by Justine Braby and Reinhold Mangundu
(Photo source: https://economist.com.na/66485/mining-energy/namibia-recognizes-renewable-energy-as-a-solution-to-climate-change/)
We all want the Namibian economy to benefit all Namibians. However. we are faced with several economic pathways, so systems analysis and strategy is key to choosing the economic pathway that improves life quality and health of its citizens and ecosystems. Energy will be a key driver in this pathway.
Namibia, endowed with abundant solar and other renewables potential, stands at a pivotal juncture in its energy trajectory. The prospect of green hydrogen and the pursuit of oil extraction are proposed energy solutions that promise rapid economic growth and investment into Namibia. However, neither of these are necessarily going to bring solutions to Namibia’s direct energy needs, they are rather justified as fuel, so to speak, for traditional economic growth.
Energy to power Namibia, at least in terms of energy driving decentralised and sustainable economic (and thus improved livelihood) pathways, is less clear in this picture. In addition, we must consider whether these ventures truly serve the greater good, or if they risk perpetuating a cycle of inequality and environmental degradation in Namibia.
Energy development is not merely an economic endeavor, but a deeply intertwined social and environmental undertaking. The pressing issue of climate change, a testament to our past global energy choices, warns us of the stakes involved. We might not often realize it, but we are paying today for what many of us would consider past successes. The argument to carry on digging for fossil fuel is that we need it. But is fuel more important than water? Schumacher wrote in his book “Small is Beautiful: Economics as if people mattered” that “if we squander our fossil fuels, we might threaten civilisation, but if we squander the capital represented by living nature around us, we threaten life itself”. We must remember that without life, there would be no us. There would be no air to breathe, no clean water to drink, no soil, no food—nothing that we depend on would exist. The environment is life. The living Earth system is life, and it is us. We are no more separate from this than our body is from the individual cells that make it up. So, any kind of development, no matter how it is argued, is not true development if it destroys the environment. We cannot live without water, air, and topsoil. In addition, the technology exists (and has existed for quite some time) to move away from fossil fuels; we are merely missing the political will. There are clear arguments as to why oil extraction (especially in arguably the most important and fragile water basin in Africa) is not a good idea.
Green hydrogen, on the other hand, is justified within a broader “green” development agenda for Namibia. What is green hydrogen? Hydrogen is an element that is found naturally in compounds (e.g. water), and can be used as an energy carrier (to store and transport energy) but it is not an energy source like solar or hydro. Green hydrogen is hydrogen produced by electrolysis, a process that uses electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is considered “green” when the electricity used is from renewable resources. Green hydrogen is a clean energy carrier that has the potential to play a role in a low-emissions economy. It is stored by compression in specific tanks and when the energy is needed, the hydrogen is then channelled into a fuel cell where it combines with oxygen from the air to produce electricity and the only by-product is water. Thanks to the fuel cell, green hydrogen can be used in transport - particularly it can be key for mining vehicles, trains, aircrafts, trains, lorries, buses and ships. Right now, however, it is primarily used in two sectors - the chemical industry (for manufacturing ammonia and fertilisers) and in the petrochemical industry to produce petroleum products. Further, it is also starting to be used in the steel industry.
There are various pros and cons to green hydrogen. Pros include that if it is made through renewables, it is clean; it is energy dense on a mass basis (i.e. you can hold a lot of stored energy in a relatively small tank); and it is versatile. In terms of its limitations, it is very expensive to produce; the case for green hydrogen is heavy road transport but this is still not feasible given the operating costs; there are all sorts of storage, transportation and safety issues; and lastly it is inefficient compared to direct electrification (around 40% of energy is lost when renewable energy is converted to hydrogen). The last limitation is an important consideration when thinking about Namibia’s energy needs. Asking for massive investment to build large hydrogen plants in Namibia to export stored energy to Europe where most people do not have access to electricity is the equivalent to using vast tracts of fertile land to grow flowers for export rather than food in a country where people are starving. While of course our politicians are negotiating for various benefits from this deal with Germany (including infrastructural support etc), surely we would more appreciate them to negotiate renewable energy deals to power the country and the economy?
Namibia yearns for decentralized energy systems that prioritize accessibility for the majority, including the 700,000 Namibians inhabiting informal settlements. These communities urgently require improved living conditions, and research incontrovertibly asserts that providing access to affordable and reliable energy catalyzes enhanced local economic activity, thereby fostering an overall better quality of life. Assessing energy needs through the prism of electricity's specific requirements is pivotal. Instead of being flattered by COP-related financial assistance, Namibia should focus on identifying these essential energy needs. This encompasses electricity storage for vital institutions such as hospitals, schools, refrigeration units, and various machinery. Namibia possesses alternatives - decentralized energy systems that could drive local, circular economic growth. Investments redirecting the nation's wind and solar potential for national energy self-sufficiency seem not just pragmatic but less risky.
The pertinent question arises: Will green hydrogen uplift or harm Namibia?
The government claims that green hydrogen will create 600,000 jobs by 2040; there has been little detail provided in this regard (what jobs, for whom, for how long?). For the green hydrogen tender which was won by Hyphen, apparently tangible benefits for Namibians include 15,000 jobs during the construction phase, and 3,000 permanent jobs during its operation, of which 90% should be filled by Namibians. Critics question whether many of these promises are feasible, given the lack of capacity in the sector. In addition, while local and regional politicians have called for effective governance and accountability, transparency has been quite low in the overall tender process and set up of the project. Hyphen has part of its holdings registered in tax havens like the British Virgin Islands and Mauritius.
No Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment was done to enable proper, inclusive and transparent planning. It will be difficult to call it “green” hydrogen when large tracts of the most biodiverse hyper-arid zone in the world (in a national park) will be turned into an industrial area, even if even more large parts of land are used to set up the renewable energy plants to produce the hydrogen.
So the plan is to build massive renewable energy power plants to not power Namibia but instead produce hydrogen for export, while losing 40% of this energy in its production, while the country remains energy-malnourished. On top of this, many are saying that renewables, even if we used tracts and tracts of land for renewable energy production, are not enough to power the energy demands of a growing country. There will have to be a mix of energy, some of which might include fossil fuel, some say, while others argue other routes, such as nuclear.
Global electricy demand is apparently going to double in the next two decades as countries develop, populations grow and as many sectors convert to electricity. However, as said previously, electricy demand and consumption will depend on the economic pathway that Namibia takes.
When thinking about development in Namibia, it is important to consider energy as a driver in the bigger economic system. The economy itself will need to look quite different if we truly want to improve livelihoods, deal with resilience in the face of increasing global shocks (as a result of climate change which will impact every sector, health, tourism, production of goods, agriculture, etc). The kind of demands that the current economy has on energy will likely look very different if we want to adapt to a kind of economy that is more resilient in the face of the coming shocks and improves human lives and dignity at the same time. We will need to differentiate very much between demand and consumption (there is a very important difference even if traditional economics considers them to be identical). We will not be able to consume something we will be unable to produce. In the future we are certain that many constraints will reduce production, hence consumption, below demand. That is the reality of the limits we will be facing. In a completely different economy, we might think differently about the kind of energy that is required.
In the journey that lies ahead, Namibia stands at a pivotal moment to spearhead a paradigm that centers on people’s wellbeing and environment. A paradigm where prosperity is distributed through a closed-loop value system. It is in our favour to adopt decentralization, circularity, and sustainability— to shape a future where the well-being of Namibians and the vitality of their ecosystems converge into a compelling narrative of progress. Choosing an economic pathway that not only electrifies Namibia but also illuminates a trajectory toward a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable future - this is what should be the ultimate goal.
Comments