Project Applicant: ANGLO AMERICAN INYOSI COAL (PTY) … - Largo/3. Environmental Impact... ·...
Transcript of Project Applicant: ANGLO AMERICAN INYOSI COAL (PTY) … - Largo/3. Environmental Impact... ·...
Project Applicant: ANGLO AMERICAN INYOSI COAL (PTY) LIMITED Project:
New Largo Colliery Project Location: Nkangala District Municipality, Mpumalanga Report Name: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Volume 2: Appendix C (Supplementary Reading), and Appendix D (Public Participation) (2 of 5 volumes)
Report Status:
(Draft) Revision No: 00 Draft-MDEDET Report Date: February 2012
Report Number: S0403/NL/EIA01
Prepared by: Mari Wolmarans, Marline Medallie, Claire Jarvis
Contributions by: Vivienne Vorster, Clifford Hallatt
Issued by: Mari Wolmarans
For Submission to: Mpumalanga Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (MDEDET), as part of the EIA in terms of the National Environmental Management Act.
Department of Mineral Resources, as part of the EIA and EMP in terms of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (No 28 of 2002)
Department of Water Affairs (DWA), as part of the Water Use License Application in terms of Section 21 of the National Water Act.
National Department of Environmental Affairs (NDEA), as part of a waste management license in terms of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008).
Reference No: MDEDET: 17/2/3N-41
DMR: 30/5/1/2/2/511MR F/2011/04/14/002
DWA: 16/2/7/B200/C528
NDEA: to be announced
Synergistics Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd PO Box 1822, Rivonia, 2128 Tel: 011 807 8225 Fax: 011 807 8226 Email: [email protected]
Environmental Services
Project Information Sheet
PROJECT: New Largo Colliery, Nkangala District Municipality, Mpumalanga REPORT DETAILS: Report Name: New Largo Colliery – Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report Report Number: S0403-NLC-EIA-01 Report Status: Draft-MDEDET Revision No: 00 Date: February 2012
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Anglo American Inyosi Coal (Pty) Ltd (AAIC) Contact Person: Henri Nieuwoudt
Designation: Head of Mining and Property Law: South Africa
Tel: 011 6383781
Fax: 011 6384608
Email: [email protected]
Postal Address: PO Box 61587, Marshalltown, Johannesburg, 2017 INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT: Synergistics Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd (Synergistics) Designation: Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP)
Contact Person: Marline Medallie
Tel: 011 807 8225
Fax: 011 807 8226
Email: [email protected]
Postal Address: PO Box 1822, Rivonia, Johannesburg, 2128
EAP: Mari Wolmarans
Tel: 041 583 1156
Email: [email protected]
EAP Expertise: BL Arch, UP, 1991.
Environmental Assessment Practitioner Certified by the Interim Certification Board (EAPSA).
Professional member South African Institute of Ecologists & Environmental Scientists (SAIE&ES).
20 years’ environmental management and assessment experience, specifically in the mining and infrastructure development sectors.
Environmental Impact Assessment: Project Management.
S0403/EIA01 February 2012
ANGLO AMERICAN INYOSI COAL (PTY) LIMITED
New Largo Colliery Nkangala District Municipality, Mpumalanga
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Volume 2: Appendix C (Supplementary Reading), and Appendix D (Public Participation)
(2 of 5 volumes)
(Draft) Appendix C: Supplementary Reading on the Need and Desirability of the Development
C1: Media Comment on the National Government’s Final Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity 2010-2030: “Massive renewable and nuclear build ahead - but coal is here to stay”. Understanding IRP 2010 – the national Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity, article by Chris Yelland, Managing Director, EE Publishers, December 2011
C2: South Africa’s ‘National Government’s Final Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity 2010-2030’ as approved by cabinet (Final Report March 2011).
C3: The launch of the South African Renewables Initiative [SARi] in Durban during the UNFCCC COP17 climate change conference, 7 Dec 2011
C4: “Urgent Needs for Low Carbon SA” Minister of Energy Ms Dipuo Peters, speaking COP17
C5: SA will continue using coal: Energy Minister, Thursday 1 December 2011, SABC
C6: Speaking notes for Minister Gigaba: Kusile Boiler Construction Commencement Function, Issued by: Department of Public Enterprises, 19 Nov 2011
C7: “Weighing the merits of Medupi and Kusile is a ticklish business” Power Complex. Article by Stef Terblanche in the ‘The Project Manager’, 28 March 2011
C8: Greenpeace protest Kusile Power station. “Activists fired up against coal plants”. Independent Newspapers. November 8, article by Kristen van Schie
C9: “Greenpeace activists arrested at Kusile coal station”. 7 November 2011. Article published in the Mail & Guardian Online.
C10: “How can SA move to a green economy when we’ve been addicted to coal for so long?” National Business Initiative debate. ‘Urgent action is needed on coal’ – article Colleen Dardagan in the Mercury Newspaper, 7 December 2011.
C11: “Solving Eskom's coal conundrum”, article on miningmx.com (Jan de Lange, 03 February 2011)
C12: “Government will ensure enough coal for Eskom”, Mail & Guardian Online Article by Agnieszka Flak, 02 February 2011.
C13: Eskom complaints about ‘inferior coal’ Business Day, January 11 2011.
C14: ‘Tough times at the face’, miningmx.com, article by Brendan Ryan, 04 Jul 2011.
C15: “Eskom says 15 new Mpumalanga coal mines needed by 2015”, article in Mining Weekly (online), by Loni Prinsloo, 21 June 2011.
Appendix D: Public Consultation Documentation
D1. Issues and Response Report
D2. Interested and Affected Parties Database
D3. Project Notification to Landowners
D4. Copy of the NEMA Application Form Submitted to MDEDET
D5. MDEDET and DMR Acceptance of Application and Scoping Report
D6. Proof of Newspaper Placements and Site Notices
D7. Project Notification to Interested and Affected Parties and Authorities
D8. Background Information Document and Flyers
D9. Record of Public Information Meetings (11 and 12 May 2011)
D10. Record of Authority Meetings
a. Meeting with Mpumalanga DWA (9 May 2011)
b. Meeting with MDEDET (19 May 2011)
c. Meeting with National DWA (17 June 2011)
d. Meeting with Competent and Commenting Authorities (26 July 2011)
e. Meeting with Emalahleni Local Municipality (11 August 2011)
f. Meeting with DEA (30 September 2011)
g. Meeting with Mpumalanga DMR (10 October 2011)
h. Meeting with Mpumalanga DWA (11 October 2011)
i. Meeting with DWA (28 October 2011)
D11. Record of Water Focus Group Meeting and Authority Meeting (26 July 2011)
D12. Correspondence to and from Authorities
D13. Correspondence to and from Interested and Affected Parties
Appendix C: Supplementary Reading on the Need and
Desirability of the Development
Appendix C: Need and Desirability of Kusile Power Station – Supplementary Reading
C1: Media Comment on the National Government’s Final Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity 2010-2030: “Massive renewable and nuclear build ahead - but coal is here to stay”. Understanding IRP 2010 – the national Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity, article by Chris Yelland, Managing Director, EE Publishers, December 2011
C2: South Africa’s ‘National Government’s Final Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity 2010-2030’ (IRP2010) as approved by cabinet (Final Report March 2011).
C3: The launch of the South African Renewables Initiative [SARi] in Durban during the UNFCCC COP17 climate change conference, 7 Dec 2011
C4: “Urgent Needs for Low Carbon SA” Minister of Energy Ms Dipuo Peters, speaking COP17
C5: SA will continue using coal: Energy Minister, Thursday 1 December 2011, SABC
C6: Speaking notes for Minister Gigaba: Kusile Boiler Construction Commencement Function, Issued by: Department of Public Enterprises, 19 Nov 2011
C7: “Weighing the merits of Medupi and Kusile is a ticklish business” Power Complex. Article by Stef Terblanche in the ‘The Project Manager’, 28 March 2011
C8: Greenpeace protest Kusile Power station. “Activists fired up against coal plants”. Independent Newspapers. November 8, article by Kristen van Schie
C9: “Greenpeace activists arrested at Kusile coal station”. 7 November 2011. Article published in the Mail & Guardian Online.
C10: “How can SA move to a green economy when we’ve been addicted to coal for so long?” National Business Initiative debate. ‘Urgent action is needed on coal’ – article Colleen Dardagan in the Mercury Newspaper, 7 December 2011.
C11: “Solving Eskom's coal conundrum”, article on miningmx.com (Jan de Lange, 03 February 2011)
C12: “Government will ensure enough coal for Eskom”, Mail & Guardian Online Article by Agnieszka Flak, 02 February 2011.
C13: Eskom complaints about ‘inferior coal’ Business Day, January 11 2011.
C14: ‘Tough times at the face’, miningmx.com, article by Brendan Ryan, 04 Jul 2011.
C15: “Eskom says 15 new Mpumalanga coal mines needed by 2015”, article in Mining Weekly (online), by Loni Prinsloo, 21 June 2011.
C1. Media Comment on the National Government’s Final Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity 2010-2030: “Massive renewable and nuclear build ahead - but coal is here to stay”. Understanding IRP 2010 – the national Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity, article by Chris Yelland, Managing Director, EE Publishers, December 2011
At long last, the cabinet has approved and published the national Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity, IRP 2010. Now this just has to be passed by parliament and published in the Government Gazette. Let’s hope there will not be further delays, and that a measure of certainty will prevail so that the electricity sector can get down to work. But what is IRP 2010? Why is it important? And what exactly does it say? IRP 2010 forecasts South Africa’s electricity demand for the next 20 years up to 2030, and determines how this demand is to be met. It sets out the generation technologies to be used and the planned mix of primary energy options over this period, such as the mix between hydrocarbon (coal, gas, diesel), renewable (hydro, wind, solar), nuclear, pumped storage and other power generation technologies. IRP 2010 thus enables the necessary short, medium and long term investment, funding and business plans to be developed to give effect to IRP 2010, and this then sets the electricity price trajectory for years to come. As Eskom and the power generation sector is the biggest emitter of CO2 in South Africa, the selection of appropriate technology and primary energy options made through IRP 2010 gives effect to government policy commitments for the reduction of CO2 emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change. Whilst it is not cast in stone, but is subject to periodic review and adjustment, IRP 2010 is clearly an important country plan critical to security of electricity supply and economic growth in South Africa. It sets long-term investment directions and decisions valued in excess of R1700-billion over the next two decades. As such, the formulation and development of IRP 2010 requires a degree of openness and transparency, with participation and input from central and local government, civil society, mining, industrial, commercial, business and consumer stakeholders, in order to achieve the necessary legitimacy, credibility and accountability. The process commenced with the establishment of a technical task team in early 2010. After stakeholder input on a number of economic and planning assumptions (i.e. the so-called input parameters), and a subsequent modelling process by Eskom, the Draft IRP 2010 was published in October 2010 for public comment and feedback. The Draft presented a number of scenarios for consideration, with the technical task team recommending the so-called Revised Balanced Scenario as providing an appropriate balance between the need to significantly reduce CO2 emissions and enable a viable renewable energy sector in South Africa, while endeavouring to contain electricity prices to avoid damage to the economy, loss of jobs and undue social hardship. This scenario proposed 52 248 MW of new generation capacity by 2030, with a technology mix as shown in Fig. 1 [below].
As might be expected where there are widely diverse political, economic, social and business interests, the public hearings on the Draft IRP 2010 elicited intense debate and widespread criticism from various affected parties and interest groups. While some slammed the process and the technical task team as dominated by a narrow group of Eskom and energy intensive mining and resource stakeholders with significant vested commercial interests, others argue that the development of IRP 2010 has been the most participative and transparent electricity planning process in the history of South Africa. After the public hearings, some more submissions and further modelling, the IRP 2010 was presented to the government interdepartmental committee on energy for further work and adjustments based on political, economic, social and environmental policy considerations, and this resulted in the so-called final Policy Adjusted IRP 2010 that was approved by the cabinet on 16 March 2011. This final Policy Adjusted IRP 2010 increased the new generation capacity build over the next 20 years from the 52 248 MW proposed in the Revised Balanced Scenario of the Draft IRP 2010 to 56 359 MW, with a somewhat revised technology mix, as shown and compared in Fig. 1 [below]. This capacity increase reflects a greater emphasis and commitment to renewable energy using solar photo-voltaic (PV), concentrating solar (CSP) and wind generation technologies, as shown in Table 1 [below]. By adding the new-build technology mix of the final Policy Adjusted IRP 2010 for the next 20 years to the current generation technology mix in South Africa, and then subtracting the generation components that are to be decommissioned by 2030, one can see clearly the generation capacity growth and technology trends envisaged for South Africa over this period, as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 [below]. From this one can clearly see the massive and ambitious new renewable and nuclear build ahead, but also that electricity generation from coal and other hydrocarbons is here to stay, at least for the next 20 years and more. “The road ahead as mapped out in IRP 2010 is ambitious but do-able”, says Xstrata’s Mike Rossouw, chairman of the IRP 2010 technical task team, “but it requires a new mindset - it is definitely not going to be business as usual”. Source: EE Publishers, December 2010 (http://eepublishers.co.za/article/massive-new-renewable-and-nuclear-build-ahead-but-coal-is-here-to-stay.html)
Fig 1: New build technology mix: Draft Revised Balanced Scenario IRP 2010 vs. Final Policy Adjusted IRP 2010
Hydrocarbon 23 683 MW 41,89% Coal 16 383 MW 28,98% OCGT (diesel) 4 930 MW 8,72% CCGT (gas) 2 370 MW 4,19% Renewables 21 534 MW 38,09% Wind 9 200 MW 16,27% Solar (PV) 8 400 MW 14,86% Solar (CSP) 1 200 MW 2,12% Imported hydro 2 609 MW 4,61% Landfill, small hydro 125 MW 0,22% Nuclear 9 600 MW 16,98% Pumped storage 1 332 MW 2,36% Co-generation, own build 390 MW 0,69% Total 56 539 MW 100%
Table 1: New-build technology mix: Final Policy Adjusted IRP 2010
Hydrocarbon23 799 MW
Hydrocarbon23 683 MW
Renewables15 874 MW
Renewables21 534 MW
Nuclear9600 MW
Nuclear9600 MW
Pumped storage1332 MW
Pumped storage1332 MWCo-gen, own-gen
1643 MW
Co-gen, own-gen390 MW
Total 56 539 MW Total 52 248 MW
Fig. 2: The size and mix of the South African generation capacity pie – 2010 to 2030: Final Policy Adjusted IRP2010
Fig. 3: Growth and mix of generation capacity in South Africa – 2010 to 2030: Final Policy Adjusted IRP2010
Hydrocarbon3799086%
Renewables2100 MW
5%
Nuclear1800 MW
4%
Pumped storage
1580 MW4%
Other425 MW
1%
Generation capacity mix in 2010: Total 43 895 MW
Hydrocarbon50 771 MW
57%Renewables23 559 MW
26%
Nuclear11 400 MW
13%
Capacity 2030Pumped storage
29123%
Other890 MW
1%
Generation capacity mix in 2030: Total 89 532 MW
37 990 MW
50 771 MW
2100 MW
23 559 MW
1800 MW
11 400 MW
1580 MW
2912 MW
425 MW
890 MW
Inst
alle
d ca
paci
ty (M
W) Other
Pumped storage
Nuclear
Renewables
Hydrocarbons
C2. South Africa’s ‘National Government’s Final Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity 2010-
2030’ (IRP2010) as approved by cabinet (Final Report March 2011)
Separate PDF File
C3. The launch of the South African Renewables Initiative [SARi] in Durban during the UNFCCC COP17 climate change conference, 7 Dec 2011
The South African Minister of Energy, Ms Elizabeth Dipuo Peters and the Minister of Trade and Industry, Dr Rob Davies, launched an international partnership today with partner Governments, and the European Investment Bank, in a bid to scale-up and secure long-term funding to enable the growth of the renewable energy industry in South Africa. Joining Minister Peters in signing the Declaration of Intent on the South African Renewables Initiative (SARi) were:
Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for the Government of the United Kingdom;
Erik Solheim, Minister of the Environment and International Development for the Government of Norway;
Norbert Röttgen, Federal Minister for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety for the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany;
Martin Lidegaard, Minister for Climate, Energy and Building for the Government of Denmark; Simon Brooks, Vice President for the European Investment Bank.
The Declaration of Intent was signed in the South African city of Durban, which is hosting the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties, COP 17/CMP7. The South African Renewables Initiative (SARi) aims to mobilise domestic and international funding, and sector expertise, to support South Africa to implement its ambitious plans for the scale-up of renewable energy. South Africa’s Minister of Energy, Minister Dipuo Peters, noted that: “South Africa has a large potential for renewable energy, with over 18 GW already included in the current Integrated Resource Plan. South Africa already benefits from international partnerships in the energy field, but this is different: The South African Renewables Initiative will not only contribute towards the growth and deployment of renewable energy, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and enhanced energy access, but, equally importantly, it will also enable South Africa to boost the development of new green industries, and new green jobs in renewable energy and its value chain. “ “It will also serve to meet South Africa’s commitment, which President Zuma announced in Copenhagen in 2009, that South Africa would reduce carbon emissions by 34% by 2020 and by 42% by 2025” Minister Peters concluded. Expanding on the opportunity, South African Minister of Trade and Industry, Dr Rob Davies noted that “Renewable energy is an opportunity for Africa. African countries need to become producers as well as consumers of tomorrow’s technologies. As South Africa begins to rollout large scale renewables, we are seeking to do this in a way that maximises industrial and job creation benefits”
”By working together with international partners, we can ensure that there is the funding, investment environment, and skilled workforce in place to enable the renewable energy industry to grow and thrive. The South African Renewables Initiative aims to unlock the environmental, industrial, and economic benefits that large-scale renewable energy offer to South Africa, without imposing an unacceptable burden on our economy, public finances or citizens.” Minister Davies concluded. Endorsing this, the international partners emphasised that: “SARi will not only provide a means of supporting investment in South Africa, but, as an initiative, will serve as a source for exchange of expertise as well as shared learning and inspiration with other ambitious national initiatives and international collaborations for green growth.” Issued by: Department of Trade and Industry, 7 Dec 2011 (http://www.info.gov.za/speech/DynamicAction?pageid=461&sid=24028&tid=52043)
C4. “Urgent Needs for Low Carbon SA” Minister of Energy Ms Dipuo Peters, speaking COP17 Technology and finance are two huge requirements if South Africa is to fulfil its commitment towards a lower carbon economy and society. Minister of Energy Ms Dipuo Peters, speaking at the ongoing COP17 climate change conference in Durban, says for South Africa to meet its pledge to reduce its emissions by almost half by the year 2025, there has to be a massive investment in technology. "As a country we are committed to playing our part to reducing total emissions and therefore moving towards a low-carbon economy. This commitment was entrenched when President Zuma pledged that South Africa would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 34% by the year 2020, stepping up to a 42% reduction in emissions by 2025, provided that technology and finance were made available," said Ms Peters. More than 65% of the country's energy needs are currently met through coal as the primary source, with crude oil accounting for about 13%. The remainder is met by a combination of gas, nuclear, hydro and renewable energy sources. In the electricity sector, approximately 90% of the country's power is produced in coal-fired stations. As part of achieving the set target of reducing carbon emissions, South Africa has promulgated the Integrated Resource Plan [IRP2010] for electricity, a 20-year capacity expansion plan aimed at an energy mix of 42% of all new capacity from renewable sources, followed by nuclear (23%), coal (15%) liquid fuels (9%) natural gas (6%) and imported hydro (6%). “We cannot, however, ignore the fact that we are a coal-rich economy. Nor can we ignore the significant contribution of the coal mining industry towards the economy. In 2010 South Africa had an estimated 32 billion tonnes of coal reserves, which at current local consumptions can last us more than 100 years to come, and according to the Statistics South Africa the coal mining sector contributed about 1.8% of GDP directly," said Ms Peters. She added that the signing of the Green Economy Accord by the government and its social partners a fortnight ago marked another significant milestone. South Africa has targeted the installation of one million solar water heaters in homes by 2014 and securing commitments from the private sector for the supply of 3 725MW energy by 2016, with solar, wind, biogas, biomass, landfill gas and small hydro technologies providing this capacity. The country will cooperate with Mozambique, Angola, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe. South Africa already imports a substantial amount of gas from Mozambique and plans are currently underway for a gas-fired power plant with 140 MW capacity through a joint venture between Sasol and a local power utility in Mozambique. - Elijah Moholola NUCLEAR POWER Later, Ms Peters said South Africa planned to spend an estimated R400bn on building up its nuclear power generation. Briefing the media at COP17 she said whatever the total figure, the spending had to benefit the country. Reducing coal-fired electricity generation from a 65% dependency to 15% and stepping up nuclear generated power from the current low levels to 23% of total, meant massive new investment in nuclear capacity. "Our cost estimate is R400bn... but we believe whatever is spent must benefit South Africans.” Ms Peters was responding to a question on whether reports were correct that government was planning to spend a trillion rand on its nuclear build, at four times the global rate. Source: http://www.parliament.gov.za/live/content.php?Item_ID=1870
C5. SA will continue using coal: Energy Minister, Thursday 1 December 2011, SABC Energy Minister Dipuo Peters said South Africa will continue using coal as its primary energy source. The minister was speaking at Durban's COP17 Climate Change Conference. Peters’ statement is likely to ruffle more than a few feathers. Yesterday, environmental activists lashed out at Eskom, which is currently building a coal power station in Mpumalanga, which would be one of the biggest in the world. Bobby Peek of Groundwork said, “Where the Eskom Kusile plant is situated, there are 10 other Eskom power stations. The air pollution monitoring in May to August 2010 highlighted that the air pollution ambient standards were transgressed on more than 500 occasions," he said. Peek added, "The State utility Eskom accounts for a large part of these emissions as it generates over 90 percent of its electricity in coal-fired power plants." South Africa is ranked quiet high as a emitter of carbon dioxide. The energy mix for renewable sources will comprise 42%. Peters said South Africa plans to spend an estimated 400 billion rand on building its nuclear electricity-generating capacity. Briefing the media at the UN Climate talks Conference in Durban, Peters said the 20-year integrated resource plan for electricity envisages an energy mix that includes 23% coming from nuclear in the future. The energy mix for renewable sources will comprise 42%. Fifteen percent will be coal-generated, nine percent liquid fuels, six percent from natural gas and six percent from hydro power. (http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/b53dc5804943fea88fdfaf915eb2a9f9/SA-will-continue-using-coal:-Energy-Minister--20111201)
C6. Speaking notes for Minister Gigaba: Kusile Boiler Construction Commencement Function,
Issued by: Department of Public Enterprises, 19 Nov 2011 We are here today to mark a significant milestone in the building of the Kusile Power Station. The boiler is the heart of the power station and the commencement of its construction is indeed a welcome event. We have managed a delicate electricity supply and demand balance post the events of early 2008 and we have been able to avert the need for power supply interruptions, generally called load shedding, through increased vigilance and a heightened level of operational scrutiny and focus. However, we are not out of the woods yet and we will be faced with an increasingly tight system until Medupi and Kusile, our two major base-load stations start feeding electricity into the national grid. It will require a concerted effort from all South Africans over the next few years to use electricity efficiently and effectively to ensure we are able to maintain a secure supply. We have persisted with the conviction that we cannot do this alone; we need the contribution and effort of every single South African, together conserving energy, using it sparingly, efficiently and effectively. We are working closely with Eskom to explore additional interventions to release space for crucial maintenance to be done as well as to enhance our reserves during critical periods such as the one we are currently in, being summer, when planned maintenance of our power stations is ramped up to make sure we have the maximum available capacity over the winter period. It is crucial that we ensure that South Africa’s economic growth is not constrained due to a shortage of available electricity supply as the provision of sufficient electricity is essential to support economic growth as well as the developmental imperatives of the country. Government’s Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity, approved earlier this year forecasts that electricity demand will in fact double from current levels by 2030. Eskom’s current approved build programme started in 2004 and is projected to deliver some 17 000 Megawatts of new generating capacity and 4 700 kilometres of new transmission lines upon its completion. Eskom has already brought 5 381 Megawatts and 3 531 kilometres of Transmission line into service since 2004. The build programme includes the construction of new base-load and peaking power stations as well as the return-to-service of old power stations previously mothballed, upgrades to the current fleet and the construction of new transmission lines to increase capacity and to strengthen of the existing transmission network. The construction of Medupi and Kusile is also going to bring with it new technology to South Africa as they will be the first of our power stations to utilise supercritical power generating technology in our country and actually on the continent.
For those of you that, like me, are not engineers, it just means that the temperatures that these new boilers will run at are very much higher than our current fleet and, once again, I am told that because of that, they are much more efficient. The current Eskom approved capacity expansion programme is a massive undertaking and is without precedent in our country’s history given its size and the magnitude of the funding required to enable its completion. In the context of the current global economic climate and the need for Eskom to raise an estimated R300 billion in debt to fund the programme, Government has come to the party with a loan of R60 billion and a guarantee framework of R350 billion to support Eskom in securing the necessary debt funding for its build programme. Recently, our funding plan received a boost when both the World Bank and the African Development Banks came through and provided the loans that meant that the build programme is now 74% funded, and we need about R80 billion now to have the programme fully funded. We are confident that we will be able to acquire the full funding we need to complete the build programme. We have also, as a country had to accept a number of steep annual increases in our electricity prices in order to ensure that what we pay for our electricity properly reflects the cost of providing that service. Without the recent price increases, it would not have been possible for Eskom to raise the required debt nor service its debt obligations and the entire build programme would have been placed in jeopardy and in turn, our country’s security of electricity supply. We must not lose sight as well of the additional socio-economic benefits of such a large infrastructure expansion programme. In fact, one of the job drivers indentified in the New Growth Path is through infrastructure development. Eskom’s three new power stations alone will create nearly 40 000 jobs directly and indirectly. If you multiply that by four for the average family, some 160 000 people are directly impacted by the Medupi, Kusile and Ingula construction projects. In addition, the economic impact of these capital projects on the surrounding communities will be significant. For example, it is estimated that Kusile will result in a 25% increase in Gross Domestic Product for Delmas. Thousands of engineers and artisans are also being trained by Eskom and its contractors at the various build sites, meaning that thousands of people will have employable skills when the construction projects are completed. I would like to turn now to the issue of coal-based power generation in the face of South Africa’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the hot topic of the day being the COP17 about to commence shortly.
The need to diversify our electricity generating mix away from fossil fuels has been accepted and is well recognised by Government and is evidenced by the IRP2010 which advocates a reduction in the contribution to our electricity generating portfolio by coal-fired generation from over 90% today to around 60% in 2030. Whilst committed to the energy mix diversification and the development of a green economy as indicated in various government policies, we need to be mindful that we have a large coal-fired generation fleet that will be around for many years to come. As a country, we are blessed with a large coal resource that we should not discount out of hand, lest we inadvertently place ourselves at a competitive disadvantage to other nations. Research and Development must therefore continue into clean coal technologies including underground coal gasification and carbon capture and storage. We must also not lose sight of the fact that Medupi and Kusile will be endowed with the most advanced emission abatement technologies available, including Flue Gas Desulphurisation [FGD], which come at a cost. Kusile will be one of the cleanest coal-fired power stations in the world and will have very expensive state of the art technology that will reduce and in some cases eliminate harmful emissions. Additionally, in a water-scarce country, Kusile will use water far more sparingly than our older power stations. The recent signing of the World Bank Loan for Eskom’s wind and solar renewable projects is another step towards the migration to a more diversified energy mix for Eskom and testament to Government’s continued commitment to this process. As we diversify away from coal as our primary source of electricity generation, we need to ensure that we do it responsibly and that we maintain an adequate and reliable supply of base-load electricity to power our growing economy and create jobs in our country and in the Southern African region. We also need to be careful not to introduce technologies into our generation mix on a large scale that are yet to mature in their development and place unnecessary additional upward pressure on electricity prices without the commensurate benefits to the economy in terms of industrialisation, localisation, jobs and skills. The COP17 Conference is an exploration of how the world can cooperate to develop a more environmentally sustainable energy system. To align with this ethic, Eskom has gone the extra mile to implement a range of energy efficiency and renewable initiatives for the Conference so that, in a small way, we can bring the future to the present. I commend Eskom for this effort.
