LOUISE NAUDÉ: Busting the myths about natural gas

As pointed out in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the need for climate action is more urgent than previously assessed, so why are some sectors of SA’s business community failing to take heed?  

The IPCC, the UN’s expert body on climate, tells us that to have at least a 67% chance of stabilising average global warming at 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures, total carbon emissions should not exceed 420-billion tonnes — the planet’s remaining “carbon budget”.

What we do with other greenhouse gases can change that total; if we emit less each year we have a longer time to phase out carbon emissions.

In a recent editorial the WWF’s global energy lead, Dean Cooper, points to an underlying reason why fossil (also called natural) gas continues to be promoted by sectoral interests. He notes that fossil fuel companies have just had their most profitable year yet, racking up about $4-trillion in 2022 thanks to higher prices as a result of the energy crisis in the wake of the war in Ukraine, including record natural gas prices in some markets.  

Clearly, there are those who want this party to continue. Yet, with the rapidly closing window of opportunity we have for limiting further global warming, this is dangerous territory. There is a concerted push by those who stand to make money out of it to develop a fossil gas industry in SA, but at what cost to the majority of South Africans?  

Many fossil fuel energy companies are pushing to exploit new gas resources offshore and onshore in SA, which will bust the global carbon budget. Their narrative is that we must have fossil gas as a transition fuel to renewables, that gas is needed when demand peaks in a renewables-based electricity system, and to deal with the intermittency of sun and wind.

For example, see Business Unity SA’s position on fossil gas — which one might argue does not serve all businesses’ interests, given the economic impacts of climate change and a global trade regime increasingly erecting barriers against carbon-intensive countries.

Myth number one 

One of the main arguments put forward for the use of fossil gas is that it emits less carbon than coal. In fact, while fossil gas causes lower emissions at the point of combustion than coal per unit of energy produced, it is still an emitter. In addition, methane (the key component of fossil gas) can escape into the atmosphere at many different points in the supply chain.

These leaked or “fugitive” methane emissions have been routinely underestimated by industry and governments. Significantly, methane has a far greater global warming potential than CO² (the gas released in burning coal). 

Fossil gas is often put forward as a cheaper option, but renewables are now the cheapest source of electricity worldwide and can provide energy security in a politically unstable world. They are also the fastest way of providing energy for the millions of people who still have no access to electricity. In contrast, fossil gas plants have a lifetime of more than  30 years and so risk becoming stranded assets, which does not make good investment sense. 

In addition, the supply of imported gas is not as secure as the supply of wind and sun within our own borders. For example, as recently as 2021 the armed conflict in Mozambique’s Cabo Delgado province resulted in French multinational TotalEnergies halting development of the second-largest fossil gas field in Africa. Elsewhere, holding back production sent the price of fossil gas rocketing, causing a major problem for gas-dependent households and industry. 

Myth number two

Then there is the much-touted obstacle of the need for a stable power grid when renewables aren’t able to deliver. Much investment is being put towards solving the issue, and a combination of renewables and storage is emerging as the best strategy to tackle both intermittency and peak loads. In some countries the combined cost of wind or solar with some storage options (for example, batteries) is already less than that of flexible “peaker” gas plants. Because SA has more dependable renewable resources, we will need less long-term storage, thus achieving this price parity more easily. 

Known for being mainstream in its energy analysis, the International Energy Agency (IEA) modelled a road map for the global energy sector to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, which the IPCC says is critical to limiting global warming to liveable levels.

The IEA found “there is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in our net-zero pathway. Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our pathway, and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required”. That echoes what many SA modelling studies have shown.

Myth number three 

Another myth is that carbon capture and storage can simply be added to lower the emissions of fossil gas. “There are existing projects which capture some of the emissions from natural gas combustion and store it underground. But together these projects capture only a fraction of a percent of global natural gas emissions,” Cooper says. And carbon capture and storage significantly raise the cost of any fossil fuels, making them increasingly uncompetitive for most uses. 

Finally, in the SA context, we are told that fossil gas will bring new employment opportunities. This is probably true, but so would any industry — and this assertion must be compared with all the candidate carriers that can address adequate energy supply. Studies and global experience now show that renewable energy technologies can provide much wider employment than fossil fuels.  

Put more simply, when it comes to the climate emergency we have run out of rope, and we need to be serious about pursuing energy solutions that reverse our current trajectory. New fossil gas has no part in that.  

By some calculations, a switch to fossil gas would buy us only one more year of remaining within the carbon budget to stabilise at 1.5°C warming. Weigh that up against the potential for centuries of misery for humanity! 

• Naudé, a senior manager at the World Wide Fund For Nature SA, is a member of the Presidential Climate Commission.