After recently having a domestic hot water geyser fail and investigating the potential of replacing it with a solar unit, I definitely saw the need for something different to advance the penetration of solar water heating in South Africa. While replacing my electric geyser costs R 5,500, an equivalent solar installation costs around R 25,000. Eskom, the state electricity generator, provides a subsidy of around R 3,000 and indicates a payback period is 5 to 8 years.

So why would one buy a solar water heater system? why not switch the electric geyser off periodically to save carbon, shower less or even put it on a timer?

Government’s Response

This type of reaction and the lack of impact of Eskom’s subsidy system, seems to be what has driven the South African Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs (DME) to develop a South African Solar Water Heating Strategy and Implementation Plan. The plan aims to install one million solar water heaters by 2014, achieve a 50% penetration of SWHs in the residential sector by 2020 and create jobs through the establishment of new manufacturing capacity.

This strategy is being finalised and will be presented to the minister on 4 December 2009. However, the draft strategy presented at the public participation meeting on 5 November has apparently been accepted and represents what will be presented to the minister.

National SWH Entity

As we have come to expect in South Africa the first focus of the plan is the creation of a National SWH Entity, under the Public Finance Management Act. Its role would be to implement the strategy, facilitate funding and “orchestrate” delivery to the unserviced residential market sectors.

It will have the right to obtain and allocate revenue from carbon offsets, demand-side management (DSM) and other revenue streams to achieve the national SWH plan.

The key aims of the entity are to ensure affordability by procuring low-cost quality systems through bulk buying and large contracts, to obtain and manage funding, to rigorously manage the supply chain, to manage the disciplined deployment of numerous subcontractors, to protect consumer rights and to be accountable to government, funding bodies and consumers.

Is the Devil In the Detail?

The entity would be self sustaining with individual programmes ensuring that costs are covered by a subsidy plus a customer contribution. Prices will be ‘stepped’ from the highest level for upper-income homes to the lowest level for poor households.

The entity would not rely on direct support from Treasury, although some of the funding could be indirect such as that recently announced by the Department of Environmental Affairs, namely a $500-million ‘infusion’ through the Clean Technology Fund.

DME notes that neither the business model nor the funding have been finalised. This is rather concerning because the implementation schedule calls for manufacturing tenders covering implementation, marketing, sourcing, installations, maintenance, financing to go out in April 2010..

The other concern is that although the creation of a manufacturing industry is listed as a benefit in the strategy there is no sign in the plan of how this will be achieved.

Although the overall objective and approach are easy to support there seems to be a lack of detail which might scupper the attainment of the goal. Will this be another case, like the biofuels strategy, where the goal and principles are talked about but little movement towards the goal achieved.

Image by Dave ‘Coconuts’ Kleinschmidt on Flickr under a Creative Commons license.

Reprinted with permission from Ecoworldly

By Edward Milford, Contributor

Johannesburg, the scene of the 29th bi-annual ISES (International Solar Energy Society) Solar World Congress held from 11th-14th October 2009, is the only major international city that is not founded on a coast or that does not have a river running through it. It sits out in the middle of the high veld in South Africa, its location entirely based on the gold discovered under the earth.

There was also a welcome for the announcement the day before the Congress opened of the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Clinton Climate Initiative and the South African Ministry of Energy for support to examine the establishment of a 5000-MW Solar Park.

The massive spoil heaps dotted around the city from mainly disused mines, and the ownership of the largest buildings in the city centre, are signs of the historic and continuing importance of mining to the economy. They are also very visible evidence of the way the availability of natural resources can shape a city and its financial systems.

“We need to learn to harness the gold in the sky, not just dig it from under the ground” were the evocative words of conference Chair John Adams at the opening session, alluding to a fairly constant theme of the conference; why does the continent with the best solar resource in the world make least use of it? What needs to be done to make its use more widespread?

Many of the global energy issues are present in the small country of South Africa; it has a predominantly fossil-fuel powered electricity system, with many of its wealthier citizens enjoying high energy-consumption lifestyles while millions of others have little or no access to any form of electricity. The issue of power is intensely political; demand has been growing fast, resulting in load-shedding and vociferous complaints from many customers.

Both industry and those without power at all are clamoring for more. At the same time, the massive CO2 emissions from its largely coal-fired generation put the country under the spotlight. As Richard Worthington from the local branch of WWF pointed out in one of his presentations, one new coal-fired power station in South Africa would emit more CO2 annually than the combined emissions of the twenty, lowest-emitting African countries.

Electricity in South Africa means Eskom, the incumbent utility (and generous lead sponsor for the Solar World Congress), responsible for both generation and distribution. It owns over 40 GW of generating capacity, making it on its own reckoning one of the top 10 utilities in the world.

