Sweden is officially coal-free – and SA should take note

A mild winter in Sweden and a commitment to ditching fossil fuels has culminated in the closing down of the country’s last coal-fired power plant.

An announcement in April revealed the last of the KVV6 boilers at Värtaverket in Hjorthagen, eastern Stockholm, which had been providing heat and electricity to citizens since 1989, had officially closed in a bid to reduce emissions.

The plant, owned by Stockholm Exergi, had already closed its first boiler before the winter of 2019/2020. CEO Anders Egelrud said the move was not only a milestone for the company, but “an important marker for the change taking place in the entire energy industry and other industries”.

Just 40 years ago, the region was almost completely fossil fuel-dependent. Now, 40% of its electricity comes from nuclear power reactors. The remaining 60% is a combination of hydro, wind, biofuels and waste, and 1% fossil fuels. Sweden is the third European country to phase out coal completely, after Belgium and Austria.

Stockholm Exergi’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have also been reduced by “about half”, Egelrud said, while the country works on transition to “climate neutral solutions.”

But how practical is it to use a developed, first-world country as a baseline for setting up sustainability goals for South Africa?

A quick number crunch reveals some interesting consumer patterns.

Sweden has an estimated population of 10.2 million people, all of whom have access to electricity. The region is notorious for high energy use – approximately 12,600 kWh/year per capita on average, according to the World Nuclear Association.

South Africa has an estimated population of 57.78 million, of which only about 80% have access to electricity. On average, South Africa uses 3,584kWh/year per capita of electricity.

There are 47.58 million more people living in South Africa than in Sweden, and yet Sweden consumes 9,016kWh/year per capita more electricity.

Perhaps a better way to ascertain just how far South Africa is from achieving reduced carbon footprints such as in countries like Sweden, is to see how practical Sweden’s solutions are in South Africa.

After all, we cannot compare a region where 100% of its population can access electricity, with a country where 5% of its citizens still rely on candles for lighting.

Big amounts of smoke from a heat plant chimney on a cold winter evening

South Africa’s penchant for coal and nuclear

In October last year, Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe published the department’s much-anticipated Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).

IRP2019 sought to clarify the country’s stance on the extent of environmental sustainability within the energy generating sector, progress reports on existing power plants, and future plans for coal, nuclear, gas and renewable energy mixes.

According to the plan, the country has six generation options: 38 Gigawatts (GW) from coal, 1.8 GW from nuclear, 2.7 GW from pumped storage, 1.7 GW from hydro electricity, 3.8 GW from diesel, and 3.7 GW from renewable energy.

In the IRP’s coal section, government’s intentions to hold on to the fossil fuel for “the foreseeable future” are clearly illustrated.

Plans were mooted to make use of efficient coal technologies, namely high efficiency low emission coal (HELE), carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS), and carbon capture and storage (CCS), to stop as much carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere as possible.

Using CCUS and CCS technology, coal is captured, transported and either used, or stored in geological rock formations.

Sweden’s Värtaverket, despite exiting the coal game, still makes use of a test plant for Bio-CCS, which uses bioenergy and carbon energy to produce carbon-negative power. This technology could potentially turn areas into carbon sinks – something that absorbs more carbon than it releases, such as the ocean, soil and plants. In the future, the World Coal Association aims to improve capture rates to the point where coal produces zero emissions.

But sucking CO2 out and storing it safely would be a costly business.

And Sweden’s preference for nuclear is not as sustainable a solution as renewable energy.

Is it the right time for renewable investments, if making coal sustainable proves costly, and investing in nuclear could prove unsustainable?

Coal, nuclear and renewables

Many conservationists, researchers and climate experts have warned against investing in nuclear energy as a replacement for coal.

Outa energy portfolio manager and 2018 Goldman Environmental Award recipient in Africa, Liz McDaid, warns that nuclear brings with it a host of new health risks, such as radiation poisoning, long-term nuclear waste storage and nuclear accidents. In addition, constructing nuclear plants is time-consuming.

“Why would you want to do that when renewable energy technologies exist that enable us to harvest the sun and the wind to make electricity?”

Questioning the sustainability of renewable energy is a futile process, because “as long as we continue to run our energy system with fossil fuels, we will not be able to reduce our carbon footprint,” McDaid explained.

Nuclear power is also expensive, which means there is a chance that Koeberg power station could be closed early. McDaid pointed out that Koeberg produces 4.7% of South Africa’s electricity, which can be replaced by renewable power plants.

CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA – AUGUST 24: Pylons at Eskom’s Koeberg nuclear power plant on August 24, 2015 in Cape Town, South Africa. Koeberg is the only commercial nuclear power station in Africa. (Photo by Gallo Images / Nardus Engelbrecht)

“Koeberg is an ageing plant and as with old cars, once you replace one part, something else then breaks,” she said, adding that nuclear is a distraction in the climate change debate.

South Africa is also lagging dangerously in the global transitioning away from fossil fuels, warns CER attorney Timothy Lloyd.

The World Economic Forum Energy Transition index 2019 results ranked South Africa the second-worst-prepared country for the inevitable transition.

Lloyd said all coal-fired power plants must be phased out by 2040, at the latest, for us to meet climate targets.

Environmental challenges such as climate change will exacerbate current socio-economic battles. This, coupled with being a water-stressed country, means the country must be mindful of renewable energy solutions, to use less water, create more jobs, and minimise health and climate risks, Lloyd explained.

Renewables for SA is like nuclear for Sweden

Perhaps the best course of action when comparing South Africa’s energy mix with Sweden’s is looking at common factors: a move away from coal, and a push for renewable energy.

McDaid explained that South Africa needs to tap into its natural resources in order for it to become one of the best solar resources in the world.

What Sweden has achieved in nuclear energy South Africa could easily trump if our sunshine and winds are harnessed.

“We do not need to be dependent on imports, we need to manufacture, and for this, we need government to abandon the outdated nuclear and fossil paths and fully embrace the new energy paths,” McDaid emphasised.

There is also an appealing extra perk in the push for renewables: job creation.

The recycling industry, while still informal, has provided a decent livelihood for many waste pickers, and solar panels reaching the end of their lifespan will be no different.

There is much to be explored in this area, McDaid said, drawing from Europe’s example, as some of its solar panels are now starting to die out, prompting initiatives to recycle batteries and panels, and even turn wind turbines into construction materials.

“All our power systems should aim to be circular systems, with any waste generated to be recycled,” McDaid stressed.

Lloyd reiterated the need for a circular economy, and that equipment and materials for renewables and storage needs to be designed for re-use and recycling.

Taking notes from countries that have committed to and achieved ditching fossil fuels is key, but unfortunately, the longer it takes for South Africa to transition away from coal, the more vulnerable the country’s poor and ailing citizens become.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.