On Tuesday, we shall be launching our Climate Change Framework for State-Owned Companies aimed at establishing achievable goals for the SOCs in relation to the overall National Response to Climate Change while maintaining an appropriate balance between potentially competing financial, economic, developmental and environmental objectives. The Department of Public Enterprises, Eskom and the South African Government are totally committed to make the decisive shift towards the green economy and thus become a responsible global player and partner in terms of climate change mitigation. In closing, while we are committed to increasing the share of Renewable Energy sources and the introduction of a nuclear energy fleet as directed by IRP2010, the delivery as planned of our two new state-of-the art, coal-fired power stations, Medupi and Kusile, the largest and most technologically advanced of their kind globally, is an integral part of our long term country plan for electricity provision and will be essential in our effort to secure our country’s electricity supply now and to provide for future growth in our economy. I congratulate all those involved in the Kusile power station project for reaching this milestone and the commencement of the boiler construction. I urge all of you to remain committed and focused and to not lose sight of the importance of the completion of this project on time and within budget to our country, its economy and our people. I thank you. Issued by: Department of Public Enterprises, 19 Nov 2011 Source: http://www.info.gov.za/speech/DynamicAction?pageid=461&sid=23422&tid=49707
C7. “Weighing the merits of Medupi and Kusile is a ticklish business” Power Complex. Article by Stef Terblanche in the ‘The Project Manager’, 28 March 2011
As Eskom’s multibillion-rand expansion project to meet South Africa’s rising electricity demands steadily forges ahead, the project – and particularly its new Medupi and Kusile coal-fired power stations – has run into a barrage of criticism and opposition over power-generation type choices, delays, escalating costs, planning, funding issues, environmental concerns and more. In short, its overall feasibility, viability and future sustainability is being questioned. According to Eskom, the construction of the Medupi, Kusile and Ingula projects are on schedule and within budget, while meeting all quality requirements. But just how viable is Eskom’s expansion project in the longer term? Professor Anton Eberhard, who leads the Management Programme in Infrastructure Reform and Regulation at the University of Cape Town Graduate School of Business, says South Africa needs the power. “The tariff will rise to pay for these investments, but coal generation is still the cheapest large-scale power-generation option in South Africa if we exclude environmental externalities,” he says. Medupi, Kusile and Ingula would be the last power stations Eskom would build on its own, as going it alone is not sustainable in the longer term, according to Eskom’s business manager, Andrew Etzinger. Medupi and Kusile are seen as the core to Eskom’s immediate plans to provide enough electricity to prevent any further rolling blackouts. In the medium term, private energy producers will be brought into the picture; while in the longer term, nuclear and sustainable energy will have to form a significant part of the electricity supply capacity. Consultants to Eskom estimate that if Medupi, Kusile and several other projects go ahead, 35 new coal mines would be required. This in itself already places a question mark behind the sustainability of the power utility’s plans. Recently, Eskom’s chief commercial officer Dan Marokane announced that security of the coal supplies it requires for its existing and new power stations over the long term would be a problem, and that an “optimal balance between coal exports and domestic energy security” had to be found. Eskom sources most of its coal for its existing power stations from Mpumalanga coal mines, but says there is not enough coal to supply it under a 60-year life-of-station scenario. Marokane said risks to coal supply have increased because of delays in developing major new long-term sources. Anglo American chief executive officer Cynthia Carroll said her company would be the first to assist Eskom with its coal needs, adding that more than 70% of the thermal coal it mined in South Africa was already being sold into the domestic market. Eskom accused the coal mining industry of supplying it with poor-quality coal. But these claims were disputed in a strongly worded statement released by Bheki Sibiya, CEO of the Chamber of Mines.
While coal currently accounts for 90% of South Africa’s electricity generation, it will be cut to a contribution of only 48% by 2030, according to the government’s future vision in its draft electricity Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) released late last year, after many delays. With the emphasis shifting significantly toward renewable energy, the role of coal will be significantly reduced – a policy that seems to be at odds with the current focus on the massive Medupi and Kusile projects. But coal will still account for almost half of all electricity generation. According to Mpho Makwana, Eskom’s acting chairperson at the time, writing in Eskom’s 2010 annual report, the power utility “is a leader in sustainability reporting – focusing transparently on reporting our financial, technical, environmental and social impact performance”. “Eskom is also a trendsetter in this regard – as reflected in the deep respect we show for our value of innovation. “In 1990, we were applying the principles of managing our business in terms of the triple bottom line – committed to maximise the economic, environmental and social returns of our business,” he said, adding that the utility would continue working with partners and stakeholders to control its impacts on ecosystems and seek opportunities to contribute to the South African biodiversity strategy. In a sustainable development overview, Eskom says it has integrated sustainable development issues into decision-making for many years. “Given that our sector is long-term in nature and that many decisions have implications for decades, it is vital that we take robust and responsible decisions,” it says, adding that sustainability at Eskom refers to “providing affordable energy and related services through the integration and consideration of economic development, environmental quality and social equity into business practices in order to continually improve performance and underpin development.” This covers all relevant elements, assesses the practicality of implementation and includes issues such as technology development and deployment, quality, risk, safety and skills development, says Eskom. Prof. Eberhard believes the new power stations will be financially sustainable, but environmentally they will increase South Africa’s carbon dioxide emissions and make it difficult to meet the country’s offer made at the United Nations climate negotiations in Copenhagen to reduce its emissions as part of the global effort. Medupi will be a coal-fired, dry-cooling, flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) station. Timing is critical in respect of construction, as Eskom wants the first of Medupi’s six units to be functional by the middle of next year, with final completion scheduled for 2015. Medupi will be the world’s third largest coal-fired power station. Eskom says it will be a new-generation super critical plant, meaning it will operate with greater efficiency than the older power stations, using less water and coal – thus contributing to an improved environmental performance.
Its location at Lephalale in Limpopo is near the large coal reserves north of the Waterberg off which it will feed, requiring 14 million tonnes per annum of coal to eventually fire the six units, producing an additional 4 764 megawatts of electricity for the national grid. But environmentalists differ strongly over the environmental aspects, saying that at full capacity, the Medupi plant will emit more CO2 than 115 countries combined, and will destroy the sensitive water system in Mpumalanga as a result of new coal mines going into production. The Centre for Global Development says Medupi will eventually emit up to 29 million tonnes of CO2 per year, adding to the 452 million tonnes of CO2 South Africa is already emitting per year, according to the International Energy Agency. Other environmental researchers put the figure slightly lower at 25 million tonnes. South Africa currently is responsible for 40% of all Africa’s emissions. According to BankTrack – a global network of civil society organisations and individuals tracking the operations of the private financial sector and its social and environmental effects – Medupi will be extremely water-hungry, using up extremely scarce water supplies, with coal mining operations further impacting negatively on water sources. While partial funding of Eskom’s New Build Programme has already been approved by the World Bank, BankTrack and other environmental groups have launched a campaign targeting the Bank and other financial institutions – including multilateral developments banks, export credit agencies and investment funds – not to fund Eskom’s coal-fired projects. And that is Eskom’s Achilles’ heel: Its expansion budget is R385 billion for the emergency increase in electricity supply required by 2013. That figure will go up to one trillion rand by 2026, by which time Eskom hopes to have doubled its capacity to 80 000 MW. Already, costs are escalating. For its immediate programme, Eskom is struggling to find the R80-billion shortfall in funding, having already introduced massive tariff hikes for consumers and having received loans from, among others, the World Bank and the South African government – its only shareholder. The power utility itself says that one of its greatest challenges is funding uncertainty. But Eskom adds that despite the global recession, it has successfully managed to negotiate and secure “most of the fundamental contracts”. In the interim, the United States government-funded Import-Export Bank has delayed a decision on providing funding for the Kusile project. In November, it was still contemplating aspects related to Kusile’s projected greenhouse gas emissions impact, which environmental groups say will add nearly 10% to South Africa’s total CO2 emissions – making Kusile one of the largest greenhouse gas-emitting power plants in the world. Officially, Kusile’s initial price tag of R80bn to R100bn had already escalated to R124.42bn by May last year, with Eskom denying industry speculation that this has shot up to R175bn. Industry sources say Treasury officials were calling for the scrapping of the project, as paying penalties of R30bn would be the cheapest option now.
It has been estimated that, so far, Eskom has managed to secure only 11% of the required funding for Kusile to proceed. In January, the US environmental group, Friends of the Earth, as well as other environmental groups and BankTrack, stepped up a campaign to pressure the Import-Export Bank not to fund the Kusile project. Environmental groups recently nearly stopped the Bank from funding a project in India, save for US government intervention at the last moment. The Kusile Power Station, located at Emalahleni, Mpumalanga, will be a coal-fired, dry-cooling and FGD plant producing an output of 4 800 MW, with a targeted completion date of 2017. Despite possible cancelling of the project hanging over its head as one of Eskom’s possible future scenarios, construction is already entering its fourth year. Another possible scenario includes delaying the construction of Medupi and Kusile. Eskom insists, though, that cancelling the Kusile project is not an option at present, and neither should they be delayed because of their importance for security of supply. However, the uncertainty around the funding of Kusile already delayed the release of the government’s draft electricity IRP released late last year. Industry sources and environmental groups conclude it has already delayed the actual construction project, causing costs to rise and doubts to set in about its future viability, thus rendering the project unable to attract adequate funding. “These are not turnkey projects. Instead, each power station involves about 30 to 40 different contracts,” says Prof. Eberhard. “Eskom has contracted engineering project management companies to assist it, but it has still battled to contain costs and ensure timely construction. “Construction at both Medupi and Kusile has been delayed. Eskom was given the green light to build new capacity in 2004/2005. The first unit at Medupi will only be commissioned in 2012/2013. We needed this power station already in 2008. “And Kusile has been delayed because of uncertainties regarding finance,” he adds. But Prof. Eberhard does not think Kusile will be cancelled, and says the government has decided to proceed with it. Neither does he think the fact that the government plans to reduce reliance on coal by almost half by 2030 may render these two coal stations to become white elephants, adding that older Eskom coal-fired power stations will instead be decommissioned at the end of their useful life. But for now, Eskom’s capacity expansion programme seems to remain a tricky and often controversial project. Source: The Project Manager Online Magazine, 28 March 2011 (electronic version: http://www.theprojectmanager.co.za/index.php/Other/power-complex.html#)
C8. Greenpeace protest Kusile Power station. “Activists fired up against coal plants”. Independent Newspapers. November 8, article by Kristen van Schie
The activists arrived at the construction site at dawn, and chained themselves to the front gate. But as police and security guards got to work with a bolt cutter, a smaller group had made its way through a back entrance. The crane was unguarded. They began to climb, each hauling a pack of about 25kg: ladder after ladder, climbing harnesses straining against the wind. At about 100m up, activist Michael Baillie could see the construction site stretching around him: Kusile, Eskom’s newest coal-fired power station. “The coal site is massive,” he said. “For most South Africans, the idea of where their electricity comes from doesn’t even occur to them. They switch on a light and don’t realise that coal is burning at that moment.” Reaching the summit, they let their banners unfurl: “Kusile: climate killer.” Baillie was one of a group of Greenpeace activists who protested on Monday morning against the construction of the coal-fired power station and what they call South Africa’s “addiction to coal”. He and eight others were arrested and charged with trespassing and malicious damage to property. They were released on bail and will appear in court in Mpumalanga in two weeks. “We, as Eskom, engage with Greenpeace and many other NGOs on climate-change issues,” said Eskom spokeswoman Hilary Joffe. “This is a country debate in which we all need to participate. But we cannot allow illegal entry onto our sites.” In three weeks’ time, the country will host the UN climate-change talks in Durban, the 17th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP17). “We would like to see both South Africa and Eskom taking up renewable energy,” said Greenpeace climate campaigner Melita Steele.A8 “There is no such thing as clean coal.” More than 90 percent of South Africa’s electricity is generated by coal-fired power stations and contributes to more than half of the country’s total carbon emissions. In an International Energy Agency report released last month, South Africa was ranked the 16th biggest emitter globally, pumping about 369.4 megatons (Mt) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2009. On its completion in 2016, Kusile is expected to burn through 17Mt of coal every year, emitting another 37 Mt of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. South Africa’s overall emissions will jump by another 10 percent.
And it’s just one of two power stations Eskom is building to answer the huge demand for power in South Africa. Last year, the World Bank approved a $3.75 billion loan to build the Medupi coal-fired power station in Limpopo. Eskom maintains it is committed to developing clean energy, with two renewable projects in the pipeline – a wind farm in the Western Cape and a solar power plant in the Northern Cape. But, with both projects set to contribute only 100 megawatts each to the grid – a fraction of the country’s energy requirements – Greenpeace says it’s not enough. A Greenpeace study conducted by the University of Pretoria examined Kusile’s external costs – like water wastage, health complications, transport costs and damage to the environment – and predicted the annual damage to society to be between R31.2bn and R60.6bn. “What other country has such great wind and solar energy opportunities?” asked Baillie. “We don’t need Kusile. We don’t want Kusile. It’s time for the government to invest in renewable energy.” - The Star Source: www.iol.co.za (http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/activists-fired-up-against-coal-plants-1.1173624?ot=inmsa.ArticlePrintPageLayout.ot)
C9. “Greenpeace activists arrested at Kusile coal station”. 7 November 2011. Article published in the Mail & Guardian Online.
Three Greenpeace activists were arrested at the Kusile power station's construction site in Mpumalanga on Monday after scaling a crane. Six activists gained entry to the site around 10am and climbed a crane, said Eskom spokesperson Hilary Joffe. "We are most concerned about the safety of all on site and cannot condone illegal entry, nor the climbing of a crane." Greenpeace spokesperson Fiona Musana said the three were charged with forced entry and taken to the Ogies police station. By noon, police were still trying to remove the remaining activists. They gained access through the back of the site. A group of about 20 activists demonstrated at the gates of the new power station, in Emalahleni, early on Monday morning, with seven chaining themselves to the gate. They were protesting against South Africa's reliance on the burning of coal to generate electricity, which emits greenhouse gases. Greenpeace claims in a recent document that Kusile's external and hidden costs could be between R31.2-billion and R60.6-billion a year. The Greenpeace-commissioned True Cost of Coal report was compiled by the University of Pretoria and released at the end of October. It investigated the actual costs of Kusile's entire coal chain, from climate change to water use, the impact on health and the damaging effects of coal mining. "If Kusile was a country, it would be the fifth most polluting country in the world. It's not sustainable. The impact [of R60-billion] on South Africans would be devastating," Musana said. "Eskom is reluctant to speak with us... we want to hand over a memorandum with the report findings. We want a just transition from coal to renewable energy as it's a win-win situation in terms of job creation, the climate and energy." Eskom earlier welcomed a protest over cleaner energy as long as it was peaceful and didn't disrupt operations. "An important part though is that we don't apologise for building two large coal-fired stations. We are a developing country with a great need for economic growth and job creation," Joffe said. "We need a secure and affordable supply of electricity in the short and long term, and coal is part of that future. We need to balance that supply with reducing emissions." Kusile is expected to add 4 800 megawatts to the power grid on completion in 2017. The Medupi power station, being built in Lephalale, Limpopo, will add another 4 800 megawatts of coal-powered energy.
The stations would use advanced technology to burn less coal for the same amount of energy and achieve reduced emissions. Air quality would be improved by removing oxides of sulphur from exhaust gases released into the atmosphere. – Sapa Source (http://mg.co.za/article/2011-11-07-greenpeace-activists-arrested-at-kusile-coal-station) Main & Guardian online, 7 November 2011
C10. “How can SA move to a green economy when we’ve been addicted to coal for so long?”
National Business Initiative debate. ‘Urgent action is needed on coal’ – article Colleen Dardagan in the Mercury Newspaper, 7 December 2011.
On the horns of South Africa’s coal addiction dilemma, environmentalists and miners yesterday found common ground, but few solutions to the country’s dirty energy question. A debate hosted in Durban by the National Business Initiative, entitled “How can SA move to a green economy when we’ve been addicted to coal for so long?”, saw planners, environmentalists, miners and labour agree that urgent action was needed to manage the country’s minerals more responsibly, while protecting critical water sources. However, what that action should be went unanswered. Representatives from the National Union of Mineworkers came up with a list of 12 demands – which included that coal be declared a strategic resource, Eskom own its own coal mines, and a carbon tax be imposed on high-intensity users. But the head of the Fossil Fuel Foundation, Bill Lamont, declared that, while the body acknowledged the view that human activity contributed to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, they did not necessarily support it as fact. “We don’t have a deep enough level of understanding. We need to look at the whole equation. We have our own position, but we need to get to a position where we understand all the issues,” he said. Referring to the newly-released WWF report “Coal and Water Future in South Africa: The Case for Protecting Headwaters in the Enkangala Grasslands” (which extend from the Drakensberg in the south to northern KwaZulu-Natal and into Mpumalanga), Christine Colvin, the Freshwater Programmes Manager for WWF-SA, said the document showed how current planning for coal mining in the country failed to recognise the importance of water resources. “We need to protect our water resources if we are to adapt to climate change,” she said. In the report, 84 percent of the country’s aquatic ecosystems are either vulnerable or endangered, 12 percent of the land generates 50 percent of river flow, and the projected increase in water demand between 2006 and 2030 is set to increase by 32 percent, while extreme weather events such as flooding in many headwater areas heighten the risk of acid mine drainage. Colvin warned that strategic plans for green growth needed to have an impact on the ground quickly, because food, water and job security were all at risk. “We cannot afford to lose more catchment areas to coal mining,” she said. “Over 120 000 agricultural jobs are threatened by the deteriorating water quality. The Loskop dam on the Olifants River, for example, is heavily polluted by mining in its headwaters, which is affecting downstream activities. This is compounded by the 5 906 abandoned and ownerless coal mines in the country.” Further, according to the report, it took 44 years before acid mine drainage began to discharge into the Blesbokspruit River, which is linked to the Olifants River, and taxpayers are going to have to pick up the R30 billion tab for cleaning up the current list of abandoned mines.
“The government has set aside R5 billion a year to rehabilitate the Olifants catchment, which is not enough,” she said. Colvin said, while the country had adequate legislation to manage the mining sector, it had yet to be tested. “There is also no co-operation between the departments of mining, environment and water affairs. We have seen some shocking examples of inadequate environmental management plans. And licences are being issued with no or little understanding of how water sources will be affected. “Our call is that water be mainstreamed at the centre of development planning,” she said. Dave Collins, an independent climate change and energy consultant, said that until governments tackled the burgeoning population question, the demand for energy would increase. “No one is talking about population control – it’s a sensitive issue – but until there is consensus that there are too many people, the appetite for coal will increase.” Mziwakhe Nhlapo, the head of the National Union of Mineworkers’ health and safety unit, touched on the issue of funding clean-up operations and said the money for it should come from the polluters – the mining houses. “Mines need to purify and recycle the water they use. We don’t see carbon trading as a solution – it just promotes business as usual,” he said. While panelists agreed that a transition period was necessary to allow for a switch from mainly coal-based energy, concerns were raised that deadlines should be enforced. “There is no quick-fix,” said the WWF’s Saliem Fakir. “It took us 200 years to build an economy dependent on fossil fuels. Transition doesn’t happen overnight. Our stance is we want 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. There is no debate; transition is going to have to take place.” “We can’t just pull the plug now – too many jobs will be lost and economies will collapse.” Angus Burns, a member of the WWF who is working on the Enkangala Grasslands Project, said he felt encouraged by the meeting. “Ten years ago we would never have been able to have this discussion. It would have ended in a massive battle. “I’m optimistic that something will come of this discussion. We now need to engage actively with the Chamber of Mines and business,” he said. Source: Mercury Newspaper (online), 7 December 2011 (electronic version http://www.iol.co.za/mercury/urgent-action-is-needed-on-coal-1.1194265)
C11. “Solving Eskom's coal conundrum”, article on miningmx.com (Jan de Lange, 03 February 2011)
ESKOM is facing decision-making problems similar to those in the period 1998 to 2001 when its failure to start building new power stations caused the 2008 outage crisis. Announcing that South Africa is once again facing a squeeze on power supply, the utility this time wants the country to know about its problem so that decision-makers realise the gravity of the situation in good time. Over the past week sources at Eskom’s highest levels have made it clear that the country is facing a second crisis unless important policy decisions are taken now. Whatever these decisions may be, they are certain to mean further power price hikes. Eskom has calculated that about R110bn needs to be invested in new coal mines and conveyor belts over the next 10 years. The mining industry will have to finance these investments, but the problem is how to create a business environment that makes them sufficiently attractive. Unless policy decisions are speedily taken to address the issue, Eskom is facing coal shortages. Last week a top official at Eskom said that, from Eskom’s perspective, it seemed inevitable that consumers would pay a higher price for electricity, one that was linked to the price of coal on world markets – unless a new approach was adopted. According to Eskom’s previous long-term plans, existing coal mines in Mpumalanga would have been adequate to provide for the remaining lifetimes of the existing fleet of power stations. Whatever these decisions may be, they are certain to mean further power price hikes. But the electricity shortage has obliged some of the power stations' normal 50-year lifespans to be extended to 60 years. That, and delays in building new coal mines, point to a shortfall of 1,500 million tonnes of coal over the next 28 years. Expected exports of Eskom-grade coal will over this period add a deficit of another 520 million tonnes. These coal exports are anticipated because new power stations in India - to be commissioned over the next five years - require coal that is "right in the middle" of the quality category Eskom’s power stations use. Previously only higher-grade coal was exported. Over the past two years a new coal category, RB3, has been developed that complies with Indian quality requirements – and which is exported through the Richards Bay Coal Terminal. Pricewise, South Africa is now competing directly with global markets, said a senior official at Eskom's coal division.
This creates expectations on the part of coal producers that they will in time be able to export coal at prices many times higher than that at which they deliver to Eskom. Eskom has seen postponement of various projects that should have been started already because the owners of those resources are uncertain about the future market, said the official. At the McCloskey coal conference in Cape Town on Wednesday morning, Eskom business executive Dan Marokane said that the current pricing model did nothing to encourage mining companies to invest in coal. He made a plea to those attending the conference for a new pricing model that distributed the risks more evenly between mining companies and Eskom. He said that the country's coal resources needed further development. Exports of coal should also be supported and developed, as long as provision was first made for domestic requirements. Domestic prices should however ensure more efficient costs and a fair return for the mine operator, rather than be linked to market prices or global prices. Yields should also encourage continued investment in coal mines. In other words, mining companies should receive a fair return for their capital and skills, he said. “Mechanisms” ensuring that the country's domestic coal requirements were satisfied needed to be created. These could include quotas or licences for exporters, limits on exporting RB3 coal, and greater powers enabling the minister to intervene in the interest of domestic energy security, said Marokane. Sake24 Source: mining.co.za (http://www.miningmx.com/opinion/columnists/Solving-Eskom-coal-conundrum.htm)
C12. “Government will ensure enough coal for Eskom”, Mail & Guardian Online Article by Agnieszka Flak, 02 February 2011.
Mining Minister Susan Shabangu said on Wednesday the government would act if necessary to ensure sufficient coal supplies for power generation, but backed off declaring coal a strategic resource. State-owned power utility Eskom has been struggling to secure all the coal it needs to power Africa's biggest economy, while coal miners have been increasingly focusing on exports due to the promise of higher returns from shipments to Asia. The shortage has been exacerbated by a pick-up in electricity demand as the overall economy has recovered from a 2009 recession and mines in the world's top platinum producer have ramped up production. "The lack of regulation of the coal mining industry resulted in a shift in the power balance away from the national interest to that of the shareholders of the mining companies and Eskom losing some share of its historical market," Shabangu told a conference in Cape Town. "We reserve the right to take corrective measures should the situation demand it," she said. Eskom says South Africa could face power shortages if domestic coal supplies are not guaranteed, as they have been in other major coal producers such as Indonesia. It also complains about having to pay for domestic coal at international prices. "Eskom faces serious challenges in securing long-term coal supplies. Unless an alternative is found, Eskom will have to pay prices linked to global markets for South African coal, which is going to impact the consumer," chief commercial officer Dan Marokane told Reuters. Heavy investment Eskom has been investing heavily in new plants after a near collapse of the national grid in early 2008, which forced mines and smelters to shut for days and cost South Africa billions of rands in lost output. The utility has already been granted three consecutive price hikes of 25% per year to pay for new plants and may apply for two similar additional hikes to pay off the investment, further hitting on an already stretched consumer. The government has largely left it to the industry to sort out the problem. Eskom's proposals include quotas on coal exports and varying pricing based on "efficient cost and fair returns". Marokane said the model would limit Eskom's exposure to volatility in international prices and ensure sufficient incentive for miners to invest in new mines for domestic use. Eskom estimates the industry needs to spend R175-billion over the next 20 years to ensure sufficient supplies for its plants. Talks on the proposals have so far yielded no results. -- Reuters Source: Mail & Guardian Online (http://mg.co.za/article/2011-02-02-govt-will-ensure-enough-coal-for-eskom)
C13. Eskom complaints about ‘inferior coal’ Business Day, January 11 2011. Eskom warned last week that the country was at risk of power rationing and now the utility is playing hardball with local coal suppliers it accuses of supplying low quality fuel. Quoted in Miningmx, chief executive Brian Dames reiterated Eskom’s call for urgent restrictions on coal exports, suggesting a formula-based export quota. “This (the regulation of coal exports) should actually already have been introduced,” Dames said in an interview last week. He said poor quality coal supplies were reducing Eskom’s daily capacity by between 500 megawatts and 1 000MW. The utility said there had been a marked deterioration in the quality of the total coal deliveries to Eskom since 2006. According to Eskom, these trends, combined with higher load factors, have resulted in significant coal-related load losses and an equivalent financial loss to Eskom of approximately R1 billion. Eskom consumed 122 million tons of coal last year. Local power stations use coal with a calorific value of between 19.5 and 23. Export coal is above 23 calorific value on average. Low coal quality reduces the efficiency of a power plant as more coal is needed. This reduces the efficiency of boilers and increases costs. Hilary Joffe, Eskom’s spokeswoman, said yesterday that the utility was addressing the issue of coal quality. “Standards have slipped, they are below specified requirements and sometimes specifics are not tight enough… We are negotiating with miners to implement quality specific requirements, to ensure that coal supplies improve.” Two power stations in particular, Duvha and Matla in Mpumalanga, were struggling to obtain the right quality of coal, Dames said. Eskom was sometimes forced to mix waste coal with higher quality coal. Joffe said Eskom was renegotiating the contract at Duvha and implementing a beneficiation process at Matla. BHP Billiton Energy Coal South Africa supplies coal to Duvha, where its contract is being renegotiated. Exxaro Resources supplies coal to Matla. Eskom’s suppliers have disputed a decline in coal quality. BHP Billiton Energy Coal SA spokesman Ruban Yogarajah said the quality of the coal supplied to Eskom was within the specifications of contracts entered into between the two companies. “While coal production has been affected by heavy rains in recent weeks, all of our mines are operating as normal and the company continues to supply coal to all of its customers,” Yogarajah said.
Pranill Ramchander, the spokesman for Anglo American, said the company was meeting the requirements set out by Eskom. Joffe explained that following the recent commodity boom, the demand for fuel had resulted in countries like India competing with Eskom for lower grade coal supplies. However, the company was much better placed than in January 2008, when there were stockpiles for 10 days only. Currently, Joffe said, available coal stockpiles would last an average of 41 days. “At that point stockpiles were low and the quality was affected by rain… We should be able to get through problems,” she said. Joffe said there had been challenges with operating procedures for the handling of wet coal in 2008. - Dineo Matomela Source: Business Day (online) http://www.iol.co.za/business/business-news/eskom-complaints-about-inferior-coal-1.1010462
C14. ‘Tough times at the face’, miningmx.com, article by Brendan Ryan, 04 Jul 2011.
New entrants to South Africa’s coal sector had a bucket of cold water thrown over them at the Coaltrans South Africa conference held recently in Johannesburg. A number of harsh realities were spelt out – in particular during the presentation given by Ian Hall, who is chair of the South African Coal Road Map Steering Committee – while others became apparent when you “connected the dots”.
The key problem area is the continued restriction to access to the export market, where Transnet Freight Rail (TFR) is still underperforming badly despite claims made at the conference by Transnet GM Divyesh Kalan that it “had turned the corner in 2010/2011”.
The other significant piece of bad news concerned uncertainty about expanding rail access to the Waterberg, where a number of junior coal companies have invested in projects.
The long-term future of SA’s coal industry rests on the Waterberg, which is slated to become the dominant producing coalfield once the existing main resources around Witbank and Middelburg are mined out. But achieving that will require construction of a heavy-haul railway line linking the Waterberg to Witbank. And it became clear at the conference that Eskom, for one, doesn’t seem so sure that’s going to happen.
If that line isn’t built – or if there are lengthy delays in its construction – it would be bad news for the development plans of companies such as ASX- and JSE-listed Resources Generation, ASX- and JSE-listed Firestone Energy and newcomer Namane Energy, which plans to list on the JSE next month.
