Lights off, gas on: Why Nigeria and Ghana can’t quit fossil fuels yet

For millions in Lagos and Accra, the energy transition isn’t happening at a climate summit. It’s happening every night, at the sound of a diesel generator. Nigeria and Ghana are being asked to do two things at once: expand electricity to power homes and factories, and cut emissions to meet global climate goals. One promises lights. The other promises a future. But the reality on the ground is messier. Nigeria’s national grid collapsed 12 times in 2024, with further collapses in 2025. Ghana has faced more transmission disturbances and a nationwide blackout in March 2021. Both countries still rely heavily on gas to keep the lights on, even as they pledge to go net zero by 2060. And while the world talks about 300GW of renewables by 2030, what most households hear is higher petrol prices after subsidy removal, with no reliable alternative to fall back on. This is why Nigeria and Ghana matter in the global energy debate. They are living proof that a “just transition” cannot be about solar panels alone. It must answer three brutal questions: Can people afford it? Will it be reliable? And who gets left behind when the generators finally go quiet?  Energy transition means shifting from fossil fuels like oil, coal and gas to cleaner sources such as solar, wind and hydropower. It also means better efficiency, electrification of transport, cleaner cooking, and mini-grids for communities the national grid can’t reach.  But for Nigeria and Ghana, the transition creates a difficult balance. Millions still lack reliable electricity. Businesses run on diesel and petrol generators. Air pollution, energy poverty and high fuel costs are daily realities. At the same time, climate change demands emissions cuts.  Nigeria, a major oil and gas producer, has committed to net zero by 2060. Its Energy Transition Plan envisages gas playing a significant role in the earlier stages, before declining substantially toward 2060. Ghana’s Renewable Energy Master Plan (2016–2030) targets 10% renewable-energy penetration by 2030. Both also rely on gas-fired generation to support grid stability as solar and wind output varies.  The much-quoted “300GW by 2030” figure is often mistaken for Nigeria’s national renewable target. It was actually an Africa-wide ambition under the Africa Renewable Energy Initiative. A 2018 projection by an Energy Commission of Nigeria official suggested Nigeria could require 100GW by 2030 under strong growth, rising to 300GW under higher scenarios. That referred to possible electricity capacity needs, not a renewable target.  Nigeria’s framework now focuses on universal energy access, renewable expansion and net zero by 2060, including solar and battery storage. Yet without dependable grid power, households and businesses keep paying twice for electricity — once to the utility, and again to fuel generators.  Subsidy removal complicates this further. Nigeria’s petrol subsidy removal is primarily a fiscal reform, not a climate policy. But it directly affects transport, food, and generator costs. Higher petrol prices have increased pressure on households already dependent on generators. Subsidy reform can create fiscal space, but its social value depends on whether that money funds reliable electricity, mass transport, clean cooking and social protection. Without affordable alternatives, the poorest pay the highest price. IPCR urges National Assembly to strengthen peace legislation Iran war triggers cooking gas supply crunch, Nigeria hit FG powers Abuja varsity with 3MW solar project  Ghana’s experience shows that building solar or gas plants is not enough. The country faces significant energy-sector debt, including arrears to Independent Power Producers and fuel suppliers. In 2025, the government reported substantial payments to clear obligations and restore arrangements. The IMF has flagged these difficulties as a fiscal and operational concern.  If tariffs, contracts and payment systems don’t work, cleaner energy investments won’t endure.  Both countries also face the risk of “stranded assets” — investments like gas or oil facilities that lose value if climate policies and cheaper renewables make continued operation uneconomic. Gas can support reliability now, but continued investment could create long-term dependence or leave infrastructure unviable as the world moves toward net zero.  A just transition must therefore address affordability, reliability, jobs and livelihoods alongside emissions reduction. Moving away from generators helps the environment, but what happens to those who sell fuel, repair generators, or depend on those businesses? What happens to communities and government revenue if oil and gas production declines?  Both countries have significant solar opportunities through utility-scale projects, commercial installations, solar home systems and mini-grids, especially where grid expansion is expensive. But solar expansion requires investment in transmission, distribution, storage, regulation and technical capacity.  Climate vulnerability adds urgency. Both face flooding, drought, coastal risks and pressure on livelihoods. The transition must therefore cut emissions while strengthening the resilience of energy infrastructure.  It will also require skills development for renewable energy, energy efficiency and battery storage. Communities must be part of decisions on land and employment. Social protection can cushion vulnerable households. And given the scale of investment needed, climate finance, private capital and technology transfer will be critical.  The Bottomline here is that Nigeria and Ghana demonstrate the central tension of our time: how to expand energy access while responding to climate change, without leaving people in the dark.  Their transition is not about choosing between fossil fuels and renewables. It’s about whether a mother in Ikeja can run her freezer without a generator. Whether a trader in Kumasi can afford her light bill. Whether a young engineer can get a job installing solar instead of fixing diesel sets.  Get it wrong, and we lock in stranded billions, deeper inequality, and a future where “green” only means expensive.  Get it right, and Nigeria and Ghana won’t just keep the lights on. They will show the world that development and decarbonization can happen together — and that the sound you hear at night can finally be silence, not a generator. Marcel Mbamalu

All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.

Stay informed and ahead of the curve! Follow The Punch Newspaper on WhatsApp for real-time updates, breaking news, and exclusive content. Don't miss a headline – join now!

Stay in the know—fast. Get instant alerts, breaking headlines, and exclusive stories with the Punch News App. Download now and never miss a beat.