Theunissen Andrews
Cape Town - Last year Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe commented that objections to oil and gas developments in the name of environmental protection could be construed “as apartheid and colonialism of a special type”.
Some may have perceived his comments as abrasive or heavy handed, but they certainly did make one step back and think.
South Africa is an extraordinary country with many laudable developments and accomplishments, including a progressive Constitution and an independent legal system that provides individuals with the ability to push back against government decision-making.
However, when it comes to the scale and severity of the energy security crisis in modern-day SA, bowing to the objections of those who seek to act against government objectives or processes has exacerbated an issue into an emergency.
We all acknowledge that mitigating factors like the environment and climate change are important long term, but they must be balanced objectively against current realities regarding energy poverty, high unemployment, and an anaemic economic-growth trajectory.
We want the cleanest energy pragmatically possible. However, we cannot ignore that while clean energy in the form of wind and solar are available at a commercial scale, on their own, they cannot provide continuous dispatchable electricity (power on demand).
Other technologies like hydrogen and battery storage, while progressing quickly, have also not yet reached a maturity that makes them fit for purpose today.
Therefore, making any decision in this context becomes difficult and highly contentious, especially when people find themselves in different camps on specific issues.
Don’t get me wrong, keeping the government and companies on their toes to ensure that people and the environment are properly considered is vitally important in any society.
On the other hand, ensuring people can sustain themselves in a country with a viable economic future is critical too. Neither issue should come at the cost of the other, nor are they mutually exclusive.
No business seeking growth, especially on a global scale, can participate in a local environment and not weigh its contribution to the aforementioned factors.
Seeking profits over the environment, a strong contribution to socio-economic development and local participation would be short sighted.
Karpowership takes these responsibilities very seriously and while the company may have its detractors in South Africa, who have by and large not bothered to really understand what the company offers, those who take the time to look closer will be pleasantly surprised.
They will note that, among other factors, it offers a cleaner energy alternative that complements renewables and contributes to meeting national energy security ambitions.
It is increasingly playing this role in middle-income countries such as Brazil, New Caledonia and Ivory Coast, where Karpowership as part of a competitive process, won bids this year to provide gas to power solutions.
While it is clear that cleaner energy solutions are a priority, what is also evident is that the energy transition means different things not only between countries, but within countries too – especially along economic and income lines.
At the heart of the disconnect is a lack of platforms for dialogue to understand, in a constructive manner, the different positions held by civil society at large, business and government to align on how a realistic, sustainable future should look.
What is universally accepted though, is that no one wants load shedding to continue as it is killing our economy and our confidence.
For more than 10 years hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost due to load shedding, and this has resulted in the collapse of South Africa’s small business sector.
Healthcare, water and education services that sustain our social fabric are also threatened.
According to a Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) report in August, 2021 South Africa experienced load shedding for 650 hours (15% of the time) in the first half of 2021 – equivalent to 76% of the total load shedding experienced during 2020.
The decline in energy supply correlates with the country losing about R75 billion in GDP in a calendar year.
On the other hand, global ratings agencies have been very clear that fast-tracking economic recovery requires stabilising the energy grid.
Turning around a country’s energy system is no small feat nor can it happen overnight, especially in an environment where there are divergent views on how to get there.
However, the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) has carefully and pragmatically set out to develop adequate generation capacity that can meet demand under both the current low-growth economic environment, and even when the economy turns and improves to the level of 4% growth per annum.
Despite its best efforts, it seems likely that Eskom will continue to flounder without a broad compact between government, business, and society.
Reaching consensus on how to urgently increase power supply and provide Eskom with the necessary breathing space to institute the structural reforms needed for its long-term sustainability requires grid stability.
An impressive example of the impact of a stable grid is in Egypt’s recent completion of a megaproject, including three 4 800MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plants and 12 wind farms, adding 14 400MW to the Egyptian grid in only 27.5 months.
There are three important lessons to glean from the Egyptian case: coherent leadership, the need to combine gas with renewables and for putting the people and economy ahead of all else.
South Africa’s economic future is intrinsically linked at this stage to the long-term viability of Eskom and the urgent addition of more MWs to our grid.
The success of our energy system will be the success of South Africa’s economy too.
Andrews is the secretary of the West Coast Black Business Alliance and a councillor in the West Coast District Municipality
Cape Times