President Cyril Ramaphosa’s announcement, during last week’s State of the Nation Address (SONA), that South Africa aims to generate over 40% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 has captured global attention, since it would position South Africa as a potential leader in energy transition.
All while, the move highlights deep economic and social trade-offs. The big question is: has Ramaphosa prevailed over his mineral resources and energy minister, Gwede Mantashe, who is a well-known defender of coal?
Ramaphosa’s announcement has been welcomed by leading climate activists, however, some have complained that the president has not given a timeline for the complete abandonment of fossil fuels as sources of energy in South Africa.
“The target for over 40% renewables in electricity generation is somewhat encouraging; less so is the absence of a target for full fossil fuel phase-out,” said Fossil Free South Africa director, David Le Page.
He added that “40% renewable electricity also does not bring us fully in line with global climate targets, which the world is currently missing with potentially devastating consequences”. For Le Page, “because fossil fuels now have high negative costs – externalities – that exceed their economic benefits, a fossil-intensive, climate-destructive economy is one that will continue to impoverish us all more than it is benefitting us”.
He also took issue with the fact that the more than 40% renewable energy by 2030 will include 15% “that supposedly will be sourced from gas and nuclear”. He said this would “condemn South Africans to many more years of unnecessarily high electricity prices because renewables and storages are now far cheaper options”.
The South African power system has long been dominated by coal, which provides approximately 74.31% of the country’s electricity and Eskom’s fleet totals roughly 39 GW of coal capacity across multiple large power stations.
To hit a 40 % renewable share by 2030, South Africa would need to build tens of gigawatts of wind, solar and other clean capacity, while significantly reducing the role of coal, either by retiring older units or running them much less. Nuclear might not play a role since no new nuclear plant is under construction and it would take several years to build one, it would certainly not be producing energy in the time left before 2030.
Such an ambition would likely require discontinuing around half or more of the existing coal fleet’s capacity — roughly 20–25 GW retiring or repurposed — because renewables must not only add capacity but also replace generation that coal currently provides.
Price tag: How much will it cost?
Building enough renewables to make up 40% of South Africa’s grid isn’t cheap.
According to analyses of South Africa’s energy transition, billions of rand will be required just to expand wind and solar capacity, upgrade transmission and support workers and communities affected by the shift. An energy sector review estimates that roughly R 310 billion (US $17–20 billion) in renewable projects could be needed by 2030 alone, on top of significant grid expansion and storage upgrades to handle variable wind and solar output, according to a BCG Global report.
To South Africa’s advantage, donors and development banks are already stepping in. The World Bank is considering a $500 million grid transmission initiative, and multilateral funding packages with the EU and others have pledged more billions for clean energy and infrastructure.
Jobs: Lost and gained
No energy transition comes without labour impacts, and South Africa’s is no exception.
Coal’s dominance has supported hundreds of thousands of jobs, particularly in Mpumalanga province where mining and coal power underpin local economies. Some domestic assessments estimate that 40 000 jobs could be lost in coal-dependent sectors if closures accelerate, with coal sector employment falling by up to 35–40% by mid-century without targeted supports said an irena.org report.
On the other hand, green growth advocates point to opportunities.
Other research indicates that even within South Africa’s electricity sector, renewable expansion could lift overall energy employment by around 40% between now and 2030 when including construction, operations and supply chains, translating to hundreds of thousands of job-years.
Le Page believes fossil fuels are destroying jobs, instead: “South Africa does have 120,000 people working in the coal industry. But globally, we know from IEA (International Energy Agency) and ILO (International Labour Organisation) figures that for every one job in the fossil fuel industry, up to three jobs livelihoods will be destroyed by 2030.”
The nature of the jobs in renewables differs, however. Many renewables roles are in construction and installation, with more specialised positions in engineering, maintenance, and manufacturing, while coal jobs are often long-term operational roles in power stations and mines. This means reskilling and social support policy will be crucial to avoid leaving whole communities behind, a focus Ramaphosa often has emphasised in remarks on the just transition.
Climate and economic stakes
Cutting coal and expanding renewables would have a marked effect on South Africa’s carbon emissions. Renewable expansion consistent with a 40% share could reduce electricity sector emissions by roughly 30% or more by 2030, driven by lower coal generation and cleaner energy supply.
The transition would also have economic benefits — cleaner air, reduced health costs and enhanced energy security — and could attract international climate finance and private investment.
Despite the political commitment, implementation is not assured. Current renewable growth still lags what’s needed to reach a 40% share, and Eskom has cited financial and grid constraints in rolling out large renewables projects.
Communities dependent on coal have expressed mixed reactions. While some welcome the promise of new industries, others fear job losses and slow progress in replacing what coal has meant for local economies.
Le Page says “there should be strong social plans in place to protect coal industry workers – retraining, community investment, social dividends – but delaying the energy transition to protect fossil fuel industry jobs is intrinsically unjust”.
Reaching 40% renewables by 2030 is ambitious — one that would require coordinated investment, strong policy support, social protections for affected workers and rapid deployment of clean technologies. The economic cost is large, but so are the potential benefits in jobs, cleaner air, and long-term sustainability.
The president should be resolute on this one, mindful that the coal lobby is capable of regrouping and introduce new hurdles.