Stretched-out plains with dust devils and unrelenting sun are the trademarks of the barren Northern Cape in South Africa. Every year the province records some of the highest numbers of sunny days worldwide. Rainy days are as rare as hen’s teeth.

This is bad news if you’re a farmer, but great for South Africa’s electricity provider Eskom, one of the biggest power companies in the world, which is building a multi-million dollar solar plant near Upington in the Northern Cape. The potential of solar is enormous, with scientists estimating that every year a square kilometre of desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil.

The Upington project is the first major solar energy initiative on the continent. With South Africa’s current electricity crunch, and the need for renewable power in an economy where 90 per cent of power is generated by coal, it seems this plant is long overdue.

Until now solar power has been one of the most neglected renewable technologies. Solar power provides less than one per cent of the world’s energy, according to the global financial services firm UBS. However, it appears that the potential of solar is finally dawning, with UBS calculating 50 per cent year-on-year growth in the sector. And figures released in January by the Earth Policy Institute show solar electricity generation is now the fastest-growing electricity source. Germany is leading the way, followed by Japan and the United States.

The main deterrent to solar power has been its cost – estimated at about 22 Rand (US$2.80) per watt. In contrast, with such an abundance of coal, South Africa currently produces the world’s cheapest electricity at about 10 Rand (US$1.30) per watt.

But Peet Du Plooy, WWF’s trade and investment advisor for South Africa believes the true cost of coal-based electricity to be higher. “I think it is worth re-evaluating the view that renewables are two to three times more expensive,” he says. “New coal power is no longer as cheap as we used to think. While Eskom has cited R10/watt, Medupi’s [South Africa's newest coal-powered station] actual price comes in at R16.40/watt… and that’s capital cost only.”

Du Plooy points out that the price of coal has climbed steeply in the last three years and that the environmental cost of fossil fuels also needs to be factored in. And he is hopeful that as solar power sees increased uptake, it will become cheaper through economies of scale.

The single biggest cost for solar cell makers is the high price of raw polysilicon, which costs US$300/kg and makes up 70 per cent of the structure. But the price of raw silicon is expected to fall by two thirds over the next three years. So the race is now on to find the best solar technology, and the company which perfects it is likely to make a killing.

Nanosolar, which has manufacturing sites in the United States and Germany, claims to have developed the world’s most economical solar panel, using’thin film’ technology. It hopes to be the first manufacturer to profitably sell solar panels at as little as US$0.99 per watt – comparable to the price of electricity generated from coal.

The company aims to build solar power stations up to 10MW in size, which can be up and running in six to nine months compared with 10 years or more for coal-powered stations and 15 years for nuclear plants.

South Africa has its very own contender in the ‘thin film’ race. Solar guru Professor Vivian Alberts, a physicist at the University of Johannesburg, has developed a design believed to be the most advanced in the world. His panels are now ready for commercial use, and are expected to cost about 14 rand (US$1.80) per watt.”It will be possible for households in South Africa to afford their own solar generation,” he says.

After evaluating various solar technologies, Eskom has decided to use concentrated solar power (CSP) at its plant in Upington. This employs an array of mirrors controlled by tracking systems to focus a large area of sunlight into a small beam. The resulting heat is used to generate electricity.

“There are numerous untested solar technologies out there. However, their feasibility remains unknown until developed to a reasonable scale,” says Sipho Neke, spokesperson for Eskom.

CSP also has the backing of the World Bank, which views it as the only zero-emission technology that could potentially rival coal-fired power. However, solar technology only makes up a small slice of the pie in current projections of South Africa’s future energy mix.

And despite Eskom’s enthusiasm for solar, the company is reluctant to estimate how much it will invest in the technology over the next decade, saying this will depend on the success of the Upington project. But with the solar revolution that appears to be gripping the world, South Africa would be foolish not to follow the sun.

In a damning report released recently, development agency Oxfam said that rich nations had donated only R469-million ($67-million) to a fund dedicated to adaptation. Oxfam estimates that the cost to help poor nations would be R350-billion ($50-billion) each year.

“The R469-million generated so far is less than what people in the United States spend on suntan lotion in one month,” said Charlotte Sterrett, author of the Oxfam report titled Financing Adaption. “It is a slap in the face for poor nations, given that developed countries will need at least $1,2-billion [R7,14-billion] each to meet just their most urgent adaptation needs.”

Top United Nations climate official Yvo de Boer agreed. “Oxfam called the spending on adaptation an insult. If it is an insult, it is a pretty big one. Not enough money has been spent on adaptation. If we don’t act now, it will be too late. We need resources now.”

Adaptation has emerged as a major sticking point at the conference, with the less developed part of the world lobbying hard for richer nations to pay for the “damage they have caused”.

African countries, such as Uganda, have pressed hard for developed countries, such as the US, Canada, Australia and European Union nations, to be held accountable and to pay for the natural disasters that have hit poor countries. “For us it is at the top of our agenda here,” a negotiator for a Southern African country told the Mail & Guardian. “My nation is already feeling the effects of climate change, yet our emissions are so low.”

The statistics back up his statement: total emissions for countries in Africa, excluding South Africa, are less than 3%.

“No matter how you spin the arrow of responsibility, it always ends up pointing at a handful of rich countries. They caused historical pollution and got rich in the process. They can afford to adapt at home [but] justice demands that they help the world’s poor countries cope as well,” said Kate Raworth, senior researcher for Oxfam.

“Future commitments to cut emissions are a must, but additional financing for adaptation cannot wait until 2012. Here in Bali delegates from dozens of poor countries will tell you that they need it now.”

