Household coal use in an urban township in South Africa - NPC Online

Household coal use in an urban township in South AfricaM BalmerPalmer Development Consulting, PretoriaAbstractCoal is used as a domestic source of energy by lowincomehouseholds in South Africa. Coal is anaffordable fuel source and provides a dual utility – itwarms the house and allows cooking to take placein the same appliance utilising only one fuel.Despite affordability and accessibility of the fuel, theuse of coal results in extremely high levels of air pollutionand concomitant respiratory diseases – anestimated $160 million per annum in South Africa.Access to electricity does not result in householdsswitching away from coal since electricity and electricalappliances are regarded as unaffordable. Thispaper presents information collected during a baselineenergy survey in an electrified urban townshipin South Africa, and outlines the way in which coalis used and purchased by poor households. Analternative fire lighting method, proven to reducesmoke and air pollution form coal fires has beendemonstrated to households with promising results.An integrated approach, addressing energy efficienthousing design, the supply of clean and efficientenergy appliances together with the use of the alternativefire lighting method, is recommended toaddress pollution from household coal use.Keywords: coal, coal use, coal stoves, householdependiture, Vosman Township1. IntroductionThe South African energy economy has long beendominated by coal – it contributes around 75% oftotal primary energy consumption in South Africa(DME, 1998). Although the majority of coal is usedin electricity generation by the national utilityEskom, high levels of household coal use, especiallyin areas close to coal mines and areas experiencingcold winters, are still prevalent. Household coaluse is estimated at 3% of total coal consumption,and an estimated 950 000 households use coal as ahousehold energy source, especially in winter.Although coal is a relatively cheap fuel (householdstypically pay less than R2.00 (32 US cents) per kilogram),there are specific health and safety problemsassociated with the use of coal.South Africa’s industrial and power generationsectors are responsible for some air pollution, butstudies conducted in Gauteng (Scorgie et. al, 2003)found that household coal burning was the largestcontributor to local air pollution in the area – electricitygeneration contributed 5%, industries andcommercial organisations contributed 30% anddomestic coal burning contributed 65%. A similarstudy (Matthee, 2004) found source contributionsto quantifiable particulate emissions in the city ofJohannesburg to be 48% attributable to domesticcoal burning, 22% to scheduled processes, 20%vehicle-tailpipe emissions and 10% to tailingsimpoundments. The worst incidents of poor airquality in South Africa occur with the burning ofwood, dung or coal (Terblanche, et al., 1992). Thissituation proves to become particularly problematicwhen these fuels are used within poorly ventilatedhouseholds, especially in informal settlements andrural villages.According to Scorgie et al. (2003), approximately2000 children die annually as a result of respiratoryinfections caused by air pollution. It is consideredthe sixth largest killer of children under four inSouth Africa, and it is estimated that illnesses relatedto air pollution cost Government in the order ofR1,2 billion per annum (Trade and IndustryChamber, 2004). Apart from the air quality problemscaused by coal, other problems can also occur,such as suffocation or CO poisoning caused bypoor ventilation in houses, irritation to eyes, nosesand throats as well as aggravation of illnesses suchas asthma, TB and HIV/Aids. Lastly, coal causessmelly clothes, damage to furniture and curtainsand ultimately undermines self-esteem and selfworth,as one coal using township residentexplained: ‘My hands are always dirty and I amashamed because my clothes smell of coal smoke(Community member, Orange Farm, 2003)’.The South African Department of Minerals andEnergy subscribes to a policy of universal access toelectricity for households by 2012. However, it isacknowledged that coal use may continue, despiteJournal of Energy in Southern Africa • Vol 18 No 3 • August 2007 27

households having access to electricity: ‘Researchhas shown that electrified low-income householdscontinue to use a range of fuels because electricityis found to be less cost effective (Department ofMinerals and Energy, 1998)’. It is, however, notonly the low cost of the fuel that makes coal attractivefor low-income households. Coal providesthermal energy for space heating and cookingsimultaneously, killing two birds with one stone, soto speak – one fuel and one appliance providesenergy for two end-uses. It is because of this dualutility that other energy forms find it difficult tocompete with coal.Coal is burned in a variety of stoves (bought andhome-made) as well as home-made imbhawulas,tin drums punched full of holes and used as a brazier,illustrated below.2. BackgroundThe data presented in this paper was collected duringa project sponsored by Anglo Coal in the interestof community