In the first paragraph of his keynote address to the Africa Energy Indaba in Johannesburg, energy minister Jeff Radebe used the word “burning” three times. The repeated use of this word unintentionally presaged the message he gave, which was that coal is still king in SA.
While acknowledging that a “paradigm shift is required” for SA to meet its greenhouse-gas emission-reduction targets, he said “we cannot ignore the fact that we have abundant coal reserves and the price of local coal remains relatively low … our vast coal deposits cannot be sterilised”.
Radebe attempted to square this circle by taking SA down the rabbit hole that is “clean coal”. He argued that SA could begin to use its coal “in an environmentally responsible way” simply by the application of the right technology. The allegedly “clean coal” technologies he referred to are carbon capture and storage (CCS), underground coal gasification (UGS), coal to liquids (CTL) and “other clean coal technologies”.
The trouble is that none of these technologies is viable now, or in the foreseeable future, and may never become viable. And even if they were to become viable, it is likely to be too late if we are to meet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s goal of reducing coal consumption 66% by 2030 to avoid climate catastrophe.
CCS is not viable. It is fantastically expensive and only approaches commercial viability if the captured carbon is used by the oil industry to pump previously unreachable oil, which will then be burnt! CSS also cannibalises up to 40% of the power output of a typical coal-fired power station, meaning that to maintain output a coal plant needs to burn 40% more coal.
Captured carbon also needs to be transported (think millions upon millions of barrels) and pumped into storage sites, resulting in more pollution. Lastly, there is no guarantee that the captured carbon will stay buried, thus the possibility exists for disastrous carbon leakage in future. It’s no wonder the CEO of the US’s largest privately owned coal-mining company, Robert Murray of Murray Energy, stated recently that CCS “is neither practical nor economic”.
UCG is not viable. This technology, which turns coal into gas by burning it underground, has yet to be commercially applied anywhere in the world (Eskom ended its trial in 2015 after spending more than R1bn). A significant problem with UCG is that it has proven extremely difficult to control the necessary gasification reaction. There are serious concerns about how UGS could contaminate groundwater, result in significant fugitive gas releases, and create problems of subsidence.
But perhaps its most serious flaw is that it promises access to a vast quantity of coal that is too deep to be mined (it could potentially result in nearly a doubling of global coal stocks), all of which could potentially be turned into gas and burnt.
CTL is not viable. It is extremely expensive, needs vast amounts of coal to be mined (Sasol, which undertakes CTL, is SA’s third-largest coal miner), produces colossal amounts of GHG (Sasol’s plant in Secunda is the largest single-point GHG emission source in the world) and consumes staggering amounts of water. All of which Sasol has been telling the government for years, and explains why Sasol is completely abandoning CTL when it retires its existing plant.
“Other clean coal technologies” are not viable. While it is not clear what Radebe was referring to here, it is probably a reference to so-called high efficiency, low-emission coal-fired power stations, which operate at higher temperatures and pressures and achieve higher efficiencies. These stations, of which there is none in SA, are very expensive to build and operate and at best only reduce GHG emissions by about 20%. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, they are not viable.
“Clean coal” does not exist. It is nothing more than an advertising slogan invented by the R&R Partners advertising agency in the US, paid for by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which is in turn bankrolled by the mining and energy industry in the US. There is no such thing as “clean coal”" and there never will be. It is the ultimate oxymoron.
While Radebe is correct to state that “the transition to a low-carbon economy must be in a manner that is not insensitive to the potential impacts on jobs and local economies”, he is entirely incorrect in his assumption that “clean coal” technologies can be part of this transition. The quicker this is accepted, the quicker SA can move towards a real “just energy transition”.
• Overy is a freelance environmental researcher and writer.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.