Further to Mark Swilling’s excellent article on the energy transition, a few further key issues are worth noting. 

First, our energy authorities sorely need an updated mindset. Future energy supply is far less about huge, isolated power stations and much more about smaller, regionally organised energy networks using a wide variety of sources. Those sources should be mostly renewable, although in many countries including South Africa some fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) will inevitably be part of the picture for some decades. I have argued previously in Daily Maverick against the exaggerated focus on “base load energy”. 

This is a common argument from the coal lobby, partly due to concerns about job losses (and easy opportunities for corruption?) in that industry. The same outdated mindset applies to nuclear power, which apart from being one of the most expensive options, of necessity involves large and very complex units. It can also be seen in huge, very problematic projects such as Kusile/Medupi. It should also be remembered that modern coal mines, nuclear and similar industries use more and more automation, including robots, and require steadily fewer workers.

Second, there is broad consensus globally that future energy planning is only partly about providing new energy supplies, but just as much about reducing demand: not only through steadily increasing efficiencies but also through behavioural changes. This receives far less focus in current policymaking in South Africa. The potential for reducing energy needs — what is called “energy descent” — is colossal, and as I always remind people, the only totally free and reliable energy is the kind that you don’t need at all.  

Hence, what is still lacking in South Africa is far more focus on energy saving and energy efficiency (which are not the same thing). These are, in many cases, far cheaper than building new energy supplies, and also often create far more jobs. It is surprising that trade unions seldom seem to prioritise this point. In addition, the kinds of jobs required for both renewables and energy efficiency are often spread out regionally. Biomass in particular is a potential energy source which offers thousands of unskilled jobs in rural areas. Consider also key tasks such as insulating houses, which is needed all over the country, as opposed to a large industry located in just one coal area. 

That said, it is obvious that those at the bottom of the pyramid — in our case, the majority of the population — need access to more, not less, energy: for lighting, heating, cooking, transport… everything. But it is extremely important that those acquiring their first amenities should be enabled to get the energy-efficient options. In quantitative terms, this means raising the energy use of poor people up to about one kilowatt per capita, which is sufficient for good life quality, but only possible with good solutions (such as LED lighting, efficient stoves, etc) while the richer sectors should, and can, reduce their needs from typically around 5-7 kilowatts to 1-2. These scenarios were exhaustively researched and found to be feasible as far back as 1984 in the One Kilowatt per Capita study by four of the world’s leading experts from Brazil, the US, Sweden and India.

As regards middle-class and well-off households, it should be added that an equally good lifestyle and wellbeing are fully possible with only a quarter of today’s energy use. A sustainable life is not about going back to the cave. This has been shown not only in studies but in practice. Among many examples is the Swedish study One Tonne Life which showed that a typical suburban family could cut their use of energy and other resources to one-quarter, with virtually no experience of reduced enjoyment or comfort. This and other inspiring examples can be downloaded in my article Myths and Issues about Sustainable Living published in the international journal Sustainability.

A third issue that receives far less focus than it should is the key role of design in the planning and construction of cities and buildings. Zero-energy buildings are already well known. Sustainable design can greatly reduce the energy that is needed — as well as ensuring more sociable and healthy human settlements. Many cities in hot climates are becoming hotter (the Urban Heat Island effect), with thousands of excess deaths in heatwave periods. This is largely due to the way cities have been designed. 

The pandemic has also greatly increased international debate about how to design healthy cities. Yet, recent settlements for the poor often seem to be designed like nothing better than rows of barracks without thought to local climate, energy use, variety, proximity to jobs, future amenities or public spaces.

A wealth of wisdom about working with nature to create a favourable microclimate is to be found in the layout of traditional towns all over the world and in all climates. On the other hand, some visionary “eco-city” proposals, such as we see in glossy presentations from the oil-rich Middle East, the US or China are very heavily based on technology and would be so expensive as to be completely unrealistic as models for less rich countries.

A fourth important point is that much of a country’s energy needs are not for electricity at all, but for heat and for transport. Solar water heaters, for example, are far more efficient than photovoltaics (about 50% as compared to 20%) — so both have their place. Efficient firewood cooking stoves can be far cheaper than paraffin or electric cooking — assuming sustainable forestry, of course. 

Electric vehicles are spreading worldwide, with major auto companies planning to cease production of internal combustion engines within 20 years or so — but pose a huge problem in South Africa. This is not least due to long distances and to potential theft of recharging equipment. And electric cars are unthinkable as long as there is load shedding. One doesn’t want to be halfway to Johannesburg when one finds that the petrol station with the electricity charging points is on load shedding. Or needing to rush to a doctor but finding that your home charger has not been working due to load shedding.

Fifth and finally, policymakers need awareness and qualifications to take on the sociological aspects of the coming energy transition. Far from being just technological, as engineers still often think, energy is very much about cultures, habits and consumer behaviour. South Africa has skilled people in the necessary fields. But will they be listened to? Our Great Leaders often seem to see independent experts, civil society and consumer organisations as unwanted irritants who get in the way of top-down decisions. 

The real challenge is to select and deliver socially acceptable solutions, in consultation with communities and in ways that are appropriate to their needs and ways of life. In short — as even the World Bank now stresses — getting solutions actually delivered and used, is much more difficult than the technology itself. In addition to genuine democratic participation, a successful energy transition will need social scientists just as much as engineers. DM