It faces intense pressure from many different directions; on the final day of the Congress, the national press were full of Eskom’s application to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa to raise the price of electricity to consumers by 45% a year for the next three years, taking it from its current level of 33 c kWh (about 4.5 cents US) to 99 c kWh (about 13.5 cents US). Eskom sees this as necessary to fund a capacity expansion program, but even rises on this scale will leave it 30 billion Rand short of the capital it is forecast to need.

South Africa is home to some very energy-intensive industry. Remarkably, over 65% of the energy it generates is used in industry, and this is reflected in its customer base. Barry MacColl from Eskom observed that the top 135 customers account for 40% of total energy consumption; the largest 80,000 account for 75% of demand and the remaining 8 million use the final 25%. The larger customers, all industrial concerns, will not be affected by the rate rises, as they negotiate their own contracts.

The planned Eskom rate rises do include an allowance for some CSP (concentrating solar power), and a lively discussion forum at the Congress agreed that the potential for this was significant. There was concern that the competing technologies might not all get a fair chance and many of the commentators from the floor argued against Eskom being in a position where it tried to pick a technology winner.

There was also recognition both that CSP could provide significant numbers of local jobs (it was claimed 80% of the costs needed to be based in South African Rand to protect against currency fluctuations) and that there was scope — as David Jarrett from NamPower, the Namibian utility, agreed — for significant regional development and initiatives. For MacColl again, another key issue will be to diversify the supply; if carbon taxes arrive (another issue under discussion) Eskom would be hit hard, with a tax of 200 Rand (US $27.40) per tonne of CO2 effectively wiping out Eskom’s turnover.

South Africa is also finalizing its feed-in tariff, and many of the speakers in other sessions believe that this could prove to be a very important catalyst to the development not only of CSP, but more widespread uptake of PV, and some significant utility-scale wind development. Again, Eskom’s role could be crucial as the company serves as network operator and distributor, and often arbiter of what can and can’t happen. Many are arguing for a greater role for Independent Power Producers, and this is high on the political energy agenda.

For some of the householders visiting the exhibition, the simple answer to ‘what brings you to a solar event?’ was ‘Eskom’. There was a lot of interest in solar water heating – not surprisingly perhaps given that electrical water heating accounts for over 43% of domestic electricity consumption.

There is plenty of awareness of the bigger picture. Much of the discussion at the Congress looked forward to the COP 15 meeting in Denmark at the end of this year. The conference approved a text to send to delegates at the COP meeting, which stressed that ‘rapid transition to a renewable energy world is the key to climate recovery’.

The COP 15 text reaffirmed ISES’s willingness to work with partner organizations, including the newly formed International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), whose interim Director General Helene Pelosse spoke via video at the opening ceremony. She reminded delegates of the need to reduce the barriers to wider deployment of renewable energy by addressing the expertise gap, the human capital gap and the financing gap.

5000 MW of Solar for South Africa

There was also a welcome for the announcement the day before the Congress opened of the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Clinton Climate Initiative and the South African Ministry of Energy for support to examine the establishment of a 5000-MW Solar Park. A feasibility study is being commissioned, and the Ministry explicitly expects this to include ‘significant solar generation by different Independent Power Producers’.

One of several impassioned speakers was Harry Lehmann from the Federal Environment Agency of Germany. He stressed the need for the goal of 100% renewable energy. As he pointed out, nobody doubts that we will need to achieve this in a few decades, so why, he asked, are we considering such side roads as nuclear power and clean coal, when we can head straight to the necessary target. This theme was also then picked up in the final congress resolution which stated firmly that ‘the global target of 100 percent renewable energies is both attainable and necessary by the middle of the current century’ while also noting that ‘the unacceptable backlog in energy supply in the third world countries can only be covered cost effectively and in time by the use of renewable energies’.

Maybe the gold from the sky can be harnessed after all.

Edward Milford is currently the Chairman of Earthscan, and a former publisher of Renewable Energy World magazine.

Reprinted with permission from Renewable Energy World

(Reuters) - South Africa appears to have softened its stance on carbon emissions, saying on Wednesday it would support cuts to prevent global warming.

The apparent change comes against the backdrop of international meetings designed to set targets to cut harmful emissions, and that have pitted poorer nations against Western countries on how best this could be achieved beyond 2012.

South Africa, which relies largely on coal-fired power stations, said earlier this month it would not agree to any emission-cutting targets if it hurt economic growth.

President Jacob Zuma, who urged that a "just and equitable" settlement be reached at December's climate change talks in Copenhagen, is currently at a U.N.-backed climate summit where negotiations are centered on the role of developing nations can play with developed nations to reduce emissions.

