If South Africa plays its energy cards right, the bulk of the country’s electricity could come from wind turbines, solar panels and other forms of renewable energy by the year 2050. At least that is what atmospheric scientist Dr Kilian Hagemann from Cape Town believes.

South Africa has much potential when it comes to wind energy. “Because the country has five different climate regions, you pretty much have wind all the time somewhere,” says Dr Hagemann, who was the first person to draw up a mesoscale wind atlas of South Africa.

“Drafting this wind map in 2007 was part of my thesis. During my research, I used state-of-the-art wind energy modelling to calculate optimum sites for wind farms,” he adds. “I soon came to realise that South Africa boasts plenty of possibilities and good sites when it comes to wind power.

“One of my thesis’ conclusions was that technically, 35% of our electricity could come from wind turbines alone. Add solar power to the equation and your figure is even higher.

“Today, that percentage of 35% is much higher because the respective technologies have advanced and have become more sophisticated,” says Dr Hagemann.

He adds with a smile, “I am afraid I cannot tell you where the best wind sites in South Africa are situated. That is confidential. I have a business to run, you see. If I tell you where the best sites exactly are, I shoot myself in the foot.

“I can, however, tell you that South Africa’s coastline, especially the West Coast, boasts some very good sites. After all, South Africa’s first wind farm was built there, in Darling.

“The Highveld, on the other hand, is not suitable at all. There is too little wind,” says Dr Hagemann.

A few years ago, the 29-year old, together with Frenchman Nicolas Rolland, started G7 Renewable Energies. The company specialises in wind energy, in the broadest sense of the word – from site identification, grid studies and wind park design to wind turbine and electrical system procurement, and project management.

According to Dr Hagemann, wind energy is the perfect renewable resource for South Africa to explore.

“Solar energy is a great source of green energy too, and it can help us a great deal to become independent from coal and other fossil fuels. The sun is, in many aspects, a much larger, much stronger and more reliable resource than wind,” he says.

“The problem with solar power is that the technology to capture and store the sun’s energy is still developing and not as mature as wind energy technology.

“Therefore, it is not suitable yet to use on a large scale, as opposed to wind,” he explains. “That will take approximately10 years or so to happen, I estimate.”

Electricity generated from the sun, in addition, is more expensive than wind power, which makes it less favourable at this stage. Dr Hagemann adds: “This is due to the various feed-in tariffs. A kilowatt hour (KWh) of wind power costs approximately R1.25, while a KWh of solar electricity costs between R2.50 and R4.00.

“But when the solar technology is where we want it to be, I believe almost all of South Africa’s electricity could be generated from these two renewable sources alone,” he notes.

It is crucial for the South African government to focus more and more on renewables rather than conventional energy sources, Dr Hagemann stresses.

“We need to curb our emissions dramatically. South Africa is one of the most polluting countries in the world and that is mainly linked with the fact that the bulk of our electricity is generated from coal,” he says.

“For the past few decades, we have relied on cheap coal for cheap energy.

“The fact that South Africa – during the apartheid era – as a world’s first, managed to turn coal into oil has increased this dependency.”

In a 2007 United Nations report on the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, South Africa – with 433 527 metric tonnes of CO2 (1.48% of all CO2 emissions that year) – was the 13th biggest polluting country in the world.

Figures by the World Bank furthermore show that the country’s annual emissions equal to approximately 8.98 metric tonnes per capita compared to a worldwide average of 4.63 metric tonnes per capita.

“However, a paradigm change seems to be taking place slowly now that research has proved that our country’s coal reserves do not have the eternal life,” Dr Hagemann says.

Last year, during the 15th Annual Coal Indaba held in Johannesburg, Deputy Minister for Mineral Resources Godfrey Oliphant told the delegates how South Africa’s coal deposits have declined significantly.

“The main field of Witbank and Highveld still contain significant reserves…, the Waterberg coalfield in the Limpopo province is largely untapped and has been touted as the next major coalfield to be exploited.

“But there are challenges. The Waterberg fields have thick coal seams and are embedded in siltstones and shales.

“This means that the extraction will be harder and requires more input costs than in other fields,” he said in his speech.

“It is not just about how much there is, it is about how much it costs to get to it and dig it up,” Dr Hagemann points out. “We are depleting the coal close to the surface and which is accessible. The deeper you have to go to dig up the coal, the more expensive mining becomes, which eventually will have an impact on the electricity price, too. That is another reason they should look at green energy instead of focusing on new coal-fired power plants.”

Some critics, however, claim that wind and solar energy technologies cannot take the place of coal because they are not efficient enough.

Others accuse green energy of ruining the environment instead of extending it a helping hand.

One of the opponents of renewable energy is Jesse Ausubel, researcher at the Rockefeller University in New York. Over the past few years, he has written several articles and essays proclaiming that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are not as good for the planet as people think they are.

“Renewables may be renewable, but they are not green,” he wrote in his 2007 article for the Inderscience’s International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, explaining that building enough wind farms, damming enough rivers, and growing enough biomass will wreck the environment.

“If we want to minimise new structures and the rape of nature, nuclear energy is the best option,” Ausubel stressed.

Other critics claim that solar and wind technologies are bad for the plant- and animal life.

Last year, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told delegates of a United Russian party conference that wind power, which is widely used in various European countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, is bad for the environment, as it kills birds.

Furthermore, he said, the vibrations of the turbines would cause worms and moles to come out of the ground.

“Yes, and other people say that toxic chemicals are used during the manufacturing process of wind turbines. Some say that the energy to produce a wind turbine outstrips the energy it generates. These are all flukes,” says Dr Hagemann.

“First of all, no harsh chemicals are used for the production of wind turbines, and it is a myth that the propeller head contains a chunk of substance that is radioactive.

“Secondly, it takes a wind turbine approximately three months to generate the amount of energy that was used to manufacture it.

“Lastly, when the lifespan of a wind turbine comes to an end, which is after 20 years or so, the entire machine can be recycled. That is slightly different with a coal-fired power plant, I’d say,” he adds.

Miriam Mannak