Focus on electricity is ignoring other energy

In the midst of all the hue and cry about electricity tariffs, the core challenges of our energy crisis are not being addressed. Lately a lot of effort, and rhetoric to boot, has been put on Uganda’s electricity infrastructure, which is well and good, except that electricity is only a small part of the nation’s energy needs.

The Bujagali power project is due (its commissioning has been postponed more than once in the last few months; its commencement had been promised, messiah-like, for many years till it finally took shape). The vaunted Karuma project is expected to take 10 years to complete, once it begins. The emphasis is on hydro-power, not surprising, given that Uganda is one of the best-watered nations on earth.

Bujagali will bring 250 megawatts to the table; Karuma is expected to generate 660MW. Kiira and Nalubaale have a combined capacity of 380MW; the aggregate from the other small ones should all bring national capacity to the odd 2,000MW, which looks good but is well short of requirements in a growing economy and population.

Many projections make the assumption that electricity is the energy we are short of and, by extension, the source that we need to develop to bridge our energy needs. That is a warped assumption; it is a lopsided policy, as the structure of consumption and social development levels indicate.

Today, over 90 per cent of the domestic energy we consume is supplied by biomass (wood and charcoal); less than 12 per cent of Ugandans are on the national electricity grid. Fully 96 per cent of our cooking depends on firewood and charcoal. In some cases, industries rely on biomass fuel. For instance, in the tea industry, 1 kg of tea leaves requires 1 kg of wood to process.

Uganda’s annual production of tea stands at 50 million kg. So 50 million kg of wood fuel (trees, forests) go into producing tea, before we talk about boiling a pot of tea! Are the returns worth the cost in environmental damage and its long-term consequences? Institutions like schools and universities, the Army, the Prisons Service, and the Police Force also depend on almost entirely on wood fuel for non-lighting ‘domestic’ needs.

Biomass fuel needs are hardly catered for, resulting in not only the neglect of the requirements of an overwhelmingly big number of Ugandans, but also endangering the future as ecological damage that comes from unregulated exploitation of biomass resources is, alongside its twin danger - high population growth – a powder keg waiting to explode.

The root of it, quite apart from the absence of a vision for sustainable management of the environment, comes from the absence of a wholesome energy policy. Aiming for the ideal of electricity-for-all while ignoring today’s stark reality is foolhardy. Electricity-for-all would be fine but socio-economic reality dictates that that is not achievable, in the medium (20-30 years) term, let alone the short-run.

The people are too poor to afford electricity – if you brought power to a Kumi or Rukungiri village, how many will wire up their grass-thatched huts for lighting? Who will purchase a cooker or refrigerator? In between now and 40-50 years’ time when such households will afford more expensive energy sources and appliances, they will use biomass, for which the toll is up: Uganda is losing 80,000 hectares of forest cover annually and, according to the National Forestry Authority, planting just 10,000ha.

Mabira Forest, which we are fighting hard for, is 70,000ha, and so we are losing the equivalent of a Mabira every year. There isn’t adequate protection for forests but, most of all, there is no planning for biomass.

When the electricity sector was deregulated 15-20 years ago, the break-up of Uganda Electricity Board resulted in the establishment of autonomous generating, transmission, distribution, and regulatory components; the emphasis wholly and lopsidedly went to electricity.

That break-up left a small, ad hoc planning unit at the ministry of energy (which was and continues to be staffed and stuffed with electrical engineers). That ad hoc committee, which works almost by default, is what needs to be a wholesome component, an Energy Commission of sorts.

At the moment, we are treating our energy needs like one would a malnourished child. We recognise that the child needs protein, and we go ahead to stuff it with protein alone (meat, milk, egg, etc), to the total exclusion of all other foods – vitamins, carbohydrates, etc – that make a balanced diet. Sooner or later the inevitable problems will arise out of this overzealous diet, and it could prove too late to redress. Uganda’s energy challenge shouldn’t drift that way.

An empowered National Energy Commission, that would plan for all forms of energy (solar, biomass through planting fuel forests, wind, nuclear, geothermal, cassava-derived ethanol, methane from toilets etc), would be staffed by environmentalists, researchers, electrical engineers, geologists, foresters, hydrologists, meteorologists, and other specialists. That is the sustainable (and feasible) way forward.

dsseppuuya@ug.nationmedia.com