development and social investmentin the Vosman Township near Witbank in theMpumalanga province of South Africa. Anglo Coalappointed PDC, a private research and consultingfirm, to implement a project aimed at demonstratingand popularising the Basa njengo Magogo alternativefire lighting method to 10 000 households.The data presented in the paper was mostly collectedduring the baseline study of the broader programme.Data collection was effected through a questionnaire-basedinterview conducted with the householdmember responsible for procuring householdenergy and specifically coal. Households were randomlyselected from the three Wards in the projectarea. In total, 142 interviews were conducted. Ofthe total 142 interviews conducted, 76 were conductedwith female respondents, while 36 were conductedwith male respondents. The high number offemale respondents confirms the traditional positionof women as the procurers and managers of householdenergy.The township can be described as a fairly typicalexample of an urban township in South Africa.Sections of the township had been electrifiedaround 3 years ago, and general service provisionimproved with the installation of water reticulationand water borne sewage. However, many challengesremain – roads are un-tarred, informal housesjostle for space with formal houses, no system forrefuse removal is in place and health services arelacking. Houses are built from a variety of materialsincluding highly energy-inefficient material such aszinc, illustrated below.Figure 1: Imbhawulas in VosmanCommercially purchased coal stoves are oftenprized possessions and passed on to other familymembers, effectively ensuring that old coal stovesare never discarded, but also ensuring that smoky,badly ventilated stoves with broken chimneys stayin use and contribute to the problems associatedwith coal use.The paper will outline some findings aroundcoal use in a low-income, electrified township ofSouth Africa. The findings will also touch on themanner in which households acquire coal in thetownship, describing a unique situation where coalis collected from a nearby abandoned mine dump.Lastly, the paper will discuss potential solutions tomake the inevitable use of coal safer and less harmfulto individuals and the environment.Figure 2: A zinc house in Ward 7, VosmanTownshipThe houses are not insulated and only rarelyhave ceilings. Indoor temperatures can be as muchas 5 degrees lower than the outside temperatureduring winter, necessitating a large amount of fuelto make it remotely comfortable inside the house.28 Journal of Energy in Southern Africa • Vol 18 No 3 • August 2007

Coal is often the fuel of choice because of its availability,affordability and dual utility as discussedabove.The average household in the project area wasfound to consist of 5 people, with the highest numberof people per household reported being 13, andthe lowest 1. This is higher than the 2001 reportednational household size of 3.8 for South Africa(www.info.gov.za/aboutsa).Almost 50% of the sample reported householdearnings of less than R500 per month and in total,81% of the sample earned below R1500 permonth. Although household income levels werefound to be low, most households in the samplegenerated some form of income, either throughemployment or micro enterprises and even farmingactivities. In total, 58% of the sample gained anincome through employment or self-employment,while only 29% of the sample relied on welfare orpension payments and remittances as a householdincome. Only 13% of the sample reported beingunemployed.3. Coal use and household expenditureon coalBy far the majority of the households in the Vosmansample (92%) reported using coal as a householdfuel, and only 11 (8%) households reported notusing coal at all, as illustrated below.Research further indicated that low-incomehouseholds clearly do not abandon the use of otherfuels once they are connected to the electricity grid,and that the use of fuels such as coal, paraffin,wood and gas continues despite having access toelectricity for a significant period of time. For example,Market Support Associates (2003) concludedthat ‘even in electrified households, electricity isonly the fourth most used form of cooking energy.Furthermore the presence or absence of electricityhas less effect on fuel choice than other demographics,particularly affluence or age’. Recentresearch carried out by Lloyd et al. (2004) in theCape Town township of Khayelitsha, however,paints a slightly more positive picture. Lloyd et al(2004) found that among households with a regularmetered supply of electricity, 68% use an electricstove as their main source of cooking appliance,while 53% of households with electricity from anextension cord connection use an electric stove –the remainder used paraffin stoves. Based on theresearch, Lloyd et al. (2004) concluded that householdsare progressing well towards a total transitionto electricity but that this may only be true for thespecific area, since broader regional data still indicatesa slow uptake of electricity for thermal uses.Therefore, despite progress being made in specificareas towards higher utilisation of electricity