Construction of that line is deemed vital to bring Waterberg coal to supply various Eskom power stations in Mpumalanga and so keep them running after coal currently available around Witbank/Middelburg runs out. The line would also link into the existing Witbank/Richards Bay line, allowing Waterberg coal to be exported through the Richards Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT).
So Hall’s gloomy assessment of the state of SA’s coal sector under the Integrated Resource Plan 2010 (IRP2) – which has been accepted by Government as a blueprint for meeting the country’s energy requirements through to 2030 – has to be viewed as a “wake-up call” for investors.
Hall described the IRP2 plan as “a pretty grim scenario if you’re a coal producer”. It calls for huge investments in nuclear and renewable sources of energy and downplays the role of coal. Hall reckons if the IRP2 is implemented as planned then coal reserves in the Waterberg, Soutpansberg and Limpopo fields will remain largely undeveloped because there will be no further significant investment in SA’s coal industry.
Hall also says there will be no need for any major expansion of SA’s rail infrastructure. Hall comments: “Eskom would secure its coal requirements from the Central Basin (the coalfields around Witbank and Middelburg) through having restrictions imposed on coal exports.”
Answering a question from the floor about the reason for Eskom’s lobbying for controls on coal exports, Hall replied the State utility was working on the assumption its stations would only be able to source coal from the Central Basin. He added: “If you assume there’s going to be no further infrastructural development – in that the railway lines required to bring coal to the power stations in Mpumalanga from the Waterberg will not be built – then Eskom is correct. They probably will run out of the low-grade coal they need, which is why they want to limit exports.”
Speaking after Hall at the conference was Eskom chief commercial officer Dan Marokane. Asked for his reaction to Hall’s gloomy scenario, Marokane listed a string of risk factors that could affect future coal supply from the new regions. These included 1,2bn t of coal that Eskom viewed as being “at risk to project delays between now and 2039”. He also cited infrastructural challenges, such as the supply of sufficient water to the planned new coal mines in the Waterberg and the need for a heavy haul coal line from the Waterberg to Witbank. Marokane estimated that line would cost between R10bn and R40bn to build, depending on railage volume requirements.
He repeated Eskom’s stance that the utility didn’t want to block coal exports but felt there had to be a balance between the supply requirements of the domestic and export markets.
Of course, limiting coal exports would be very bad news for investment into SA’s coal sector, but TFR is already doing a good job of limiting coal exports through its current inability to rail coal. The RBCT now has the capacity to export 91m t of coal a year. Transnet’s current budget provides for the provision of 81m t/year of railage capacity by 2015/2016. However, TFR only managed to deliver 63,4m t to the RBCT during calendar 2010 and by end-May this year was running at an annualised level of just 61m t.
Despite that Kalan says TFR will rail 73 mt of coal in its financial year to end-March 2012 and will do so by railing at an average rate of 6,4m t/month from June until then. However, TFR has only come close to that target twice in the past 12 months, when it managed to export 6m t in June and 6,1m t in September last year. The monthly average so far this year is just 5,1mt.
RBCT CEO Raymond Chirwa clearly doesn’t believe Kalan because the terminal has chopped its forecast exports for calendar 2011 from its original estimate of 70m t to 63,4m t. And a coal industry source described TFR’s forecast as “a pipedream”.
Now throw in TFR’s apparent plans to allocate preferential treatment on export railages to empowerment coal juniors at the expense of the other members of the RBCT.
Kalan told the conference TFR was working on a strategy to “unlock some capacity on the Richards Bay corridor” for the juniors but wouldn’t provide details. Asked if that meant penalising other exporters – given TFR’s inability to shift the coal at the required rates – Kalan replied: “That’s a good question. I’m afraid I cannot say anything more at this stage.”
The only good news for the industry came from Hall in his assessment the IRP2 plan may have to be revised because its targets may not be met. He said: “There’s often a disconnect between policy and implementation – and it’s not just in SA where this happens. What I’m saying is that installing 17GW of renewable energy and 10GW of nuclear energy in SA by 2030 is a very tall order to deliver. You have to ask whether it’s going to happen. I can’t answer that question.”
If the IRP2 targets aren’t met the likely result will be to fall back on greater power generation using coal. Hall says that would “result in the development of the Waterberg and Soutpansberg fields, the construction of more multi-product mines and the expansion of rail infrastructure. That’s a win-win for the coal industry and the country. It will allow generation of power at the cheapest cost as well as an increase in coal exports.”
- Finweek
Source: miningmx.com, http://www.miningmx.com/news/energy/Tough-times-at-the-face.htm
C15. “Eskom says 15 new Mpumalanga coal mines needed by 2015”, article in Mining Weekly (online), by Loni Prinsloo, 21 June 2011.
Power utility Eskom would need two-billion tons in new coal supplies to meet the demand of its current and planned coal-fired power stations over their operational lives, said chief commercial officer Dan Marokane on Tuesday. Eskom estimated that about 15 new coal mines, mainly in the Mpumalanga area, would have to come on line in the next two to four years and that R100-billion would have to be invested in the domestic coal mining industry over the next seven years. Speaking at the Coaltrans conference in Johannesburg, Marokane said that a lack of progress in developing new coal mines in the past four years has placed the utility’s coal supply under pressure. He also said Eskom was in direct and indirect competition with South African coal exports. “We need a good balance in terms of growing our coal export market and securing coal-fired power domestically,” Marokane emphasised. Coal quality was also impacting on Eskom, with the quality of resources left in the Mpumalanga province, where the majority of power stations are located, not being as good as what was traditionally mined. Marokane said coal mine developments should be accelerated in the Waterberg, which is known for its large coal reserves. Eskom is currently working with State-owned logistics company Transnet Freight Rail on the construction of a heavy haul rail link between the Waterberg and power stations in Mpumalanga. Marokane estimated that the infrastructure could cost anything between R10-billion and R40-billion depending on the volumes of coal that would have to be transported. Source: miningweekly.com. http://www.miningweekly.com/article/eskom-says-15-new-mpumalanga-coal-mines-needed-by-2015-2011-06-21
INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN FOR
ELECTRICITY
2010-2030
Revision 2
FINAL REPORT
25 MARCH 2011
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 IRP IN CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................ 7 2 BALANCING GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVES IN THE IRP ...................................................................... 8 3 CONSULTATION PROCESS AND LEARNINGS ................................................................................... 10 4 POLICY CLARIFICATION ....................................................................................................................... 10
Policy Issue 1: Nuclear options ........................................................................................................................ 11 Policy Issue 2: Emission constraints ................................................................................................................ 11 Policy Issue 3: Import options ......................................................................................................................... 11 Policy Issue 4: Energy efficiency..................................................................................................................... 12
5 THE POLICY-ADJUSTED IRP .................................................................................................................. 12 6 IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY-ADJUSTED IRP .................................................................................. 15
Decision points ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Risks ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................................ 20 Policy and Facilitation ..................................................................................................................................... 20
7 RESEARCH AGENDA FOR NEXT IRP ................................................................................................... 21 Distributed generation, smart grids and off-grid generation ............................................................................ 21 Harnessing South Africa’s coal resource ......................................................................................................... 21 Uncertainties in decision-making..................................................................................................................... 21 Longer term outlook ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Decommissioning and waste management ...................................................................................................... 22 Technology options .......................................................................................................................................... 22
8 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 22 APPENDIX A – SCENARIOS INFORMING THE REVISED BALANCED SCENARIO ....................... 24
Initial scenarios ................................................................................................................................................ 24 Multi-criteria decision-making ........................................................................................................................ 26
APPENDIX B – MODIFICATIONS AFTER CONSULTATION PROCESS ............................................ 36 Economic impact issues ................................................................................................................................... 36 Demand side issues .......................................................................................................................................... 36 Supply side issues ............................................................................................................................................ 36 Network issues ................................................................................................................................................. 37 Process issues ................................................................................................................................................... 37 Modification of inputs ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Additional scenarios ........................................................................................................................................ 39 Results of new scenarios .................................................................................................................................. 39
APPENDIX C – PRICING ISSUES ............................................................................................................ 49 APPENDIX D – REFERENCE INPUT TABLES ....................................................................................... 51 APPENDIX E – MEDIUM TERM RISK MITIGATION PROJECT FOR ELECTRICITY IN SOUTH
AFRICA (2010 TO 2016) ..................................................................................................................................... 58
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Overview of IRP process ....................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2. Changes to the Revised Balanced Scenario that informed the Policy-Adjusted IRP ............................ 13 Figure 3. Comparison of scenarios before and after consultation process ............................................................ 15 Figure 4. Breakdown of anticipated average electricity price path ....................................................................... 20 Figure 5. Impact of RBS and Policy-Adjusted IRP on net energy supply ............................................................ 28 Figure 6. Comparison of new scenarios ................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 7. Comparison of levelised costs for nuclear and PV+CCGT combination .............................................. 41 Figure 8. Capacity and energy mix 2010-2030 ..................................................................................................... 42 Figure 9. Uncertainty in price path of Policy-Adjusted IRP ................................................................................. 49 Figure 10. Influence of technology choices on expected price path ..................................................................... 50
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Revised Balanced Scenario ....................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2. Revised Balanced scenario capacity ......................................................................................................... 9 Table 3. Policy-Adjusted IRP ............................................................................................................................... 14 Table 4. Policy-Adjusted IRP capacity ................................................................................................................. 14 Table 5. Commitments before next IRP ............................................................................................................... 16 Table 6. Scenarios for the RBS ............................................................................................................................. 24 Table 7. Score for each criteria ............................................................................................................................. 26 Table 8. Base Case scenario ................................................................................................................................. 29 Table 9. Emissions 1 scenario .............................................................................................................................. 30 Table 10. Emissions 2 scenario ............................................................................................................................ 31 Table 11. Emission 3 scenario .............................................................................................................................. 32 Table 12. Carbon tax scenario .............................................................................................................................. 33 Table 13. Balanced scenario ................................................................................................................................. 34 Table 14. Revised Balanced scenario ................................................................................................................... 35 Table 15. Assumed international installed capacity.............................................................................................. 38 Table 16. Expected overnight capital costs .......................................................................................................... 38 Table 17. Levelised costs in 2020 (based on learning rates)................................................................................. 42 Table 18. “Adjusted Emission” scenario .............................................................................................................. 43 Table 19. “High Efficiency” scenario ................................................................................................................... 44 Table 20. “Low Growth” scenario ........................................................................................................................ 45 Table 21. “Risk-averse” scenario ......................................................................................................................... 46 Table 22. “Peak Oil” scenario .............................................................................................................................. 47 Table 23. “Earlier Coal” scenario ......................................................................................................................... 48 Table 24. Expected annual energy requirement 2010-34 ..................................................................................... 51 Table 25. Annual maximum demand 2010-34 ..................................................................................................... 52 Table 26. Assumed Energy Efficiency Demand Side Management (EEDSM) .................................................... 53 Table 27. Existing South African generation capacity assumed for IRP .............................................................. 54 Table 28. Technology costs input (as at 2010, without learning rates) ................................................................. 55 Table 29. Import option costs ............................................................................................................................... 56 Table 30. Impact of learning rates on overnight capital costs............................................................................... 57
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 4
ABBREVIATIONS
CCGT Closed Cycle Gas Turbine
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
COUE Cost of Unserved Energy
CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
CSP Concentrating Solar Power
DoE Department of Energy
DSM Demand Side Management
EEDSM Energy Efficiency Demand Side Management
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FBC Fluidised Bed Combustion
FGD Flue Gas Desulphurisation
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GJ Gigajoules
GW Gigawatt (One thousand Megawatts)
GWh Gigawatt hour
IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
IMC Inter-Ministerial Committee on energy
IPP Independent Power Producer
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
kW Kilowatt (One thousandth of a Megawatt)
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LTMS Long Term Mitigation Strategy
MCDM Multi-criteria Decision Making
MTPPP Medium Term Power Purchase Programme
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt hour
MYPD Multi-Year Price Determination
NERSA National Energy Regulator of South Africa; alternatively the Regulator
NOx Nitrogen Oxide
OCGT Open Cycle Gas Turbine
O&M Operating and Maintenance (cost)
PF Pulverised Fuel
PV Present Value; alternatively Photo-Voltaic
PWR Pressurised Water Reactor
RAB Regulatory Asset Base
REFIT Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff
RTS Return to Service
SOx Sulphur Oxide
TW Terawatt (One million Megawatts)
TWh Terawatt hour
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 5
GLOSSARY
“Base-load plant” refers to energy plant or power stations that are able to produce energy at a constant, or near
constant, rate, i.e. power stations with high capacity factors.
“Capacity factor” refers to the expected output of the plant over a specific time period as a ratio of the output if
the plant operated at full rated capacity for the same time period.
“Cost of Unserved Energy” refers to the opportunity cost to electricity consumers (and the economy) from
electricity supply interruptions.
“Demand Side” refers to the demand for, or consumption of, electricity.
“Demand Side Management” refers to interventions to reduce energy consumption.
“Discount rate” refers to the factor used in present value calculations that indicates the time value of money,
thereby equating current and future costs.
“Energy efficiency” refers to the effective use of energy to produce a given output (in a production
environment) or service (from a consumer point of view), i.e. a more energy-efficient technology is one that
produces the same service or output with less energy input.
“Gross Domestic Product” refers to the total value added from all economic activity in the country, i.e. total
value of goods and services produced.
“Integrated Resource Plan” refers to the co-ordinated schedule for generation expansion and demand-side
intervention programmes, taking into consideration multiple criteria to meet electricity demand.
“Integrated Energy Plan” refers to the over-arching co-ordinated energy plan combining the constraints and
capabilities of alternative energy carriers to meet the country’s energy needs.
“Levelised cost of energy” refers to the discounted total cost of a technology option or project over its
economic life, divided by the total discounted output from the technology option or project over that same
period, i.e. the levelised cost of energy provides an indication of the discounted average cost relating to a
technology option or project.
“Peaking plant” refers to energy plant or power stations that have very low capacity factors, i.e. generally
produce energy for limited periods, specifically during peak demand periods, with storage that supports energy
on demand.
“Present value” refers to the present worth of a stream of expenses appropriately discounted by the discount
rate.
“Reserve margin” refers to the excess capacity available to serve load during the annual peak.
“Scenario” refers to a particular set of assumptions that indicate a set of future circumstances, providing a
mechanism to observe outcomes from these circumstances.
“Screening curve” refers to a graph that indicates the levelised cost of technology options relative to potential
capacity factors for these technologies. These can be used to screen out clearly inferior technologies from a cost
perspective.
“Supply side” refers to the production, generation or supply of electricity.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 6
SUMMARY
The current iteration of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for South Africa, initiated by the Department of
Energy (DoE) after a first round of public participation in June 2010, led to the Revised Balanced Scenario
(RBS) that was published in October 2010. It laid out the proposed generation new build fleet for South Africa
for the period 2010 to 2030. This scenario was derived based on the cost-optimal solution for new build options
(considering the direct costs of new build power plants), which was then “balanced” in accordance with
qualitative measures such as local job creation. In addition to all existing and committed power plants, the RBS
included a nuclear fleet of 9,6 GW; 6,3 GW of coal; 11,4 GW of renewables; and 11,0 GW of other generation
sources.
A second round of public participation was conducted in November/December 2010, which led to several
changes to the IRP model assumptions. The main changes were the disaggregation of renewable energy
technologies to explicitly display solar photovoltaic (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP) and wind options; the
inclusion of learning rates, which mainly affected renewables; and the adjustment of investment costs for
nuclear units, which until then represented the costs of a traditional technology reactor and were too low for a
newer technology reactor (a possible increase of 40%).
Additional cost-optimal scenarios were generated based on the changes. The outcomes of these scenarios, in
conjunction with the following policy considerations, led to the Policy-Adjusted IRP:
• The installation of renewables (solar PV, CSP and wind) have been brought forward in order to
accelerate a local industry;
• To account for the uncertainties associated with the costs of renewables and fuels, a nuclear fleet of 9,6
GW is included in the IRP;
• The emission constraint of the RBS (275 million tons of carbon dioxide per year after 2024) is
maintained;
• Energy efficiency demand-side management (EEDSM) measures are maintained at the level of the RBS.
This Policy-Adjusted IRP is recommended for adoption by Cabinet and for subsequent promulgation as the final
IRP. This proposal is a confirmation of the RBS in that it ensures security of supply. It is a major step towards
building local industry clusters and assists in fulfilling South Africa’s commitments to mitigating climate
change as expressed at the Copenhagen climate change summit. The Policy-Adjusted IRP includes the same
amount of coal and nuclear new builds as the RBS, while reflecting recent developments with respect to prices
for renewables. In addition to all existing and committed power plants (including 10 GW committed coal), the
plan includes 9,6 GW of nuclear; 6,3 GW of coal; 17,8 GW of renewables; and 8,9 GW of other generation
sources.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT
1 IRP IN CONTEXT
1.1 The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) is a living plan that is expected to be continuously revised
and updated as necessitated by changing circumstances. At the very least, it is expected that
the IRP should be revised by the Department of Energy (DoE)
revision in 2012.
1.2 The DoE initiated the current iteration of the IRP following the
iteration in January 2010. The first iteration covered a limited period for new capacity
development (2010-2013), with the intention of conducting a more inclusive process to develop
the full plan covering the period 2010 to
1.3 The first round of public participation was conducted in June 2010 and focussed on the input
parameters for the IRP modelling. The final inputs for the IRP were published along with the
comments submitted on each parameter and responses by the DoE.
modelling was undertaken including scenarios for different outcomes, policy options and
technology choices. The Revised Balanced Scenario (RBS) was developed in discussion with
other departments, incorporating different policy obj
undertaken as part of the modelling process.
1.4 The Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) approved the RBS for publication in order to elicit
public comment on the plan. A draft IRP report (with the RBS as a draft IRP) was pu
public comment alongside the Executive Summary (used for the IMC deliberations) and the
Medium Term Risk Mitigation Project (MTRMP) which focussed on the next six years and the
potential shortfall of generation in the medium term.
1.5 The public participation process included the opportunity for interested parties and individuals
to submit written comments (either through the provided questionnaire, as a preferred option, or
The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) is a living plan that is expected to be continuously revised
necessitated by changing circumstances. At the very least, it is expected that
the IRP should be revised by the Department of Energy (DoE) every two years, resulting in a
The DoE initiated the current iteration of the IRP following the completion of the first draft
iteration in January 2010. The first iteration covered a limited period for new capacity
2013), with the intention of conducting a more inclusive process to develop
the full plan covering the period 2010 to 2030.
The first round of public participation was conducted in June 2010 and focussed on the input
parameters for the IRP modelling. The final inputs for the IRP were published along with the
comments submitted on each parameter and responses by the DoE. Following this, the IRP
modelling was undertaken including scenarios for different outcomes, policy options and
technology choices. The Revised Balanced Scenario (RBS) was developed in discussion with
other departments, incorporating different policy objectives and the cost optimisation was
undertaken as part of the modelling process.
Ministerial Committee (IMC) approved the RBS for publication in order to elicit
public comment on the plan. A draft IRP report (with the RBS as a draft IRP) was pu
public comment alongside the Executive Summary (used for the IMC deliberations) and the
Medium Term Risk Mitigation Project (MTRMP) which focussed on the next six years and the
potential shortfall of generation in the medium term.
rticipation process included the opportunity for interested parties and individuals
to submit written comments (either through the provided questionnaire, as a preferred option, or
March 2011
Page 7
The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) is a living plan that is expected to be continuously revised
necessitated by changing circumstances. At the very least, it is expected that
every two years, resulting in a
completion of the first draft
iteration in January 2010. The first iteration covered a limited period for new capacity
2013), with the intention of conducting a more inclusive process to develop
The first round of public participation was conducted in June 2010 and focussed on the input
parameters for the IRP modelling. The final inputs for the IRP were published along with the
Following this, the IRP
modelling was undertaken including scenarios for different outcomes, policy options and
technology choices. The Revised Balanced Scenario (RBS) was developed in discussion with
ectives and the cost optimisation was
Ministerial Committee (IMC) approved the RBS for publication in order to elicit
public comment on the plan. A draft IRP report (with the RBS as a draft IRP) was published for
public comment alongside the Executive Summary (used for the IMC deliberations) and the
Medium Term Risk Mitigation Project (MTRMP) which focussed on the next six years and the
rticipation process included the opportunity for interested parties and individuals
to submit written comments (either through the provided questionnaire, as a preferred option, or
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 8
in any other form) and to make a presentation at one of three workshops held in Durban (26
November 2010), Cape Town (29 November 2010) or Johannesburg (2 and 3 December 2010).
1.6 The public consultation and subsequent independent international consultant input resulted in
changes to the IRP modelling as well as new scenarios to test additional policy options and
outcomes. This process led to refinements, and to the proposed Policy-Adjusted IRP presented
herein.
2 BALANCING GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVES IN THE IRP
2.1 The RBS was developed in consultation with government departments represented in Working
Group 2 (as part of the inter-departmental task team process). The multi-criteria decision-
making process confirmed that this RBS represented an appropriate balance between the
expectations of different stakeholder considering a number of key constraints and risks, for
example:
a) Reducing carbon emissions;
b) New technology uncertainties such as costs, operability, lead time to build etc;
c) Water usage;
d) Localisation and job creation;
e) Southern African regional development and integration; and
f) Security of supply.
2.2 The RBS was adjusted from a cost-optimised scenario developed under a carbon emission
constraint of 275 million tons per year from 2025, incorporating localisation objectives and
bringing forward the renewable roll-out. By bringing the construction programme for
renewable technologies forward and maintaining a stable roll-out programme, an opportunity
was provided for localisation, not only in the construction of the equipment, but in the
development of skills to support the renewable energy programme. By not specifically
categorising the renewable technologies after 2020, a window was provided for government to
direct alternative renewable technology development to meet government objectives.
2.3 As part of the medium-term risk mitigation project, a number of own generation or co-
generation options were identified for implementation before 2016. These options were
included in the RBS as additional capacity, forced in as per the medium-term schedule, in order
to maintain some continuity between the plans. However these options were not included in
the calculations on water, prices or emissions.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 9
Table 1. Revised Balanced Scenario
Committed build New build options
To
tal
new
bu
ild
To
tal
syste
m c
ap
acit
y
Peak d
em
an
d (
net
sen
t-o
ut)
fo
recast
Dem
an
d S
ide M
an
ag
em
en
t
RT
S C
ap
acit
y (
co
al)
Med
up
i (c
oal)
Ku
sil
e (
co
al)
Ing
ula
(p
um
ped
sto
rag
e)
DO
E O
CG
T IP
P (
die
sel)
Co
-gen
era
tio
n,
ow
n b
uild
Win
d
CS
P
Lan
dfi
ll, h
yd
ro
Sere
(w
ind
)
Deco
mm
issio
nin
g
Co
al
(PF
, F
BC
, Im
po
rts)
Co
-gen
era
tio
n,
ow
n b
uild
Gas C
CG
T (
natu
ral
gas)
OC
GT
(d
iesel)
Imp
ort
Hyd
ro
Win
d
So
lar
PV
, C
SP
Ren
ew
ab
les (
Win
d, S
ola
r C
SP
, S
ola
r P
V, L
an
dfi
ll, B
iom
ass, etc
.)
Nu
cle
ar
Fle
et
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW
2010 380 0 0 0 0 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252
2011 679 0 0 0 0 130 200 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1112 45647 39956 494
2012 303 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 703 46350 40995 809
2013 101 722 0 333 1020 0 300 0 25 0 0 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2625 48975 42416 1310
2014 0 722 0 999 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 426 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 2447 51422 43436 1966
2015 0 1444 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 -180 0 600 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 2364 53786 44865 2594
2016 0 722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -90 0 0 0 0 0 800 100 0 0 1532 55318 45786 3007
2017 0 722 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 100 0 0 3068 58386 47870 3420
2018 0 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 100 0 0 1623 60009 49516 3420
2019 0 0 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 474 0 0 800 100 0 0 2820 62829 51233 3420
2020 0 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 711 0 360 0 0 800 0 2594 65423 52719 3420
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75 0 0 711 0 750 0 0 800 0 2186 67609 54326 3420
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1870 0 0 0 805 1110 0 0 800 0 845 68454 55734 3420
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2280 0 0 0 805 1129 0 0 800 1600 2054 70508 57097 3420
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -909 0 0 0 575 0 0 0 800 1600 2066 72574 58340 3420
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1520 0 0 0 805 0 0 0 1400 1600 2285 74859 60150 3420
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 1600 2200 77059 61770 3420
2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750 0 0 805 0 0 0 1200 0 2755 79814 63404 3420
2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2850 2000 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 1600 1555 81369 64867 3420
2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1128 750 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 1600 2027 83396 66460 3420
2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 0 0 345 0 0 0 0 0 1845 85241 67809 3420
TOTAL 1463 4332 4338 1332 1020 390 700 200 125 100 -10902 5000 1253 1896 5750 3349 3800 400 7200 9600 41346
Table 2. Revised Balanced scenario capacity
Total generating capacity in
2030
Capacity added (including
committed) from 2010 to 2030
New (uncommitted) capacity options
from 2010 to 2030
MW % MW % MW %
Coal 41074 48.2 16386 31.4 6253 16.3
OCGT 9170 10.8 6770 13.0 5750 15.0
CCGT 1896 2.2 1896 3.6 1896 5.0
Pumped Storage 2912 3.4 1332 2.5 0 0.0
Nuclear 11400 13.4 9600 18.4 9600 25.1
Hydro 5499 6.5 3399 6.5 3349 8.8
Wind1 11800 13.8 11800 22.6 11000 28.8
CSP 600 0.7 600 1.1 400 1.0
PV 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Other 890 1.0 465 0.8 0 0.0
Total 85241 52248 38248 Notes: (1) Wind includes the “Renewables” bucket identified in the RBS after 2019
(2) Committed generation capacity includes projects approved prior to IRP 2010 (refer to Table 1).
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 10
3 CONSULTATION PROCESS AND LEARNINGS
3.1 In total, 479 submissions were received from organisations, companies and individuals,
resulting in 5090 specific comments. Specific issues raised included the need to reduce carbon
emissions further than proposed in the RBS, by increasing renewable energy, improving energy
efficiency initiatives and considering a lower growth in electricity demand. Opposition to
nuclear generation was raised, suggesting that renewable generation could replace nuclear
generation in the plan. The impact of the additional capacity on the future electricity price path
was a key consideration, with concerns raised regarding the impact on the poor as well as on
the competitiveness of the South African economy. The lack of a socio-economic impact study
was a concern, as was the exclusion of the impact of network costs on the choice of
technologies.
3.2 As a consequence of these comments, additional research was conducted (in particular on
technology learning rates and the cost evolution of solar PV technology). The results of this
research were included in the modelling along with modified assumptions on nuclear capital
costs and biomass modelling. Additional scenarios were also included to test specific policy
choices and potential outcomes (specifically on future fuel prices and demand projections).
3.3 An overview of the IRP process is provided in Figure 1, indicating the original scenarios
covered in the draft IRP report which culminated (through the multi-criteria decision-making
process) in the RBS. The second round of public participation resulted in modelling changes,
leading to a further set of scenarios developed as part of the cost-optimisation. The policy
choices highlighted in this report informed the development of the Policy-Adjusted IRP.
Figure 1. Overview of IRP process
4 POLICY CLARIFICATION
4.1 The changes brought about by the public consultation and the scenarios required a review of the
policy parameters established for the RBS.
Revised Balanced Scenario (RBS)
Before second round of
consultation process (IRP as of October 2010)
Second round of
consultation process
After
consultation process(February 2011)
Scenarios tested• "Base Case"• "Emission Limit"• "Carbon Tax"• "Regional Development"
• "Enhanced DSM"
� Emission Limit 2.0 to be pursued further
Main changes• Increased nuclear
costs by 40%• Included learning
rates (mainly affects
PV, CSP, wind)• Disaggregated solar
technologies
Scenarios tested• Base case
"Adjusted Emission" (based on Emission Limit 2.0)
• "High Efficiency"• "Low Growth"
• "Risk Averse"• "Peak Oil"• "Earlier Coal"
Quantitative optimisation (least cost)
Policy-Adjusted IRPQualitativebalancing
Multi-criteria deci-sion making
Policy choices
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 11
Policy Issue 1: Nuclear options
4.2 The scenarios indicated that the future capacity requirement could, in theory, be met without
nuclear, but that this would increase the risk to security of supply (from a dispatch point of
view and being subject to future fuel uncertainty).
4.3 Three policy choice options were identified:
a) Commit to the nuclear fleet as indicated in the RBS;
b) Delay the decision on the nuclear fleet indefinitely (and allow alternatives to be
considered in the interim);
c) Commit to the construction of one or two nuclear units in 2022-4, but delay a decision on
the full nuclear fleet until higher certainty is reached on future cost evolution and risk
exposure both for nuclear and renewables.