"On global warming, cabinet would like to correct the wrong impression that had been created that South Africa was opposed to targets being set on global warming," cabinet spokesman Themba Maseko told journalists.

"The correct position is as follows: South Africa was not in favor of supporting targets that are imposed by developed nations on developing nations to reduce carbon emissions," he said.

South Africa, often commended for being most active among developing countries in fighting climate change, set a target to cap emissions by 2020-25, and to reduce them by mid-century.

China laid out a plan to curb emissions by 2020 as U.S. President Barack Obama called on all countries to act now to tackle global warming.

Maseko said South Africa, in its first recession in 17 years, would take responsible and measurable action to reduce the country's future emissions.

He said the country, which has embarked on a new multi-billion coal-power station building program to meet rising electricity demand, has already approved energy and long-term climate mitigation policies.

"South Africa's strategic framework is based on the fact that our emissions are to peak between 2020-2025, stabilize for a decade, before declining in absolute terms toward the mid-century," Maseko said.

Reprinted with permission from Reuters

In Cape Town, South Africa, as well as in many U.S. cities, wealthy suburban dwellers choke roads driving into the city, eschewing the public transit that shuttles blue collar workers. The addition of bus and rail lines in the city's center in anticipation of hosting the 2010 World Cup has city leaders increasing efforts to get people out of their cars and on to public transit.

In Cape Town, most white collar workers drive themselves to work, fearing crime on trains and on the 20-seat shared taxis that shuttle one-third of inner city commuters. Business leaders from the Cape Town Partnership, along with the University of Michigan and Ford, are working with the city's largest employers to get more of the 400,000 daily commuters moving by alternative modes of transportation by establishing mobility hubs.

The mobility hubs will enable people to seamlessly switch between transportation modes, including getting off of trains and private cars and on to buses, green taxis, and bikes. These transfer points with heavy commuter populations will provide information to show the locations of the best transportation options for reaching their final destinations.

"The (transportation) grids are not aligned," says Susan, Zielinski Managing Director of the Sustainable Mobility & Accessibility Research & Transformation (SMART) initiative at the University of Michigan, and a consultant on the project. Zielinski says commuters don't have the ability to synchronize their traveling between buses and trains, and many don't know that services like car shares and bike rentals exist.

The Cape Town project, which has involved 200 people from the public and private sectors, will identify 4-5 hubs that are critical transfer points with a bounty of commuters. The hubs will include signs to aid people getting around, and the city wants to add bike rental programs and car share programs nearby to encourage reduced-carbon commuting.

A proposal has been drafted to provide communications through a website to kiosks and mobile phones that would provide all forms of transit schedules and traffic information. Zielinski envisions creating a single payment system via a debit card for taking public transit and renting cars or bikes by the hour.

The problems of too many cars and underutilization of public transit are common across the globe, and Zielinski says the knowledge gained from Cape Town could be applied in Ann Arbor, Detroit, Atlanta or Los Angeles.

Ford, which has provided funding for the Cape Town project, as well as others in Bangalore and Salvador, Brazil, believes it can play a role in solving the IT and logistics challenges in better organizing urban commuting. David Berdish, Ford's Manager of Sustainable Business Development, says the company will apply its experience in logistics in moving vehicles and freight to urban mobility.

Ford is using the pilot projects to understand the business opportunities and see where it can play, because "cars aren't always the answer," according to Berdish. Ford's SYNCH technology could potentially play a role in sharing mobility information between vehicles and the built environment.

Ford will gather information from the projects about traffic patterns, the concentration of commuters, and where they change cars for other forms of transportation. Berdish says that "NYC has a lot more in common with Bangalore than it does with Wyoming," when it comes to urban transit.

The Cape Town project leaders are working with some of the city's largest employers to create group transportation solutions. One of the options is to provide security guards on trains and to escort workers on a "walking bus" to their office that would address safety concerns. "It's totally out of the box thinking for business people in South Africa to take public transport to work," says Claire Janisch, of the Cape Town Business Partnership. So far employers Investec, Woolworth's, Nebank and BP have expressed interest in changing commuting behaviors for workers who live in the suburbs, she says.

The Partnership is developing a website to provide information about the various transport options, many of which have been recently added in preparation of the World Cup. But it has been slow going to get funding from the city or federal government for the SWITCH website. "Cape Town is called the mother city because it takes nine months to deliver," says Janisch.

Urban mobility presents a unique opportunity that crosscuts IT and automotive industries, and that's why Ford, IBM, Cisco and others are eyeing the space. As vehicle ownership per capita stabilizes or even goes down in North America, auto companies need new methods to remain relevant. Urban mobility projects can also minimize the congestion from introducing more vehicles to emerging metropolis by keeping the cars out of high trafficked areas. It may be a bit out of Ford's comfort zone, but learning urban transit so that you can assume a new role is much smarter than thinking that the world of transportation isn't changing.