forthermal uses, evidence suggests that multiple fueluse remains the norm in some areas as un-electrifiedareas of South Africa.The majority of households in the study reportedusing coal stoves, as can be seen from Figure 4.Figure 3: Household coal use in VosmanThe pattern of multiple fuel use was also visible withno household reporting using less than 2 fuels.Multiple fuel use refers to the practice of householdsutilising a range of fuels and appliances at the sametime, or interchangeably because of their availabilityand accessibility (PDG, 1998). This means thathouseholds can use, for example, a coal stove, aparaffin stove, a gas cooker, an electric stove, aswell as wood for cooking, depending on which fuelis available, which appliance is in working order, orwhat type of food has to be cooked and the timeavailable to prepare the food. Market SupportAssociates (2003) concluded that the overwhelmingmajority (two-thirds) of low-income households usemore than one cooking energy technology (theaverage household uses two).Figure 4: Coal appliances usedCoal stoves were generally found to be in a badstate of disrepair, adding to the smoke pollutioninside the house. Note the badly sealing doors andcracks in Figures 5 and 6. A number of home-madecoal stoves, called ‘purulwanas’ were also found(Figure 7).Coal was used for cooking, space heating, waterheating and ironing by households in the projectarea. Households reported using coal in winter andsummer, although the frequency of coal fires madewas reported to be less in summer than in winter.The majority of respondents (65%) reportedbuying coal in tin buckets, followed by bags andsmall truck loads. Tin buckets reportedly costJournal of Energy in Southern Africa • Vol 18 No 3 • August 2007 29

Figure 8: Coal purchase by containerFigure 5: Coal stove in disrepair (a)Figure 6: Coal stove in disrepair (b)4. Coal supplyHouseholds in Vosman obtain coal by purchasingfrom coal merchants as well as by collecting coalfrom a nearby old coal dump. Households don’tadmit freely to collecting coal from the dump as it isprohibited and they can be prosecuted. Collectingfrom the dump is also dangerous and householdsreport hearing explosions (most possibly frommethane gas) and the coal caving in. There is alsoa very bad smell around the dump and people havereportedly become ill and vomited while collectingcoal. The quality of the collected coal is also verylow since it is full of stones, very big in size, brittleand reportedly it does not burn well and it is difficultto light. Lastly, out of the 13 coal merchantsselling coal that were interviewed, 1 admitted sellingcoal from the dumping site. However, the projectteam suspects that more merchants are selling coalfrom the dump or mixing it with coal bought elsewhere.Figure 7: A home-made coal stove or purulwanabetween R7.50 and R10.00 with most householdsreporting paying R7.50 per bucket. Truck loads variedfrom as low as R190.00 to R1000.00 – the pricewould depend on the size of the truck and wherethe coal was bought. Prices per bag varied betweenR28.00 and R35.00 per bag, with most peoplereporting paying R30.00 per bag.Figure 9: The coal dump where householdscollect coalIn total, 13 coal merchants or sellers were interviewed.Interestingly, 8 of the 13 merchants arefemale and reported owning the coal selling business.What is notable is that unlike coal yards inother townships such as Orange Farm, Tembisa andAlexandra, the coal yards of Vosman are microenterprises,often operated from the owners’ homesand selling only coal as opposed to other products30 Journal of Energy in Southern Africa • Vol 18 No 3 • August 2007

such as wood, LPG, paraffin or spaza shop-typefood products. From the available data it is not possibleto speculate on the relationship between thesize of the operations and the gender of their owners,but this may be an extremely interesting issue toexplore.Figure 10: A female coal seller and helperOut of the 13 sellers, 4 reported also sellingother energy carriers – 3 sold coal and wood, while1 sold coal and paraffin. Data suggests that somecoal sellers sell on average 5 tonnes of coal permonth during summer and 10 tonnes of coal permonth during the winter period. From responses, itcould be seen that sales figures double from summerto winter. The average tonnage sales figuresshould be treated as indicative only, since not allsellers could answer exactly how much they sell permonth – another indication of their unstructuredapproach to selling coal. In terms of monthlyincome from selling coal, merchants reportedly soldon average R1670 worth of coal per month duringsummer and R2450 worth of coal per month duringwinter. It was impossible for coal sellers to calculatehow much profit they were making from the businessof selling coal.Merchants reported a variety of problems thatthey experience as a coal merchant. Extendingcredit to households who then do not repay themerchant was the most often cited problem and 6of the 13 merchants mentioned it: ‘They want creditbut they don’t pay’ and ‘Customers want creditthen they don’t pay back and they make my profitshot’ also ‘People don’t have money to buy coaland wood. They