Publications
Partners
This year’s long-awaited draft Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) for South Africa, which revises the IRP put forward in 2011, outlines how government plans to tackle the country’s energy demands leading up to 2030.
It draws the clear and obvious conclusion that clean energy, especially solar, is the cheapest possible energy source for South Africa. Then it betrays the conclusion by proposing to artificially limit the construction of solar and wind power, and continue to build coal power plants.
In terms of the envisioned 2030 energy mix as stated in the draft IRP, 46% (or the equivalent of 34 000 megawatts) will be supplied by coal, gas will account for 16% (11 930MW) of capacity, while wind will be limited to 15% (11 442MW). Solar – the cheapest energy available – will be allowed to contribute a mere 10% (7 958MW) and 6% (4 696MW) will be allocated to hydropower.
Let’s start with the obvious conclusion. Page 37 of the report clearly states that the least expensive energy plan is one where renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, are allowed to grow as rapidly as possible.
This is not a surprising finding.
South Africa is one of the sunniest places on Earth. Solar power in similarly sunny places, such as Mexico, Chile or the Middle East, now costs less than half as much as electricity from coal-fired or gas power plants.
Solar power, wind power and the batteries used to store their energy continue to plunge in price. Solar power prices around the world have fallen by half in the past few years, while battery prices have fallen by a factor of five since 2010.
The IRP notes this rapid decline and draws an even starker conclusion.
Stunningly, after drawing these conclusions, the draft IRP proposes that South Africa places limits on the growth of solar and wind – the cleanest and cheapest energy for the nation.
It goes on to propose the construction of two new coal-fired power stations, Thabametsi and Khanyisa, which would collectively contribute 1 000MW to the energy grid and cost roughly R20 billion to build.
This is not only financially irresponsible, it’s irresponsible for the lives of South Africans.
Air pollution in South Africa already kills an estimated 20 000 people a year, according to the World Health Organisation, and accounts for roughly one in every 13 deaths in the country.
In terms of their environmental impact, coal power plants are a major source of that air pollution and will most likely increase South Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions to the point where the country will be unable to meet its commitments to their reduction.
The IRP will cost South Africans more, will hit them again in the wallet by increasing healthcare costs and it will directly cost lives.
The draft IRP justifies the construction of new coal plants, in part, based on the subsequent creation of jobs.
However, in other nations, such as the US, far more people are already employed in the solar and wind industries than in coal. Solar and wind create clean, healthy, good-paying jobs, even as they bring down the cost of energy.
South Africa was wise enough to walk away from its politically mired plans to build between eight and 10 expensive, inflexible nuclear power plants that carried a total estimated price tag of R1 trillion.
The current plan will see no increase in nuclear energy’s 2.5% contribution to the 2030 energy mix. That’s wise. In every analysis, new solar and wind farms are simply cheaper than building new nuclear plants in South Africa.
New coal power plants should be taken out of the plan for largely the same reasons – solar and wind are cheaper and continue to plunge in price.
The IRP itself states so. The draft IRP is open for public and stakeholder comment until October 31.
Naam is co-chair for energy and environment at Singularity University, a futurist hub based in Silicon Valley in California in the US