4.4 The Department accepted option 4.3a, committing to a full nuclear fleet of 9600 MW. This
should provide acceptable assurance of security of supply in the event of a peak oil-type
increase in fuel prices and ensure that sufficient dispatchable base-load capacity is constructed
to meet demand in peak hours each year.
Policy Issue 2: Emission constraints
4.5 The scenarios indicated that a requirement for future coal-fired generation could only be met by
increasing the emission target from that imposed in the RBS.
4.6 Two policy choice options were identified:
a) Commit to the emission constraint as reflected in the RBS;
b) Allow an increase in the emission constraint to a new unspecified target.
4.7 The Department accepted option 4.6a, retaining the emission constraint as reflected in the RBS.
The RBS allowed for coal-fired generation after 2026. The policy requirement for continuing a
coal programme could result in this coal-fired generation being brought forward to 2019-2025,
thus by 2030 the emission outcome should not be affected, only the timing of the constraint.
Existing coal-fired generation is run at lower load factors to accommodate the new coal options
while the target applies.
Policy Issue 3: Import options
4.8 The scenarios assumed that all identified import options could be utilised (with the exception of
the Namibian gas option). This includes 3349 MW of import hydro (from Mozambique and
Zambia) and the coal options identified in Mozambique and Botswana. The additional capacity
to the RBS is the Botswana coal option.
4.9 Four policy choice options were identified:
a) Limit the coal import options (or exclude completely); or
b) Limit the hydro import options (to 2500 MW); or
c) Limit both options to 0 MW for coal and 2500 MW for hydro; or
d) Allow import options to the extent identified in the RBS, inclusive of import coal options.
4.10 The Department accepted option 4.9d, allowing for import options, with the exception that
import coal options will not be separately identified but considered as part of the domestic coal
fleet (with emissions counting towards South Africa’s carbon inventory as with domestic coal).
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 12
Policy Issue 4: Energy efficiency
4.11 The extent to which Energy Efficiency Demand-Side Management (EEDSM) impacts on future
generation options was an important consideration. In the RBS, the Eskom Demand Side
Management programme, as reflected in the multi-year price determination application to
NERSA, was assumed as the EEDSM base. During the public participation process, it was
suggested that this under-estimated the potential of EEDSM. By increasing EEDSM in one of
the scenarios it was possible to reduce carbon emissions while reducing the need for additional
capacity. However, there is a risk, which cannot be ignored, that the EEDSM programme may
under-achieve.
4.12 Two policy choice options were identified:
a) Increase the assumed EEDSM programme to the 6298 MW capacity option; or
b) Continue with the EEDSM1 as in the RBS.
4.13 The Department accepted option 4.12b. While aware of the benefits of increased EEDSM, the
Department believes that the risk to the security of supply, if relying on this option, negates the
assumed benefits.
5 THE POLICY-ADJUSTED IRP
5.1 The public consultation provided useful feedback to the planning process, including additional
information and alternative views that assisted in the development of the Policy-Adjusted IRP.
5.2 Following the policy recommendations highlighted above, and the modelling changes
undertaken as a result of the public participation process, the following changes were made to
the RBS, resulting in the Policy-Adjusted IRP:
5.2.1 Inclusion of solar PV as a separate technology option with an assumed roll-out of 300 MW
per year from 2012 (since solar PV can be rolled out early if procurement processes are
initiated immediately);
5.2.2 Bringing forward the coal generation, originally expected only after 2026, and allowing for
imported coal options;
5.2.3 Securing a minimum 711 MW from combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) – possibly using
liquefied natural gas (LNG) – between 2019 and 2021 (to improve security of supply by
providing back-up to the renewable energy roll-out) as well as additional CCGT later in the
IRP period;
5.2.4 Consolidating the co-generation and own build category of the RBS into the coal options
identified in the Policy-Adjusted IRP and treating the co-generation as part of the expected
demand;
5.2.5 Allowing for cost optimisation on import hydro options leading to a reduction compared to
the RBS (due to the increased renewable roll-out and bringing coal generation forward); and
5.2.6 Modifications to the roll-out of wind and concentrated solar power (CSP) to accommodate the
solar PV options, with a complete disaggregation of the previous renewable grouping into
constituent technologies: wind, solar CSP, and solar PV. Due to delays in the renewable
energy feed-in tariff (REFIT), the committed wind capacity from REFIT has been delayed to
2012.
1 The EEDSM programme includes a contribution of 1617 MW of renewable energy from solar water heating.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 13
5.3 These changes reflect government policy on the future of different technologies and
requirements from different sectors of the economy.
5.4 The Policy-Adjusted IRP continues to indicate a balance between different government
objectives, specifically economic growth, job creation, security of supply and sustainable
development.
5.5 The Department believes that security of supply should not be compromised. The Policy-
Adjusted IRP has been tested for adequacy in all years of the IRP period. The CCGT options
have been introduced earlier than the optimised plan required in order to deal with security of
supply concerns arising between 2022 and 2028. To further support security of supply,
decommissioning of existing plant should take place toward the end of the year in which it is
assumed to be decommissioned.
5.6 Affordability is a key consideration and, as reflected in the discussion in Appendix C, the
Policy-Adjusted IRP results in a price path similar to that of the RBS.
5.7 Additional coal options would be undermined by a carbon tax regime, which would render
South African industries less competitive and put economic value, jobs and country growth at
risk.
5.8 Unacceptable planning uncertainty and economic growth risk will be created if further demand
forecast reductions or more rapid energy intensity reductions are assumed.
Figure 2. Changes to the Revised Balanced Scenario that informed the Policy-Adjusted IRP
Disaggregation of solar
technologiesSolar PV now included
Adjustment Resulting change to RBS
Inclusion of learning ratesMore renewables due to their
increasing competitiveness
Roll-out of coal new builds in
a more steady manner
End-2020s-planned coal new
builds brought forward
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 14
Table 3. Policy-Adjusted IRP
Committed build New build options
To
tal
new
bu
ild
To
tal
syste
m c
ap
acit
y
Peak d
em
an
d (
net
sen
t-o
ut)
fo
recast
Dem
an
d S
ide M
an
ag
em
en
t
RT
S C
ap
acit
y (
co
al)
Med
up
i (c
oal)
Ku
sil
e (
co
al)
Ing
ula
(p
um
ped
sto
rag
e)
DO
E O
CG
T IP
P (
die
sel)
Co
-gen
era
tio
n,
ow
n b
uild
Win
d
CS
P
Lan
dfi
ll, h
yd
ro
Sere
(w
ind
)
Deco
mm
issio
nin
g
Co
al
(PF
, F
BC
, Im
po
rts)
Gas C
CG
T (
natu
ral
gas)
OC
GT
(d
iesel)
Imp
ort
Hyd
ro
Win
d
So
lar
PV
CS
P
Nu
cle
ar
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW
2010 380 0 0 0 0 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252
2011 679 0 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 809 45344 39956 494
2012 303 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 1103 46447 40995 809
2013 101 722 0 333 1020 0 400 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 2901 49348 42416 1310
2014 0 722 0 999 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 400 300 0 0 3021 52369 43436 1966
2015 0 1444 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 -180 500 0 0 0 400 300 0 0 2564 54933 44865 2594
2016 0 722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -90 0 0 0 0 400 300 100 0 1432 56365 45786 3007
2017 0 722 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 300 100 0 2968 59333 47870 3420
2018 0 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 300 100 0 1523 60856 49516 3420
2019 0 0 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 237 0 0 400 300 100 0 2496 63352 51233 3420
2020 0 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 237 0 0 400 300 100 0 2010 65362 52719 3420
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75 250 237 0 0 400 300 100 0 1212 66574 54326 3420
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1870 250 0 805 1143 400 300 100 0 1365 67939 55734 3420
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2280 250 0 805 1183 400 300 100 1600 2358 70297 57097 3420
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -909 250 0 0 283 800 300 100 1600 2424 72721 58340 3420
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1520 250 0 805 0 1600 1000 100 1600 3835 76556 60150 3420
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 400 500 0 1600 3500 80056 61770 3420
2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 1600 500 0 0 2350 82406 63404 3420
2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2850 1000 474 690 0 0 500 0 1600 1414 83820 64867 3420
2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1128 250 237 805 0 0 1000 0 1600 2764 86584 66460 3420
2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 948 0 0 0 1000 0 0 2948 89532 67809 3420
TOTAL 1463 4332 4338 1332 1020 390 700 200 125 100 -10902 6250 2370 3910 2609 8400 8400 1000 9600 45637
Table 4. Policy-Adjusted IRP capacity
Total capacity
Capacity added (including
committed) from 2010 to 2030
New (uncommitted) capacity options
from 2010 to 2030
MW % MW % MW %
Coal 41071 45.9 16383 29.0 6250 14.7
OCGT 7330 8.2 4930 8.7 3910 9.2
CCGT 2370 2.6 2370 4.2 2370 5.6
Pumped Storage 2912 3.3 1332 2.4 0 0.0
Nuclear 11400 12.7 9600 17.0 9600 22.6
Hydro 4759 5.3 2659 4.7 2609 6.1
Wind 9200 10.3 9200 16.3 8400 19.7
CSP 1200 1.3 1200 2.1 1000 2.4
PV 8400 9.4 8400 14.9 8400 19.7
Other 890 1.0 465 0.8 0 0.0
Total 89532 56539 42539
Notes: (1) Committed generation capacity includes projects approved prior to IRP 2010 (refer to Table 3).
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT
Figure 3. Comparison of scenarios before and after consultation
Note: The 42% of new capacity allo
resulting cost reductions for renewable options.
6 IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY
Decision points
6.1 The New Generation Regulations require a feasibility study on the potential capacity
in the IRP to provide input to the Ministerial determination between Eskom build and
procurement from Independent Power Producers (IPPs). This feasibility study needs to be
undertaken as soon as the IRP is promulgated to give impetus to the de
6.2 Table 5 indicates the new capacities of the Policy
commitment. All dates indicate the latest that the capacity is required in order to avoid security
of supply concerns. Projects could be concluded earlier than indicated. The reasons for these
firm decisions before the next round of the IRP are laid out in the following.
. Comparison of scenarios before and after consultation process
: The 42% of new capacity allocated to renewables is dependent on the assumed learning rates and
resulting cost reductions for renewable options.
IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY-ADJUSTED IRP
The New Generation Regulations require a feasibility study on the potential capacity
in the IRP to provide input to the Ministerial determination between Eskom build and
procurement from Independent Power Producers (IPPs). This feasibility study needs to be
undertaken as soon as the IRP is promulgated to give impetus to the decisions.
indicates the new capacities of the Policy-Adjusted IRP that are recommended for firm
commitment. All dates indicate the latest that the capacity is required in order to avoid security
Projects could be concluded earlier than indicated. The reasons for these
firm decisions before the next round of the IRP are laid out in the following.
March 2011
Page 15
cated to renewables is dependent on the assumed learning rates and
The New Generation Regulations require a feasibility study on the potential capacity identified
in the IRP to provide input to the Ministerial determination between Eskom build and
procurement from Independent Power Producers (IPPs). This feasibility study needs to be
cisions.
Adjusted IRP that are recommended for firm
commitment. All dates indicate the latest that the capacity is required in order to avoid security
Projects could be concluded earlier than indicated. The reasons for these
firm decisions before the next round of the IRP are laid out in the following.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 16
Table 5. Commitments before next IRP
6.3 The dark shaded projects need to be decided before the next IRP iteration, with the identified
capacities thereafter assumed as “committed” projects:
6.3.1 Coal fluidised bed combustion (FBC) 2014/15: These coal units will be built, owned and
operated by IPPs. They need to be firmly committed to by the private investors, in a timely
manner, to ensure that this expected capacity will be met. From a central planning
perspective, an alternative will be required to replace this capacity by 2019 if it does not
materialise.
6.3.2 Nuclear fleet: Long lead times for new nuclear power stations require immediate, firm
commitment to the first 3,0 GW, but government policy is to pursue the full nuclear fleet.
6.3.3 Import hydro 2022 to 2024: The import hydro new build options require cross-border
negotiations and a time-consuming upgrade in transmission infrastructure. To enable the
connection of this capacity to the South African grid by 2022, a firm commitment is required
immediately.
6.3.4 CCGT 2019 to 2021: Building gas-driven CCGT power plants requires the creation of gas
infrastructure. In addition to the CCGT power plants, a LNG terminal needs to be decided on
unless a suitable domestic supply is developed, and built together with the associated gas
infrastructure. To trigger these decisions and investments and to ensure that the first CCGT
capacity is available by 2019, a firm commitment to building the CCGT power plants is
required, which will create the necessary demand to ensure appropriate utilisation of the new
gas infrastructure. In the absence of domestic gas supply, it could be highly beneficial to
develop an anchor industrial customer (for example petro-chemical) for the LNG terminal in
order to facilitate the volumes required to justify the LNG terminal itself as well as provide
New build optionsCoal
(PF, FBC,
imports, own build)
Nuclear Import hydro Gas – CCGT Peak – OCGT Wind CSP Solar PV
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW
2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300
2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300
2014 5001 0 0 0 0 400 0 300
2015 5001 0 0 0 0 400 0 300
2016 0 0 0 0 0 400 100 300
2017 0 0 0 0 0 400 100 300
2018 0 0 0 0 0 4004 1004 3004
2019 250 0 0 2373 0 4004 1004 3004
2020 250 0 0 2373 0 400 100 300
2021 250 0 0 2373 0 400 100 300
2022 250 0 1 1432 0 805 400 100 300
2023 250 1 600 1 1832 0 805 400 100 300
2024 250 1 600 2832 0 0 800 100 300
2025 250 1 600 0 0 805 1 600 100 1 000
2026 1 000 1 600 0 0 0 400 0 500
2027 250 0 0 0 0 1 600 0 500
2028 1 000 1 600 0 474 690 0 0 500
2029 250 1 600 0 237 805 0 0 1 000
2030 1 000 0 0 948 0 0 0 1 000
Total 6 250 9 600 2 609 2 370 3 910 8 400 1 000 8 400
Firm commitment necessary now
Final commitment in IRP 2012
1. Built, owned & operated by IPPs 2. Commitment necessary due to required high-voltage infrastructure, which has long lead time 3. Commitment necessary due to required gas infrastructure, which has long lead time 4. Possibly required grid upgradehas long lead time and thus makes commitment to power capacity necessary
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 17
gas supply flexibility to the CCGT plant, which would otherwise be required to run base-load
(or with very high load factors) to warrant the LNG terminal expense.
6.3.5 Solar PV programme 2012-2015: In order to facilitate the connection of the first solar PV
units to the grid in 2012 a firm commitment to this capacity is necessary. Furthermore, to
provide the security of investment to ramp up a sustainable local industry cluster, the first
four years from 2012 to 2015 require firm commitment.
6.3.6 Wind 2014/15: As is the case with solar PV, it is necessary to make a firm commitment to the
first post-REFIT wind installations in order to connect the wind farms to the grid by 2014.
Furthermore, to provide the security of investment to ramp up a sustainable local industry
cluster, the first two years from 2014 to 2015 need commitment.
6.3.7 CSP 2016: The 100 MW of CSP power, planned for 2016, needs firm commitment because of
the long lead time of these projects.
6.4 The light shaded options should be confirmed in the next IRP iteration:
6.4.1 Coal FBC 2019/20: There is sufficient time for these coal power stations to be firmly
committed to in the next round of the IRP. If all underlying assumptions do not radically
change, a firm commitment to these coal units will then be required to ensure timely grid
connection by 2019.
6.4.2 Wind 2016 to 2019: For the first wind installations until 2015, extensive grid extension is not
necessary. For the additional units to come in 2016 to 2019, these extensions might become
necessary. To trigger the associated feasibility studies, planning, and investments in a timely
manner, the additional wind units added from 2016 to 2019 should be decided on in the next
round of the IRP at the latest.
6.4.3 CSP 2017 to 2019: Because of the long lead time for CSP plants, a commitment to the
capacity planned for 2017 to 2019 is necessary in the next round of the IRP at the latest. By
then, the cost and technical assumptions for CSP plants will also be grounded on more solid
empirical data.
6.4.4 Solar PV 2016 to 2019: As with wind, grid upgrades might become necessary for the second
round of solar PV installations from 2016 to 2019, depending on their location. To trigger the
associated tasks in a timely manner, a firm commitment to these capacities is necessary in the
next round of the IRP at the latest. By then, the assumed cost decreases for solar PV will be
confirmed.
6.5 All non-shaded options could be replaced during the next, and subsequent, IRP iterations if IRP
assumptions change and thus impact on the quantitative model results.
6.5.1 Open Cycle Gas Turbine (OCGT) and Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) options could
be replaced by gas engines for peaking and quick response operations which have technical
efficiency and cost benefits relative to the turbines assumed in the modelling. Further work
on this option is required. Continued assessment of the viability of demand response and
pumped storage options as alternatives to OCGT capacity will be undertaken.
Risks
6.6 In general, diversification mitigates the set of risks associated with an expanding power-supply
system.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 18
6.7 Diversification does introduce a risk in moving from dependence on a historically certain fuel
supply, specifically coal in South Africa’s case, to different commodities and technologies
which are less certain (from a historical perspective). The Policy-Adjusted IRP increases the
exposure to imported commodities (uranium and gas) and electricity imports (regional hydro),
but reduces the risk to price increases in the single commodity, coal. The current average coal
price reflects the historic cost-plus pricing for the local power market, whereas in the future a
stronger link to global coal prices is expected.
6.8 By 2030, electrical energy will be supplied by a wide range of very different technologies,
whose individual risks are not or only weakly correlated. In so doing, the Policy-Adjusted IRP
reduces South Africa’s exposure to the risks associated with individual technologies and
commodities.
6.9 The following risks have been identified in relation to the Policy-Adjusted IRP
6.9.1 Demand forecast: The forecast demand is at the higher end of the anticipated spectrum. The
risk is thus that the actual demand turns out to be lower than forecast. In this case, the effect
would be limited to over-investment in capacity. Security of supply is not jeopardised
because of the conservative assumptions regarding energy efficiency and thus demand-
reducing measures.
6.9.2 Nuclear costs: Figure 4 shows that the costs of nuclear build account for a large portion of the
overall price between 2020 and 2030. If the nuclear costs should turn out to be higher than
assumed, this could increase the expected price of electricity. This can be mitigated with a
firm commitment to 3,0 GW of nuclear.
6.9.3 IPP-operated coal FBC units: If the coal units expected to be commissioned in 2014 and 2015
are not built, or are not built in a timely manner, the reserve margin from these years on will
be roughly 1,0 GW lower. Until 2020, the reserve margin is substantial (approximately 20%)
and a cancellation or delay of these coal FBC units is unlikely to jeopardise security of supply
before 2020. This provides sufficient time to implement mitigation measures.
6.9.4 Plant performance of new generation: If new renewable generation capacities should fail to
reach their forecast performance in terms of full-load hours, this will increase total costs. It
will, however, not affect other dimensions like security of supply, since solar PV is
completely backed up with conventional, dispatchable generation and wind power is backed
up to a large extent. Regarding conventional power plant, it is very unlikely that these, once
built, will not reach their originally designed name-plate capacity, efficiency, and full-load
hours.
6.9.5 Variable capacity impacting on system security and stability: At low levels of penetration
there is only a marginal impact on the system from fluctuating renewable capacity. However
there is a point at which an isolated system, with the South African generation mix and
demand profile, would have to make adjustments to system and network operations (if not
configuration) to cater for the variability of this capacity. This level is as yet unknown for
South Africa and additional research will be required to identify this for the next IRP
iteration. The Policy-Adjusted IRP proposes 10% penetration for wind and PV capacity as a
share of total installed capacity in 2020 and 20% in 2030. The benefits of flexible dispatch
generation should be considered as back-up for this capacity to ameliorate the impact on the
system.
6.9.6 Learning rates not being realised: These assumptions hinge on assumed international roll-out
for these technologies, with a dependence on interventions by governments on a significant
scale (in terms of feed-in tariffs and other incentives). If the expected capacity does not
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 19
materialise (either due to reduced government incentives – following the government finance
crunch in many developed economies – or similar constraints) then the learning rates will be
applied to a less rapidly increasing installed base and technology costs will decrease more
gradually. Given the relatively optimistic assumptions made, there is a greater risk of not
achieving the expectation than of exceeding it. These risks are predominantly outside the
control of local authorities as South Africa’s potential capacity is a small component of the
global capacity (except perhaps in the case of solar options). However, one can infer from
Figure 4 that if the cost decreases do not materialise to the full extent, especially for solar PV,
this will have a relatively small impact on the electricity price development.
6.9.7 Fuel costs: Figure 4 shows that by far the greatest risk with respect to fuel prices lies in the
coal fuel cost. Spending on coal (new build coal power plants and existing fleet) represents
approximately 20% of total costs of the entire energy system in 2020. Today, South Africa is
in the very privileged position of having access to coal that is priced well below world-market
prices and locked in via long-term contracts. If, however, these contracts expire and are open
to renegotiation (especially the older existing contracts), it is uncertain whether the new
negotiated price will remain favourable, especially if selling on the global market would be
more attractive. Other than the risks associated with the fuel prices of other technologies, the
risk associated with the coal price, due to its current low price point, is mostly a downside
risk. The risk associated with increasing gas and diesel prices is limited, because the fuel
costs of diesel-driven OCGTs and gas-driven CCGTs account for only a very small fraction
of the overall system costs (approximately 0.3% in 2030, as indicated in Figure 4).
6.9.8 Import hydro options: The main risks associated with the import hydro options are a delay in
the construction of both the necessary grid extension and the power plants themselves, and
severe, long-lasting droughts. In both cases, other dispatchable sources of generation would
have to make up for the missing hydro capacity There is also a cost risk in that the
assumptions used in the IRP are based on estimates from the SAPP pool plan and do not
reflect any commitment on the part of potential developers.
6.9.9 EEDSM assumptions: The current assumptions with respect to energy efficiency measures are
conservative. Only existing planned programmes were considered, and new options to
increase energy efficiency further were not taken into account. Thus, the risk that the
modelled amount of energy efficiency does not materialise is relatively small. If it should
nevertheless happen, more mid-load capacity (like CCGT) will have to be built, which can be
achieved with short lead times.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 20
Figure 4. Breakdown of anticipated average electricity price path2
Mitigation
6.10 Chronological dispatch runs: An adequate system is one that provides for contingencies
regarding future demand and generation performance. The adequacy of a system or plan can be
measured in a number of ways, of which reserve margin is but one (although generally a weak
indicator of general adequacy). A number of adequacy tests were conducted on the Policy-
Adjusted IRP (using chronological production runs), testing for variability in demand, wind and
solar profiles, each indicating that there is sufficient dispatchable capacity to counter the impact
of the variations.
6.11 Bringing forward new capacity: The Policy-Adjusted IRP brings forward the roll-out of
renewable options to enhance the localisation impact. In so doing, this creates surplus capacity
and is not off-setting alternative options. At the same time some of the CCGT and coal options
are forced in to ensure dispatchable capacity when renewable capacity starts impacting on
system security.
6.12 Life extension: The Policy-Adjusted IRP assumes that the older Eskom coal-fired power
stations are decommissioned at the end of 50 year lifespan. It is possible that these power
stations could have the economic life extended with some capital investment and continue to
operate for another ten years in case the proposed new build options are delayed or demand
projections prove insufficient. This would have to be traded off against the higher emissions
and low efficiencies of the generators.
Policy and Facilitation
6.13 REFIT tariffs need to consider the impact of learning rates and adjust accordingly, otherwise
price impact will be more extreme than assumed.
2 The price expectation is a comparative analysis based on the existing price regulation methodology. The
comparative analysis should not be used to suggest an absolute price path.
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
1,1
1,2
Average electricity price in 2010-ZAR/kWh
Fuel costs of existing fleet
Coal
Nuclear
Hydro
Gas - CCGT
Peak - OCGT
Wind
CSP
PV
20302025
1,12
202020152010
Total price
effect of
new-builds
in 2030
Price hike for
existing fleet without
any new builds = 0,78
R/kWh
Maximum-price scenario,
highly depends on asset
value methodology for
existing fleet and Eskom
transmission and distribution
0,98
Eskom transmission anddistribution costs plus non-
fuel costs of existing fleet1
1. Does not include costs of non-Eskom distribution network
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 21
6.14 The energy cost for the earlier solar PV capacity (specifically 2012 and 2013) is not currently
included in the multi-year price determination for Eskom. Due to the delay in the REFIT
programme, approved funding can be re-allocated to this capacity, but additional funding may
be required depending on the final REFIT tariffs for solar PV.
6.15 Net metering, which allows for consumers to feed energy they produce into the grid and offset
this energy against consumed energy, should be considered for all consumers (including
residential and commercial consumers) in order to realise the benefits of distributed generation.
The impact of such a policy on subsidies needs to be considered.
6.16 The IRP should not limit activities behind the meter where consumers take up energy efficiency
and other measures to improve their demand exposure, inclusive of co-generation and
residential/commercial PV. Similarly the IRP should not be restrictive in terms of own
generation.
6.17 The required capital injection for the IRP is assumed to be apportioned between the private
sector in the form of IPPs (for 30% of the capacity) and the public sector. The public sector
portion will depend on debt or fiscal allocations to Eskom as and when required.
7 RESEARCH AGENDA FOR NEXT IRP
Distributed generation, smart grids and off-grid generation
7.1 An independent study on solar PV technologies suggests that before 2015 the levelised cost of
the PV installation (without storage) would be the same, if not cheaper, than residential prices
(especially at municipal retail tariffs). This possibility suggests that distributed generation
should be seriously considered in future iterations of the IRP with additional research into the
technology options for distributed generation and the impact on networks, pricing and residual
demand on centrally planned generation.
7.2 The growth of distributed generation has a bearing on the development and operations of the
network (predominantly the distribution network), especially if some, if not most, of the
distributed generation is variable technology. The development opportunity of smart(er) grids
and storage solutions – which can help in integrating variable renewable technologies – should
also be considered, alongside the system’s balancing capability (and ancillary services). There
could be an initial focus on smart metering and the ability to manage demand.
7.3 Off-grid activities should be considered especially as there is an impact on the potential future
demand (through “suppressed demand” which has occurred as a result of lack of grid access for
a number of potential consumers).
Harnessing South Africa’s coal resource
7.4 Research into Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) should have a priority in the research
agenda as there is a potential for this option to be used in place of natural gas.
7.5 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) would allow coal generation to continue to have a large
presence even in a carbon-constrained world. This is still a priority for future research.
Uncertainties in decision-making
7.6 Further research is required to investigate more appropriate options of incorporating uncertainty
and risk in the IRP process. The current process assigns an uncertainty factor to scenarios but
does not fully incorporate these risks in the optimisation process within each scenario.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 22
7.7 The possibility of different discount rates for technology to factor in different risk profiles for
the technologies should also be investigated.
Longer term outlook
7.8 Further integration is required with the Integrated Energy Plan and government’s long term
vision for emissions and the energy industry. It is proposed that a “Vision for 2050” be
developed in order to feed into the IRP 2012.
7.9 The impact of extensive decommissioning of existing coal fleet between 2030 and 2040 should
be considered. The impact of extending the horizon should be considered, alongside a need for
stronger policy objectives and guidance from government on long term objectives which the
IRP should be meeting.
7.10 Further analysis on price sensitivity of demand should be a priority for IRP 2012, as well as the
possibility of substitutes to electricity (heating technologies, natural gas supply, other gas
options).
Decommissioning and waste management
7.11 Further research is required on the full costs relating to specific technologies (coal and nuclear)
around the costs of decommissioning and managing waste (in the case of nuclear specifically
spent fuel).
Technology options
7.12 Further research is required on a number of potential technology options, including:
7.12.1 Small hydro
7.12.2 Regional hydro options (specifically Inga)
7.12.3 Biomass (including municipal solid waste and bagasse)
7.12.4 Storage; and
7.12.5 Energy efficiency demand side management
8 CONCLUSION
8.1 This Policy-Adjusted IRP is recommended for adoption by Cabinet and subsequent
promulgation as the final IRP.
8.2 A commitment to the construction of the nuclear fleet is made based on government policy and
reduced risk exposure to future fuel and renewable costs.
8.3 A solar PV programme as envisaged in the Policy-Adjusted IRP should be pursued (including
decentralised generation).
8.4 The acceleration of the coal options in the Policy-Adjusted IRP should be allowed with an
understanding of the impact on emission targets and the carbon tax policy.
