Aweh dearly beloved fellow ruminants & groupies
I know that I can a be bit boring and tedious about green hydrogen, but I haven’t talked about it for a least a few months so it’s time to go there again as I must. For those of you who have tired of this nerdy topic please skip this week’s blog.
Let’s start with defining the concept of a boondoggle. A boondoggle refers to a project or activity that is wasteful, impractical, or of little value despite costing a significant amount of time and money. The term often implies that the project continues to be pursued due to political motivations, bureaucratic inertia, vested interests, and opportunities for corruption rather than its practical utility or efficacy.
Welcome to the carnival of ideas that is South Africa’s Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET-IP), where one of the pillars is none other than green hydrogen. But behind the bright lights and big promises, is this a spectacular feat of sustainable innovation or just another boondoggle? Let’s dive into the latest plans, criticisms, and the cold hard reality of South Africa’s ambitious green hydrogen agenda.
Green hydrogen—the elusive unicorn of the energy world. South Africa’s JET-IP, Chapter 8, paints it as the saviour of our climate woes. It’s touted as the future of clean energy, set to decarbonise heavy industries, create a multitude of jobs, and place South Africa on the global hydrogen map. The plan is to use renewable energy to produce hydrogen through electrolysis, storing and transporting it for use in various sectors, thereby reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
But is this a financial sinkhole? Let’s start with the numbers. The initial phase of the green hydrogen plan demands a hefty investment, with the overall JET-IP requiring around ZAR 700 billion ($38 billion) over five years. For context, that’s a small fortune in a country where millions lack access to basic amenities like clean water and reliable healthcare. Municipalities across South Africa including Johannesburg are unable to provide reliable water supply.
Currently, only a sliver of the required funding is secured. The rest? It’s floating somewhere in the ether, much like the promises of green hydrogen itself. High green hydrogen costs production costs, estimated at around $6 per kilogram (equivalent to an oil price of $300/bbl), vastly overshadow those of traditional energy sources. Unless someone invents a magic money tree, this poses a colossal risk of financial haemorrhage.
The logistical hurdles of green hydrogen make the financial ones look like child’s play. Producing green hydrogen requires a steady and substantial supply of renewable energy. However, South Africa’s renewable sector is still finding its feet, struggling with issues like grid instability and intermittent supply as well as providing affordable electricity.
But wait, there’s more. The infrastructure for storage, transport, and distribution of hydrogen isn’t just underdeveloped—it’s practically non-existent. Hydrogen is highly flammable, demanding special handling and infrastructure. Building this from scratch is an endeavour that would make even Sisyphus cringe. In addition, the direct use of renewable electricity for many applications is cheaper and more efficient than green hydrogen.
The European Court of Auditors (ECA) offers a cautionary tale with its recent analysis of green hydrogen projects in Europe. Common pitfalls include underestimating costs, overestimating benefits, and failing to adequately plan for technical and logistical challenges. They conclude it is time for a reality check. These lessons underscore the need for rigorous planning, transparent governance, and adaptive management—all elements that are conspicuously shaky in South Africa’s green hydrogen plans.
But here’s where the plot thickens. While our leaders are off chasing hydrogen rainbows, everyday South Africans are stuck dealing with crumbling infrastructure and a healthcare system on life support. Hospitals are understaffed, underfunded, and overwhelmed. Millions still live without access to clean water or proper sanitation. Basic municipal services are a distant dream for many.
One stark example is the state of the Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital, one of the largest hospitals in South Africa. In recent years, the hospital has faced severe challenges, including infrastructure failures, such as a fire in 2021 that led to significant disruptions in service delivery, and frequent shortages of essential medical supplies. The fire damage has still not been repaired. The hospital’s struggles are reflective of the broader issues plaguing the public healthcare system across the country.
Investing in healthcare and infrastructure could yield immediate and tangible benefits. Improved healthcare infrastructure would not only save lives but also boost the overall quality of life. Upgrading basic infrastructure would directly impact millions, ensuring access to essential services and fostering socio-economic stability. Compared to the nebulous future benefits of green hydrogen, the opportunity cost here is glaringly obvious
Now let’s turn to government funding and research grants in South Africa. What is the holy text? The JET-IP of course. This has been approved by the cabinet who is all-knowing and all-wise and funding is made available for further studies and research, but any criticism of the JET-IP is heresy.
So, what to do if the customer asks you to do a study on advancing green hydrogen in South Africa starting with the given that the JET-IP is a holy text? Apart from the fact that any critical perspective may be unwanted the quote from Upton Sinclair also applies, “It is difficult to get a person to understand something, when their salary depends upon their not understanding it”. I slightly amended this quote to be gender-neutral in keeping with current gender sensitivities. I’m nothing if not gender appropriate. Do you just do the study as requested? Do you tell the customer what they want and take the money? If you do this, is it a bullshit job? Should you rather try to have a difficult conversation questioning the holy text? Do you walk away? Is it better to be inside the tent pissing out or outside the tent pissing in? Dearly beloved readers I lack the wisdom to answer these questions, but I’m sure you don’t. Please reveal the truth to me.
