World leaders have reached consensus on the need to go on a carbon diet to combat climate change, and most are acting to reduce their respective greenhouse gas emissions. Global emissions are expected to continue to rise, however, with much of the net increase coming from developing nations that are not subject to the landmark Kyoto Protocol agreement.

While G-8 nations may want developing countries to follow their lead in pledging to cut emissions within the next decade, the distinctive energy environments in South Africa and other growing nations make it much more challenging to make similar commitments.

Like its developing counterparts of China and India, South Africa, from where I recently returned after a 10-day tour, wants a first world standard of living, and therefore a first-class power grid that encompasses the entire nation. Unlike the U.S.' patchwork of utilities, South Africa has one major utility, Eskom, that is wholly-owned by the government.

You might think that having a single entity providing more than 95 percent of its power would make it easy for a nation to transition to renewable power and to introduce energy-efficient technologies. However, the economics of cheap energy from coal, a lack of competition, and government inaction are impeding South Africa's desire to cut carbon emissions.

Eskom is expanding service to many of South Africa's rural communities that have little to no power for homes. According to a 2006 report by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 41.9 percent of South African households were "unelectrified" in 2001.

The utility is having trouble meeting existing demand, which has been increasing by approximately 3 percent per year. Providing power to new customers, many which are great distances from the coal-rich areas where power is produced, requires not only more coal power plants, but also significant investments in transmission infrastructure to reach them.

In January 2008, Eskom resorted to rolling blackouts because it could not produce enough power. "We effectively shut down the South African economy because of concerns about a national blackout," said Steve Lennon, Eskom's managing director of corporate services.

Keeping the power on and affordable for the industries that are driving South Africa's surging economy -- gold, diamond, and platinum mining, telecommunications and auto manufacturing -- is a federal priority, even if it means further tapping into the nation's abundant coal reserves. To meet the expected demand, Eskom is building additional coal power plants and bringing shuttered plants back online.

More than 90 percent of South Africa's electricity comes from coal, and that energy mix (which includes one nuclear power plant) is highly unlikely to change anytime soon. The country has among the cheapest energy in the world, with customers paying about one-fifth as much as those in developed nations, and the government has no intention of derailing the country's hard fought economic progress by substantially raising the cost of power.

However, keeping the price low, and therefore limiting Eskom's revenue stream, means there's less money to invest in clean energy projects.

Even with the rapid advancements in energy efficiency and recent mass production of wind and solar power components, renewables can't come close to competing with coal's average price of 2 cents per kilowatt hour, according to Lennon.

Only a hefty carbon tax could help to tilt the playing field towards clean energy. The South African government is taking its first steps in that direction, as Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk announced a "small" carbon tax this summer that would likely begin in early 2009 and increase in size over time.

The South African government is also expected to pass feed-in tariff legislation in 2009 that would pay producers of renewable energy an incentive for delivering power to the grid. While Eskom will receive wind and solar power from these "independent power producers," the company is not likely to develop its own wind or solar farms in the immediate future, according to Lennon. He does not believe in subsidies, saying that clean power needs to "stand on its own two feet" and only be undertaken when it is cost-competitive with coal power. Lennon expects several years of lag between when the feed-in tariffs are passed and when any renewable resources go online.

First Steps Towards Improving Sustainability

Because of South Africa's continued industrialization and expansion of residential electrification, Eskom expects to double power production by 2025, which because of the country's use of coal, makes a reduction in carbon emissions impossible. After that time, Eskom, which is among the top 20 entities in greenhouse gas emissions, expects to slowly start reducing emissions, according to environmental manager Dave Lucas. For now the focus is on reducing demand and the carbon intensity of electricity generation, he said.

However, South Africa has a relatively modest carbon footprint compared to developed nations, according to data from the United Nations. The country ranks 41st in the world in per capita CO2 emissions, with less than half (9.19 metric tons per year) the output of the U.S. However, its reliance on coal for both electricity and transportation (through coal to liquids fuel that powers a majority of vehicles) places the country well ahead of China (91st) and India (133rd).

Eskom, which has more than 500 people working in its climate change group, is working to clean up its coal operations and to change customer behavior to be more energy efficient. Lucas said the company can shave off about 3000 megawatts of demand by 2011 by working with customers.

Instead of preemptory climate change tactics that would begin to reduce emissions by phasing in renewable energy, Eskom and the government are focusing on "long term mitigation strategies" to prepare for the anticipated fluctuations in temperature and water availability in areas that are often starved of precipitation.

While richer nations are aggressively building renewable energy plants despite the higher cost, in South Africa, the coal economy will likely give way to a nuclear era, according to Lucas. As cheap coal reserves dwindle in future years, Eskom anticipates expanding its nuclear power program as a "carbon-free" alternative. Eskom recently put on hold plans to build a nuclear reactor because of the global financial situation, but that is expected to be a short term delay.

Barry Macoll, Eskom's technology manager, said his personal opinion is that the country will be powered "by coal for the next 50 years, then by nuclear for 50 years, and then switch to renewables."