Andrew Russell, who runs Rikki's green taxi service in Cape Town, says the first meeting about mobility hubs took place in 2007. Russell, whose company runs a taxi service for students who stay out late (aka the "Drunk Bus") sees public transport as an effective means for reducing congestion and carbon emissions.

The project team is also recommending other ways to reduce carbon emissions, including encouraging employers to put bicycle lockers in their buildings, and to use video conferencing instead of flying to meetings. "White collar workers cause 90 percent of the (transit) problems," says Russell.

John Gartner is the editor in chief of Matter Network and an Industry Analyst at Pike Research

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

This morning's blogger tour of South Africa included a stop off at the Capetown headquarters of startup electric car maker Optimal Energy.

The three-year old company is developing the Joule, a six-passenger all electric car that is scheduled to begin low-volume production at the end of 2010. CEO Kobus Meiring said the vehicle will have a maximum range of about 200 km, but the trunk has space for a second battery pack to double the range. The top speed for the car, aimed at city drivers, will be 130 km/hr.

The Joule is designed to compete with mainstream vehicles, not electric cars, Meiring said. He didn't give specifics about the price, but said that without the batteries (which will be leased separately), the price will be in the range of 220 Rand (or around $25,000). The batteries will have a useful driving life of around 200,000 km.

The cost of the batteries is uncertain as the company has not selected a lithium ion battery partner yet, and Optimal Energy may lease batteries at multiple price points. (This is consistent with EV and plug-in hybrid makers in the U.S., who are similarly scrambling to identify batteries that meet their performance requirements). For EVs, batteries are a considerable amount of the cost, and the technology is still being tested and developed.

(For me it's a little unsettling for car companies such as GM and Optimal Energy to be touting the wonders of a car when the major driving force--the batteries -- are an unknown quantity. It's like HP promising a wonderful new computer without knowing which CPU they'd use.)

Executive Marketing Manager Diana Blake said the company is considering batteries from 20 companies including those from China, the U.S. and Japan, and is also looking at ultracapacitors -- the costly but durable solid state devices that can supplement batteries. Third-party battery companies, such as Better Place, which is setting up operations in Israel and the U.S., would be welcome to compete in battery leasing, according to Meiring.

Optimal Energy is targeting South Africa's 700,000 units per year vehicle market. The Joule is designed to meet European safety regulations so that exporting to the north can also be an option.

The motivation to start the company included issues familiar to Americans -- energy security (Meiring claimed 90 percent of all wars in the past 50 years were over energy), reducing carbon emissions, and increasing local jobs. However, the company has not yet studied the carbon impact in switching from South Africa's diesel fuel derived from coal (nearly the entire market) to electricity from coal. Meiring said that electric batteries are five times more energy efficient than internal combustion engines, but transmission and energy losses in transferring energy to and from the batteries will lower the relative benefit. Since coal-to-liquids is about as carbon and energy intensive transportation around, the bar is pretty low for the vehicles to have a positive carbon impact.

While South Africa is currently under producing electricity to meet demand (and is therefore building more coal power plants), Meiring says the power grid has more than adequate power to accommodate overnight recharging even if the entire 7 million vehicle fleet switched to electrics.

Optimal Energy has several advantages in launching an electric fleet without impacting the grid over U.S. auto companies. First, the South African government's Department of Science and Technology is a shareholder. Also, the state utility Eskom provides 90 percent of the electricity for the country, so introducing the vehicles requires dealing with a single entity, as compared to the U.S.' mishmash of local private and public power providers.

Also, the country is on a single time zone, so night time recharging administration could be consistent through the nation. Meiring says introductory talks have begun with Eskom (which "has bigger fish to fry" because of insufficient power generating capacity), but they haven't done demonstrations like are being done in the U.S. to test the impact of the vehicles on the grid. Meiring said the company plans on having the vehicles automatically recharge only at night, but an override would allow daytime charging.

Optimal Energy's management include several engineers who developed helicopters for the government. Meiring said the company has outsourced much of the research and development to universities. He said that South Africa had been a leader in lithium battery technology until 1994 (when the government changed), and he believes that they could return to prominence in that area. Availability of lithium should not be an issue as nearby Zimbabwe has considerable untapped resources, according to Meiring.

The field for a full-time electric vehicle remains wide open as much-hyped Tesla Motors continues to have problems. While Optimal Energy did not mention selling the U.S. market, if the company can provide a hit in South Africa with locally-produced vehicles, the world may come calling.

(The blogger tour and meeting with Optimal Energy is being sponsored by the South African International Marketing Council).

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.