Will what I have written here in an obscure and irrelevant blog matter? Aren’t I just pissing into the wind? When pissing into the wind the wise advice is to position yourself so that the wind is at your back (downwind) allowing the wind to carry the urine away from you. In this instance, I suspect I’m pissing into the wind from an upwind position. Why do I do this? Because I can.
Thank you for all the recommendations, comments, and the love that I feel in cyberspace.
Regards
Bruce
Ruminant Pink Friday 
At an early meeting of the United Nations of Photosynthesis
We are very worried about the increasing Oxygen pollution in the Atmosphere. This could lead to severe consequences
LikeLike
HI Clive
Not sure wat your comment means in the context of my post.
Regards
Bruce
LikeLike
Thanks as always for the posts Bruce. The whole approach to decarbonisation can be massively frustrating to observe as, in all countries, one sees companies happily taking subsidies to pursue daft ideas which politicians have doggedly locked themselves in to. Green hydrogen is no doubt first amongst equals in this regard. For me the basic fact that they use precious energy they already have to extract something at great costs only to use it as energy again – with all the attendant production, storage and transport issues / risks / challenges associated with hydrogen – is what makes this a boondoggle at the start and yes, a cursory glance at the numbers would confirm that as well. But it’s more frustrating when viewing this in places where the needs are so pressing that absolute pragmatism should be the order of the day and in decarbonisation then it should be strictly a case of focusing on that which works easily and at lower costs. If I digress for a moment to cover the maritime sector – the approach to me suggests we have the whole approach upside down. We want the whole maritime sector (2-3% of global emissions) decarbonised by 2050 and at 50% levels by 2030 (vs 2018 baseline). Good goal BUT the nature of the beast is that you need a ubiquitous, cost effective and carbon free fuel in all locations ships go to. There has been an estimate which suggests that to make the needed fuel for todays fleet would require every kWh of renewable energy be directed to make “green” ammonia or methanol – the fuels of focus thus far. So as with much of what you so eloquently show, technically feasible (in PowerPoint) but practically impossible. For starters even if we did do this turns out renewable energy is not so neatly distributed throughout the world to ensure we have the energy where required and at the right economics. So in my simplified view of the world, without giving up on decarbonisation of maritime why don’t we rather focus on decarbonising and electrifying all land based energy (70% of emissions) and then when we need green energy to make green fuel it will be available as needed. But again looking at the real bigger picture- why don’t we pursue safe nuclear for ships together with battery for smaller ships – then we really decarbonise BUT basis where that work is at, would mean shipping doesn’t “progress” shorter term but then takes a huge leap later. Instead we have projects like onboard CCS (don’t get me started), ammonia and methanol, biofuels and, yes, some folks suggesting hydrogen! And again the real issue isn’t whether any / some / all of the options could or might work under very specific circumstances- in that case go on with that specific project since all options (viable) should be on the table BUT not all options are global options. And even more – whilst we should look at everything we should be using the money to ensure we get most out of the expenditures and not waste money – especially when basic needs demand answers right now. And so back to your question – in my view these high cost, high tech challenge ideas are probably not appropriate for SA. Thanks again for the posts!
LikeLike
Thanks Bill
Always good to hear from you. My best guess as to why we are seeing this chaotic and sub-optimal approach to decarbonisation is distortions caused by subsidy money. There are many actors in this tragedy. Politicians as you mention, industry lobby groups, the media, academics and engineers.
Life long academics often focus on science and cutting edge innovation. This is their job but they often have no commercial or business experience. They focus on the question of whether what they propose is scientifically possible. In other words can you do this. They do not deal with the question of whether their idea is commercially feasible or whether there are better alternatives. Nor do they deal with the very long road required to develop a new technology from a concept to to a commercially proven reality at a large scale.
Industry lobby groups can also push their agenda. Hydrogen is attractive for the fossil fuel industry because it could preserve their current business model. They can manufacture it, transport it and market it. Business as usual. The direct use of renewable electricity is a disruptive alternative business model that represents a big risk for this industry.
Often media lacks the commercial and scientific expertise to properly sift through all this noise and so there is a cacophony of media articles influenced by academics and lobby groups.
Then in the midst of all of this you have politicians who are ultimately the source of subsidy money who also lack the judgement and expertise to sort through the noise. Once there are large subsidies available the subsidy harvesting begins.
Finally you have engineers and subject matter experts. Many of them, in order to make a living, see themselves as service providers. Give the customer what they want.
When one goes onto the social media platforms on LinkedIn the debates are vicious and the often the insults fly. Fortunately there are also a bunch of hardy critics out there.
Does all of this help with proper prioritisation and optimal progress on decarbonisation?
Regards
Bruce
LikeLike