say give me one bag of coal andend of the month I will pay you. End of the monththey don’t pay.’The second most mentioned problem relates tothe quality of the coal (mentioned by 3 sellers, allbuying their coal from the same supplier, namelyGraspan, Middelburg): ‘The quality of the coalchanges and my customers complain. Sometimes itis good and sometimes it is bad’.The same respondent mentions that sometimesthe coal is like ‘black sand’ which she can’t sell andshe cannot return to the mine. The second respondentsaid: ‘…sometimes the coal does not burn,and then people don’t buy from me’.Households as well as coal merchants experiencedproblems with coal, as discussed above.Households listed the following problems:• The coal does not burn well• The quality is poor, the coal is full of stones• Coal is expensive• Coal smoke makes us sick• Coal smoke makes curtains and walls inside thehouse dirty• You cannot use coal when you have anHIV/Aids patient in the house5. Conclusions and recommendationsVosman Township is situated in the heart of coalmining country in South Africa, and the chances ofhouseholds ever completely abandoning coal areslim. Negative impacts resulting from coal use canbe minimised through an integrated approach toaddress not only the symptoms of the problem, butalso the causes.Addressing the supply of coal, the first interventionrecommended is to provide training to existingcoal sellers to enable them to source and negotiatefor better quality coal. Coal mines and large suppliersare selling the lowest quality coal for consumptionin the townships and consumers are paying apremium for low quality fuel. Training provided tocoal sellers should include basic business managementand administration so that sellers can manageissues such as credit extension in a sustainablemanner. Coal sellers should also be supported tostock cleaner, healthier fuels and energy efficientappliances, as well as make these items available tohouseholds in an affordable manner. Lack of accessand the affordability of cleaner, safer and healthierfuels and appliances are often some of the biggestbarriers for households – they are not aware of theexistence of the products and they cannot afford tobuy them without credit. Products that can be madeavailable include heat retention devices, solar cookers,gel fuel and gel fuel stoves, safe paraffin appliancesas well as LPG.The actual aim of the project was to implementa demonstration and training programme, illustratingan alternative fire lighting method called theBasa njengo Magogo method. By stacking a coalfire differently and lighting it from the top, morethan 80% of smoke can be eliminated (Trade andIndustry Chamber, 2004). The method has successfullybeen demonstrated to more than 80 000households in coal burning areas of South Africa.The Basa Njengo Magogo (BNM) alternative firelighting method represents the highest impact onhealth from a benefit-cost and employment point ofview since the method can potentially reduce ambi-Journal of Energy in Southern Africa • Vol 18 No 3 • August 2007 31

ent air pollution caused by the use of householdcoal in a relatively short period, by approximately40 – 50% (Trade and Industry Chamber, 2004). Awide scale implementation of the BNM methodholds the potential, not only to reduce air pollution,but also to result in coal and monetary savings forlow-income households.On a broader policy level, the importance ofincorporating energy efficient design principles cannotbe stressed enough. Energy efficient houses willreduce the amount of fuel required for space heatingas well as ensure healthier indoor environments.ReferencesDepartment of Minerals and Energy. 1998. White Paperon Energy Policy for the Republic of South Africa.DME: Pretoria.Lloyd, P; Cowan, B and Mohlakoana, N. Improvingaccess to electricity and stimulation of economicgrowth and social upliftment. Contribution to theConference ‘Improving access to modern energyservices through CDM and technology transfer’,Eskom Conference Centre, 27 – 29 July 2004.Market Support Associates South Africa. 2003. MarketAcceptance of household cooking appliances. FinalReport. CEF: Johannesburg.Mathee, A. 2004. Indoor Air Pollution in DevelopingCountries. Recommendations for Research: Commentaryon the Paper by Professor Kirk R. Smith.South African Medical Research Council: Pretoria.Palmer Development Group (PDG). 1998. Genderreview of the GTZ/DME solar cooker field test. FinalReport prepared for GTZ and DME. GTZ: Pretoria.Scorgie, Y, Burger, L and Annergan, H. 2003. VaalTriangle source apportionment study. Paper deliveredto the National Association for Clean Air Conference,October 2003.Terblanche, P; Nel, C.M; and Opperman, L. 1992. Healthand safety aspects of domestic fuels. Department ofMinerals and Energy: Pretoria. Final ReportNE14/6/30.Trade and Industry Chamber. 2004. Fund for Researchinto Industrial Development Growth and Equity(FRIDGE). Study to examine the potential socio-economicimpact of measures to reduce air pollutionfrom combustion. Final Report. www.info.gov.za/aboutsa.Received 15 January 2007; revised 8 June 200732 Journal of Energy in Southern Africa • Vol 18 No 3 • August 2007