As Africa races to meet its growing energy needs, natural gas has emerged as a stopgap solution. Cleaner than coal and more reliable than renewables during cloudy or windless days, it is often described as a “bridge fuel” for a continent still grappling with energy poverty.

But how solid is this bridge, and will it lead to a cleaner future or delay Africa’s energy transition?

Across the continent, more than 600 million people still lack access to electricity. For many governments, natural gas offers a lifeline, burns cleaner than coal or oil, powers industries, and stabilises electricity grids. According to Wood Mackenzie – a global provider of data and analytics for the energy transition- and African Energy Chamber reports, natural gas meets nearly a quarter of global energy needs, with Africa’s share growing but still behind coal and biomass in many regions.

Over 80 per cent of Nigeria’s grid electricity is generated from natural gas. Egypt has built more than 700 compressed natural gas (CNG) stations and converted thousands of vehicles to run on cleaner fuel. Mozambique, with one of the largest gas reserves in Africa, has launched liquefied natural gas exports while also using gas for local power generation and fertiliser production.

Tanzania’s natural gas is powering a significant portion of its grid, and it has ambitious plans for CNG vehicle conversion and piped gas connections. The government plans to convert at least 8,000 vehicles to CNG by the end of this year. Meanwhile, liquefied natural gas export plans are underway, though the government says domestic energy use will remain a top priority.

Kenya’s use of natural gas remains limited but strategic. The country currently generates no electricity from gas, relying heavily on geothermal, hydro and wind. However, feasibility studies have explored converting oil-fired plants to run on gas. Private companies have also begun piloting CNG conversions for vehicles though uptake is still minimal, largely due to a lack of refueling infrastructure.

Still, gas plays a growing role in households, where liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) has replaced kerosene and charcoal in many urban kitchens. President William Ruto has ordered all public institutions to transition to gas cooking by 2025, highlighting the government’s intent to scale up cleaner fuels. Kenya’s plans for LNG imports and its agreement with Tanzania signal a longer-term interest in gas even as it continues to scale up renewables.

Michael Mazurewicz, business development director at MotorGas Africa, believes natural gas could improve Kenya’s transportation sector. He highlights the high transportation costs that unfairly impact low-income taxpayers and questions the feasibility of electric vehicles (EVs). “EVs are too expensive, and the infrastructure isn’t ready,” he asserts. Instead, he urges Kenya to convert internal combustion engine vehicles to LPG for immediate cost savings and emissions reduction.

He says that in Nairobi, over 12,000 vehicles, including ride-hailing services and matatus, have switched to LPG, achieving a 40 per cent reduction in fuel costs and significantly lowering carbon and nitrogen oxide emissions. However, this represents only 0.3 per cent of Kenya’s registered vehicles. 

Mazurewicz praises Tanzania for prioritising compressed natural gas and contrasts this with Kenya’s heavy reliance on diesel and petroleum, which account for 70 per cent of its energy spending. “Kenya’s energy policies lack coherence,” he notes, stating that LPG can serve as a transitional solution while infrastructure improvements are made.

A narrowing window

Supporters argue that natural gas provides stable, lower-emission energy needed to industrialise and expand electricity access. Gas plants can be built quickly, supply consistent power, and are flexible enough to support renewable energy on the grid. In gas-rich nations, local production can reduce fuel imports and create jobs.

But natural gas remains a fossil fuel, and its climate benefits are relative and not without significant drawbacks. While natural gas does produce less carbon dioxide per unit of energy than coal, it still contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, methane leaks during extraction and transport can offset its lower carbon footprint. Infrastructure costs are high, and countries that invest heavily in gas risk locking in emissions or being left with stranded assets as the world shifts toward clean energy.

There are also questions of equity. Most large gas projects in Africa are geared towards export, with limited domestic benefit. Critics argue that the money and time spent on gas would be better invested in scaling up solar, wind, and battery storage. Renewable energy is often cheaper than gas and requires less infrastructure, especially for rural and off-grid communities.

The balance between economic development and environmental responsibility remains delicate. Natural gas may help fill energy gaps in the short term, especially in power-starved regions, but the danger lies in mistaking a bridge for a destination.

If African countries can use gas to retire dirtier fuels, stabilise the grid, and buy time to scale up renewables, the strategy may well pay off. But that will require careful planning, transparent governance, and a clear path toward a cleaner, more inclusive energy future.