8.5 An accelerated roll-out of renewable energy options should be allowed in order to derive the
benefits of localisation in these technologies.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 23
8.6 A commitment to the construction of the CCGT options in 2019-2021 and the resulting import
infrastructure to support this option should be made in order to improve security of supply from
a flexible, dispatchable generation perspective.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 24
APPENDIX A – SCENARIOS INFORMING THE REVISED BALANCED
SCENARIO
Table 6. Scenarios for the RBS
Scenario Constraints
Base Case 0.0 Limited regional development options No externalities (incl. carbon tax) or climate change targets
Emission Limit 1.0 (EM1) Annual limit imposed on CO2 emissions from electricity industry of 275 MT CO2-eq
Emission Limit 2.0 (EM2) Annual limit imposed on CO2 emissions from electricity industry of 275 MT CO2-eq, imposed only from 2025
Emission Limit 3.0 (EM3) Annual limit imposed on CO2 emissions from electricity industry 220 MT CO2-eq, imposed from 2020
Carbon Tax 0.0 (CT) Imposing carbon tax as per Long Term Mitigation Strategy (LTMS) values (escalated to 2010 ZAR)
Regional Development 0.0 (RD) Inclusion of additional regional projects as options
Enhanced DSM 0.0 (EDSM) Additional DSM committed to extent of 6 TWh energy equivalent in 2015
Balanced Scenario Emission constraints as with EM 2.0, Coal costs at R200/ton; LNG cost at R80/GJ, Import Coal with FGD, forced in Wind earlier with a ramp-up (200 MW in 2014; 400 MW in 2015; 800 MW from 2016 to 2023; 1600 MW annual limit on options throughout)
Revised Balanced Scenario As with Balanced Scenario, with the additional requirement of a solar programme of 100 MW in each year from 2016 to 2019 (and a delay in the REFIT solar capacity to 100 MW in each of 2014 and 2015). CCGT forced in from 2019 to 2021 to provide backup options. Additional import hydro as per the Regional Development scenario
Note: All scenarios (except Balanced and Revised Balanced) were tested with a case of Kusile not being
committed.
Initial scenarios
A.1. The Base Case (with Kusile and Medupi as per the original committed schedule) provides for
imported hydro as the first base-load capacity in 2020 (after the committed programmes),
followed by combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) (fuelled by liquefied natural gas, or LNG),
then imported coal and fluidised bed combustion (FBC) coal, before pulverised coal which
forms the basis of all further base-load capacity. Additional peaking capacity is exclusively
provided by open-cycle gas turbines (OCGT), fuelled by diesel. CO2 emissions continue to
grow (albeit at a lower rate due to more efficient power stations replacing decommissioned
older ones) to a level of 381 million tons at the end of the period (2030). Water usage drops
from 336 420 million litres in 2010 to 266 721 million litres in 2030 (due to replacing older
wet-cooled coal power stations with newer dry-cooled ones). The cancellation of the Kusile
project would require alternative capacity to be built in 2017, in this case FBC coal and CCGT,
with additional projects brought on at least a year earlier in each case. This increases the cost
to the economy from R789bn to R840bn (in present value terms), but does not include the net
impact of the cost saving on the cancelled project and penalties relating to this cancellation.
The present value costs indicated do not include capital costs for committed projects.
A.2. Imposing a limit on emissions (at 275 million tons of CO2 throughout the period) in the
Emissions 1 scenario shifts the base-load alternatives away from coal (in particular pulverised
coal) to nuclear and gas. Wind capacity is also favoured to meet the energy requirements over
the period, especially as the emission constraint starts to bite in 2018. As the nuclear
programme is restricted in terms of its build rate (one unit every 18 months starting in 2022)
wind is required to reduce emissions in the interim. CCGT provides a strong mid-merit
alternative until nuclear is commissioned, especially providing higher load factors than wind,
with some dispatchability. The total cost to the economy (excluding capital costs of committed
projects) is R860bn, compared with R789bn for the Base Case, but with significantly lower
water consumption (241 785 million litres in 2030).
A.3. The emission limit is retained at 275 million tons for the Emission 2 scenario but is only
imposed from 2025. Under these conditions the nuclear and wind build are delayed (nuclear by
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 25
one year, wind by five years). The other capacity is similar to the Base Case until 2022, when
low carbon capacity is required to ensure that the constraint can be met in 2025.
Decommissioning of older power stations (6654 MW by 2025) provides an opportunity to
return to the constrained level of emissions. The cost to the economy is lower than the
Emission Limit 1 scenario at R835bn with a slightly higher average annual emission of 275
million tons (as opposed to 266 million tons).
A.4. In the Emissions 3 scenario a tighter emission limit of 220 million tons is imposed from 2020.
This requires a significant amount of wind capacity (17600 MW starting in 2015) and solar
capacity (11250 MW commissioned between 2017 and 2021) to meet the constraint. In total
17,6 GW of wind, 11,3 GW of solar and 9,6 GW of nuclear are built, with no coal capacity
included. CCGT is constructed as a lower emission mid-merit capacity along with 6,5 GW of
OCGT peakers. The cost to the economy is significantly higher at R1250bn with much lower
average annual emissions (235 million tons) and water consumption (218 970 million litres in
2030).
A.5. The carbon tax scenario includes a carbon tax at the level of that discussed in the Long Term
Mitigation Strategy (LTMS) document, starting at R165/MWh in 2010 rands, escalating to
R332/MWh in 2020 until the end of the period (2030) before escalating again to R995/MWh in
2040. This level of carbon tax causes a switch in generation technology to low carbon emitting
technologies, in particular the nuclear fleet (starting in 2022) and wind capacity of 17,6 GW
starting in 2020. The remainder is provided by imported hydro (1959 MW), OCGT (4255
MW) and CCGT (4266 MW) with some FBC coal after 2028 (1750 MW). The cost to the
economy (excluding the tax itself, which would be a transfer to the fiscus) arising from the
changed generation portfolio is R852bn, with average annual emissions at 269 million tons and
water consumption declining to 238 561 million litres in 2030.
A.6. While the Base Case only includes some import options (limited import hydro (Mozambique)
and import coal (Botswana)), the Regional Development scenario considers all listed projects
from the Imports parameter input sheet. These additional options provide good alternatives to
local supply options at lower generation costs (but require additional transmission capacity to
transport the energy). Including these options brings the total cost to the economy (excluding
the transmission backbone requirement for these projects) to R783bn (R6bn cheaper than the
Base Case). The import coal and hydro options are preferred to local options, but imported gas
is not preferred to local gas options.
A.7. The Enhanced DSM scenario was run to see what the impact of additional DSM would be on
the IRP. For this scenario an additional 6 TWh of DSM energy was forced by 2015. The
resulting reduction in cost was R12,8bn (R789,5bn of the Base Case less R776,7bn for the
Enhanced DSM scenario) on a PV basis, indicating that if a 6 TWh programme could be run for
less than this cost it would be beneficial to the economy.
A.8. Two balanced scenarios were created considering divergent stakeholder expectations and key
constraints and risks. The balanced scenarios represent the best trade-off between least-
investment cost, climate change mitigation, diversity of supply, localisation and regional
development. The CO2 emission targets are similar to those in the Emissions 2 scenario. The
balanced scenarios include the Eskom committed build programme plus the MTPPP and REFIT
commitments. A significant amount of wind is built, as this is the cheapest renewable energy
option. Care is taken to ensure a steady and consistent build up in wind capacity in order to
stimulate localisation of manufacturing and job creation. A consistent, although more modest,
commitment is given to the more expensive concentrated solar power (CSP) option in order to
develop local experience with this technology as well as costs. The renewable energy options
continue after 2020, but are not specified according to technology type at this stage. These
choices will be made when there is more local knowledge and experience with both wind and
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 26
solar energy. Nuclear energy comes in as a base-load option from 2023 – but because this is 13
years away, this decision does not yet have to be made. The scenario also provides for
substantial diversity with gas, regional hydro, and coal options also included. In addition,
allowance is made for some short- to medium-term co-generation and self-build options to
bolster security of supply concerns.
Multi-criteria decision-making
A.9. The scenarios provided a platform to consider the impact of identified policy uncertainties.
Having considered each of the resulting cost-optimised plans a mechanism was required to
bring together the desirable elements from these outcomes into a synthesised “balanced” plan.
A set of criteria was proposed and discussed at a series of inter-departmental workshops against
which to assess these plans. These include:
A.9.1. Water: The usage of water is quantified for each technology, according to the
independent EPRI report and information from existing Eskom plant. The cost of
water for existing plant and approved future plant is known and quantified. For plant
that is recommended to be built in the proposed IRP 2010 only the usage of water is
quantified, given that the location of the plant is not known at this stage of the IRP.
A.9.2. Cost: Each scenario involves the construction of new generation capacity over the
study period. For the current and approved projects the costs from the existing owner
(Eskom, municipality or private supplier) is used. For potential new projects the
approved data set of option costs will be used. The criteria applied for this dimension
should cover the direct costs associated with new generation capacity built under each
scenario (including capital, operating and fuel costs) as well as existing plant (but
excluding capital costs for committed plant) and summed to determine the total cost of
the plan. This will be discounted to determine the present value of the plan and used as
a comparator between the different scenarios. An alternative approach is to look at the
future electricity price curves required to meet the generation costs incurred by the
scenario portfolio. This model, similar to that applied in the Eskom MYPD decision by
NERSA, provides an indicator of future costs to consumers for the electricity industry
from each scenario portfolio.
Table 7. Score for each criteria
Plans CO2
emissions Price Water Uncertainty Localisation
potential Regional
development TOTAL
Base Case 0.0 - 21.74 - 2.73 - 6.08 30.54
Emission 1.0 12.41 18.61 5.24 16.14 6.47 6.08 64.94
Emission 2.0 9.43 20.61 2.53 16.14 6.47 6.08 61.25
Emission 3.0 21.74 - 10.87 19.57 6.47 - 58.65
Carbon Tax 0.0 11.50 18.41 3.50 19.26 6.47 2.77 61.91
Region Development 0.0 0.67 21.53 0.37 - - 10.87 33.44
Enhanced DSM 1.54 20.85 0.94 3.04 - 6.08 32.45
Balanced 10.46 20.24 2.74 16.71 11.02 1.85 63.01
Revised Balance 11.01 19.33 2.92 16.32 15.22 8.85 73.66
Swing Weighting (/100) 21.74 21.74 10.87 19.57 15.22 10.87 100.00
A.9.3. Climate change mitigation: The Department of Environmental Affairs “Long Term
Mitigation Strategy” (LTMS) provides guidance on the extent to which greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions should be restricted over time. For the purposes of the IRP the GHG
emissions from existing and planned generation capacity can be quantified in the model
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 27
and compared between scenarios. While certain scenarios may impose a specific limit
to emissions, this criterion compares the actual emissions between all scenarios.
A.9.4. Portfolio risk or uncertainty: An approach has been developed to identify and model
the risks associated with each of the scenario portfolios. There are different dimensions
or sources of risk between the scenario portfolios, including (but not limited to): the
validity of the cost assumptions for each technology; the validity of the lead time
assumptions for each technology; the maturity of each technology; the security of fuel
supplies for each technology; and operational risks associated with each technology
(including secondary life cycle effects), such as waste management, pollution and
contamination. Ideally these risks would carry cost elements which would enable
incorporation into the IRP optimisation (through monetisation of the risk elements).
However given the time constraints and dearth of data to support this process, this is not
feasible at present. The second best approach would be to identify a probability
distribution associated with the risks, use the standard deviation as a measure of risk,
and apply these across the identified dimensions. While this can be done for some of
the risk dimensions, there is again a lack of information and time to produce such
measures for every dimension. The third approach is to apply subjective expert
judgement to each technology for every dimension and derive a risk factor for each
technology (and consequently a capacity weighting for each scenario portfolio). This
methodology was used for the IRP 2010, with the resulting risk factor compared
between the different scenarios.
A.9.5. Localisation benefit: A rating has been given to each scenario portfolio to indicate the
extent to which this portfolio supports localisation of specific technologies and
supporting industries. It is expected that the earlier a technology construction
programme is triggered, and the more steadily such technology capacity is added, the
higher the potential to localise the technology industry. Thus a wind industry is
supported by a regular build profile, starting earlier, and consequently a portfolio that
incorporates such a build profile would have a higher score in this criterion. The
application is however subjective.
A.9.6. Regional development: Workshops with government departments indicated that this
is an important criterion for the portfolios and that those portfolios that support
increased import from regional options should receive a higher score. Thus the
portfolio with the higher percentage of imports (to the total capacity) scores higher on
the regional development criterion. Technically speaking the total capacity is replaced
in this calculation by the demand that must be met, so as not to penalise portfolios that
build significant wind (which requires more capacity for each unit of demand due to the
capacity credits applied to wind).
A.10. For the first three criteria (emissions, cost of plan and water) and the regional development
criterion the measurement is provided by the optimisation results. The average domestic
emissions figure is determined based on the emission contribution of each of the proposed
projects and its expected output in each year. Similarly the cost of the plan is determined based
on the capital, operating and fuel costs of each project (discounted to 2010 rands), but
specifically excludes the capital costs associated with existing power stations and the
committed Eskom build. The water criterion is measured by summating the water requirements
for the scenario portfolio for the entire study period.
A.11. The uncertainty factor criterion is measured using uncertainty factors for each technology,
which is then applied based on the relative capacity of each technology in the portfolio. The
localisation criterion is based on a subjective score applied to the portfolios based on their
perceived potential for localisation.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 28
Figure 5. Impact of RBS and Policy-Adjusted IRP on net energy supply
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
5%5%
1%3%
RBS
437
66%
1%
20%
6%
7%
Base case
437
91%
3%4%
Policy-Adjusted
IRP
337
2%
Net energy supplied by all power sources shown in TWh p.a.1
Policy-Adjusted
IRP
437
65%
1%
20%
87%
4%4%
3% 1%
1%
RBS
337
86%
1%
4%4%5%
Base case
3392
91%
4%4% 1%
Status quo
255
90%
5%5%
Coal
CCGT/OCGT
Nuclear
Hydro
Wind
CSP
PV
Renewables
2010 2020 2030
5%Share
renewables 5% 9% 8% 5% 13% 14%
10%Share
CO2-f ree 9% 13% 12% 8% 34% 34%
912CO2 intensity
in g/kWh860 815 820 840 600 600
1. "Other" generation sources not shown 2. "Base case" scenario contains slightly more pumped energy in 2020 than RBS and Policy-Adjusted IRP and thus requires more total energy being generated
-34%
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 29
Table 8. Base Case scenario
Co
mm
itte
d
Co
al F
BC
Imp
ort
Co
al
Gas C
CG
T
OC
GT
Imp
ort
Hyd
ro
Co
al P
F +
FG
D
Total new build
Total system
capacity
Peak demand
(net sent-out)
forecast Dem
an
d S
ide
Man
ag
em
en
t
Rese
rve
Ma
rgin
R
eliab
le
cap
acit
y
Rese
rve
Ma
rgin
Un
serv
ed
en
erg
y
Annual energy
(net sent-out)
forecast
PV Total cost
(cumulative) Water Total CO2 emissions
Capital expenditure (at date of
commercial operation)
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % % GWh GWh Rm ML MT Rbn
2010 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252 15.28 15.18 - 259,685 44,138 336,420 237 -
2011 1009 0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 45544 39956 494 15.41 14.74 - 266,681 87,467 349,613 243 -
2012 1425 0 0 0 0 0 0 1425 46969 40995 809 16.88 15.25 - 274,403 128,921 350,510 250 -
2013 2601 0 0 0 0 0 0 2601 49570 42416 1310 20.59 17.84 - 283,914 168,689 347,830 252 -
2014 2543 0 0 0 0 0 0 2543 52113 43436 1966 25.66 23.52 - 290,540 206,850 341,505 252 -
2015 1988 0 0 0 0 0 0 1988 54101 44865 2594 27.98 23.48 - 300,425 244,060 327,011 259 -
2016 1355 0 0 0 0 0 0 1355 55456 45786 3007 29.63 24.52 - 310,243 280,709 326,392 264 -
2017 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 1446 56902 47870 3420 28.01 22.54 - 320,751 314,878 330,861 272 -
2018 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 723 57625 49516 3420 25.01 19.82 - 332,381 346,282 341,701 286 -
2019 0 0 0 0 460 0 0 460 58085 51233 3420 21.48 16.57 - 344,726 378,543 346,415 297 1.95
2020 0 0 0 0 805 653 0 1458 59543 52719 3420 20.78 16.03 - 355,694 413,756 360,214 306 12.64
2021 -75 0 0 474 805 1023 0 2227 61770 54326 3420 21.34 16.72 - 365,826 451,476 368,262 313 22.47
2022 -1870 750 600 948 805 283 0 1516 63286 55734 3420 20.97 16.49 - 375,033 493,152 359,495 319 37.39
2023 -2280 750 600 711 0 0 1500 1281 64567 57097 3420 20.29 15.93 - 383,914 542,245 333,078 323 61.91
2024 -909 250 0 474 0 0 1500 1315 65882 58340 3420 19.96 15.70 - 392,880 581,161 321,490 330 39.47
2025 -1520 0 0 0 345 0 3000 1825 67707 60150 3420 19.35 15.24 - 404,358 625,387 300,861 337 65.21
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 1500 69207 61770 3420 18.61 14.63 - 415,281 657,853 303,450 348 31.87
2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 1500 70707 63404 3420 17.88 14.02 - 426,196 688,775 306,068 359 31.87
2028 -2850 0 0 237 460 0 3750 1597 72304 64867 3420 17.67 13.91 - 436,761 730,641 277,801 365 83.15
2029 -1128 0 0 237 0 0 2250 1359 73663 66460 3420 16.85 13.20 - 445,888 762,702 266,200 372 49.32
2030 0 0 0 237 0 0 1500 1737 75400 67809 3420 17.10 13.52 - 454,357 789,481 266,721 381 33.39 No emission constraints; committed programme includes Medupi, Kusile, Ingula, Sere and Return to Service capacity (all from Eskom), 1025MW from REFIT, 1020MW OCGT IPP; 390MW
from MTPPP; maximum wind 1600MW per year; EEDSM as per Eskom MYPD2 application, max 3420MW
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 30
Table 9. Emissions 1 scenario
Co
mm
itte
d
Co
al F
BC
Imp
ort
Co
al
Gas C
CG
T
OC
GT
Imp
ort
Hyd
ro
Win
d
Nu
cle
ar
Fle
et
Co
al P
F +
FG
D
Total new build
Total system
capacity
Peak demand
(net sent-out)
forecast
Dem
an
d S
ide
Man
ag
em
en
t
Rese
rve
Ma
rgin
Reliab
le c
ap
acit
y
Rese
rve
Ma
rgin
Un
serv
ed
en
erg
y
Annual energy
(net sent-out)
forecast
PV Total cost
(cumulative) Water
Total CO2 emissions
Capital expenditure (at date of
commercial operation)
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % % GWh GWh Rm ML MT Rbn
2010 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252 15.28 15.18 - 259,685 44,138 336,420 237 -
2011 1009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 45544 39956 494 15.41 14.74 - 266,681 87,467 349,613 243 -
2012 1425 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1425 46969 40995 809 16.88 15.25 - 274,403 128,921 350,510 250 -
2013 2601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2601 49570 42416 1310 20.59 17.84 - 283,914 168,689 347,830 252 -
2014 2543 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2543 52113 43436 1966 25.66 23.52 - 290,540 206,850 341,505 252 -
2015 1988 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1988 54101 44865 2594 27.98 23.48 - 300,425 244,060 327,011 259 -
2016 1355 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1355 55456 45786 3007 29.63 24.52 - 310,243 280,709 326,392 264 -
2017 1446 0 0 0 0 0 1200 0 0 2646 58102 47870 3420 30.71 23.40 - 320,751 325,028 330,424 268 17.95
2018 723 0 0 948 0 0 1600 0 0 3271 61373 49516 3420 33.14 23.76 - 332,381 372,475 331,897 275 30.00
2019 0 0 0 948 0 740 1600 0 0 3288 64661 51233 3420 35.24 23.94 - 344,726 425,196 319,036 275 43.60
2020 0 0 0 948 0 370 1600 0 0 2918 67579 52719 3420 37.08 23.95 - 355,694 472,514 317,333 275 36.80
2021 -75 0 0 948 0 0 1600 0 0 2473 70052 54326 3420 37.61 22.82 - 365,826 516,670 317,085 275 30.00
2022 -1870 0 0 0 0 0 1400 1600 0 1130 71182 55734 3420 36.07 19.96 - 375,033 573,594 308,548 275 78.17
2023 -2280 0 0 0 805 0 0 1600 0 125 71307 57097 3420 32.85 17.22 - 383,914 620,892 303,971 274 60.63
2024 -909 0 0 0 805 283 1200 0 0 1379 72686 58340 3420 32.35 15.65 - 392,880 653,285 295,954 275 23.80
2025 -1520 0 0 0 805 283 0 1600 0 1168 73854 60150 3420 30.19 14.06 - 404,358 695,121 289,791 275 63.07
2026 0 0 0 0 230 0 0 1600 0 1830 75684 61770 3420 29.71 14.03 - 415,281 733,015 287,851 273 58.20
2027 0 250 0 474 690 0 800 0 0 2214 77898 63404 3420 29.86 13.73 - 426,196 760,364 283,339 275 22.49
2028 -2850 750 1200 0 0 0 0 1600 750 1450 79348 64867 3420 29.13 13.39 - 436,761 806,411 256,206 275 109.23
2029 -1128 750 0 0 115 0 0 1600 0 1337 80685 66460 3420 27.99 12.66 0 445,888 841,096 241,365 271 71.41
2030 0 0 0 0 690 283 0 0 0 973 81658 67809 3420 26.82 11.83 - 454,357 860,504 241,785 275 5.36 Emission constraint of 275 million tons per year applicable throughout the period; committed programme as per Base Case scenario; maximum wind 1600MW per year; EEDSM as per Eskom
MYPD2 application, max 3420MW
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 31
Table 10. Emissions 2 scenario
Co
mm
itte
d
Co
al F
BC
Imp
ort
Co
al
Gas C
CG
T
OC
GT
Imp
ort
Hyd
ro
Win
d
Nu
cle
ar
Fle
et
Co
al P
F +
FG
D
Total new build
Total system
capacity
Peak demand
(net sent-out)
forecast Dem
an
d S
ide
Man
ag
em
en
t
Rese
rve
Ma
rgin
R
eliab
le
cap
acit
y
Rese
rve
Ma
rgin
Un
serv
ed
en
erg
y
Annual energy
(net sent-out)
forecast
PV Total cost
(cumulative) Water
Total CO2 emissions
Capital expenditure (at date of
commercial operation)
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % % GWh GWh Rm ML MT Rbn
2010 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252 15.28 15.18 - 259,685 44,138 336,420 237 -
2011 1009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 45544 39956 494 15.41 14.74 - 266,681 87,467 349,613 243 -
2012 1425 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1425 46969 40995 809 16.88 15.25 - 274,403 128,921 350,510 250 -
2013 2601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2601 49570 42416 1310 20.59 17.84 - 283,914 168,689 347,830 252 -
2014 2543 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2543 52113 43436 1966 25.66 23.52 - 290,540 206,850 341,505 252 -
2015 1988 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1988 54101 44865 2594 27.98 23.48 - 300,425 244,060 327,011 259 -
2016 1355 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1355 55456 45786 3007 29.63 24.52 - 310,243 280,709 326,392 264 -
2017 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1446 56902 47870 3420 28.01 22.54 - 320,751 314,878 330,861 272 -
2018 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 723 57625 49516 3420 25.01 19.82 - 332,381 346,282 341,701 286 -
2019 0 0 0 0 575 0 0 0 0 575 58200 51233 3420 21.72 16.80 - 344,726 378,773 346,414 296 2.44
2020 0 0 0 0 805 653 0 0 0 1458 59658 52719 3420 21.01 16.26 - 355,694 413,983 359,481 305 12.64
2021 -75 0 0 237 805 1023 0 0 0 1990 61648 54326 3420 21.10 16.49 - 365,826 451,041 369,552 313 20.96
2022 -1870 750 0 948 805 283 1600 0 0 2516 64164 55734 3420 22.65 16.12 - 375,033 497,317 360,838 315 49.55
2023 -2280 250 0 948 0 0 1600 1600 0 2118 66282 57097 3420 23.48 15.15 - 383,914 556,835 330,101 302 91.79
2024 -909 0 0 948 0 0 1600 1600 0 3239 69521 58340 3420 26.59 16.45 - 392,880 610,191 315,790 294 87.22
2025 -1520 0 0 711 0 0 1600 1600 0 2391 71912 60150 3420 26.76 15.10 - 404,358 660,475 277,549 275 85.71
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 1600 1600 0 3200 75112 61770 3420 28.73 15.54 - 415,281 705,297 279,917 275 81.16
2027 0 0 0 474 115 0 1600 0 0 2189 77301 63404 3420 28.87 14.28 - 426,196 734,485 274,581 275 27.46
2028 -2850 750 1200 0 230 0 400 1600 0 1330 78631 64867 3420 27.96 13.31 - 436,761 778,629 252,124 275 100.25
2029 -1128 0 0 0 0 0 0 1600 750 1222 79853 66460 3420 26.67 12.41 - 445,888 813,912 241,916 272 73.16
2030 0 0 0 0 805 0 800 0 0 1605 81458 67809 3420 26.51 11.73 - 454,357 835,491 241,091 275 15.38 Emission constraint of 275 million tons per year applicable only from 2025; committed programme as per Base Case scenario; maximum wind 1600MW per year; EEDSM as per Eskom
MYPD2 application, max 3420MW
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 32
Table 11. Emission 3 scenario
Co
mm
itte
d
Co
al F
BC
Imp
ort
Co
al
Gas C
CG
T
OC
GT
Imp
ort
Hyd
ro
Win
d
Nu
cle
ar
Fle
et
CS
P
Total new build
Total system
capacity
Peak demand
(net sent-out)
forecast Dem
an
d S
ide
Man
ag
em
en
t
Rese
rve
M
arg
in
cap
acit
y
Rese
rve
M
arg
in
Un
serv
ed
en
erg
y Annual
energy (net sent-
out) forecast
PV Total cost
(cumulative) Water
Total CO2 emissions
Capital expenditure (at date of
commercial operation)
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % % GWh GWh Rm ML MT Rbn
2010 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252 15.28 15.18 - 259,685 44,138 336,420 237 -
2011 1009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 45544 39956 494 15.41 14.74 - 266,681 87,467 349,613 243 -
2012 1425 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1425 46969 40995 809 16.88 15.25 - 274,403 128,921 350,510 250 -
2013 2601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2601 49570 42416 1310 20.59 17.84 - 283,914 168,689 347,830 252 -
2014 2543 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2543 52113 43436 1966 25.66 23.52 - 290,540 206,844 341,494 252 -
2015 1988 0 0 0 0 0 1600 0 0 3588 55701 44865 2594 31.77 24.70 - 300,425 259,821 324,217 254 23.94
2016 1355 0 0 0 0 0 1600 0 0 2955 58656 45786 3007 37.11 26.92 - 310,243 311,093 325,526 255 23.94
2017 1446 0 0 948 0 0 1600 0 1500 5494 64150 47870 3420 44.32 29.69 - 320,751 410,634 331,122 265 114.28
2018 723 0 0 948 0 0 1600 0 3125 6396 70546 49516 3420 53.04 33.12 - 332,381 551,328 320,855 261 205.57
2019 0 0 0 948 805 0 1600 0 3125 6478 77024 51233 3420 61.09 36.28 - 344,726 686,055 310,920 256 208.99
2020 0 0 0 948 805 1110 1600 0 3125 7588 84612 52719 3420 71.63 42.06 - 355,694 832,231 251,137 220 229.38
2021 -75 0 0 474 805 0 1600 0 375 3179 87791 54326 3420 72.46 41.36 - 365,826 910,046 248,837 220 51.45
2022 -1870 0 0 0 0 0 1600 1600 0 1330 89121 55734 3420 70.36 38.14 - 375,033 971,083 245,914 220 81.16
