Eskom calls for implementation of IRP2010

| Tuesday December 7, 2010 00:00

Speaking at the public hearings into the IRP2010 on Friday, Adam noted that the success of the country's electricity plan lay in the implementation. The Department of Energy (DoE) has referred to an ongoing review of the IRP2010, and Adam said that Eskom supported that, but suggested that it be done in a predictable clear process, that all stakeholders were aware of.

In raising the concerns of the electricity utility with regard to the IRP 2010, Adam also stated that the price path trajectory for nuclear 'may be understated', and the rate of return expected for independent power producers (IPPs) may not be as much as the 12,5% alluded to in the IRP 2010. He added that regional options for power generation should be reviewed and brought on sooner than articulated in the IRP2010. Adam noted that opportunities represented by the Southern African Power Pool were limited. To unlock power in the region, investors were looking for bankable projects in Southern Africa, and if this did not happen sooner than the dates stated in the IRP 2010, opportunities could be missed.

Liquid natural gas (LNG) was also highlighted by Eskom as an area which should be more closely addressed in the IRP2010. It was felt that imported gas should also be considered, as this could increase competitiveness, and ensure the best option for South Africa. LNG infrastructure, for storage and transport logistics, was also raised as an issue that required attention. Adam praised the 'transparent and inclusive' process of the IRP2010, and recognised the challenge facing the DoE in balancing the interests of all stakeholders. He emphasised that a one-dimensional solution would not work, and said that Eskom supported the revised balanced scenario adopted by the department.

On the second day of the hearings in Johannesburg, the DoE was again lauded for holding the public participation process on the IRP2010, particularly since the previous plan was gazetted with no public participation, and during December, when many South Africans were on vacation.The panel listened to some 60 presentations, over two days in Johannesburg alone. These presentations came from stakeholders proposing varying positions and pathways, but all congratulated the department on the participatory process. 'We must get a move on with nuclear, and order the first nuclear power station,' stated Mike Deats, emphasising that nuclear power decisions should be made soon.

On Thursday, from the other side of the spectrum, a representative from Greenpeace stated that nuclear power was a 'dangerous waste of time', which was expensive, capital intensive, had long lead times, and had a radioactive waste legacy with severe safety risks. Federation for a Sustainable Environment CEO Mariette Liefferink reminded the panel of the often mentioned 'external costs' of nuclear and coal power generation as a result of uranium and coal mining, which caused acid mine drainage.

A contentious problem that the government has recently stated is significant, and the costs of dealing with it are very high. Greenpeace also stated that the IRP2010 needed to be more ambitious with regard to renewable energy solutions, and aim for 36% of total energy generation from renewables by 2030.

Numerous renewable energy industry players, from solar, wind, hydro, biogas and biomass also presented the benefits of renewable energy technologies to the panel.IPPs also voiced their concerns, as did the coal industry.

Presentations from organisations such as the Soshanguve Civic Association, Soweto concerned residents, and the KwaThema working group, urged the DoE to make the IRP2010 and electricity plans even more inclusive of civil society through education and awareness programmes, and consider indigent people when making their decisions.

One industry commentator described the hearings in Johannesburg as 'business as usual', while the hearings in Durban and Cape Town were said to be much more fiery. At these hearing people stated that they would reject the plan in its current form, and seriously questioned the electricity demand forecast, as well as the lack of clarity on costs and pricing.-(Engineeringnews)