Photo: Chrissy Olson/Flickr
President Obama's recent remarks about bringing much-needed electricity to parts of sub-Saharan Africa drew applause in Cape Town and gave a nod to clean energy and climate change—now that both terms are back in the presidential lexicon. The new initiative even has an admirably succinct title: "Power Africa." But when you look at the scale of the problem, and the details of the proposed solution, it unfortunately seems to follow the Obama playbook on energy: Talk up clean energy but expand dirty energy.
Speaking at the University of Cape Town, the president said:
So today, I am proud to announce a new initiative. We’ve been dealing with agriculture, we’ve been dealing with health. Now we’re going to talk about power—Power Africa—a new initiative that will double access to power in sub-Saharan Africa. Double it. We’re going to start by investing $7 billion in US government resources. We’re going to partner with the private sector, who themselves have committed more than $9 billion in investment. And in partnership with African nations, we’re going to develop new sources of energy. We’ll reach more households not just in cities, but in villages and on farms. We’ll expand access for those who live currently off the power grid. And we’ll support clean energy to protect our planet and combat climate change. So, a light where currently there is darkness; the energy needed to lift people out of poverty—that’s what opportunity looks like.
So this is America’s vision: A partnership with Africa that unleashes growth, and the potential of every citizen, not just a few at the very top. And this is achievable. There’s nothing that I’ve outlined that cannot happen. But history tells us that true progress is only possible where governments exist to serve their people, and not the other way around.
Two-thirds of the population in sub-Saharan Africa lacks access to electricity. Under Power Africa 20 million new households and businesses in Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, and Mozambique will get some form of electricity access. Providing access to all of those people will require over a $300 billion investment over the next 17 years. That $16 billion doubling current access to electricity is really more representative of how low the standard is now rather than anything else. Framed another way, the $7 billion coming from US taxpayers is what the US spends on the military every three and a half days or so.
The White House fact sheet on the project lists the primary private-sector partner in the program as General Electric, which looks to "help bring online 5,000 megawatts of new, affordable energy" in Tanzania and Ghana. At least one-fifth (and I presume nearly all) of the GE commitment will be natural gas-fired—with the gas coming from a new offshore field, where Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum is a major player, according to Forbes.
Of the private sector commitments to-date, natural gas leads the way. Wind power is represented by a 400 megawatt commitment in Kenya and Tanzania (total, not each). Husk Power Systems, with their really interesting biomass-powered micro power plants, is also stepping up. But compared to the contribution from fossil fuels, renewables are being sidelined, at least so far.
Doubling access to electricity is a great thing without a doubt. But what would be even better is if the pledged 10,000 megawatts of new electricity generation in sub-Saharan Africa was coming entirely from renewable sources. Installing that much wind and solar power, both in centralized and decentralized variants, within the five-year time frame of the initiative is certainly possible.
In fact, committing the program to all-renewables would be the only sustainable solution that doesn't just recreate the same mistakes made in the United States and elsewhere. It creates and then entrenches a dirty power infrastructure that will be crying out for fuel, rather than just relying on the free fuel of the wind and sun. This an opportunity to skip that stage completely.
So 'why not more renewables?" you may ask. From the White House:
The recent discoveries of oil and gas in sub-Saharan Africa will play a critical role in defining the region’s prospects for economic growth and stability, as well as contributing to broader near-term global energy security. Yet existing infrastructure in the region is inadequate to ensure that both on- and off-shore resources provide on-shore benefits and can be accessed to meet the region’s electricity generation needs.
Although many countries have legal and regulatory structures in place governing the use of natural resources, these are often inadequate. They fail to comply with international standards of good governance, or do not provide for the transparent and responsible financial management of these resources.
Power Africa will work in collaboration with partner countries to ensure the path forward on oil and gas development maximizes the benefits to the people of Africa, while also ensuring that development proceeds in a timely, financially sound, inclusive, transparent and environmentally sustainable manner.
Oh yes! Oil and natural gas discoveries. "Ensuring development proceeds in a timely, financially sound manner." Naturally that'd be in there. Also let's hope that oil and natural gas leads to "economic growth and stability" this time, even though there's plenty of examples where it didn't. As for an environmentally sound, combining those words with oil and gas development is a flat out non sequitur.
Considering that we need to leave something like 85 percent of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground unused to avoid dangerous climate change (which will disproportionately affect the very African poor this program attempts to help), any new fossil fuel development is, in the broadest sense, impossible to be made environmentally sustainable.