Kudos go to Zesa, but . . .

energy and save the earth the power utility wants to prove to everyone wrong, including the doubting Thomases.
Zesa Holdings has laid out an ambitious US$5 million programme to finance a countrywide distribution of low energy consuming bulbs by year-end. Zesa will repossess, so to speak, the high-energy incandescent bulbs from consumers.
Through this plan, the company says it will save at least 200 megawatts of power, enough to light up an entire city like Harare. We do not know how long such power lasts, whether it’s a day, a week, a month or a year.
But what we know is that this is the kind of thinking that has been unveiled at Zesa.
It is hoped this time it will come to pass because there will be longlasting and positive effects on Zimbabwe’s energy crisis and subsequently on global warming and climate change.
It is important because the production and consumption of energy is a major concern area in the warming of the earth. The exploitation and use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil are cited by the United Nations as the biggest drivers of greenhouse gas emissions in the world.
Zimbabwe generates the bulk of its power from coal fired stations. The recent plans by Zesa, if implemented, will reduce Zimbabwe’s contribution to the overall global greenhouse effect, minimal as it may be.
It will also ease prevailing power cuts or load-shedding whichever is greater. Harare energy specialist Mr Norbert Nziramasanga says the replacement of high-energy bulbs is a strategic move that should have been implemented ages ago.
He said: “Since they (energy savers) use less energy to provide light they also lead to much lower greenhouse gas emissions.
“In our case, hydropower is affected by frequent droughts and energy savers reduce the amount of water needed to provide energy for lighting hence enables Zimbabwe to ride the low water periods and drought years.”
The most prominent advantage of using energy savers is, as implied by the name, the reduction of energy used for lighting. On average, they consume three to four times less electricity for similar production of light, as well as a lifespan of eight times higher than the incandescent bulb. As such, these lights also reduce demand for power because they have a much lower power rating than the traditional bulb. More than anything, Zesa has been concerned about power generation using the funds it does not have or the much talked about foreign partners that never quite come to the party.
In fact, there has not been any significant investment in power projects over the last 30 years against rising demand. The result is Zesa has not been able to cope and the repeated rehabilitation of major energy sources at Hwange and Kariba has yielded endless cries from industrial and domestic consumers for want of a better and committed energy provider.
Obviously, Zesa’s response to curbing production of earth warming gases has been slow and at best ignored, even when it is a major source of greenhouse gases through its power stations.
In 2005, I was part of a delegation led by Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Dr Gideon Gono that visited Hwange Colliery Company and Zesa’s thermal plant in Matabeleland North. We were meant to gain a guided appreciation of operations at the two companies.
Hwange produces coal that is used to fire the Zesa thermal power stations. As we alighted from the convoy of vehicles, stunned workers, perhaps a bit frightened, halted to grab a supervised view of this rare phenomenon that had landed at their doorstep.
As would be seen later, these workers needed not be amused at the sight of this supposed congregation of the elite. It was only a group of high-riding executives preparing to make empty promises before drowning themselves in free lunch and other eats.
The then Zesa executive chairman, Dr Sydney Gata, explained that Zimbabwe needed up to US$2 billion for its power generation projects until 2010.
Before that, the underground tour in contrasting white jackets and helmets at Hwange Colliery had resulted in extreme exhaustion and, of course, the guided appreciation of its below surface works.
Concerns about climate change and global warming were completely ignored, they were never addressed, and they were not even on the itinerary.
This is despite credible evidence the world over that the use of coal for energy generation has been a menace to the environment. Or the climate questions were never asked, you would say?
Far from it, but the question and answer session was highly controlled and several questions including those of climate change were rendered undesirable and outside the scope of the visit.
Since this was a guided tour, it does limit any extra spontaneous expositions to the other side of the company, such as the usually revealing chat with low-tier workers, with some over-zealous middle managers and other disgruntled parties watching every move.
But those activities, which were deemed core to the visit, as we all now know, have not been successful.
Plans to conjure up power output are a pipe dream and instead, have been replaced by worsening power shortages since 2005. Six years ago, 2010 looked buried in the distant future. Anyone could say anything and get away with praises for having conceived brilliant plans.
But 2010 is now a closed chapter and Zesa’s plans for power generation as enunciated in 2005 have not been entirely successful. It neither achieved the end result of the purposed guided appreciation, implementation of energy generation plans within the prescribed periods nor laid a solid foundation for tackling the problem of global warming and climate change.
However, last week, I spoke to Zesa spokesperson Mr Fullard Gwasira and asked him whether the power utility was at all concerned about climate change.
He responded thus: “As Zesa, we are obviously concerned about global warming and the effect that the exploitation of thermal power would have on the environment.
But our options on the use of coal for power generation are limited. On a global scale, coal is still the most widely used energy source. Honestly, the world remains incapacitated to deal with the effects of climate change even when significant steps were taken to reduce green- house gas emissions.”
Mr Gwasira said Zesa’s plans to replace high-energy consuming bulbs were the company’s most pronounced attack on global warming to date.
It would go a long way in conserving energy and reduce the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
“We are talking of a serious programme here that is able to save power equivalent to two units at Kariba,” he said. There was an important question raised in Mr Gwasira’s remarks about the world’s continued dependency on coal as an energy source vis-à-vis its attendant negative effects on the world climate.
It is the question of sustainable development in a green economy. Energy analysts argue that inspite of their environmental hazards, fossil fuels will drive economic growth in future for developing countries as opposed to such other cleaner energies like solar and wind.
And certainly countries like Iran, South Africa and India have pressed ahead with the development of nuclear energy while most African countries still rely on coal for power generation.
In face of this and the need to achieve sustainable development, I proposed in an article some few weeks ago that Government could fund a solar programme say for residents in Harare for the purposes of heating, cooking and lighting and agree terms with consumers on repayment. I also asked Mr Gwasira about the opportunity and sustainability of Zimbabwe adopting other eco-friendly energy technologies such as solar and wind.
He said: “It is a pricey project for our market and we may not be able to sustain it.
“However, it is something we have been advocating including the adoption of installation of solar for heating purposes for every new structure that is being built in Zimbabwe. We hope Government will put in place legislation to this effect.”
It can cost up to US$2 billion to develop a solar field to power just 70 000 households.
Outside this, Zimbabwe’s other option, which it has already adopted, is the development of low-cost but dangerous coal bed methane gas in Matabeleland.
Scientists have proven methane gas to have a warming effect on the earth 25 times greater than carbon dioxide.
Going forward, it does appear therefore that exploitation of cheap energy sources will take precedence at the expense of the environment.
It calls for a weighted approach to Zimbabwe’s energy development plans, perhaps a combination of various energies available and at the same time ensures that carbon emissions are greatly reduced.
At the end of next month Zimbabwe will host a power conference in Harare where several matters including that of energy and its relation to climate change will be discussed.
We hope the conference will draw a better picture of where Zimbabwe is going in terms of its power plans and how it intends to meet its climate change obligations.