'What can we do?': Millions in African countries need power
The electricity shortages that plague many of Africa’s 54 countries are a serious drain on the continent’s economic growth
In Johannesburg The reliable supply of electricity continues to be elusive throughout Africa, from Nigeria, where grid collapses are frequent, to Zimbabwe, where many people must work at night because it is the only time there is power.
Energy experts caution that the 54 nations of Africa's widespread electricity shortages are a significant drag on the continent's economic expansion.
South Africa's power generation has recently declined to the point where the most developed economy on the continent is forced to deal with rolling blackouts of eight to ten hours each day.
The electricity in Africa's sprawling cities is sporadic, but there is no electricity at all in a sizable portion of the continent's rural areas. In 2021, 590 million people in Africa, or 43% of the continent's population, lacked access to electricity.
According to estimates from the World Bank, annual investments of close to $20 billion are needed to achieve universal electrification throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Nearly $10 billion of that amount is required each year to bring electricity to West and Central Africa and maintain it.
According to Andrew Lawrence, an energy expert at the Witwatersrand University Business School in Johannesburg, there are many causes for Africa's poor electricity delivery, including outdated infrastructure, a lack of government oversight, and a lack of skills to maintain the national grids.
The fact that many colonial regimes constructed electrical systems that largely excluded the Black population and were reserved for the minority White population is a historical problem.
Today, state-owned utilities are still the norm in many African nations.The Western-funded "Just Energy Transition," in which France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union are providing funds to assist poorer countries switch from highly polluting coal-fired power generation to renewable, environmentally friendly sources of power, has received a lot of attention in the past two years. According to Lawrence, the continent of Africa should be one of the main beneficiaries in order to increase access to electricity and strengthen the continent's troubled power grids.
The electrification of the entire continent should be prioritized during the transition, with a focus on rural access. Technically speaking, this is feasible, he declared.
The Western powers promised to provide $8.5 billion to assist South Africa in getting off of its coal-fired power plants, which generate 80% of the nation's electricity.
Experts claim that due to its reliance on coal, South Africa ranks among the top 20 countries in the world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and is responsible for nearly a third of all emissions in Africa.
However, South Africa's urgent need to generate as much power as possible each day prevents it from moving away from coal.
Uganda, a country in East Africa, has long struggled with power outages despite significant investments in electricity production,According to experts, Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa, has struggled for years with an insufficient power supply, producing only 4,000 megawatts despite the need for 30,000 megawatts to support its population of more than 210 million. The oil-rich but energy-poor West African country has increased investments in the power sector, but these efforts have yielded little progress due to widespread corruption and poor management.
Zimbabwe's long-standing electricity shortages have gotten worse as a result of the government agency in charge of Kariba, the biggest dam in the nation, limiting power production because of low water levels.
Due to repeated droughts, Lake Kariba's level has fallen so low that the Kariba South Hydro Power Station, which generates about 70% of Zimbabwe's electricity, is currently producing only 300 megawatts, a far cry from its 1,050 megawatt capacity.
The aging infrastructure in Zimbabwe's coal-fired power plants, which also produce some electricity, has led to a decline in reliability. The nation's solar potential has yet to be fully realized in order to significantly increase supply.
As a result, Omar Chienda, a barber in Harare, never knows when he will have access to the electricity required to run his electric clippers.
How can we help? We just need to wait for the electricity to come back, but it usually does so at night "said 39-year-old father of three Chienda. "Since I am unable to work, my family will go hungry.
Favour Ben, a restaurant owner in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria, said she spends a significant portion of her monthly income on electricity bills and gasoline for her generator, but she also notes that she only receives power for an average of 7 hours per day.
It has been extremely challenging, particularly after paying your electricity bill and still not having light "added Ben. "The majority of the time, I prepare orders for customers, but if there is no light (power for a refrigerator), it spoils the following day (and)For that, I lost money.
According to the World Bank, Nigerian businesses lose $29 billion annually as a result of unstable electricity, with many essential service providers having difficulty running their businesses on generators.
There was a resounding consensus that the continent's protracted power shortages needed to be urgently addressed when delegates gathered in Cape Town this month to discuss Africa's energy challenges. There was some optimism that the "Just Energy Transition," which was funded by the West, would generate some opportunities, but many people remained pessimistic.
Gwede Mantashe, South Africa's minister of mineral resources and energy, is one of the most vocal opponents of efforts to encourage nations like South Africa to switch quickly from using coal to cleaner energy.
He is one of those who urges Africa to use all of the energy sources at its disposal, particularly coal but also natural gas, solar, wind, and hydropower.
"Coal will be around for a very long time. Those who believe it to be corrupt or a path to something else will be let down for a very long time "Mantashe said. "Many of us won't be around when coal does.
About the Creator
Jacob Damian
Whether you're looking to learn something new, explore different perspectives, or simply satisfy your curiosity, I can offer you insights and perspectives that you may not have considered before. With my ability to process and analyse.
Keep reading
More stories from Jacob Damian and writers in Earth and other communities.
