Eskom and the Africa factor

Why does South Africa allow itself to fall behind so quickly in a race that has hardly begun? For a country that has been at the forefront of innovations as diverse as automatic swimming pool cleaners, human heart transplants and oil-from-coal technology, there has been remarkable inertia in adoption of regulations, standards and incentives to encourage improved sustainability performance.

South Africa is still developing new technologies, including a breakthrough PV solar panel, but they tend to fall into the hands of countries that are more supportive of efforts to convert innovations into practical solutions. Many of South Africa's technological developments in the past were driven by the necessity of overcoming economic isolation, and now there is strong incentive for producing renewable energy and improving efficiencies of energy use. But we haven't grasped the opportunity. Even if climate change weren't a driving force, there just isn't enough electricity to keep the economy humming, and there is no prospect of a major new power station coming online before 2011, so we should be innovating like crazy.

Eskom's current strategy relies on medium-term needs being met by returning mothballed stations back to service, building a couple of expensive gas turbines and hoping that some co-generation projects pop up from next year. The rest is up to you and me to reduce consumption - which we should be doing, but little is being done to make it easy for us.

You would think that this would be the time to take the road less travelled, to take the lead. The race for sustainability has barely begun, but by the time South Africa gets serious about joining, the road will already be crowded. To illustrate how quickly this is happening, just look north to the UK, where government is so serious about its zero carbon homes agenda that the public debates are not about if it should happen, but about how quickly it can be achieved. Look no further than the Merton Rule to see the subtleties of the debate, which focus on whether on-site renewable energy should be required on all new developments, or only on some new developments.

Back in the land of perpetual sunshine, on-site power generation isn't even a consideration for residential or commercial buildings. The Department of Minerals and Energy's National Response to South Africa's Electricity Shortage, issued in January 2008, talks about a short-term power conservation programme that will:

• apply electricity quotas for households based on 10% reduction from current consumption,
• eliminate incandescent light bulbs from all 10 million electrified households in the country (a saving of 750 MW by 2015),
• install 1 million solar water heaters over the next three years with a subsidy of 20 to 30% (a saving of 650 MW if they can find that many water heaters), and
• update housing codes to require use of load management switches to ensure that a household's electric water heater and electric stove are not on at the same time, and improving insulation.

Nothing suggesting micro-generation of power in that list, or indeed anywhere in the national response document. Solar water heaters are of course driven by renewable energy, but that's a mere 1.5% of Eskom's total generating capacity, and the utility needs to reduce demand by about 7% immediately in order to restore a healthy reserve margin of 15% between supply and demand. Three years from now, when those 1 million solar heaters have been installed, demand will have grown by another 4,000 MW (3.6% p.a. by Eskom's account), dwarfing the water heater savings.

Eskom's public strategy is about putting the onus on consumers to reduce demand or switch to fuels such as liquid petroleum gas as an alternative to electricity (which does nothing to improve sustainability) but does not put the more powerful tool of micro-generation in the hands of the country's people. Even at a larger scale, only one wind farm is planned (100 MW), and the only mention of electricity from solar power applies to traffic lights (and as I've said before, putting PV panels atop every signalised intersection is a flawed strategy).

The problem with Eskom's strategy - and the Department of Minerals and Energy is party to this - is that it simultaneously asks consumers to do their bit, and limits what they can do. Changing lightbulbs and installing energy-efficient appliances and running remote-control smart meters to limit consumption can only go so far. Lifestyles in South Africa and around the world do need to change, but Eskom seems unwilling to take the step that would ensure that change is positive and long-lasting.

Giving individuals the ability and encouragement to choose from more options, including micro-generation, could achieve a far wider range of benefits than simply easing the short-term power shortage. It could leverage the strength of community to make choices, it could provide employment in a wider range of energy technologies, and it could encourage innovative partnerships of all types and sizes. And with realistic energy prices, we could gradually increase the proportion of power generated from renewable sources through the choices of individuals.

Yesterday Eskom placed advertisements in newspapers, asking for proposals for projects to generate electricity from any source, renewable or otherwise. But when I read the fine print, my heart sank: only projects generating more than 5 megawatts are eligible. In Eskom's world, 5 MW is small; but no urban homeowner can generate that much electricity. A small wind turbine or rooftop solar panels might typically generate 1 or 2 kilowatts.

If 2 million houses had 2 kW solar or wind systems installed, that would be equivalent to a full-size coal power station. Instead of building Medupi coal station in Limpopo for R78 billion, which will only start generating in 2011 and reach full capacity four years later, Eskom could pay the entire costs of installing 2 million household systems at R39,000 each. Of course, this is an over-simplification. In reality, solar and wind systems don't generate power all the time, and there may not even be 2 million houses that are suitable sites for these systems - but it is also true that Eskom would not pay the full installation costs. If they paid a 50% subsidy they could spend the other R39 billion on an initiative of their own that could address the shortfall from the household systems.