Therefore, with Eskom and the South African government's philosophy of maintaining cheap electricity rates and the need for clean power to be cost-competitive, it is not surprising that Eskom has no wind or solar plants delivering electricity to the national grid. Its functioning renewable power assets are limited to hydro-power plants, which currently provide less than 2 percent of its overall electricity.

Eskom is taking its first steps towards a goal of building up to 1,600 MW of renewable power by 2025. South Africa currently has just two small wind farms -- an Eskom pilot plant of three wind turbines totaling 3 MW in Klipheuvel in the Western Cape, and a privately run 5 MW wind farm in Darling.

However, ample wind resources are available to South Africa. A 2003 study concluded that up to 5,000 MW of wind energy could be added to the national grid, and rural and small off-grid wind farms could add up to another 27,000 MW of power.

Eskom is currently studying the feasibility of installing a pilot 100 MW concentrating solar power (CSP) plant in the Northern Cape Province. The company is preparing an environmental impact study for the plant, which would use a series of heliostat mirrors to focus solar energy on a central tower, which transfers the heat to molten salt that is used to create steam to power a turbine. The CSP plant could be in operation by 2012.

Another as yet untapped renewable resource in South Africa is geothermal power. Lennon said Eskom has not yet "seriously looked at it."

Eskom is more likely to reduce its carbon footprint by increasing the energy efficiency of its coal power operation. The company is hopeful that by burning coal where it lies underground it can cut CO2 emissions by up to 30 percent. Eskom's Lennon said the underground coal gasification technology (UCG) "can revolutionize the way we produce energy around the world."

The UCG process sets fire to coal seams, and uses the escaping gas to power a turbine and produce electricity. This also saves money because it eliminates the steps of mining the coal, bringing it to the surface, and then crushing it before burning it to produce power. Another benefit of UCG is that the fly ash resulting from the burning would also be kept underground, reducing the overall environmental impact.

UCG technology has been tested elsewhere, but Eskom engineers are "perfecting the process," according to Lennon. Safety studies are still underway, but Lennon said the fires can quickly be put out by controlling the flow of oxygen. If all goes well, the plan is to begin an initial UCG project in the city of Majuba with a 1,200 MW capacity.

Going Forward

While action on climate change within the country may be limited so far, both the South African government and Eskom profess urgency in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

Earlier this month government minister van Schalkwy urged world leaders to proceed with combating climate change despite the global financial crisis. Eskom's 2008 annual report highlights the need for reducing carbon emissions, and outlines the plan for gradually reducing the amount of emissions relative to energy output during the next two decades.

Eskom also acknowledges that it has work to do to become a sustainable organization. An independent study of corporate sustainability for 2008 found that Eskom failed in all four areas of evaluation (technical, economic, environmental, and social) with the scores falling across the board relative to 2007.

South Africa may have good intentions for becoming more sustainable as it modernizes, but the internal economic forces and a lack of impetus to immediately embrace renewables indicates there will be no significant shift in energy policy in the coming years. Developed nations shouldn't expect South Africa to reduce its carbon footprint, unless they provide significant financial resources (such as investing in wind and solar IPP projects), or unless they can exert sufficient international political pressure.

Read more about South Africa

South Africa's growing economy may be slowing, but its appetite for energy is not. The nation has struggled to keep pace with its need for fuel and power and continues to expand its use of coal –- and therefore its carbon emissions.

According to a new government report, South Africa is now ramping up efforts to at least account for and disclose its CO2 emissions without promising reductions. The country's leading private coal producer also says emissions are on the rise, and is hoping for new technology to offset the continued expansion of coal used for electricity and transportation.

The government of South Africa just released its second Carbon Disclosure Report, which included more than double the amount of participating companies from the prior year. While more companies are beginning to track their carbon emissions and set goals, the data is far from complete, according to the report:

Relatively few companies (23 percent) have disclosed specific, company-wide GHG emissions reduction targets; and most of those companies that have emissions targets have focused on reducing their emissions-intensity, rather than striving for a reduction in absolute emissions. Other South African companies that are expecting an associated cost for carbon emissions to be added in the coming years are starting to track their emissions internally.

South Africa has been slower to address climate change than other nations because of a lack of international obligations to do so, according to the report. While South Africa, signed onto the Kyoto Protocol, as a developing nation, it is not required to set or meet emissions reductions targets.

Energy company Sasol, which participated in the report, issued its own sustainability report this week that stated that greenhouse gas emissions grew from 69.8 to 72.7 million tons during the past year. Sasol is the nation's leading producer of transportation fuel derived from coal (coal to liquids, or CTL). CTL fuel requires three times as much energy to produce than gasoline, losing 40 percent of the energy during the conversion process.

Sasol, one of the world's top emitters of greenhouse gases, is pursuing a new coal to liquids plant, saying it would create jobs and help to ease the country's energy crunch.