2023 -2280 0 0 0 0 0 200 1600 0 -480 88641 57097 3420 65.14 33.61 - 383,914 1,019,413 250,447 220 60.21
2024 -909 0 0 0 0 0 1600 0 0 691 89332 58340 3420 62.66 29.98 - 392,880 1,053,142 243,538 220 23.94
2025 -1520 0 0 0 0 0 0 1600 0 80 89412 60150 3420 57.61 26.07 - 404,358 1,093,535 238,351 220 57.22
2026 0 0 0 0 805 0 400 1600 0 2805 92217 61770 3420 58.04 26.90 - 415,281 1,134,046 242,436 220 66.62
2027 0 0 0 0 805 0 1400 0 0 2205 94422 63404 3420 57.41 25.59 - 426,196 1,162,091 228,833 220 24.36
2028 -2850 0 0 0 805 0 0 1600 0 -445 93977 64867 3420 52.94 21.95 - 436,761 1,195,990 218,252 220 60.63
2029 -1128 0 0 0 805 0 400 1600 0 1677 95654 66460 3420 51.74 21.13 2 445,888 1,229,179 216,538 220 66.62
2030 0 0 0 0 805 0 800 0 0 1605 97259 67809 3420 51.05 20.27 - 454,357 1,250,053 218,970 220 15.38 Emission constraint of 220 million tons per year applicable from 2020; committed programme as per Base Case scenario; maximum wind 1600MW per year; EEDSM as per Eskom MYPD2
application, max 3420MW
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 33
Table 12. Carbon tax scenario
Co
mm
itte
d
Co
al F
BC
Imp
ort
Co
al
Gas C
CG
T
OC
GT
Imp
ort
Hyd
ro
Win
d
Nu
cle
ar
Fle
et
Co
al P
F +
FG
D
Total new build
Total system
capacity
Peak demand
(net sent-out)
forecast
Dem
an
d S
ide
Man
ag
em
en
t
Rese
rve
Ma
rgin
Reliab
le c
ap
acit
y
Rese
rve
Ma
rgin
Un
serv
ed
en
erg
y
Annual energy
(net sent-out)
forecast
PV Total cost
(cumulative) Water
Total CO2 emissions
Capital expenditure (at date of
commercial operation)
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % % GWh GWh Rm ML MT Rbn
2010 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252 15.28 15.18 - 259,685 44,144 336,986 237 -
2011 1009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 45544 39956 494 15.41 14.74 - 266,681 87,480 349,508 243 -
2012 1425 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1425 46969 40995 809 16.88 15.25 - 274,403 128,943 350,347 250 -
2013 2601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2601 49570 42416 1310 20.59 17.84 - 283,914 168,796 348,884 252 -
2014 2543 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2543 52113 43436 1966 25.66 23.52 - 290,540 206,991 342,094 252 -
2015 1988 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1988 54101 44865 2594 27.98 23.48 - 300,425 244,286 325,753 258 -
2016 1355 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1355 55456 45786 3007 29.63 24.52 - 310,243 281,090 325,941 262 -
2017 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1446 56902 47870 3420 28.01 22.54 - 320,751 315,275 331,571 271 -
2018 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 723 57625 49516 3420 25.01 19.82 - 332,381 346,875 342,090 284 -
2019 0 0 0 0 690 1110 0 0 0 1800 59425 51233 3420 24.29 19.29 - 344,726 389,131 332,002 288 23.32
2020 0 0 0 0 575 283 1600 0 0 2458 61883 52719 3420 25.53 18.53 - 355,694 431,146 342,493 294 28.81
2021 -75 0 0 0 460 283 1600 0 0 2268 64151 54326 3420 26.02 17.17 - 365,826 470,793 354,372 302 28.32
2022 -1870 0 0 0 805 0 1600 1600 0 2135 66286 55734 3420 26.71 16.08 - 375,033 529,377 336,477 293 84.57
2023 -2280 0 0 711 575 0 1600 1600 0 2206 68492 57097 3420 27.60 15.27 - 383,914 586,151 314,969 284 88.15
2024 -909 0 0 948 230 283 1600 0 0 2152 70644 58340 3420 28.63 14.64 - 392,880 621,666 313,255 286 33.41
2025 -1520 0 0 948 0 0 1600 1600 0 2628 73272 60150 3420 29.16 13.75 - 404,358 671,141 289,593 275 87.22
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 1600 1600 0 3200 76472 61770 3420 31.06 14.23 - 415,281 715,339 283,735 271 81.16
2027 0 0 0 948 0 0 1600 0 0 2548 79020 63404 3420 31.74 13.59 0 426,196 743,944 287,897 275 30.00
2028 -2850 750 0 711 690 0 1600 1600 0 2501 81521 64867 3420 32.67 13.22 - 436,761 788,574 255,199 262 102.33
2029 -1128 250 0 0 230 0 1600 1600 0 2552 84073 66460 3420 33.37 12.72 1 445,888 826,849 238,257 254 86.70
2030 0 750 0 0 0 0 1600 0 0 2350 86423 67809 3420 34.22 12.35 0 454,357 852,377 238,561 260 37.64 No emission constraint; carbon tax applied as a input cost based on LTMS carbon tax values adjusted for inflation to 2010 Rands; committed programme as per Base Case scenario; maximum
wind 1600MW per year; EEDSM as per Eskom MYPD2 application, max 3420MW
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 34
Table 13. Balanced scenario
Co
mm
itte
d
Co
al
FB
C
Imp
ort
Co
al
Ga
s C
CG
T
OC
GT
Imp
ort
Hy
dro
Win
d
Nu
cle
ar
Fle
et
Co
al
PF
+ F
GD
Total
new buil
d
Total system
capacity
Peak demand
(net sent-out) forecast
De
ma
nd
Sid
e
Ma
na
ge
men
t
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
Re
lia
ble
ca
pa
cit
y
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
Un
se
rve
d e
ne
rgy
Annual energy
(net sent-out)
forecast
PV Total cost
(cumulative) Water
Total CO2 emissions
Capital expenditure (at date of
commercial operation)
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % % GWh GWh Rm ML MT Rbn
2010 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252 15.28 15.18 - 259,685 44,138 336,420 237 -
2011 1009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 45544 39956 494 15.41 14.74 - 266,681 87,467 349,613 243 -
2012 703 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 703 46247 40995 809 15.08 15.25 - 274,403 128,921 350,510 250 -
2013 2601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2601 48848 42416 1310 18.83 16.10 - 283,914 168,999 350,208 253 -
2014 1821 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 2021 50869 43436 1966 22.66 23.68 - 290,540 209,286 341,515 251 2.99
2015 1264 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 1664 52533 44865 2594 24.28 23.93 - 300,425 250,426 324,482 257 5.98
2016 632 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 1432 53965 45786 3007 26.15 25.57 - 310,243 294,325 326,187 261 11.97
2017 2168 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 2968 56933 47870 3420 28.08 19.39 - 320,751 336,017 337,415 270 11.97
2018 723 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 1523 58456 49516 3420 26.81 18.86 - 332,381 374,208 343,296 280 11.97
2019 1446 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 2246 60702 51233 3420 26.96 16.71 - 344,726 411,135 337,736 287 11.97
2020 723 0 0 0 575 0 800 0 0 2098 62800 52719 3420 27.39 16.37 - 355,694 446,855 343,273 295 14.41
2021 -75 0 0 237 805 0 800 0 0 1767 64567 54326 3420 26.83 15.15 - 365,826 482,121 358,681 305 16.90
2022 -1870 250 0 948 805 1110 800 0 0 2043 66610 55734 3420 27.33 14.94 0 375,033 526,618 345,092 303 46.41
2023 -2280 0 0 711 805 566 800 1600 0 2202 68812 57097 3420 28.20 15.12 - 383,914 581,802 329,844 295 82.01
2024 -909 0 0 474 230 0 600 1600 0 1995 70807 58340 3420 28.93 15.41 - 392,880 629,275 315,583 288 70.20
2025 -1520 0 0 711 0 0 1600 1600 0 2391 73198 60150 3420 29.03 14.08 - 404,358 678,476 285,251 275 85.71
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 1600 0 2000 75198 61770 3420 28.87 13.89 - 415,281 717,888 288,015 275 63.21
2027 0 0 0 948 230 0 1400 0 0 2578 77776 63404 3420 29.66 13.53 - 426,196 746,887 283,541 275 27.99
2028 -2850 750 0 0 0 0 0 1600 1500 1000 78776 64867 3420 28.20 12.48 - 436,761 791,663 258,267 274 102.79
2029 -1128 750 0 0 115 0 0 1600 750 2087 80863 66460 3420 28.27 12.94 - 445,888 829,800 240,756 272 87.34
2030 0 0 0 237 575 0 0 0 0 812 81675 67809 3420 26.85 11.86 - 454,357 848,906 241,943 275 3.95
As per “Emission 2” scenario with wind rollout of minimum 200MW in 2014; 400MW in 2015; 800MW from 2016 to 2023; maximum 1600MW per year throughout; Coal costs at R200/ton;
LNG cost at R80/GJ, Import Coal with FGD.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 35
Table 14. Revised Balanced scenario
Committed build New build options
To
tal n
ew
bu
ild
To
tal syste
m
cap
acit
y
Pea
k d
em
an
d (
net
sen
t-o
ut)
fo
recast
Dem
an
d S
ide
Man
ag
em
en
t
Rese
rve
Ma
rgin
To
tal C
O2 e
mis
sio
ns
RT
S C
ap
acit
ry
Med
up
i
Ku
sile
Ing
ula
DO
E O
CG
T IP
P
Co
-gen
era
tio
n, o
wn
b
uild
Win
d
CS
P
Lan
dfi
ll, h
yd
ro
Sere
Deco
mm
issio
nin
g
Co
al (P
F, F
BC
, Im
po
rts)
Co
-gen
era
tio
n, o
wn
b
uild
Gas C
CG
T
OC
GT
Imp
ort
Hyd
ro
Win
d
So
lar
PV
, C
SP
Ren
ew
ab
les (
Win
d,
So
lar
CS
P,
So
lar
PV
, L
an
dfi
ll,
Bio
mass
, etc
.)
Nu
cle
ar
Fle
et
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % MT
2010 380 0 0 0 0 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252 15.28 237
2011 679 0 0 0 0 130 200 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1112 45647 39956 494 15.67 243
2012 303 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 703 46350 40995 809 15.34 251
2013 101 722 0 333 1020 0 300 0 25 0 0 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2625 48975 42416 1310 19.14 254
2014 0 722 0 999 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 426 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 2447 51422 43436 1966 24.00 253
2015 0 1444 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 -180 0 600 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 2364 53786 44865 2594 27.24 259
2016 0 722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -90 0 0 0 0 0 800 100 0 0 1532 55318 45786 3007 29.31 262
2017 0 722 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 100 0 0 3068 58386 47870 3420 31.35 269
2018 0 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 100 0 0 1623 60009 49516 3420 30.18 279
2019 0 0 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 474 0 0 800 100 0 0 2820 62829 51233 3420 31.41 284
2020 0 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 711 0 360 0 0 800 0 2594 65423 52719 3420 32.71 290
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75 0 0 711 0 750 0 0 800 0 2186 67609 54326 3420 32.81 296
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1870 0 0 0 805 1110 0 0 800 0 845 68454 55734 3420 30.85 296
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2280 0 0 0 805 1129 0 0 800 1600 2054 70508 57097 3420 31.36 288
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -909 0 0 0 575 0 0 0 800 1600 2066 72574 58340 3420 32.14 281
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1520 0 0 0 805 0 0 0 1400 1600 2285 74859 60150 3420 31.96 273
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 1600 2200 77059 61770 3420 32.06 270
2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750 0 0 805 0 0 0 1200 0 2755 79814 63404 3420 33.06 275
2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2850 2000 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 1600 1555 81369 64867 3420 32.42 264
2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1128 750 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 1600 2027 83396 66460 3420 32.29 260
2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 0 0 345 0 0 0 0 0 1845 85241 67809 3420 32.39 269 As with Balanced Scenario, with the additional requirement of a solar programme of 100 MW in each year from 2016 to 2019 (and a delay in the REFIT solar capacity to 100 MW in each of
2014 and 2015); CCGT forced in from 2019 to 2021 to provide backup options; additional import hydro as per the Regional Development scenario; co-generation/own build options forced in
from MTRMP.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 36
APPENDIX B – MODIFICATIONS AFTER CONSULTATION PROCESS
B.1. A more complete response to the consultation process is contained in the Consultation Process
Report, but a summary of the key points raised in the consultation process is provided below.
The text in italics reflects the summarised comments from participants; non-italic text reflects
the Department of Energy responses.
Economic impact issues
B.2. A socio-economic impact study has not been concluded or released. This is an important
oversight but it is expected that a report on the impact of the IRP will follow in the next few
months.
B.3. There should be an alignment of the expected growth assumptions with the New Growth Path.
The expected growth assumptions are based on the forecast derived during 2010 before the
New Growth Path was developed and therefore does not reflect it in detail, but a combination
of efficiency improvements with greater economic growth may result in a similar electricity
demand outcome. This may be revised in a future IRP iteration.
B.4. The discount rates used in the modelling do not appropriately reflect social discount rates. The
modelling follows a prudent approach in line with international practice for IRP, looking at the
appropriate discount rate for developing economies. National Treasury has signed off on the
8% real discount rate applied, as used by NERSA in the utility price application.
Demand side issues
B.5. Price elasticity of demand should be considered in the energy forecast. This is worthy of
additional research and will be included in future iterations. Existing research in the country
does not concur on an appropriate level of price elasticity.
B.6. Energy efficiency demand side management (EEDSM) is not properly covered while there is
greater potential not considered. While it is appreciated that there may be greater potential,
from a security of supply point of view a conservative view of EEDSM outcomes is preferred.
A scenario to test the impact of greater rollout is included below.
B.7. The choice of energy forecast on which to base the IRP is not appropriate. The System
Operator’s moderate energy forecast was chosen for the modelling as this represented a fair
estimate, especially in the view of a least regret approach, where the impact of over-estimation
is less than that of under-estimation. A scenario on a lower forecast is included below.
B.8. The potential for universal access is not covered. The System Operator moderate energy
forecast was based on an expectation that the current roll-out of prepaid metering would
continue, used as a proxy for additional coverage being rolled out nationwide.
Supply side issues
B.9. Technology learning rates are not covered in the modelling. This oversight has been corrected
in the new scenarios, with an assumed global capacity increase and learning rates as identified
by the International Energy Agency and an independent consulting group.
B.10. The risks and costs associated with nuclear power are under-estimated in the model. The
assumed nuclear capital costs (for Generation III plant) have been increased by 40% in the new
scenarios to cater for this potential issue, adjusting for the presumed under-estimation and
potential costs relating to waste management and decommissioning.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 37
B.11. The modelling of biomass options is inappropriate. The modelling has been corrected with a
reduction in the cost of the feedstock for bagasse and the reduction in emission rates to zero.
B.12. Crystalline silicon PV is not included as a technology option. This has been corrected with a
view to PV being established based on recent cost adjustments and future global roll-out of
capacity.
B.13. The renewable options should be further disaggregated, especially solar. This has been done
in the new scenarios and policy-adjusted IRP. The solar options now cover crystalline PV, thin-
film PV and CSP separately.
B.14. The costs used in the modelling do not cover externalities associated with specific technologies.
Identifying the externalities and associated costs should be the subject of future research for
future iterations.
B.15. Private participation in the industry is not covered. The IRP does not speak to ownership of
capacity since this determination is made by the Minister of Energy after promulgation and a
feasibility study of capacity options to determine whether it should be built by Eskom or
procured from private players.
Network issues
B.16. Transmission and distribution costs are not included in the modelling. These costs are not
covered under the new scenarios as the forecasting is not disaggregated into local areas. The
costs are not a significant part of the overall costs of supply, especially the transmission costs,
and would not particularly skew the technology choices.
B.17. Distributed generation is not accommodated in the modelling. The potential benefit of
distributed generation requires further analysis, especially against potential costs relating to
local network faults and upgrading required to support decentralised generation.
B.18. The opportunity for smart grids is not dealt with. This is again a potential research item to
investigate the benefits of smart grids in conjunction with decentralised and renewable
generation.
Process issues
B.19. The process for future revisions of the IRP is not clear. A detailed mechanism or policy on
revision should be explored and promulgated.
B.20. There is a need for greater involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making in the IRP. A
permanent governance arrangement for the IRP should be instituted with a larger participation
from civil society, business and labour.
B.21. There should be consistency between the IRP and the Medium Term Risk plans. This is an
issue being addressed between the teams involved in the two projects, with known projects
(with a high degree of certainty) from the medium-term risk assessment being included in the
IRP.
B.22. The implementation of the plan is not clear. The rules and regulations for implementation –
from NERSA and the Department of Energy – are being discussed and will be finalised shortly.
Modification of inputs
B.23. Learning rates on new technologies were introduced, impacting on the capital and operating
and maintenance costs. The learning rates are expressed in terms of a percentage reduction in
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 38
the costs for each doubling of global capacity for that technology. This implies an assumption
on expected global capacity for these technologies for the period of the study. The assumption
for the global capacity is indicated in Table 15 partly derived from International Energy
Association scenarios.
Table 15. Assumed international installed capacity
International installed capacity (GW)
Technology 2010 2020 2030 Learning rate
CPV 1 7 25 10%
CSP 1 148 337 10%
Wind (onshore) 120 562 830 7%
Biomass (electricity production) 60 275 370 5%
IGCC 4 40 120 3%
Nuclear 370 475 725 3%
Source: IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 for learning rates; IEA road maps for CSP, Wind,
Nuclear for global capacity expectations; remaining technologies assumed.
Table 16. Expected overnight capital costs
Overnight capital costs (R/kWp) Technology Storage (hrs) System size (MW) 2010 2020 2030
PV Crystalline
- 0.25 26462 12164 8854
- 1 21421 9927 7253
- 10 20805 9652 7056
PV Thin Film
- 0.25 23927 11447 8100
- 1 19369 9342 6636
- 10 18812 9082 6455
CPV - 10 37225 26770 22060
CSP Parabolic Trough
0 125 27450 12843 11333
3 125 37425 17510 15451
6 125 43385 20298 17912
9 125 50910 23819 21018
CSP Central Receiver
3 125 26910 12590 11110
6 125 32190 15060 13290
9 125 36225 16948 14955
12 125 39025 18258 16111
14 125 40200 18808 16597
Wind - 200 14445 12289 11797
Biomass (bagasse) - 52.5 21318 19047 18633
Biomass (MSW) - 25 66900 59772 58474
Biomass (Forest Waste) - 25 33270 29725 29080
IGCC - 125 22325 20177 19226
Nuclear III - 1600 26575 26285 25801
Source: Calculations from external consultants for solar PV, but own calculations for remaining
technologies based on IEA learning rates and assumptions on global capacity.
Note: Nuclear III costs in this table are based on the original EPRI overnight capital costs for nuclear
and do not reflect the adjustments discussed below.
B.24. The impacts of these learning rates are shown in Table 16 where technology capital costs are
reducing over the period of the IRP.
B.25. Modifications to the initial costs for solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies were made
(incorporating thin-film and crystalline silicon) based on work prepared by external consultants
(The Boston Consulting Group) who provided a view on the recent changes in costs for PV as
well as expected changes during the course of the IRP period).
B.26. Changes to biomass assumptions were made, reducing the cost of the feedstock for the bagasse
option from R57/GJ to R19/GJ for bagasse (based on similar costs in the EPRI report) and
changing the carbon emissions for these options to a net zero emission rating.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 39
B.27. The capital costs for nuclear were increased by 40% to accommodate inputs from numerous
sources that the EPRI costs under-estimated the capital costs for newer nuclear technologies.
The costs for decommissioning and waste management were also not fully incorporated in the
original EPRI cost estimates and this adjustment allowed some accounting for these important
elements.
B.28. The “own-generation, co-generation” column from the Revised Balanced scenario were also
formalised. This column was included outside the modelling process to reflect the
commitments made by industrial consumers as part of the Medium Term Risk Mitigation
Programme (MTRMP). These commitments have turned out to be more coal-fired own
generation than co-generation and have now been modelled as such (committing a total of 1000
MW of FBC between 2014 and 2015). The smaller remaining co-generation and own-
generation options are not included as the potential is uncertain at this stage. These own build
projects will be included in the demand assumptions of future IRPs as it materialises, and the
Minister of Energy could allow the construction of these options as per the Section 34
determination should it require incentives such as the Co-generation Feed-in Tariff (COFIT).
B.29. An “Adjusted Emission” scenario, based on the “Emission 2” scenario from the original set of
scenarios, was created by incorporating the modified inputs from above.
Additional scenarios
B.30. Initially it was intended to include a no-nuclear scenario by forcing out the new nuclear fleet.
However following the modifications of inputs as discussed above (specifically the learning
rates for new technologies and higher nuclear capital costs) the cost-optimal output from the
model for the Adjusted Emission scenario does not include any new nuclear capacity.
B.31. Based on the Adjusted Emission scenario, five new scenarios were developed:
B.31.1. A “High Efficiency” scenario with increased EEDSM (to 6298 MW, from 3420 MW
in the Revised Balanced scenario);
B.31.2. A “Low Growth” scenario based on the expected demand as projected in the CSIR-
Low forecast;
B.31.3. A “Risk Averse” scenario which limits imported energy (to zero coal-fired generation
and 2500 MW capacity from imported hydro) and limits total renewable energy
capacity (to 10000 MW from wind, 8000 MW from solar PV and 4000 MW from solar
CSP);
B.31.4. A “Peak Oil” scenario including escalated prices for diesel (to R400/GJ from the
R200/GJ used in the Revised Balanced scenario), gas (to R160/GJ from R80/GJ) and
coal (to R600/ton from R200/ton);
B.31.5. An “Earlier Coal” scenario including additional coal (particularly fluidised bed
combustion (FBC)) between 2019 and 2023, and allowing for an increase in the annual
carbon-dioxide emission target from 2025 (from 275 million tons in the Revised
Balanced scenario to 288 million tons).
Results of new scenarios
B.32. A summary of these results is shown in Figure 6. As discussed above the “Adjusted Emission”
scenario has no new nuclear capacity, with a large wind rollout of 15,8 GW, a solar PV
programme of 8,8 GW and a solar CSP rollout of 8,8 GW. The remainder is split between the
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 40
imported hydro (3,3 GW), coal (6,2 GW of which 2,2 GW is imported energy), combined cycle
gas turbines (4,2 GW) and open cycle gas turbines (8,2 GW).
B.33. By increasing the EEDSM programme in the “High Efficiency” scenario, the carbon emission
target can be reached with fewer renewables. This would also mean that a lower target could be
reached with the same renewable roll-out as in the “Adjusted Emission” (and reduced coal-fired
capacity), depending on the policy preferences.
B.34. The “Low Growth” scenario resulted in very little renewable capacity being built due to the
retained emission target of 275 million tons. A lower target would increase the renewable
capacity at the expense of coal-fired generation.
B.35. Limiting the capacity from renewables and import options in the “Risk Averse” scenario shifts
the emphasis to a nuclear programme (of 8 GW) as the next best option given the same
emission target.
B.36. The increased cost of gas, coal and diesel in the “Peak Oil” scenario also leads to a nuclear
programme (of 9,6 GW) and reduced capacity from renewable options. This may seem
counter-intuitive but can be explained from Figure 7. The graph compares the combined
levelised costs for a combination of solar PV and combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) to the
levelised costs for nuclear at different load factors. CCGT offers a back-up supply to PV in the
hours where PV cannot produce (during the night or on heavily clouded days) and thus the
combination provides a fully dispatchable alternative to nuclear. PV, on the other hand, works
as a fuel saver for CCGT and thus reduces its fuel costs. The costs for the CCGT+PV option
reduces over time due to learning rates (indicated by graphs for 2010, 2020 and 2030), while
the nuclear option has two lines representing the original costs (in the Revised Balanced
scenario) and the revised costs with a 40% increase in capital (in the Adjusted Emission
scenario). Using the 2020 PV costs and adjusted nuclear costs, the graph indicates that a
CCGT+PV combination would be preferred at a load factor of 65% or less (i.e. if the model
does not require a large dispatchable capacity with high load factor), otherwise the nuclear
would be preferred. In the “Peak Oil” scenario the costs relating to CCGT increases
significantly, thus the dynamic represented in the graph would shift, with nuclear preferred
across a broader range leading to the switch from renewable options to nuclear.
B.37. The “Earlier Coal” scenario results in a slightly larger coal programme displacing some
renewable options, especially as the carbon emission target is increased to accommodate the
larger coal programme (to 287 million tons per year from 2025).
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT
Figure 6. Comparison of new scenarios
Figure 7. Comparison of levelised costs for nuclear and PV+CCGT combination
1. Present value, 8% discount rate; excluding existing fleet fixed costs and committed new builds; including variable costs fSource: Eskom IRP model
Costs1
in
billion
2010-
ZAR
Energy
& emis-
sions in
2030
New-
build
fleet
(w/o
com-
mitted)
Base Scen.:
"Adjusted
Emission"
Until 2030
55
60 3
48
9
16
9
275 Mt CO2 p.a.
625 g CO2
per kWh
~ 440 TWh
Total costs
439
Scenario I:
"High
Efficiency"
274 Mt CO2 p.a.
637 g COper kWh
~ 430 TWh
Total costs
413
GW GW
Until 2030
52
6 0
88
14
9
. Comparison of new scenarios
. Comparison of levelised costs for nuclear and PV+CCGT combination
Scenario III:
"Risk
Averse"
Scenario IV:
"Peak Oil"
1. Present value, 8% discount rate; excluding existing fleet fixed costs and committed new builds; including variable costs for full fleet plus all new build costs
271 Mt CO2 p.a.
259 Mt CO2 p.a.
616 g CO2
per kWh589 g CO2
per kWh
~ 440 TWh ~ 440 TWh
Total costs
497
Total costs
484
Scenario I:
"High
Efficiency"
274 Mt p.a.
637 g CO2
per kWh
~ 430 TWh
Total costs
413
Scenario II:
"Low
Growth"
275 Mt CO2 p.a.
764 g CO2
per kWh
~ 360 TWh
Total costs
309
GW GW GW
Until 2030
0 3
4
Until 2030
31
6 0 34
104
3
Until 2030
44
48
336
410
7
Until 2030
43
410
307
013
6
March 2011
Page 41
. Comparison of levelised costs for nuclear and PV+CCGT combination
full fleet plus all new build costs
Scenario V:
“Earlier Coal”
287 Mt CO2 p.a.
652 g CO2
per kWh
~ 440 TWh
Total costs
432
GW
Until 2030
52
80 3
387
14
8
Coal
Nuclear
Hydro
CCGT
OCGT
CSP
Wind
PV
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT
Table 17. Levelised costs in 2020 (based on le
Figure 8. Capacity and energy mix 2010
40
20
100
0
Capacity installed EoY in GW
80
60
2025202020152010
Sources of energy supply
. Levelised costs in 2020 (based on learning rates)
. Capacity and energy mix 2010-2030
Coal
CCGT
OCGT
Nuclear
Hydro
Wind
CSP
PV
Capacity installed EoY in GW1
20302025
Sources of energy supply Energy mix
0
100
200
300
400
500
Electric energy supplied in TWh p.a.