I really don't know if the Eskom management team genuinely doesn't believe in micro-generation, is determined to maintain its control over the power system, or is simply afraid of the unknown. There is no doubt that under the scenario I have just described, the energy distribution system would be transformed into a completely new beast, and there would be serious challenges to address. But is it impossible? I doubt it. Balancing supply and demand is one of the key challenges for an electricity utility, and a system with millions of producers sounds like a nightmare. But technical solutions have been proposed for just such a scenario, and it will start happening soon in other countries. Again, we are simply behind the pack instead of leading.

So why isn't South Africa showing innovative leadership? The Africa factor.

I am not an afro-pessimist. There are plenty of people who cite corruption and greed as the seeds of post-colonial failure on this continent, and these are certainly challenges, but a serious constraint that is rarely discussed is lack of confidence. The Africa factor is the continent's failure to recognise its own worth. Perhaps its people have been cowed by colonialism and missionaries and World Bank aid, but it's time to stand tall. Africa has never been a dominant economic force on the world stage (unlike China, which is now entering its second era of dominance), but the continent has much to offer.

Africa's value lies not just in the wealth of minerals and other commodities, but more significantly in the less visible things, like its ability to innovate under stress; its sense of community; and its historic connectedness with the land, which engenders a sense of responsible stewardship. Africa knows about pre-industrial sustainability, and it's still in evidence. We just need to stop and look. And believe that the continent can overcome obstacles, to emerge as a bearer of values that can restore hope in the future.

[Update later the same day:]

By coincidence, an email arrived in my inbox today about a seminar on African Leadership being organised by the Stellenbosch University Business School for 4-5 March in Bryanston. The marketing blurb is worth repeating:

The thrust of [recent seminars, conferences and workshops on African leadership] is to understand and/or discover whether there is something germane to the African condition that is capable of producing a brand or model of leadership that is different, better or more pleasant than the other brands and models that are well known. The reasons for this quest are:

(a) An acknowledgement that the western mode of leadership has not delivered to the needs of humankind, and thus maybe Africa as the cradle of humankind can provide some insights on how to steward humanity forward in the context of globalisation and material power;

(b) The fact that Africa has survived so many disasters and calamities, natural and man-made, suggests that Africa has something inherent within it that the world can learn from, chief among these being the capacity of African leaders to forgive and forget, which is part of the Ubuntu spirit of individual wellness that is dependent upon the well-being of the collective;

(c) Something happened in South Africa after 1990 that has astonished the international community in terms of a capacity to create a society that is diverse, yet not in conflict: thus suggesting that there is something in the (South) African make-up that we ought to tap into for all humanity to emulate. At the same time, it is the South Africans themselves who do not appreciate what they offered to the world, and therefore must have.

[Update on 25 February 2008:]

On the topic of Africa's self-confidence, one of the key problems is that Africa has been branded, in the marketing sense. People on other continents have a very clear, if misleading, image of what Africa is, and attempts to "help" the downtrodden just add to that picture. If the rest of the world sees Africa as a victim requiring aid, Africa will surely see itself in that same light. Carina Ray writes in this month's edition of New African [article not available online] about the dangers of 'brand aid' and the need to galvanise awareness of challenges and raise funds "without stigmatising Africa as a dependent and disease-ridden continent".

How might this be done? Start simple: render Africa visible, and highlight the strong sense of selflessness and self-responsibility that exists amongst Africans. Instead of solely featuring Hollywood celebrities in the next (RED) advertising campaign, also include the heroes and heroines of Africa who work tirelessly and often at great cost to themselves to improve conditions in every corner of the continent. People like Awatif Ahmen Isshag and Patrick Chamusso.

Isshag, now in her mid-20s, has published her own newspaper in the town of El Fasher in Darfur since the age of 14. For the last four years, her critical reportage has been the only independent local coverage of the violence in Darfur. Chamusso, after being released from prison for his involvement in the anti-apartheid struggle, built a home in South Africa for Aids orphans, which today houses over 80 children. Now that's inspi(RED)!

I started this post writing about technological development and energy. In those areas, too, Africa needs to become visible. There are stories about how Brazil has led the world in developing biofuels, how Cuba harnessed the power of community to overcome its own oil crisis, and how Curitiba and other South American cities have transformed their public transportation systems into models that other countries seek to emulate. Where are the stories of what Africa has done?