Implement fund for green power promptly

THE major complication for developing countries reliant on coal-fuelled power stations for energy and wishing to go greener is the huge sums needed to build non-coal power stations, and preferably stations that use renewable energy and so have a zero carbon footprint, at least once they are built.

While hydro, solar and wind might have no carbon emissions, and perhaps equally importantly low operating costs since there are no fuel bills, the capital investment is huge and generally a lot higher for each megawatt of installed generating capacity than the standard coal station, especially if you are one of those countries with plenty of local coal that can be mined in open cast pits.

An additional cost arises from the need for supply security. Solar panels do not generate at night and have reduced output on cloudy days and even in winter, when the sun is lower in the sky, and wind turbines need the wind and are less useful when wind speeds drop to breeze levels.

So a significant fraction of the output needs to be stored, so it can be used 24/7.

There are several solutions for storage, all of which work, but all of which cost a lot of money to set up, so the investment continues to rise. Batteries are now a technical option, but we are talking about large banks storing megawatt hours, not something you can slip into a phone or even a large electric-powered truck or bus.

A solution used by some countries without decent hydro capacity, but with a suitable mountain is to build a pump and hydro station. This requires the construction of two reservoirs, one at the bottom of the mountain and one near the top.

When power on the grid is in surplus you pump water into the upper reservoir and when you need extra you let this flow down through turbines and generate electricity.

The investment can be reduced significantly since the motors that drive the pumps and the generators driven by the turbines can be the same machines, they just spin in the opposite direction when the function changes.

But you still need to invest a lot of money to set it up, since the pumps and turbines can only be used for flow in a specific direction and in any case the high-quality motors cum generators are not cheap.

A third solution, technically possible, but not yet developed on a large scale, is to use the surplus power to run electrolysis on water, and then store the hydrogen, two thirds of the gas output, in large tanks.

The hydrogen then fuels a gas power station, which is proven technology with modest modifications when you switch from methane to hydrogen.

But again such stations and safe hydrogen storage do not come cheap, although promoters of this option reckon it will be cheapest once properly developed. But the catch is you still need two power stations, one producing the renewable energy and one burning the hydrogen.

South Africa, the continent’s largest generator and user of electricity, is almost reliant on coal. There is a nuclear station, again an expensive option, a small input from gas, some imported hydro from Mozambique, and even one of those dual reservoir hydro stations in the Drakensberg.

But the coal stations pump out 45 percent of South Africa’s large carbon emissions, the 13th highest in the world.

Eskom has done the sums. It needs, in round figures, US$60 billion to replace its coal stations, more than 17 percent of its gross national product. And, in any case, South Africa needs to add new power stations fairly frequently since although it is well developed by African standards, it has a long way to go before all houses are connected to the grid and the required new industries are developed to provide the decent jobs that must be created.

So the promises of that huge global fund religiously made at the climate COP meetings, and even included in global climate treaties, for developing countries is critical.

South Africa is a good example because it has just become the recipient of the major fund, the Climate Investment Funds, an affiliate of the World Bank.

To be precise it is getting US$500 million in concessionary finance to start replacing coal, and while that looks like serious money, it is a little over 0,8 percent of the US$60 billion it actually needs.

It is not even one percent of what is required. And that shows the scale of the problem and the paucity of the response.

South Africa has its own resources to add to its generating capacity, although the capital investment is higher than coal if non-coal sources are used, but operating costs, mainly maintenance and regular replacement of solar panels or wind turbines, are lower so done carefully, the savings in operating costs can be allied to providing finance for the next station, but replacing Africa’s largest investment in coal needs global finance.

For a country like Zimbabwe the problem is even greater. We know our present capacity is too low, and even with the large investment being made by the Second Republic into new capacity and rebuilding old capacity, we are having to run very fast just to keep up with the growing demand for an expanding economy and an expanding quality of life.

This, coupled with the huge gap in investment requirements between new coal stations and new solar stations or hydro stations, is the reason why President Mnangagwa has made it clear that Zimbabwe must use coal, unless of course that gap can be largely filled with inflows from global funds.

Since what will soon be our largest station, and our main station for base load, once the extensions are commissioned over the next few months, Hwange Thermal is still our only seriously large thermal station, replacement is not necessarily a priority.

Our next stations, if we are to use renewables, will require more than we can afford. We could expand our grid rapidly on renewables, but we need the extra cash. Zesa consumers cannot pay the extra if the extra is to be mean anything. So those global financial commitments have to be met.

Of course Zimbabwe has an additional problem. It makes a lot of sense to channel the global cash through the World Bank, since this makes sure everything is above board and well used.

Zimbabwe, under those stringent financial sanctions, is effectively barred from World Bank and most other finance. So we suffer doubly: we cannot even access the little that is available.

The problem that must be generally addressed is to ensure that the developing world can grow economically, and that means that at least the finance capital gap between coal and renewables is met, as well as looking at replacement as time goes on.

And in Zimbabwe’s particular case the finance when it does flow, must be accessible.