The UN’s human development report, released last week, found that climate disasters are heavily concentrated in poor countries. About 260-million people were affected by climate disasters annually from 2000 to 2004, more than 98% of them in the developing world, the report said.

Oxfam said that if global greenhouse-gas emissions are not cut fast enough far more than R350-billion would be needed to help vulnerable nations. So far rich countries have been helping through the Least Developed Countries Fund, which is based on voluntary contributions from wealthy countries. Despite the multiple natural disasters this year, these countries increased their contribution for urgent adaptation needs by a mere R301-million ($43-million), which is not nearly enough to reach the ­$50-billion needed annually. But only R182-million ($26-million) — the equivalent of one week’s worth of spending on flood defences in the United Kingdom — has been spent multilaterally for adaptation measures, which the development report noted is “very unlikely to provide the scale of adaptation finance needed on a voluntary basis”.

Despite this, compulsory adaptation taxes for rich nations are not on the table at the Bali conference. Instead the UN is hoping a special Adaptation Fund might be the goose that lays the golden egg. The fund was created under the Kyoto Protocol to generate the necessary funds to help vulnerable nations.

At last year’s climate change talks in Nairobi negotiators envisioned that the fund would be financed mainly through a 2% “adaptation levy”, which would be generated by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), linked to the carbon market, whereby businesses in developed nations fund clean energy projects in developing nations.

De Boer said that if the tax levy worked properly up to R2,1-billion ($300-million) could be generated annually between 2008 and 2012. “[Adaptation] will pay for itself then, without the need of taking money away from other development funds,” he said.

But Oxfam believed that a solution stretched beyond the CDM levy. “New finance should be agreed and deployed within the first commitment period, so that adequate funding is available for those who need it urgently,” the organisation said.

It suggested that the US and the EU contribute more than 75% of the finance needed, with 40% coming from the US and 30% from Europe. Japan, Canada, Australia and the Republic of Korea should contribute a further 20% of the finance, with Japan providing more than half of that.

Chilling stats R469-million Less than Americans spend on suntan lotion each month.

What rich countries have paid into a United Nations fund to help the world’s poorest countries adapt to climate change.

R1,14-billion Less than half of what the United Kingdom is investing in cooling the London Underground.

Pledges to the Least Developed Countries Fund, set up for adaptation.

Less than Canadians spent on hair conditioner last year.

R350-billion The amount of tax collected in South Africa in 2004.

What US President George W Bush wanted for additional fundingfor the Iraq war — $460-billion was already budgeted for 2008.

What is needed to help vulnerable nations cope with adaptation.

And the enemy? Climate change, which has already led to wide-scale destruction across the globe as mother nature spins out of control because of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. An Oxfam report released this week revealed that climate-driven natural disasters had quadrupled from 120 a year in the 1980s to 500 this year.

The UN’s top climate change official told the Mail & Guardian in an exclusive interview that Bali would not be the last attempt at saving our planet. That will be reserved for the conference in 2009.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN framework convention on climate change, said instead that it would be the birth of a route that would lead to a final solution.

“Bali is about the beginning of a political process to put a solution in place to combat climate change,” he said, though he added that the world would be in deep trouble if the Bali negotiations failed to deliver any significant outcome.

De Boer emphasised that three minimum targets had to be reached in Bali if a solution was to be found in two years.

“Firstly Bali needs to launch a negotiating agenda where negotiations need to begin on a post-2012 climate change policy. Secondly they should decide what the main elements that need to be negotiated are, and thirdly set an end date for the negotiations,” De Boer said.

De Boer said South Africa would be one of the critical negotiators in Bali.

“South Africa is big and important developing country, and through your minister [Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk] the country is a frontrunner in climate change negotiations,” he said. “Along with Brazil, South Africa is taking the lead in finding solutions for developing countries to grow their economies and fight climate change at the same time.”

This is no easy task. Developing countries and developed countries have been at each other’s throats over how much greenhouse gas different countries should be allowed to emit.

Under the Kyoto protocol, only developed countries, which include Europe, Japan, the United States, Canada and Russia, have caps on their emissions. Developing countries, with huge emissions, such as China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, have none.

The developing countries’ argument is that the developed world had the room to grow their economies when there were no caps in place. The developing world should be allowed to do the same, they say.

The US, however, feels that the developing world should at least take on some caps and have used this as one of its excuses not to ratify Kyoto. China refuses to even consider emission caps if the US is not coming to the party.

“It is a bit like the chicken and egg situation,” De Boer summed up the deadlock. “But an important process is being set up in Bali that will continue after the negotiations there, and which will solve this dilemma.”

He said this year both China and the US had made huge strides in solving the deadlock.

“The US has indicated that it wants to resolve the problem and [US] President [George W] Bush said in his state of the union address that climate change is a global problem which needed a negotiated solution.”

He added that China also had an impressive climate change strategy. But China, like South Africa, still had a coal-dependent economy, which it would not be able to ditch soon.

Almost 90% of South Africa’s electricity needs come from coal and with almost 200 years worth of coal still in the ground, coal will be a big part of South Africa’s energy future. But De Boer said South Africa would have to invest in more clean energies for its coal power plants.

“It is also critical for South Africa to develop carbon capture and storage, where the emissions from coal are captured and stored underground.”

South Africa’s emissions were growing fast because of the country’s growing economy, but he said a big step would be for South Africa to become more energy efficient.

“South Africa will be heavily impacted by climate change — your coastal cities will be affected, you will have more floods while other parts of the country will become drier. That is why it is in South Africa’s interest to solve this climate crisis.