Sasol hopes that new technologies will someday help to green its business. The company does not have wind, wave or solar power generation facilities because according to CEO Pat Davies, they are not part of its core competencies.

Coal provides 90 percent of the electricity and one-third of the transportation fuel in South Africa, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

State-run utility Eskom hasn't been able to keep pace with electricity and has resorted to rolling blackouts while it ramps up the construction of new coal plants. South Africa's growing economy has been slowed by the international financial crisis, but the power demand is growing as the nation modernizes.

In addition to its 13 coal plants, Eskom operates two hydropower plants, one nuclear power plant, and a small pilot wind farm.

Image courtesy of Flickr, DanielDVM.

(Matter Network's John Gartner will be touring South Africa and blogging about sustainability initiatives starting on November 29 as part of the Blogging South Africa program. Sign up for the RSS feed here.}

Africa is responsible for only a fraction of carbon emissions, but the continent's governments want to be part of the solution. Those governments, along with investors, are meeting at the Africa Carbon Forum in Senegal this week. The forum was organized by the United Nations and the International Emissions Trading Association, with the goal of matching investors in search of carbon credits with clean-energy projects in developing countries.

There are lists of proposals on the table, such as a wind farm in Senegal and a solar-powered university in Nigeria. These projects may be able to convince investors to become more active in Africa. Several of the countries involved in the forum have struggled to convince investors of their value — infrastructure limitations have made businesses seeking a profit disinclined to invest. However, carbon credits have the potential to prove more valuable than monetary profits, and have different infrastructure needs.

Many African carbon offset projects are still at the planning stage. In an interview with the Otago Daily Times, Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the UN Convention on Climate Change, said, "There are relatively few projects to limit the growth of emissions in Africa. ... An event like this is an opportunity to change things."

Just last Wednesday, the World Bank reported that Africa is ideal for carbon offset projects and has the potential for huge growth. Considering that the carbon-trading markets in South America and Asia are becoming saturated, investors are increasingly more willing to consider opportunities in Africa. Projects planned for Senegal, Ivory Coast and Nigeria have already received a positive reception and there are far more to be considered.

In addition to the opportunity that exists to strengthen African economies with these projects, de Boer made the point that carbon trading provides African countries with an opportunity to meet the continent's increasing demands for energy without contributing to climate change — and without repeating the mistakes that other countries made. "Although Africa is tiny in terms of its contributing to the problem, it can potentially make a huge contribution to the solution," said de Boer.

It does seem like an idea with potential. Investments in Africa remain riskier than other options, but with the ever-growing need for carbon credits, the risk could be worth the potential return. Increasing the number of foreign investors willing to do business in Africa seems like an opportunity for both social and economic gain, even beyond the obvious environmental benefit.

Photo by Flickr user Rogiro

While the nations of the world are nearly in agreement that carbon emissions must be reduced, there is tremendous debate over just who ought to be doing the reducing. Consensus (except for a few Kyoto holdouts like the U.S.) once was that richer countries should should lead the way, but with many poorer economies growing rapidly, a new question has entered the carbon control debate: what countries, exactly, count as rich?

Previous UN statements had placed the burden onto the wealthy countries of the G8, and many officials had suggested richer countries could instead remunerate poorer nations for carbon reductions. But since the signing of the Kyoto protocol, the world's first major greenhouse emissions reduction act, the geopolitical situation has changed dramatically.

China and India have become massive economic players on the world stage, and their contribution to global carbon emissions has increased dramatically. China is now widely estimated to have surpassed the United States as the world's largest carbon producer, and India, with its rapidly growing population, and with the introduction of the ultra-cheap Tata Nano, could easily be a new contender for the crown within the next few years.

Poorer countries, for their part, though, want nothing to do with a redefinition of previously drawn rules of wealth. Byron Blake, representing Antigua and Barbuda and currently serving as chair of the G77, a developing nations coalition, states that "The (1992 U.N. Climate) Convention did not provide for differentiation between developing countries, and told Reuters that he regards any attempts to make such divisions as a diversion of effort.

But with the Chinese and Indian powerhouses still G77 members, the claims for rich nations to carry the entire load ring more hollow with each passing year. Several OPEC nations, too, seem starkly out of place. Qatar and Bahrain, which have two of the world's highest GDPs per capita, and the UAE, with its massive cities of Dubai and Abu Dhabi, are also members of the G77 voting block.

A potential solution to the deadlock comes from some of the medium-rich countries who have already left the G77, but not yet joined the G8. Although not currently bound to higher levels of greenhouse reduction, South Korea has plans to announce its own, self-determined carbon caps, in an effort to bridge the contentious divide. South Africa, while remaining in the G77, also has long-term independent plans to stop emissions increases by 2025.

With some countries planning controls of their own volition, it might be in the best interests of the G8 to limit their focus on redefining rich, especially in light of the failure of many developed nations to meet their existing carbon reduction commitments. Though it may come at some economic expense, the lead-by-example approach may continue to be the best chance we have at trimming global carbon emissions to sustainable levels within a generation.