Here is a blueprint for Africa’s hydrogen siting dilemmas

From the newsletter

South Africa has taken a first step in mapping renewable energy zones for green hydrogen by screening environmental and land-use constraints around its major ports. The model blends biodiversity data, land-use conflicts, and infrastructure potential, an approach that could prove useful for other African nations.

• The GIS-based model shows that hydrogen projects will succeed or fail based on early environmental screening, avoiding costly conflicts with communities, biodiversity, and agriculture.

• Without such planning, other hydrogen-producing African countries risk fragmented siting battles, as investors demand certainty on land availability, grid capacity and social license to operate.

More details

• Published by GIZ, the Environmental Screening Study (ESS) using GIS modelling, assessed South Africa’s major ports - Richards Bay, Coega, Mossel Bay, Saldanha Bay and the proposed Boegoebaai - to identify renewable energy sites that could support green hydrogen and Power-to-X production. Using spatial data on ecosystems, conservation priorities, and land use, areas were classified as either to be avoided, constrained, or open. From this, five relatively unconstrained sites per port were highlighted as potential locations for renewable energy development, forming the basis for further wind, solar, and economic feasibility analysis.

• The study found that South Africa has significant renewable energy potential near its major ports, but opportunities are uneven due to environmental and land-use constraints. Coastal zones, particularly around Richards Bay and Saldanha Bay, offer strong wind resources, while inland areas near Coega, Mossel Bay and Boegoebaai are better suited for solar expansion. 

• At Richards Bay, potential renewable sites are limited by rivers, wetlands and intensive agriculture, yet five “open” locations were identified inland that could host large-scale projects. The Coega region stands out for its abundance of unconstrained land stretching northwest. This corridor overlaps with South Africa’s Renewable Energy Development Zones (REDZs) and grid infrastructure corridors, making it particularly attractive for developers.

• In Mossel Bay, environmental constraints are more pronounced along the coast, where agricultural fields and protected areas dominate. However, areas north of the Swartberg Mountains open up significantly for solar power. The port’s proximity to PetroSA’s Fischer-Tropsch plant also creates a unique opportunity to link hydrogen production with existing synthetic fuel infrastructure. The Saldanha Bay area is heavily constrained by agriculture, biodiversity hotspots and even military radar that restricts wind development. Despite this, sites further inland were identified as more feasible. However, the need for long transmission lines could limit cost-effectiveness.

• The proposed Boegoebaai port represents South Africa’s hydrogen frontier. While its coastal zone is constrained by mining and the Richtersveld World Heritage Site, vast inland areas present strong solar potential. Several renewable projects, including the Richtersveld Wind and Solar Farms, have already received environmental authorisations, signalling momentum despite transmission challenges.

• South Africa’s screening model offers a blueprint that other African hydrogen players could adapt. One of the biggest dilemmas across Africa is the clash between hydrogen ambitions and land competition. Hydrogen-producing countries are already announcing large projects on coastal or desert land, often without thorough environmental checks. On paper these look like ideal sites, yet many overlap with fragile ecosystems, pastoral land or water stressed regions. South Africa’s model shows that early screening can steer developers away from such conflict zones and point them towards less contested ground.

• Another lesson is how vital it is to connect renewable resources with the grid and export infrastructure. The South African study makes it clear that inland solar zones near Mossel Bay or Boegoebaai would need long transmission lines to reach ports. Without planning for this, projects risk becoming stranded. By contrast, Coega stands out because renewable zones overlap with existing grid corridors, making it a more attractive option. Other African countries pursuing hydrogen exports to Europe face the same questions of distance, cost and infrastructure.

• The model also underlines the political dimension of hydrogen siting. It does not only identify open land but also highlights where social acceptance may be easier to secure. Sites near tourist areas, community settlements or iconic landscapes could face strong resistance even if technically viable. By flagging these risks upfront, governments can open dialogue with stakeholders early and avoid costly delays later.

• For other hydrogen-producing African countries, adopting a similar screening approach could turn siting from a reactive contest into a proactive strategy. Instead of disputes erupting between developers, regulators and communities, governments could create agreed development corridors that balance renewable potential with environmental protection. This would give investors more certainty and communities a stronger voice in shaping hydrogen zones.

Our take

• Investors are not just chasing wind and solar; they are chasing certainty. Without clear siting frameworks, Africa risks scaring away capital to regions where risks are mapped, mitigated and communicated early.

• Politics remain a part of hydrogen development and governments that treat siting as a negotiation, not a decree, will build durable support for their energy transition.

• Early screening of viable corridors is Africa’s best chance to capture export markets, as delays from siting disputes could leave countries trailing better-prepared competitors.