Isra-Mart srl:PHILIP LLOYD: Carbon footprint

www.isra-mart.com

Isra-Mart srl news:

THERE is a sound of thunder close at hand. It is the hordes of salesmen, pouring into SA in search of a Holy Grail called Renewable Energy. At Cancun, in Mexico, there has been a meeting in terms of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The meeting has decreed that, in the near future, 100bn will be made available each year to help developing countries mitigate against and adapt to climate change.

The salesmen have been drawn to SA because our government, with the best intentions in the world, has announced that it wants to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by between 30% and 40% over the next decade or so. Reduce greenhouse gases — what better than by renewable energy? Willing customer, rabid salesmen, and 100b n a year — that’s a potent brew!

Any examination of this mania must soon come up against reality. Today, most of the world’s energy is not renewable. Roughly three-quarters comes from fossil fuels in one form or another. Nuclear and hydropower make up about 10% each. Renewables other than hydropower make up the remaining 5%, much of which is fuel wood used by the poor. So when you hear that the renewables industry is the fastest growing industry in the world, it helps to realise that, if you start small, you can indeed grow rapidly.

Just consider this: 85% of the energy we use is nonrenewable. We have invested the funds to build the plant to produce all that energy. We have established the infrastructure to get fuel to and power from all that plant. We have set up the factories to make spare parts, and training courses to provide skilled technicians to operate and maintain all that plant. Trillions of dollars have been spent on, and millions of skilled jobs depend on, nonrenewable energy. Can it be wished away overnight? Of course not — unless there is a strong desire to commit economic suicide. Energy and the creation of wealth are inextricably linked. When we ran out of coal in early 2008, and ran out of power as a result, every little blackout dropped the national product significantly.

So why is there this enthusiasm for renewable energy?

The government argues that we are one of the great polluting nations of the world, and must mend our ways if our trade is not to be affected. Renewable energy could reduce our carbon footprint, and so save us from sanctions.

Is this valid?

It is true that our carbon emissions are the 19th-largest in the world, whereas our economy is 29th, so we appear to be emitting more than necessary. However, the average nation gets close to equal amounts of energy from coal, oil and gas, and we have no oil or gas. Suppose that, instead of relying as heavily as we do on coal, we could have coal, oil and gas in equal quantities like our peers. Our energy emissions would drop from just over 300 megatons of carbon dioxide to about 230. That would move us from 19th to 27th on the list of carbon emitters, and there would be no cause for guilt.

Should we feel guilty and be moved to reduce our emissions just because we have not been as blessed as other nations? Of course not! Our people enjoy cheap power. Indeed, one of the prime objectives of the government’s energy policy is affordable power. Since 1998, when the policy was adopted, there has been excellent progress in making electricity more available. More than 80% of households now have access to electricity. But it is still not affordable. About half of all homes still cook using other sources of energy, and 70% use other sources for heating.

The health effects from indoor air pollution are very large, and there are other effects as well. Thousands of homes are destroyed annually because the poor cannot afford safe fuels. We have become quite blasé about “shack fires”, yet hardly a week goes by without a report of hundreds burning.

This is an environmental disgrace of the first magnitude. Our constitution says: “Everyone has the right … to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing.” Yet several million of our citizens do not enjoy this right, because they do not have the means to afford it. The 50kWh of free basic electricity is insufficient for their needs. We have invested billions in making sure they have access — and that is going to waste because we are doing little to make safety affordable.

Matters are made worse by the increases in the price of electricity that the National Energy Regulator of SA (Nersa) has finally granted Eskom. Finally, because in the first few years of this past decade Nersa used the affordability argument to keep the price increase well below inflation, for a few years we had the cheapest electricity in the world. This had the effect that, although the government did all in its power to bring independent power producers into the picture, none was interested — who would wish to compete against the lowest-cost producer?

Now electricity is moving into a more realistic price range. Independent power producers are popping up, and Eskom is able to afford the investments needed to ensure the growing demand is met.

What has all this to do with renewables? First , all the renewables (except landfill gas, but there is not much of that) cost much more than coal-fired power. If you don’t believe that, go and read the Nersa tariffs. Wind power doesn’t cost 25% more than current Eskom power, it costs 250% more — and that’s the next-cheapest renewable option. Those braying for renewable energy are remarkably silent about its effect on the poor.

Secondly, the rationale for introducing renewables is to reduce our carbon emissions. Nobody seems to be questioning why we should. It seems to be taken for granted that a low-carbon future is inevitable. However, all the discussions of the world leaders, first at Copenhagen and, more recently, at Cancun, have not shown anything more than lip service to the concept. Yes, there has been an agreement to pay huge sums of money to developing countries to help them offset the perceived disadvantage of climate change, but nobody has actually agreed to pay the money. No one has a clue whether it will ever be paid.

We must also consider that China’s annual increase in carbon emissions is about equal to our total emissions.

Similarly, the US could reduce its footprint by 4%, and it would have the same effect as our ceasing to use fossil fuels altogether.

So yes, it might be nice to reduce our carbon emissions from 2020 onwards, as the Department of Environment envisions in its green paper — but why should we do something if it is merely nice? Any reduction we may make will affect the world’s carbon balance hardly one iota, and is likely to cost the country heavily.

We should wait until we see the Cancun money flowing before we make deep inroads into our emissions. It would be folly to undertake emission reductions for ourselves. The potential donors would then ask why they had to give, if we could do it without help.

Renewable energy seems to be a useful tool for reducing carbon emissions, but it is costly, and we have a large population who cannot benefit from the power already available to them. What better excuse for holding out our begging bowl — and for holding off the hordes of renewable energy salesmen who have descended on us?