etc, not if there is money concerned and you are talking big money. Whoever said coal is cheap is talking from yesteryear as electricity in SA is the most expensive in the world. And it certainly doesn't seem to be coming down - if electricity is coming down all ESKOM does is shut down a few stations say it is Maintenance and it will take oh about 6 months which brings us to winter when more electricity is needed. Clever actually! But they will also stipulate an increase which is more of a burden on the consumer, oh and please don't forget the increases and bonuses of up to 99% - someone has to pay for those.

  • lsluen - 2011-11-25 08:39

    Nuclear energy will NEVER solve our energy needs - simply because of the amount of critically dangerous toxic waste it produce. Waste that has to be stored for THOUSANDS of years!!! Wave, gas, wind, solar - these are all available renewable resources.

      daneel.uys - 2011-11-25 08:48

      why can't we just dump it in outer space?

      Getafix - 2011-11-26 00:58

      radioactive waste that can be reprocessed in 15 years time with new technology, and the quantity is way less than the ashes and soot pumped into the air by coal. 1 ton radiactive waste or 1500 tons ashes dust gas air etc. I say Nuclear.

  • Eric - 2011-11-25 11:53

    Pretty obvious that (1) SA needs energy and will need much more in future (2) Eskom's coal-fired plants are the single biggest source of pollution and CO2 (3) Wind, solar, wave, etc. will never be able to produce anything like enough energy - even for our current needs and even if we cover the whole country with panels, windmills and so on (4) The longer we wait, the worse pollution will become together with regular outages and restrictions on economic activity = increased unemployment = increased social instability (5) nuclear power is the only sensible and feasible solution.

  • pages:
  • 1