What will our growing megacities really look like
Consider the world's largest cities. the metropolises. giants with populations exceeding 10 million. Of course, Tokyo will be on your list. Delhi, Shanghai, Mexico City, New York, and Cairo are similar. Possibly Lagos, Jakarta, and Chongqing if you take pride in maintaining a current understanding of world geography
By Jacob Damian3 years ago in Earth
US Balks as UK and France Pledge Troops to Postwar Ukraine
As the war in Ukraine grinds on with no clear end in sight, the debate over what comes after the fighting has taken a sharper turn. The United States has signalled reluctance about committing troops to Ukraine once the war ends, even as the United Kingdom and France openly pledge to consider deploying forces in a postwar security role. The divergence has exposed differing strategic priorities among Western allies and raised new questions about how Ukraine’s future security will be guaranteed. While all three nations remain united in their support for Kyiv during the war, the emerging split over postwar troop commitments highlights the complexity of planning for peace in a conflict that continues to reshape Europe’s security landscape. What the UK and France Are Proposing British and French leaders have increasingly spoken about the need for long-term security arrangements for Ukraine once active hostilities end. Their position reflects a growing concern that any ceasefire or peace agreement could be fragile, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to renewed aggression. The idea under discussion is not a combat deployment in an active war zone, but rather a stabilisation or reassurance force. Such troops could help train Ukrainian forces, protect critical infrastructure, and serve as a visible deterrent against future attacks. Supporters argue that a limited but credible international presence would help ensure that any peace settlement is respected. For London and Paris, this approach fits within a broader European push to take more responsibility for continental security. Both governments see Ukraine not only as a partner but as a frontline state whose stability directly affects Europe as a whole. Why Washington Is Hesitant The United States, while remaining Ukraine’s most significant military backer during the war, has taken a more cautious stance on postwar troop deployments. American officials have stressed that there are no plans to send US forces into Ukraine, even after a potential peace agreement. This hesitation is rooted in several factors. First, Washington remains wary of any move that could risk a direct confrontation with Russia. Even in a postwar scenario, the presence of US troops on Ukrainian soil could be portrayed by Moscow as a provocation, escalating tensions rather than reducing them. Second, domestic considerations play a major role. After years of overseas military engagements, there is limited appetite among the American public and political class for new long-term deployments abroad, particularly in a region where risks remain high and outcomes uncertain. Finally, US strategy has increasingly emphasised supporting allies through funding, training, and equipment rather than large-scale troop commitments. From Washington’s perspective, enabling Ukraine to defend itself may be preferable to stationing American forces on the ground. A Question of Deterrence At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: what will actually deter future aggression against Ukraine? The UK and France appear to believe that a physical presence, however limited, would send a powerful signal of commitment. Troops on the ground would demonstrate that Ukraine’s security is directly tied to that of major European powers, raising the cost of any future attack. The US, by contrast, seems to place greater faith in alternative mechanisms such as long-term military aid, security guarantees, and sanctions frameworks. American officials argue that deterrence does not necessarily require boots on the ground, especially if Ukraine emerges from the war better armed and more integrated with Western institutions. This difference reflects broader strategic cultures. European powers, facing the immediate proximity of the conflict, may feel a stronger need for visible reassurance measures, while the US assesses risks from a more global perspective. Implications for NATO Unity Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, the discussion has clear implications for the alliance. Any deployment of UK or French troops would be closely scrutinised for what it means for NATO’s role and credibility. NATO operates on consensus, and the absence of US support for a postwar troop presence could complicate coordination. Even if London and Paris act independently or as part of a smaller coalition, questions would remain about command structures, rules of engagement, and the political backing required for such a mission. At the same time, the situation underscores a broader shift within NATO, with European members increasingly expected to shoulder more responsibility. If the UK and France proceed with their plans, it could mark a significant step toward a more autonomous European security posture. Ukraine’s Perspective For Kyiv, the debate is both encouraging and frustrating. On one hand, the willingness of major European powers to consider troop deployments signals long-term commitment and recognition of Ukraine’s security concerns. On the other hand, uncertainty from the US—Ukraine’s most powerful ally—adds another layer of unpredictability. Ukrainian leaders have consistently argued that security guarantees must be concrete, not symbolic. From their perspective, any postwar arrangement must ensure that Russia cannot simply regroup and strike again. Whether this is achieved through foreign troops, binding treaties, or accelerated integration with Western institutions remains an open question. What is clear is that Ukraine wants assurances that go beyond promises and declarations. The Risk of Mixed Signals One potential danger of the current divergence is the message it sends to Moscow. Differing positions among Western allies could be interpreted as hesitation or lack of unity, potentially weakening deterrence rather than strengthening it. At the same time, open debate is not necessarily a sign of weakness. Allies often disagree on tactics while remaining aligned on broader goals. The challenge will be ensuring that these differences do not undermine the core objective of securing a stable and sovereign Ukraine. Diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic are likely to continue working behind the scenes to narrow the gap, even if public statements suggest a clear divide. Looking Ahead The question of postwar Ukraine remains largely theoretical while fighting continues. Yet the discussion itself reveals how seriously Western governments are taking the long-term consequences of the conflict. The UK and France’s willingness to pledge troops reflects a belief that peace must be actively protected. The US reluctance highlights concerns about escalation, sustainability, and domestic support. Reconciling these approaches will be one of the most important diplomatic challenges once the guns eventually fall silent. For now, the disagreement does not signal a breakdown in alliance unity, but it does expose the difficult choices ahead. As the war continues, planning for peace is proving almost as complex—and politically sensitive—as managing the conflict itself.
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.