The Freedom Front Plus (VF Plus) openly advocates for renewable energy and transitioning from fossil fuels to so-called “green alternatives”.
The only prerequisite, however, is that the ecological pros of producing the “green alternatives” should outweigh those of fossil fuels. This is quite possibly not the case with the planned plant outside Hopefield, where the international energy giant Phelan Green Group wants to manufacture synthetic aviation fuel.
The final product is known as electro-sustainable aviation fuel (or eSAF). It is manufactured from green hydrogen and carbon dioxide.
The hydrogen and oxygen in water are separated by electrolysis to produce hydrogen gas. When renewable electricity is the energy source, it is known as “green” hydrogen. According to the planning, invasive vegetation will serve as the source of the carbon dioxide. At first glance, this looks like the kind of project one would gladly support. It does pose some problems, though:
The project’s own environmental impact assessment indicates that hazardous chemicals will be used and stored, which poses a risk of polluting the groundwater directly beneath the plant. In addition, the plan is to supply the plant with water from the town’s potable water system, even though it will far exceed the town’s total water consumption.
The area of roughly six thousand hectares where solar panels will be erected to generate electricity for the plant is agricultural land and currently covered in natural fynbos. The Hopefield Sand Fynbos – a critically endangered vegetation type – will be eradicated.
The project’s presentation failed to clarify why established industrial areas at Atlantis and Saldanha Bay are not used for the plant. Moreover, photovoltaic systems are more suitable for drier areas with less vegetation, where the detrimental impact is smaller.
Ultimately, a substantial area of vulnerable vegetation will be destroyed, and a sensitive underground water system will be put at risk in order to produce something that can just as well be produced at other, less vulnerable sites – all in the name of ecological sustainability.
This does not add up; and the Freedom Front Plus calls on the company as well as national and provincial environmental departments to prevent its implementation.