Coal
CCGT
Nuclear
Hydro
Wind
CSP
PV
20302025202020152010
912 g/kWh 600 g/kWh
-34%
CO2
intensity
1. Pumped storage capacity of 1,4 GW in 2010 and 2,7 GW in 2030 is not included since it is a net energy user
March 2011
Page 42
Coal
CCGT/OCGT
Nuclear
Hydro
Wind
CSP
PV
600 g/kWh
Carbon free TWh's
in 2030(34%)
Re-newable TWh's in
2030(14%)
1. Pumped storage capacity of 1,4 GW in 2010 and 2,7 GW in 2030 is not included since it is a net energy user
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 43
Table 18. “Adjusted Emission” scenario
Committed build New build options
To
tal
ne
w b
uil
d
To
tal
sy
ste
m
ca
pa
cit
y
Pe
ak
dem
an
d (
ne
t s
en
t-o
ut)
fo
rec
as
t
De
ma
nd
Sid
e
Ma
na
ge
men
t
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
Re
lia
ble
ca
pa
cit
y
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
RT
S C
ap
ac
itry
Me
du
pi
Ku
sil
e
Ing
ula
DO
E O
CG
T I
PP
Co
-ge
ne
rati
on
, o
wn
bu
ild
Win
d
CS
P
La
nd
fill,
hy
dro
Se
re
De
co
mm
iss
ion
ing
Co
al
(PF
, F
BC
, Im
po
rts
)
Ga
s C
CG
T
OC
GT
Imp
ort
Hy
dro
Win
d
So
lar
PV
So
lar
CS
P
Nu
cle
ar
Fle
et
PV
To
tal co
st
(cu
mu
lati
ve)
Wate
r
To
tal
CO
2
em
issio
ns
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % % Rm ML MT
2010 380 0 0 0 0 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252 15.28 15.18 44,138 336,420 237
2011 679 0 0 0 0 130 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 45544 39956 494 15.41 14.74 87,467 349,613 243
2012 303 722 0 0 0 0 200 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 1725 47269 40995 809 17.63 15.25 132,520 350,966 249
2013 101 722 0 333 1020 0 300 200 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 2721 49990 42416 1310 21.61 17.84 172,515 348,351 252
2014 0 1444 723 999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3666 53656 43436 1966 29.38 24.71 217,113 341,978 251
2015 0 722 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -180 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1765 55421 44865 2594 31.11 25.79 260,078 325,421 258
2016 0 722 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1355 56776 45786 3007 32.72 26.79 297,136 328,090 263
2017 0 0 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1446 58222 47870 3420 30.98 24.72 331,526 334,746 271
2018 0 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 723 58945 49516 3420 27.88 21.92 362,870 337,592 284
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58945 51233 3420 23.28 17.67 394,196 339,864 294
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 0 805 59750 52719 3420 21.20 15.81 425,445 356,790 306
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75 0 0 805 360 1400 0 0 0 2490 62240 54326 3420 22.26 15.21 463,189 367,190 314
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1870 0 948 805 1523 1600 500 0 0 3506 65746 55734 3420 25.68 15.80 508,672 353,135 309
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2280 600 474 805 1183 1600 1000 0 0 3382 69128 57097 3420 28.79 15.31 557,968 336,278 300
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -909 1100 237 115 283 1600 1000 1375 0 4801 73929 58340 3420 34.61 16.39 606,563 321,436 292
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1520 500 474 805 0 1600 1000 3125 0 5984 79913 60150 3420 40.87 16.81 656,660 293,170 275
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 237 805 0 1600 1000 1375 0 5017 84930 61770 3420 45.55 17.42 693,363 294,330 275
2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 805 0 1600 1000 1625 0 5530 90460 63404 3420 50.81 18.60 730,615 293,652 275
2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2850 1250 948 805 0 1600 1000 0 0 2753 93213 64867 3420 51.70 16.92 765,848 270,164 275
2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1128 1250 948 805 0 1600 1000 0 0 4475 97688 66460 3420 54.96 17.76 799,201 255,592 275
2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 805 0 1600 1000 1250 0 4655 102343 67809 3420 58.95 18.32 827,155 256,994 275
1463 4332 4338 1332 1020 390 700 200 125 100 -10902 6200 4266 8165 3349 15800 8820 8750 0 58448
Emission constraint as per “Emission 2” scenario (275 million ton/year from 2025); FBC 500MW forced 2014, 15; maximum wind 1600MW per year; maximum solar PV 300MW per year
until 2017, 1000MW per year thereafter; all international options incl (CO2 emissions not counted in RSA); Medupi, Kusile and rest of committed plant as per “Emission 2” scenario (no delays)
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 44
Table 19. “High Efficiency” scenario
Committed build New build options
To
tal
ne
w b
uil
d
To
tal
sy
ste
m
ca
pa
cit
y
Pe
ak
dem
an
d (
ne
t s
en
t-o
ut)
fo
rec
as
t
De
ma
nd
Sid
e
Ma
na
ge
men
t
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
Re
lia
ble
ca
pa
cit
y
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
RT
S C
ap
ac
itry
Me
du
pi
Ku
sil
e
Ing
ula
DO
E O
CG
T I
PP
Co
-ge
ne
rati
on
, o
wn
bu
ild
Win
d
CS
P
La
nd
fill,
hy
dro
Se
re
De
co
mm
iss
ion
ing
Co
al
(PF
, F
BC
, Im
po
rts
)
Ga
s C
CG
T
OC
GT
Imp
ort
Hy
dro
Win
d
So
lar
PV
So
lar
CS
P
Nu
cle
ar
Fle
et
PV
To
tal co
st
(cu
mu
lati
ve)
Wate
r
To
tal
CO
2
em
issio
ns
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % % Rm ML MT
2010 380 0 0 0 0 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252 15.28 15.18 44,138 336,420 237
2011 679 0 0 0 0 130 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 45544 39956 494 15.41 14.74 87,467 349,613 243
2012 303 722 0 0 0 0 200 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 1725 47269 40995 809 17.63 15.25 132,520 350,966 249
2013 101 722 0 333 1020 0 300 200 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 2721 49990 42416 1310 21.61 17.84 172,515 348,351 252
2014 0 1444 723 999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3666 53656 43436 1966 29.38 24.71 217,113 341,978 251
2015 0 722 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -180 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1765 55421 44865 3051 32.54 26.54 260,000 325,275 256
2016 0 722 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1355 56776 45786 4094 36.18 28.63 296,874 327,594 259
2017 0 0 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1446 58222 47870 5132 36.23 27.49 331,019 334,757 271
2018 0 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 723 58945 49516 5765 34.73 25.54 362,003 336,435 275
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 460 0 0 0 0 0 460 59405 51233 6221 31.98 22.66 393,657 330,669 284
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 0 805 60210 52719 6298 29.70 20.71 424,152 339,102 294
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 0 730 60940 54326 6298 26.88 18.32 453,498 358,753 307
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1870 0 948 805 1110 1600 420 0 0 3013 63953 55734 6298 29.37 18.04 494,754 347,072 305
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2280 600 711 805 1303 1600 810 0 0 3549 67502 57097 6298 32.88 18.15 543,508 328,680 296
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -909 600 0 690 370 1600 1000 0 0 3351 70853 58340 6298 36.15 17.80 583,506 321,990 293
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1520 1000 0 0 566 1600 1000 3125 0 5771 76624 60150 6298 42.29 17.81 635,366 291,439 275
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 237 690 0 1600 1000 1375 0 4902 81526 61770 6298 46.97 18.21 671,223 293,764 275
2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 237 805 0 1600 1000 1500 0 5642 87168 63404 6298 52.64 19.70 707,782 294,758 275
2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2850 1250 948 805 0 1600 1000 0 0 2753 89921 64867 6298 53.53 17.95 742,459 268,851 274
2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1128 1250 474 690 0 1600 1000 125 0 4011 93932 66460 6298 56.13 17.95 774,840 254,812 275
2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 805 0 1600 1000 1375 0 4780 98712 67809 6298 60.48 18.62 802,620 256,026 274
1463 4332 4338 1332 1020 390 700 200 125 100 -10902 6200 3555 8165 3349 14400 8550 7500 0 54817
Emission constraint as per “Emission 2” scenario (275 million ton/year from 2025); FBC 500MW forced 2014, 15; maximum wind 1600MW per year; maximum solar PV 300MW per year
until 2017, 1000MW per year thereafter; all international options incl (CO2 emissions not counted in RSA); Committed plant as per “Emission 2” scenario (no delays); EEDSM increased to
6298MW (continuing from programme in “Adjusted Emission”)
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 45
Table 20. “Low Growth” scenario
Committed build New build options
To
tal
ne
w b
uil
d
To
tal
sy
ste
m
ca
pa
cit
y
Pe
ak
dem
an
d (
ne
t s
en
t-o
ut)
fo
rec
as
t
De
ma
nd
Sid
e
Ma
na
ge
men
t
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
Re
lia
ble
ca
pa
cit
y
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
RT
S C
ap
ac
itry
Me
du
pi
Ku
sil
e
Ing
ula
DO
E O
CG
T I
PP
Co
-ge
ne
rati
on
, o
wn
bu
ild
Win
d
CS
P
La
nd
fill,
hy
dro
Se
re
De
co
mm
iss
ion
ing
Co
al
(PF
, F
BC
, Im
po
rts
)
Ga
s C
CG
T
OC
GT
Imp
ort
Hy
dro
Win
d
So
lar
PV
So
lar
CS
P
Nu
cle
ar
Fle
et
PV
To
tal
co
st
(cu
mu
lati
ve
)
Wa
ter
To
tal
CO
2
em
iss
ion
s
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % % Rm ML MT
2010 380 0 0 0 0 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38573 252 16.21 16.11 43,969 335,452 235
2011 679 0 0 0 0 130 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 45544 39314 494 17.32 16.64 86,913 346,722 239
2012 303 722 0 0 0 0 200 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 1725 47269 39911 809 20.89 18.43 131,403 346,382 242
2013 101 722 0 333 1020 0 300 200 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 2721 49990 41052 1310 25.79 21.84 170,684 343,039 244
2014 0 1444 723 999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3666 53656 41693 1966 35.06 30.08 214,720 341,693 249
2015 0 722 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -180 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1765 55421 42699 2594 38.19 32.42 257,024 324,905 253
2016 0 722 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1355 56776 43201 3007 41.25 34.71 293,352 327,560 258
2017 0 0 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1446 58222 44772 3420 40.80 33.75 327,001 328,247 266
2018 0 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 723 58945 45888 3420 38.80 32.00 357,460 336,362 274
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 0 805 59750 47038 3420 36.99 30.42 389,194 327,582 275
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 0 805 60555 48065 3420 35.64 29.26 418,753 328,589 275
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 0 730 61285 48940 3420 34.63 28.40 446,527 320,053 282
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1870 0 711 805 0 0 570 0 0 216 61501 49722 3420 32.83 25.55 476,069 322,015 285
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2280 0 948 805 1883 0 410 0 0 1766 63267 50440 3420 34.55 26.49 510,663 306,518 279
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -909 250 711 805 653 0 0 0 0 1510 64777 51137 3420 35.75 27.77 540,502 299,226 281
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1520 600 948 805 813 0 50 0 0 1696 66473 52073 3420 36.63 28.67 571,649 285,109 275
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 805 0 600 0 0 0 2005 68478 52920 3420 38.34 29.68 597,920 286,128 275
2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 237 805 0 1600 500 0 0 3642 72120 53748 3420 43.30 31.60 626,203 284,300 275
2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2850 2000 711 805 0 400 0 0 0 1066 73186 54536 3420 43.18 31.15 657,326 256,256 275
2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1128 1250 0 805 0 1000 200 0 0 2127 75313 55148 3420 45.59 32.00 683,794 245,334 275
2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 805 0 800 990 0 0 2595 77908 55657 3420 49.14 32.74 703,567 243,572 275
1463 4332 4338 1332 1020 390 700 200 125 100 -10902 6200 4266 9660 3349 4400 3040 0 0 34013 Emission constraint as per “Emission 2” scenario (275 million ton/year from 2025); FBC 500MW forced 2014, 15; maximum wind 1600MW per year; maximum solar PV 300MW per year
until 2017, 1000MW per year thereafter; all international options incl (CO2 emissions not counted in RSA); Committed plant as per “Emission 2” scenario (no delays); using CSIR-Low energy
forecast
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 46
Table 21. “Risk-averse” scenario
Committed build New build options
To
tal
ne
w b
uil
d
To
tal
sy
ste
m
ca
pa
cit
y
Pe
ak
dem
an
d (
ne
t s
en
t-o
ut)
fo
rec
as
t
De
ma
nd
Sid
e
Ma
na
ge
men
t
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
Re
lia
ble
ca
pa
cit
y
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
RT
S C
ap
ac
itry
Me
du
pi
Ku
sil
e
Ing
ula
DO
E O
CG
T
IPP
Co
-ge
ne
rati
on
, o
wn
bu
ild
Win
d
CS
P
La
nd
fill,
hy
dro
Se
re
De
co
mm
iss
ion
ing
Co
al
(PF
, F
BC
, Im
po
rts
)
Ga
s C
CG
T
OC
GT
Imp
ort
Hy
dro
Win
d
So
lar
PV
So
lar
CS
P
Nu
cle
ar
Fle
et
PV
To
tal
co
st
(cu
mu
lati
ve
)
Wa
ter
To
tal
CO
2
em
iss
ion
s
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % % Rm ML MT
2010 380 0 0 0 0 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252 15.28 15.18 44,138 336,420 237
2011 679 0 0 0 0 130 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 45544 39956 494 15.41 14.74 87,467 349,613 243
2012 303 722 0 0 0 0 200 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 1725 47269 40995 809 17.63 15.25 132,520 350,966 249
2013 101 722 0 333 1020 0 300 200 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 2721 49990 42416 1310 21.61 17.84 172,515 348,351 252
2014 0 1444 723 999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3666 53656 43436 1966 29.38 24.71 217,113 341,978 251
2015 0 722 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -180 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1765 55421 44865 2594 31.11 25.79 260,078 325,421 258
2016 0 722 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1355 56776 45786 3007 32.72 26.79 297,136 328,090 263
2017 0 0 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1446 58222 47870 3420 30.98 24.72 331,526 334,746 271
2018 0 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 723 58945 49516 3420 27.88 21.92 362,870 337,592 284
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58945 51233 3420 23.28 17.67 394,196 339,864 294
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 711 805 0 0 0 0 0 1516 60461 52719 3420 22.64 15.81 425,445 356,790 306
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75 0 948 805 860 0 0 0 0 2538 62999 54326 3420 23.75 15.29 457,556 368,403 316
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1870 250 0 805 1183 1600 0 0 0 1968 64967 55734 3420 24.19 15.26 503,103 358,749 314
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2280 0 0 805 370 1600 500 500 1600 3095 68062 57097 3420 26.80 16.44 574,219 328,972 298
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -909 0 0 0 0 1600 50 500 1600 2841 70903 58340 3420 29.10 16.48 633,537 311,313 287
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1520 0 0 0 0 1600 1000 500 1600 3180 74083 60150 3420 30.59 14.33 690,253 289,311 275
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1600 1000 500 1600 4700 78783 61770 3420 35.02 15.21 742,956 284,564 269
2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 690 0 1600 1000 500 0 4040 82823 63404 3420 38.08 14.94 773,597 285,852 272
2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2850 1250 948 805 283 0 1000 500 0 1936 84759 64867 3420 37.94 13.35 805,417 263,965 273
2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1128 1250 711 230 0 0 1000 500 0 2563 87322 66460 3420 38.52 12.59 834,436 252,215 275
2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 690 0 0 1000 500 1600 3790 91112 67809 3420 41.50 14.14 871,511 248,617 271
1463 4332 4338 1332 1020 390 700 200 125 100 -10902 4000 3318 5635 2696 9600 6870 4000 8000 47217
Emission constraint as per “Emission 2” scenario (275 million ton/year from 2025); FBC 500MW forced 2014, 15; maximum wind 1600MW per year and maximum build of 10GW; maximum
solar PV 300MW per year until 2017, 1000MW per year thereafter, and maximum build of 10GW; maximum CSP build of 4000MW; limited import options to 2696MW; Committed plant as
per “Emission 2” scenario (no delays)
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 47
Table 22. “Peak Oil” scenario
Committed build New build options
To
tal
ne
w b
uil
d
To
tal
sy
ste
m
ca
pa
cit
y
Pe
ak
dem
an
d (
ne
t s
en
t-o
ut)
fo
rec
as
t
De
ma
nd
Sid
e
Ma
na
ge
men
t
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
Re
lia
ble
ca
pa
cit
y
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
PV
To
tal
co
st
(cu
mu
lati
ve
)
Wa
ter
To
tal
CO
2 e
mis
sio
ns
RT
S C
ap
ac
itry
Me
du
pi
Ku
sil
e
Ing
ula
DO
E O
CG
T I
PP
C
o-g
en
era
tio
n,
ow
n b
uil
d
Win
d
CS
P
La
nd
fill,
hy
dro
Se
re
De
co
mm
iss
ion
ing
Co
al
(PF
, F
BC
, Im
po
rts
)
Ga
s C
CG
T
OC
GT
Imp
ort
Hy
dro
Win
d
So
lar
PV
So
lar
CS
P
Nu
cle
ar
Fle
et
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % % Rm ML MT
2010 380 0 0 0 0 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252 15.28 15.18 44,138 336,420 237
2011 679 0 0 0 0 130 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 45544 39956 494 15.41 14.74 87,467 349,613 243
2012 303 722 0 0 0 0 200 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 1725 47269 40995 809 17.63 15.25 132,520 350,966 249
2013 101 722 0 333 1020 0 300 200 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 2721 49990 42416 1310 21.61 17.84 172,515 348,351 252
2014 0 1444 723 999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3666 53656 43436 1966 29.38 24.71 217,171 341,978 251
2015 0 722 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -180 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1765 55421 44865 2594 31.11 25.79 260,242 325,421 258
2016 0 722 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1355 56776 45786 3007 32.72 26.79 297,399 328,090 263
2017 0 0 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1446 58222 47870 3420 30.98 24.72 331,880 334,746 271
2018 0 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 723 58945 49516 3420 27.88 21.92 363,308 337,592 284
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58945 51233 3420 23.28 17.67 394,713 339,864 294
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 0 805 59750 52719 3420 21.20 15.81 426,084 360,091 307
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75 0 0 805 860 0 40 0 0 1630 61380 54326 3420 20.57 15.29 458,487 368,435 316
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1870 0 0 805 1303 400 0 0 1600 2238 63618 55734 3420 21.61 15.93 526,786 345,803 303
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2280 0 0 805 1186 1600 500 0 1600 3411 67029 57097 3420 24.88 16.40 595,115 321,397 290
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -909 600 0 805 0 1600 500 0 0 2596 69625 58340 3420 26.77 15.65 632,255 317,379 290
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1520 600 0 460 0 1600 500 0 1600 3240 72865 60150 3420 28.44 14.92 689,860 288,525 275
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1400 500 0 1600 3500 76365 61770 3420 30.87 15.26 739,056 287,246 271
2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 805 0 1600 920 0 0 3825 80190 63404 3420 33.69 15.17 769,254 286,699 275
2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2850 500 0 805 0 1600 1000 0 1600 2655 82845 64867 3420 34.82 13.42 816,825 258,094 264
2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1128 0 0 345 0 1600 1000 0 1600 3417 86262 66460 3420 36.84 12.71 858,681 242,670 255
2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 805 0 1600 1000 0 0 3905 90167 67809 3420 40.04 13.18 883,795 242,807 259
1463 4332 4338 1332 1020 390 700 200 125 100 -10902 3700 0 7245 3349 13000 6280 0 9600 46272
Emission constraint as per “Emission 2” scenario (275 million ton/year from 2025); FBC 500MW forced 2014, 15; maximum wind 1600MW per year; maximum solar PV 300MW per year
until 2017, 1000MW per year thereafter; coal costs increased to R600/ton; LNG costs to R160/GJ; diesel costs to R400/GJ; Committed plant as per “Emission 2” scenario (no delays)
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 48
Table 23. “Earlier Coal” scenario
Committed build New build options
To
tal
ne
w b
uil
d
To
tal
sy
ste
m
ca
pa
cit
y
Pe
ak
dem
an
d
(ne
t s
en
t-o
ut)
fo
rec
as
t
De
ma
nd
Sid
e
Ma
na
ge
men
t
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
Re
lia
ble
ca
pa
cit
y
Re
se
rve
Ma
rgin
PV
To
tal
co
st
(cu
mu
lati
ve
)
Wa
ter
To
tal
CO
2
em
iss
ion
s
RT
S C
ap
ac
itry
Me
du
pi
Ku
sil
e
Ing
ula
DO
E O
CG
T I
PP
C
o-g
en
era
tio
n,
ow
n b
uil
d
Win
d
CS
P
La
nd
fill,
hy
dro
Se
re
De
co
mm
iss
ion
in
g
Co
al
(PF
, F
BC
, Im
po
rts
)
Ga
s C
CG
T
OC
GT
Imp
ort
Hy
dro
Win
d
So
lar
PV
So
lar
CS
P
Nu
cle
ar
Fle
et
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % % Rm ML MT
2010 380 0 0 0 0 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 44535 38885 252 15.28 15.18 44,138 336,420 237
2011 679 0 0 0 0 130 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1009 45544 39956 494 15.41 14.74 87,467 349,613 243
2012 303 722 0 0 0 0 200 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 1725 47269 40995 809 17.63 15.25 132,520 350,966 249
2013 101 722 0 333 1020 0 300 200 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 2721 49990 42416 1310 21.61 17.84 172,515 348,351 252
2014 0 1444 723 999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3666 53656 43436 1966 29.38 24.71 217,113 341,978 251
2015 0 722 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -180 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1765 55421 44865 2594 31.11 25.79 260,078 325,421 258
2016 0 722 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1355 56776 45786 3007 32.72 26.79 297,136 328,090 263
2017 0 0 1446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1446 58222 47870 3420 30.98 24.72 331,526 334,746 271
2018 0 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 723 58945 49516 3420 27.88 21.92 370,310 337,592 284
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750 59695 51233 3420 24.85 19.19 408,524 335,015 294
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750 60445 52719 3420 22.61 17.18 444,553 341,272 305
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75 750 0 805 0 0 0 0 0 1480 61925 54326 3420 21.64 16.41 474,666 349,440 317
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1870 750 0 805 610 1600 0 0 0 1895 63820 55734 3420 22.00 14.89 514,034 338,972 319
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2280 250 948 805 1273 1600 500 0 0 3096 66916 57097 3420 24.67 14.81 559,838 324,143 316
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -909 0 0 805 1183 1600 1000 0 0 3679 70595 58340 3420 28.54 15.13 602,115 318,853 314
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1520 2200 0 345 0 1600 1000 2750 0 6375 76970 60150 3420 35.68 16.58 654,936 282,369 288
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 805 0 1600 1000 1375 0 4780 81750 61770 3420 40.10 16.80 690,986 284,349 288
2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 474 805 0 1600 1000 1625 0 5504 87254 63404 3420 45.46 17.96 726,064 285,395 288
2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2850 0 948 805 283 1600 1000 0 0 1786 89040 64867 3420 44.90 14.76 762,826 267,889 286
2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1128 1500 948 805 0 1600 1000 125 0 4850 93890 66460 3420 48.94 16.14 796,595 255,046 287
2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 805 0 1600 1000 1250 0 4655 98545 67809 3420 53.05 16.73 824,487 256,143 287
1463 4332 4338 1332 1020 390 700 200 125 100 -10902 7950 3318 7590 3349 14400 7820 7125 0 54650 Emission constraint increased to 288 million ton/year from 2025; FBC 500MW forced 2014, 15, additional 3250MW FBC forced 2019 to 2023; maximum wind 1600MW per year; maximum
solar PV 300MW per year until 2017, 1000MW per year thereafter; committed plant as per “Emission 2” scenario (no delays)
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 49
APPENDIX C – PRICING ISSUES
C.1. The Policy-Adjusted scenario results in a new expectation for future electricity prices, based on
the different generation options being chosen. The Policy Adjusted plan results in a peak price
of R1,12/kWh in 2021, relative to the R1,11/kWh in the Revised Balanced scenario. However
after 2028 the Revised Balanced scenario price is higher than the Policy-Adjusted as the
technology learning rates on new renewable options lead to lower costs. Figure 9 indicates the
uncertainties in determining the price path. The R1,12/kWh peak is based on the assumptions
as indicated in the draft IRP report. If some of these assumptions are relaxed, for example
extending depreciation from 25 to 40 years, the price peak may decrease to R0,98/kWh.
Figure 9. Uncertainty in price path of Policy-Adjusted IRP
C.2. Much of the price increase expected to 2020 is based on the changes to asset valuation inherent
in the regulatory rules applied by NERSA to Eskom’s price application as well as capital
expenditure required in Transmission and Distribution infrastructure.
