South Africa’s coal transition hinges on integrated reuse plans for economic and social resilience

South Africa’s heavy dependence on coal leaves it facing a complex commercial and social problem as the country pursues decarbonisation. Coal still underpins the bulk of the electricity system, supports extensive logistics and supply chains and sustains livelihoods in mining regions; converting that industrial footprint into viable low‑carbon businesses is now central to the nation’s just transition debate.

According to government figures, roughly 74% of South Africa’s electricity comes from coal. The sector comprises about 108 mines and processing sites and 14 coal‑fired power stations, while a dense network of road haulage and a dedicated export facility at the Richards Bay Coal Terminal move product daily. Industry data and academic analysis underline how embedded coal is across energy, transport and regional economies, making any rapid shutdown highly disruptive. The coal industry directly employs more than 100,000 workers and supports several thousand additional jobs through related services and supply chains, according to research published by The Conversation.

Policymakers and companies are increasingly exploring reuse rather than abandonment of coal assets. Repurposing options fall broadly into two industrial pathways that build on existing strengths: renewable energy ecosystems and agriculturally focussed value chains. Renewable hubs can exploit existing grid connections, plots of land around decommissioned stations and transport corridors to host utility‑scale solar and wind farms, battery storage and new industrial loads. Agriculture proposals include climate‑smart horticulture on rehabilitated sites and the cultivation of industrial crops such as hemp, kenaf and bamboo, which can feed downstream textile, construction and bioenergy manufacturing using nearby processing capacity.

There are already pilot examples. At the Grootvlei power station, a climate‑smart horticulture centre demonstrates how a former coal site can host agronomy training and food production, while a Glencore trial has shown that treated mine‑affected water can support winter wheat on rehabilitated land. Such projects are presented by proponents and analysts as models that preserve local economic activity while assisting environmental recovery.

Despite the potential, progress has been slow. Analysts point to governance fragmentation, constrained public finances and the absence of binding regulatory requirements for repurposing as key obstacles. Mining companies face simple commercial calculus: rehabilitation and closure are often cheaper than funding redevelopment, particularly where rail operators, trucking firms and port interests are not engaged in coordinated planning. In the power sector, Eskom has signalled a strategic interest in reuse, but the utility’s strained balance sheet limits its capacity to lead large‑scale conversions without external capital.

International support has been mobilised, but deployment has proved cumbersome. The Just Energy Transition Partnership agreed with an International Partners Group pledged about US$14.3 billion in support; the funds are managed through a programme office in the Presidency. However, researchers and practitioners cite slow approvals, opaque decision processes and delayed disbursements as factors hampering the on‑the‑ground roll‑out of repurposing projects.

To be effective at scale, leads argue repurposing must be approached at the systems level rather than piecemeal. That means aligning plans across mines, power stations, rail links, trucking networks and ports so that new industries can use the existing logistical spine. It also requires blended finance to derisk investments for commercial developers and guarantees that economic benefits reach affected workers and communities. The Presidential Climate Commission has been urged to convene the multiple public and private actors to produce a unified repurposing framework that is operational rather than advisory.

For industrial decarbonisation practitioners, the South African case highlights two practical lessons. First, asset‑level technical viability , available land, grid connection and water resources , must be matched by institutional capacity to orchestrate multi‑stakeholder interventions. Second, financing models must explicitly incorporate social outcomes: job retention, retraining and local value‑chain development to avoid entrenching previous inequalities. Where these conditions converge, reclaimed coal landscapes can host diversified economic activity that both reduces emissions and sustains regional prosperity; where they do not, closure risks producing long‑term economic scarring.

As South Africa pursues net‑zero goals by mid‑century, the fate of its coal infrastructure will be a litmus test for whether decarbonisation can be delivered in a way that is both economically resilient and socially just. The policy and financing choices made over the next few years will largely determine whether former mines and power stations become engines of new, low‑carbon industry or cost centres left to long‑term dereliction.