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
1,1
1,2
Average electricity price in 2010-ZAR/kWh
Max = 1,12
20302025202020152010
Range in which average price can
fall by changing assumptions on
CAPEX for non-generation part of
ESI and extending depreciation
period from 25 to 40 years
Min = 0,98
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 50
Figure 10. Influence of technology choices on expected price path
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
1,1
1,2
Average electricity price in 2010-ZAR/kWh
Fuel costs of existing fleet
Coal
Nuclear
Hydro
Gas - CCGT
Peak - OCGT
Wind
CSP
PV
20302025
1,12
202020152010
Total price
effect of
new-builds
in 2030
Price hike for
existing fleet without
any new builds = 0,78
R/kWh
Maximum-price scenario,
highly depends on asset
value methodology for
existing fleet and Eskom
transmission and distribution
0,98
Eskom transmission anddistribution costs plus non-
fuel costs of existing fleet1
1. Does not include costs of non-Eskom distribution network
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 51
APPENDIX D – REFERENCE INPUT TABLES
Table 24. Expected annual energy requirement 2010-34
CSIR Low CSIR Mod CSIR High SO Low SO Mod SO High
2010 249,051 249,422 249,626 257,601 259,685 261,769
2011 255,882 256,744 257,693 262,394 266,681 270,969
2012 261,031 262,376 263,682 267,784 274,403 281,022
2013 265,790 267,694 269,169 274,788 283,914 293,041
2014 270,630 272,964 274,497 278,880 290,540 302,201
2015 275,735 278,589 280,341 285,920 300,425 314,930
2016 281,051 284,450 286,545 292,728 310,243 327,758
2017 285,930 289,983 292,552 299,991 320,751 341,511
2018 290,870 295,628 298,548 308,036 332,381 356,725
2019 296,027 301,486 304,790 316,501 344,726 372,950
2020 301,255 307,503 311,226 323,498 355,694 387,891
2021 306,544 313,601 317,996 329,556 365,826 402,095
2022 311,934 319,869 324,928 334,587 375,033 415,480
2023 317,465 326,326 331,948 339,160 383,914 428,668
2024 323,104 332,998 339,306 343,634 392,880 442,126
2025 328,456 339,436 346,399 350,065 404,358 458,650
2026 333,733 345,864 353,525 355,785 415,281 474,777
2027 338,636 352,012 360,379 361,300 426,196 491,093
2028 343,651 358,365 367,618 366,319 436,761 507,204
2029 348,758 364,884 375,017 370,007 445,888 521,769
2030 353,979 371,616 382,774 372,947 454,357 535,766
2031 359,240 378,322 390,643 376,272 463,503 550,734
2032 364,479 385,185 398,831 379,737 473,046 566,356
2033 369,735 392,205 407,027 383,410 483,075 582,740
2034 375,107 399,384 415,456 386,404 492,540 598,677
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 52
Table 25. Annual maximum demand 2010-34
Year
High
Maximum
Demand
(MW)
Low
Maximum
Demand
(MW)
Moderate
Maximum
Demand
(MW)
2010 IRP Rev1
Maximum
Demand (MW)
CSIR_Moderate
(MW)
2010 39216 38587 38885 38838 38388
2011 40629 39319 39956 40230 39084
2012 42027 40002 40995 41355 39828
2013 43839 41040 42416 42832 40639
2014 45255 41669 43436 44776 41471
2015 47124 42666 44865 47139 42283
2016 48479 43157 45786 48944 42603
2017 51090 44710 47870 50786 43923
2018 53276 45815 49516 52334 44698
2019 55573 46952 51233 54040 45477
2020 57649 47848 52719 55920 46374
2021 59885 48828 54326 57562 47271
2022 61932 49596 55734 59293 48251
2023 63955 50299 57097 61121 49264
2024 65870 50872 58340 62928 50221
2025 68458 51903 60150 64866 51171
2026 70866 52737 61770 66717 52049
2027 73320 53550 63404 68591 52981
2028 75606 54191 64867 70207 53975
2029 78066 54917 66460 72176 55017
2030 80272 55408 67809 73988 56101
2031 82625 55955 69258 75867 57180
2032 84895 56399 70615 77464 58303
2033 87641 57112 72344 79570 59405
2034 90162 57616 73856 81626 60567
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 53
Table 26. Assumed Energy Efficiency Demand Side Management (EEDSM)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Comp Air
Capacity (MW)
39
76
115
151
211
275
275
275
275
275
275
Energy (GWh) 297 581 881 1158 1619 2110 2110 2110 2110 2110 2110
Heat Pumps
Capacity (MW)
3
35
110
282
463
522
581
640
640
640
640
Energy (GWh)
14
142
445
1,137
1,866
2,104
2,341
2,579
2,579
2,579
2,579
Lighting HVAC
Capacity (MW)
106
137
169
199
233
271
271
271
271
271
271
Energy (GWh)
673
874
1,074
1,266
1,482
1,724
1,724
1,724
1,724
1,724
1,724
New
Initiatives
Capacity (MW)
-
-
-
17
38
68
68
68
68
68
68
Energy (GWh)
-
-
-
123
275
492
492
492
492
492
492
Process
Optimisation
Capacity (MW)
81
151
210
293
384
467
467
467
467
467
467
Energy (GWh)
608
1,137
1,582
2,208
2,895
3,521
3,521
3,521
3,521
3,521
3,521
Shower Heads
Capacity (MW)
-
20
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
Energy (GWh)
-
58
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
Solar Water
Heating
Capacity (MW)
26
78
123
287
556
910
1,263
1,617
1,617
1,617
1,617
Energy (GWh)
76
227
360
838
1,622
2,656
3,689
4,722
4,722
4,722
4,722
Total Capacity (MW)
254
496
811
1,313
1,969
2,597
3,009
3,422
3,422
3,422
3,422
Energy (GWh)
1,669
3,020
4,590
6,978
10,007
12,855
14,126
15,397
15,397
15,397
15,397
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 54
Table 27. Existing South African generation capacity assumed for IRP
Capacity (MW)
Eskom 40635
Camden 1520
Grootvlei 372
Komati 202
Arnot 2280
Hendrina 1870
Kriel 2850
Duvha 3450
Matla 3450
Kendal 3840
Lethabo 3558
Matimba 3690
Tutuka 3510
Majuba 3843
Koeberg 1800
Gariep 360
VanderKloof 240
Drakensberg 1000
Palmiet 400
Acacia and Port Rex 342
Ankerlig and Gourikwa 2058
Non-Eskom 3260
TOTAL 43895
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 55
Table 28. Technology costs input (as at 2010, without learning rates)
Pulverised Coal
with FGD
Fluidised
bed with
FGD
Nuclear Areva
EPR OCGT CCGT Wind
Concentrat
ed PV
PV
(crystalline
silicon)
Forestry
residue
biomass
Municipa
l solid
waste
biomass
Pumped
storage
Integrated
Gasification
Combined
Cycle (IGCC)
CSP,
parabolic
trough, 9 hrs
storage
Capacity, rated net 6X750 MW 6X250 MW 6X1600 MW 114,7 MW 711,3 MW 100X2 MW 10 MW 10MW 25 MW 25 MW 4X375 MW 1288 MW 125 MW
Life of programme 30 30 60 30 30 20 25 25 30 30 50 30 30
Lead time 9 9 16 2 3 3-6 2 2 3,5-4 3,5-4 8 5 4
Typical load factor (%) 85% 85% 92% 10% 50% 29% (7,8m/s
wind @ 80m) 26,8% 19,4% 85% 85% 20% 85% 43,7%
Variable O&M (R/MWh) 44,4 99,1 95,2 0 0 0 0 0 31,1 38,2 4 14,4 0
Fixed O&M (R/kW/a) 455 365 - 70 148 266 502 208 972 2579 123 830 635
Variable Fuel costs (R/GJ) 15 7,5 6,25 200 80 - - - 19,5 0 - 15 -
Fuel Energy Content, HHV,
kJ/kg 19220 12500 3,900,000,000
39,3
MJ/SCM
39,3
MJ/SCM - - - 11760 11390 - 19220 -
Heat Rate, kJ/kWh, avg 9769 10081 10760 11926 7468 - - - 14185 18580 - 9758 -
Overnight capital costs
(R/kW) 17785 14965 26575 3955 5780 14445 37225 20805 33270 66900 7913 24670 50910
Phasing in capital spent (%
per year) (* indicates
commissioning year of 1st
unit)
2%, 6%, 13%,
17%*, 17%,
16%, 15%,
11%, 3%
2%, 6%,
13%, 17%*,
17%, 16%,
15%, 11%,
3%
3%, 3%, 7%, 7%,
8%, 8%, 8%, 8%,
8%, 8%, 8%, 8%*,
6%, 6%, 2%, 2%
90%, 10% 40%,
50%, 10%
2,5%, 2,5%,
5%, 15%, 75% 10%, 90% 10%, 90%
10%, 25%,
45%, 20%
10%, 25%,
45%, 20%
3%, 16%,
17%, 21%,
20%, 14%,
7%, 2%*
5%, 18%,
35%, 32%*,
10%
10%, 25%,
45%, 20%
Equivalent Avail 91,7 90,4 92-95 88,8 88,8 94-97 95 95 90 90 94 85,7 95
Maintenance 4,8 5,7 N/A 6,9 6,9 6 5 5 4 4 5 4,7 -
Unplanned outages 3,7 4,1 <2% 4,6 4,6 - - - 6 6 1 10,1 -
Water usage, l/MWh 229,1 33,3 6000 (sea) 19,8 12,8 - - - 210 200 - 256,8 245
Sorbent usage, kg/MWh 15,2 28,4 - - - - - - - - - - -
CO2 emissions (kg/MWh) 936,2 976,9 - 622 376 - - - 1287 1607 - 857,1 -
SOx emissions (kg/MWh) 0,45 0,19 - 0 0 - - - 0,78 0,56 - 0,21 -
NOx emissions (kg/MWh) 2,30 0,20 - 0,28 0,29 - - - 0,61 0,80 - 0,01 -
Hg (kg/MWh) 1,27E-06 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - - -
Particulates (kg/MWh) 0,13 0,09 - 0 0 - - - 0,16 0,28 - - -
Fly ash (kg/MWh) 168,5 35,1 - - - - - - 24,2 1226 - 9,7 -
Bottom ash (kg/MWh) 3,32 140,53 - - - - - - 6,1 3000 - 79,8 -
Expected COD of 1st unit 2018 2016 2022 2013 2016 2013 2018 2012 2014 2014 2018 2018 2018
Annual build limits - - 1 unit every 18
months -
2500 MW
after
2017
1600 MW 100 MW 1000MW 500 MW
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 56
Table 29. Import option costs
Import hydro
(Mozambique A)
Import hydro
(Mozambique B)
Import coal
(Botswana)
Import hydro
(Mozambique C)
Import coal
(Mozambique)
Import hydro
(Zambia A)
Import hydro
(Zambia B)
Import hydro
(Zambia C)
Import gas
(Namibia)
Hydro Hydro Coal Hydro Coal Hydro Hydro Hydro Gas
Capacity 1125 MW 850 MW 1200 MW 160 MW 1000 MW 750 MW 120 MW 360 MW 711 MW
Life of programme 60 60 30 60 30 60 60 60 30
Lead time 9 9 5 4 5 8 3 4 5
Load factors (%) 66,7% 38% 85% 42% N/A 46% 64% 38% N/A
Variable O&M (R/MWh) 0 12,1 18 12,1 7,7 12,1 12,1 12,1 0
Fixed O&M (R/kW/a) 344 69,8 379 69,8 160 69,8 69,8 69,8 168
Variable Fuel costs (R/GJ) N/A N/A 15 N/A 2,88 N/A N/A N/A 74,4
Fixed fuel costs (R/kW/a) N/A N/A - N/A - N/A N/A N/A -
Overnight capital costs (R/kW) 15518 7256 16880 15152 14400 6400 9464 4264 5780
Phasing in capital spent (% per
year)
5%, 5%, 5%, 5%,
10%, 25%, 20%,
20%, 5%
5%, 5%, 5%,
5%, 10%, 25%,
20%, 20%, 5%
10%, 25%, 45%,
20%
10%, 25%, 45%,
20%
10%, 25%, 45%,
20%
5%, 5%, 5%, 5%,
10%, 25%, 25%,
20%
15%, 55%, 30% 10%, 25%, 45%,
20%
40%, 50%,
10%
Equivalent Avail 92 90 91,7 90 91,7 90 90 90 88,8
Maintenance 4 5 4,8 5 4,8 5 5 5 6,9
Unplanned outages 4 5 3,7 5 3,7 5 5 5 4,6
Water usage, l/MWh - - 100 - 100 - - - 12,8
Sorbent usage, kg/MWh - - 0 - 0 - - - -
CO2 emissions (kg/MWh) - - 924,4 - 924,4 - - - 376
SOx emissions (kg/MWh) - - 8,93 - 8,93 - - - 0
NOx emissions (kg/MWh) - - 2,26 - 2,26 - - - 0
Hg (kg/MWh) - - 1,22E-06 - 1,22E-06 - - - 0
Particulates (kg/MWh) - - 0,12 - 0,12 - - - 0
Fly ash (kg/MWh) - - 166,4 - 166,4 - - - 0
Bottom ash (kg/MWh) - - 3,28 - 3,28 - - - 0
Expected COD of 1st unit
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 57
Table 30. Impact of learning rates on overnight capital costs
Overnight capital costs (R/kWp)
Technology
Storage
(hrs)
System
size
(MW) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
PV Crystalline
- 0.25 26462 24218 21974 20290 18772 17397 16150 15015 13979 13032 12164 11772 11395 11033 10685 10350 10028 9717 9419 9131 8854
- 1 21421 19604 17787 16444 15230 14130 13131 12220 11388 10626 9927 9611 9307 9015 8734 8464 8203 7952 7711 7478 7253
- 10 20805 19040 17276 15973 14796 13730 12760 11877 11069 10330 9652 9345 9050 8766 8494 8231 7978 7735 7500 7274 7056
PV Thin Film
- 0.25 23927 21476 19025 17802 16674 15630 14664 13769 12938 12165 11447 11040 10651 10280 9926 9588 9264 8954 8657 8373 8100
- 1 19369 17384 15400 14428 13528 12695 11923 11206 10539 9919 9342 9013 8699 8400 8114 7840 7578 7328 7087 6857 6636
- 10 18812 16885 14957 14015 13143 12335 11586 10891 10245 9643 9082 8764 8459 8168 7890 7625 7370 7127 6894 6670 6455
CPV - 10 37225 31704 30298 29617 29037 28727 28350 28007 27546 27268 26770 25991 25396 24664 23842 23392 23000 22493 22342 22198 22060
CSP Parabolic Trough
0 125 27450 25809 22690 20512 18815 16453 15339 14422 13805 13293 12843 12586 12414 12268 12067 11895 11748 11650 11517 11428 11333
3 125 37425 35188 30936 27965 25652 22432 20913 19663 18822 18123 17510 17160 16926 16726 16452 16218 16017 15884 15703 15580 15451
6 125 43385 40792 35862 32419 29737 26005 24243 22794 21819 21009 20298 19893 19621 19390 19072 18801 18567 18413 18203 18062 17912
9 125 50910 47867 42083 38042 34895 30515 28448 26748 25604 24653 23819 23343 23024 22753 22380 22062 21788 21607 21361 21194 21018
CSP Central Receiver
3 125 26910 25302 22244 20108 18445 16130 15037 14138 13534 13031 12590 12339 12170 12027 11829 11661 11517 11421 11291 11203 11110
6 125 32190 30266 26609 24053 22064 19294 17988 16913 16189 15588 15060 14760 14558 14387 14150 13950 13776 13662 13506 13401 13290
9 125 36225 34060 29944 27069 24830 21713 20242 19033 18218 17542 16948 16610 16383 16190 15924 15698 15503 15374 15199 15081 14955
12 125 39025 36692 32258 29161 26749 23391 21807 20504 19626 18898 18258 17894 17649 17441 17155 16912 16701 16563 16374 16246 16111
14 125 40200 37797 33230 30039 27554 24096 22464 21121 20217 19467 18808 18432 18181 17966 17672 17421 17204 17061 16867 16736 16597
Wind - 200 14445 13902 13512 13239 13088 12857 12731 12564 12435 12355 12289 12233 12188 12113 12031 11986 11915 11894 11860 11821 11797
Biomass (bagasse) - 52.5 21318 20969 20812 20605 20179 19970 19728 19523 19306 19165 19047 18977 18938 18879 18843 18808 18787 18758 18730 18690 18633
Biomass (MSW) - 25 66900 65804 65313 64663 63326 62671 61911 61266 60587 60142 59772 59553 59433 59245 59133 59024 58958 58867 58777 58653 58474
Biomass (Forest Waste) - 25 33270 32725 32481 32158 31493 31167 30789 30468 30131 29909 29725 29616 29556 29463 29407 29353 29320 29275 29231 29169 29080
IGCC - 125 22325 21931 21783 21354 21129 20897 20756 20635 20495 20348 20177 20072 19929 19835 19712 19461 19433 19339 19292 19254 19226
Nuclear III - 1600 26575 26553 26532 26520 26481 26444 26422 26368 26337 26304 26285 26254 26247 26198 26141 26057 25994 25961 25889 25839 25801
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT
Page 58
APPENDIX E – MEDIUM TERM RISK MITIGATION PROJECT FOR
ELECTRICITY IN SOUTH AFRICA (2010 TO 2016)
Keeping the Lights on
This is a National Project that deals with the anticipated electricity supply shortfall in the
immediate medium term from 2011 to 2016, the period before entering into the IRP2010 planning
horizon.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT
Page 59
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 60
2. THE ANTICIPATED SUPPLY SHORTAGES BETWEEN 2010 TO 2016 .................. 63
3. ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE RISK MITIGATION SOLUTIONS ........................ 65
4. THE MEDIUM RISK MITIGATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ....................... 71
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 60
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The South African electricity supply/demand balance will remain tight until such time as both
Medupi and Kusile are put into operation. It will take substantial effort from all stakeholders
to overcome South Africa’s current electricity shortages. Load shedding, however, can be
prevented, as long as all stakeholders partner to overcome all the obstacles to implementing
the requisite identified initiatives on the supply and demand side and create a “safety net”.
The Integrated Resource Plan 2010 is a long-term plan and does not provide sufficient detail
to assess and mitigate the short-term supply shortages. Consequently, to better understand
the risk, and assess options for mitigating the risk, the Medium Term Risk Mitigation Project
sets out to quantify and qualify the current situation and propose an action plan, which needs
be implemented urgently. As a result of this the generation capacities identified in the
MTRMP will not reconcile with the capacities planned in the IRP due to the different
purposes for each of the plans. The IRP addresses the long-term outlook for the generation
mix in South Africa, while the MTRMP focus is on identifying and engaging all supply and
demand options to address the short-term risk of the lack of capacity to meet demand over the
2011-2016 period.
This project will be implemented as a partnership between Government, Business, Labour,
Civil Society and Eskom.
The current situation facing South Africa is:
• The risk of load shedding is significant unless extra-ordinary steps are taken to
accelerate the realisation of a range of supply and demand side measures as set out by
this project;
• The base case outlook up to 2016, based on the IRP 2010 moderate demand scenario,
suggests a high likelihood that there will be an energy supply shortfall over the period
until 2015. The supply/demand balance will be tightest during 2011-2012 as
additional supply options are relatively limited until new build capacity starts to come
on stream. The base case forecasts a supply shortfall of 9 TWh of energy in 2012,
which is comparable to the energy produced by ~1000 MW of base-load capacity in a
year;
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 61
• There is immense pressure on the ability of Eskom to maintain the Energy
Availability Factor (EAF) of its existing generation assets due to the lack of time
available to undertake adequate maintenance and to improve the quality of coal
supplied to certain stations (coal quality is a major factor in EAF). The minimum
desired target is to achieve an 85% EAF and this is under significant risk;
• Any delays in bringing the Medupi or Kusile generating units into operation will
prolong and further exacerbate the shortfall in supply over the required economic
demand; and
• Whilst opportunities exist to reduce the shortfall in supply, they are constrained by a
range of obstacles to implementation.
In order to ensure that this shortfall is addressed the following demand and supply side
initiatives are required to be implemented3:
• Eskom’s demand side management programme must be executed and, working with
stakeholders, additional funding must be leveraged to achieve more savings than
currently planned for. It is estimated that an additional 25% of planned savings can be
achieved in the next 3 years.
• Government’s target for the rollout of 1 million solar water geysers must be achieved.
• Innovative incentive-based mechanisms must be created for customers to contribute to
demand response programmes. Such a programme exists for large customers and
programmes need to be created for smaller customers.
• The non-Eskom co-generation, own generation and renewable generation targets for
the next 3 to 5 years must be achieved. Of the target of over 2 300 MW, 277 MW has
already been signed up. All stakeholders need to work together to finalise the grid
access framework and to sign up IPPs within the tariff allowances and in line with
IRP 2010. Further opportunities must be investigated.
• Eskom must focus on increasing its generation availability by between 1 and 2%.
3 Details are available in the full report.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 62
• Eskom must bring back its return to service generation fleet as planned.
• Stakeholders must work together to support the operation of existing municipal
generation where feasible.
Even with these initiatives, (assuming they are successful) there are further risks that may
materialise and some of the programmes may not deliver the requisite planned contributions.
Under certain scenarios a shortfall will still exist in 2011 and 2012 of between 3 and 6 TWh.
In order to provide a “safety net” to deal with these risks, the following will be considered for
urgent implementation:
• Establishing a mandatory Energy Conservation Scheme focusing on the largest users
of electricity in the country to be ready for speedy implementation, should it be
determined that rationing is required to prevent load shedding.
• This can be supported by additional demand response initiatives focused on the
smaller customers including residential customers, using technology and other
mechanisms.
• A mechanism to support the higher usage of the open cycle gas turbines in the
Western Cape when needed.
These measures can be achieved if the collective stakeholders work together.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 63
2. THE ANTICIPATED SUPPLY SHORTAGES BETWEEN 2010 AND 2016
The base-case outlook up to 2016 (based on the IRP2010 moderate demand scenario)
suggests a high likelihood that there will be an energy supply shortfall over the period until
2015. The supply/demand balance will be tightest for 2011-2012 as additional supply options
are relatively limited until new build capacity (Medupi and Kusile) starts to come on stream.
The base case forecasts a supply shortfall of 9 TWh of energy in 2012, which is comparable
to the energy produced by ~1000 MW of base load capacity in a year.
Figure 1 - Gap before mitigation
These supply constraints are further complicated and increased by the urgent need to
undertake critical maintenance on the generation assets over this period. Space needs to be
created on the system to support a comprehensive maintenance programme to sustain the
operational integrity of the generation assets. Some of this maintenance has already been
8
Current forecast of the annual energy gap for 2010 to 2017, TWh shortfall
SA electricity supply-demand balance will remain tight until
2015 with 2011/2012 the crucial period
Assumptions:
• Eskom estimate of the IRP 2010 moderate load forecast (~ 260 TWh in 2010)
• New Build (e.g. Medupi, Kusile Ingula) & RTS at current dates
• REFIT as IRP1
• DoE Peaking IPP included
• DSM as per base plan (3.9 GW by FY 2018).
• Planned maintenance allocation increased to 10%
00
1
2
3
9
6
1514 16 20171311 12
9 TW h is equivalent
to ~1000 MW
baseload capacity
00
1
2
3
9
6
1514 16 20171311 12
9 TW h is equivalent
to ~1000 MW
baseload capacity
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 64
significantly postponed and further delays create health and safety risks and increase the risk
of serious breakdowns and outages.
The risk of additional downside to the base case outlook
This base case outlook includes a number of existing commitments and the IRP2010
moderate demand forecast. Up to 3 TWh of these base case supply options is at risk over the
critical period, 2011-2012, because of the uncertainty relating to some existing commitments
and base case assumptions4:
• Committed supply side risks
o New build, Return-To-Service (RTS) and REFIT. Supply constraints are
severe in the next two to three years and decrease as new build and RTS
options are commissioned. However delays in the delivery of any new build
(especially Medupi and Kusile) and RTS projects significantly impact on
security of supply in these latter years. Any delay on a unit of Medupi or
Kusile increases the annual energy gap.
o REFIT supply of 1 GW by 2015 (as per IRP 2010) has also been included in
base case projections. There is significant risk that these options do not deliver
the committed capacity on time, as the regulatory and legislative framework
has not been put in place to facilitate the procurement process. Failure to
unlock these constraints urgently could put this energy at risk, given the
lengthy implementation timelines required.
4 The base case outlook assumes that existing business commitments fully deliver according to current
schedules. Any slippage or under-delivery on these commitments will worsen the situation and increase the size
of the energy gap over critical years.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 65
• Demand Side risks
o Demand Side Management - Demand side reduction of ~4 TWh has been built
into base case forecasts by 2013, through Demand Side Management (DSM)
commitments made in MYPD 2. Significant work still needs to be done and
constraints unlocked to deliver these commitments. Under-delivery on these
commitments will add further pressure during critical years.
o National Demand - The supply-demand gap increases significantly if national
demand over this period exceeds IRP2010 moderate forecasts. Current
demand is lower than the IRP moderate scenario however the assumption is
that this will rebound by 2012 to reflect the moderate forecast. A quicker-than-
predicted economic recovery would increase demand forecasts above the
moderate scenario, further increasing supply-demand constraints and adding to
the energy gap.
NB: The scenarios clearly illustrate the urgent need to take immediate action and the
necessity to put in place risk mitigation until at least 2016.
3. ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE RISK MITIGATION SOLUTIONS
There is no silver bullet to address the supply gap, therefore a range of options have been
identified to reduce this supply-demand shortfall. These solutions assist to close the majority
of this gap; however large constraints and challenges exist and many of the options identified
do not fall purely within the control of a single industry stakeholder. An active partnership is
required among key stakeholders (Eskom, Business, Government, the Regulator and the
public) to unlock these and deliver maximum potential from available levers.
Each option has been evaluated to identify the maximum potential that could be delivered
within a specified time frame, termed the constrained potential. A number of real constraints
apply to each option (e.g. funding, legislation, logistics), which decreases the potential. The
highly constrained potential is the stretched opportunity believed to be possible, making
realistic assumptions on future funding. In some cases, the constrained potential has already
been included in the base case analysis. This is indicated as such.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 66
The following options have been identified as opportunities to close the gap:
3.1 Supply side options and constraints
TABLE 1 – SUPPLY SIDE OPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS
Constrained potential (MW) Highly Constrained potential (MW)
Option Quantification Constraints (not
exhaustive)
Renewable energy
(REFIT) programme
Constrained potential
has been included in
the base case analysis
Regulatory and legislative
framework required to
enable procurement
process
Lead time required for
implementation
Cogen / Own Gen
(Conservative view of
1000 – 1500MW)
Access to municipal
distribution systems
Rules for fair and equitable
transport of electricity
over grid
Onerous licencing and grids
code requirements for
small distributed gens
Supply side options from within the SADC region have not been considered here as the time
frame for implementation as included in the IRP 2010 is beyond the window being discussed
here.
Additional municipal generation capacity, and increased Eskom capacity, specifically from
upgrades at Koeberg (~ 30 MW per unit) as well as the increased generation availability from
the existing fleet, by improving on the forced outage rate (1% improvement by 2012 equating
to ~ 2.5 TWh) have been included in the calculations to determine the magnitude of the gap.
0200
500825
1,1251,625
2,525
3,425
FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018
0103 103
227
653
1,253 1,253 1,253
FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 67
3.2 Demand side options and constraints
TABLE 2 – DEMAND SIDE OPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS
Constrained potential (MW) Highly Constrained potential (MW)
Option Quantification Constraints
Demand side
management
(Additional 25% on
existing
commitments)
Constrained potential
has been included in
the base case
analysis
Logistics to implement - benefit
achieved as small saving
across large number of
consumption points
Procurement and installation
capability for energy
efficient devices
Funding
Government Solar
Water Heating (1
million installations)
Funding model for > 580 000
installations
Procurement and installation
capability – shortage of
suppliers and qualified
installers (plumbers)
Incentivised Demand
Response - Small
commercial and
industrial
Funding required to deliver DR
above 500 MW (first 500
MW budgeted using DMP
under spend)
Capability of third party to sign
up customers (voluntary DR
programme)
Approval of integrated DR
strategy
4,8094,100
3,3622,714
1,8941,266
692301
FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018
16
63
140
211
272 272 272 272
FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018
3,0003,0003,0003,000
2,500
1,500
500
0
FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 68
Residential demand
response (1.8 million
customers)
Municipal roll-out (technology
& buy-in)
Funding
Decision over best technology to
implement (short/long term)
Impact on customers for higher
energy factors if load
limiting used too often
Clarity on legislation
Integrated demand response
strategy
The analysis indicates that a residual energy gap remains in the next two to three years, even
if maximum potential across all available opportunities are realised. This gap will likely be
in the 3 – 6 TWh range, depending on the ability to unlock the constraints of options
identified and to deliver against these targets.
0
144
284
624
864 864 864 864
FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 69
3.3 Dealing with the remaining gap – Implementing a “safety net”
Three additional options exist and can be implemented as a “safety net” to protect South
Africa from national load shedding by closing any residual gap or additional gap if the initial
options do not deliver or if demand increases exceed current forecasts.
Energy Conservation Scheme (ECS)
ECS is legislated energy reduction for (initially) the 500 largest electricity users by setting a
reduction target and imposing penalties for non-compliance. Analysis shows that a mere 5%
saving on the historical base-line for these customers would provide an estimated (6 TWh)
energy saving.
• While ECS can be viewed as an economic threat, it has inherent country benefits. It
encourages movement towards a more energy efficient economy, and reduces
absolute demand and is economically preferred to national load shedding.
9
There is still a gap in 2011 and 2012, even if all identified potential is captured
Even
pulling all
levers …
21
16
106
3
2724
… a gap
still exists
in some
years
- 19
14
-14
13
- 7
12
6
2011
5
2017
- 28
16
-25
15
TWh
Energy saving opportunities identified 1
Forecast energy gap if full potential is captured
1 Excludes SADC options as unconfirmed IRP 2 Examples of constraints: Funding, Policy and legislation, Industry manufacturing, install ation and service capacity
Highly Constrained
Constrained 2
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 70
• It is believed that this 5% reduction could be achieved without a loss in production
and in most cases the investment would be net positive for the users. However there
remains concern around the short-term impact of legislated demand reduction on
economic growth.
The DOE has the policy ownership for the development and implementation of ECS. The
rules of the scheme will be finalised, and a decision on the enabling legislation (Energy Act
or Electricity Regulation Act) will be made.
Compulsory Demand Response (DR)
• Implementation of mandatory demand response measures amongst residential
customers allows for demand management during periods of system constraint.
Mandatory demand response measures enable the supplier to warn customers of
demand restrictions during peak times, and remotely limit consumption when
required, by either capping energy supply to customers or cutting off customers who
consume above a set level. This differs from incentivised DR options for commercial
and small industrial customers, which requires voluntary sign-up by customers and
voluntary reduction in energy consumption.
• DR in this form is essentially a milder form of load shedding, significantly limiting
energy available to customers during periods of system constraint, for set duration.
Although customers have consumption restrictions, DR is preferred over full load
shedding as it permits customers to operate basic appliances (e.g., television and
lights, or refrigerator).
• There are a number of different options for implementing DR and the most
appropriate technology still needs to be confirmed.
Increasing OCGT load factor
• Eskom can increase operation of OCGT capacity during these critical years.
Increasing operation of the OCGTs could create space for critical maintenance on
other plant, in order to increase availability of these options during critical periods.
Increasing OCGT operation by 5% would provide ~1 TWh of additional energy per
annum.
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 71
• Increasing operation of OCGTs creates significant additional cost for Eskom of
~R2bn per TWh of additional energy. A funding model needs to be agreed with
NERSA to support additional operation of this capacity during periods of system
constraint. (This could tie in with the ECS - if large users do not reduce their demand
they cover the cost of more expensive generation).
4. THE MEDIUM RISK MITIGATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
The Department of Energy and Government have committed to working with NEDLAC to
implement the Risk Mitigation Project. A plan of action has been agreed between NEDLAC
and Government.
The MTRMP has already completed the following project phases:
Phase 1 is complete and consisted of:
• A realistic assessment of the medium term supply and demand outlook;
• Risk assessing the expected energy shortfalls, so that appropriate mitigation measures
can be developed;
• Assessing the state of supply and demand mitigation measures5 inclusive of any
binding constraints and “remedies” to resolve such constraints; and
• Developing a Project Plan for the implementation.
Phase 2 (Implementation) consists of the following agreed work plan:
• Development and promulgation of legal framework to promote non-Eskom
generation:
o Finalise regulatory framework for the procurement of non-Eskom generated
power;
o Address licensing regulations;
o Develop and implement rules to promote non-Eskom generation;
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 72
o Development of appropriate and equitable wheeling charges for all generators;
o Streamline the process for approving access to the grid for non-Eskom
generators;
o Develop rules of costs and access to municipal distribution systems;
• Development of fast track process for projects that will alleviate pressure on grid until
2016
o Roll out of solar water heater plans;
o Streamline the approval processes for all non-Eskom generation options
during the constrained period;
o Implement procurement processes to purchase power identified both in the
IRP and the MTRMP;
o Finalisation of procurement process for generation technology not included in
MYPD2.
• Finalise National Energy Efficiency Strategy review and develop implementation plan
o Develop and implement action plan to introduce energy efficiency
instruments;
o Establish reporting mechanism to report on progress on energy efficiency
interventions.
• Develop the national contingency plan (Safety Net)
o Develop policy statement on the legal platform for the Conservation Scheme,
its scope of application and the mechanisms for triggering.
o Identification of most appropriate systems and technology for aggregated
demand response management
• Development of a comprehensive approach to funding EE interventions including:
IRP 2010-2030
FINAL REPORT March 2011
Page 73
o Fast track the finalisation of tax rebate scheme 12L;
o Finalise the approach to the Standard Offer.
• Develop a sustainable funding model to support the following interventions:
o Aggregation of demand response at municipal and Eskom level
o Emergency use of OCGT to prevent load shedding
• Execution and monitoring of actions
o Establish a technical team to undertake technical work as directed by this
action plan;
o Establish a reporting and feedback mechanism for monthly reporting of
progress to stakeholders through Nedlac.
• Develop comprehensive energy efficiency awareness campaign
o Nedlac energy task team to develop a proposal for consideration by NSACE.