HAVE YOUR SAY
INVITATION FOR PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
DRAFT INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN (IRP) 2018
The Portfolio Committee on Energy invites interested individuals and
stakeholders to submit written comments on the Draft Integrated
Resource Plan (IRP) 2018.
The National Development Plan (NDP) identifies the need for South
Africa to invest in a strong network of economic infrastructure designed
to support the country’s medium and long-term economic and social
objectives. Energy infrastructure is a critical component that underpins
economic activity and growth across the country; it needs to be robust
and extensive enough to meet industrial, commercial and household
needs.
The first IRP for South Africa was promulgated in March 2011. It was
indicated at the time that the IRP should be a “living plan” which will be
frequently revised by the Department of Energy (DoE).
Enquiries, as well as written submissions, can be sent to the Portfolio
Committee on Energy (attention: Mr Arico Kotze), 3rd floor, WS 3/107, 90
Plein Street, Cape Town 8001, or e-mailed to akotze@parliament.gov.za
In addition to the written comments, please indicate your interest in
making a verbal presentation to the Committee.
The closing date for submissions is 05 October 2018.
Copies of the Draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) can be obtained from
Mr Arico Kotze at 021 403 3662, 083 709 8470 or www.parliament.gov.za
Issued by Hon F Z Majola, MP, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee
on Energy.

The Department of Energy (DoE) has formally extended the period for public comment on the draft Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) and the draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) base case until March 31.
The closing date for written comment was initially set as February 15, after the two plans were formally Gazetted on November 25.
The DoE said the decision to extend the comment period followed requests from a number of stakeholders.
To date, the department has hosted hearings on the IEP and the IRP in Gauteng, the Western Cape, the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal.
A number of participants expressed dismay at the short notice provided for preparing oral submissions and the restricted timeframe for the submission of written comments.

Read more....

Public consultation on the draft Integrated Resource Plan
Following the approval by Cabinet on 2 November 2016, the Minister of Energy released draft documentation relating to a new Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) and Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) on 22 November 2016.  The IEP addresses the future energy landscape in general, whereas the IRP focuses specifically on electricity.  Both are long-term planning documents.  More attention so far has been devoted to the IRP, particularly because of the emphasis placed by Government (and Eskom) on the importance of a substantial expansion of nuclear power within the overall electricity provision forecasts to 2050.
The draft updated IRP’s base case envisages a new build programme of power generating capacity over the period 2021 to 2050, with the following components:

Currently, total installed capacity is 51 000 MW.  Much of this will be obsolete by 2050, but with the new capacity to be added, the draft updated IRP envisages a base case with a total installed capacity in 2050 of 136 000 MW.
The Minister announced that the next step was for public consultation to be held during December 2016 and January 2017, culminating in Government adjustments in March 2017 and the promulgation of a final IRP, once it is approved by Cabinet.

Read more.......

The much awaited updated South African Integrated Resource Plan for electricity has been released for comment.

The document makes far-reaching proposals about the target energy generation mix leading all the way to 2050. In particular, the plan pronounces on the future scale and role of nuclear energy and renewable energy technologies. The appropriateness of these has been debated a great deal in the country in the past few years.

If adopted in its current form, it will lead to a 15 year delay in the construction of new nuclear power plants. But it will also result in a greater reliance on gas, solar and especially wind power than anticipated five years ago in the previous plan 2010-2030.

The proposed plan has already been the subject of intensive scrutiny and debate, with those for and against lining up to make their points. The state utility Eskom is unhappy about the suggested delay in building a much bigger nuclear capability and has even threatened to ignore key recommendations. For their part, advocates of renewable energy argue that the plan underestimates how much less expensive these technologies will be in the next 20 to 30 years.

The previous road-map An earlier version of the integrated resources plan released in 2011 envisaged that between 2010 and 2030 South Africa’s electricity demand would grow from 255 TWh (tera-watt-hours – a unit of energy) to 436 TWh. This was to be achieved through the completion of two very large coal power plants, Medupi and Kusile, which would supply the bulk of the shortfall. Other contributors would be nuclear, for which new plants would need to be built, and the establishment of a new renewable energy generation network of wind power and solar power.

But a great deal has changed since then.

Firstly, the growth in energy demand has proved to be lower than projected. Secondly, the cost of renewable technologies has dropped faster than expected. In particular, the price of solar photovoltaic electricity allocated under the country’s renewable energy procurement programme fell by 75% between 2012 and 2015.

These developments were captured in an updated version of the 2011 plan that was prepared in 2013. It recommended that, in view of these changing conditions, there was no longer a need to kick-start a nuclear build programme immediately. It also recommended that a decision on whether or not to embark on an expensive expansion of the nuclear reactor fleet could be delayed for several years.

But this updated version of the plan was never promulgated. This left the door open for a fiercely pro-nuclear lobby which is in favour of a highly lucrative nuclear expansion programme. This issue has developed into a political hot potato. The central argument is that the push for nuclear goes against economic common sense and that it’s being pursued for the benefit of politically connected individuals.

The nuclear build issue has come to feature prominently as one of the important drivers of what is referred to as “state capture” of some of the country’s large institutions.

The latest version The draft update of the resources plan advocates the following most likely scenario, referred to as the “base case”.

Electricity demand between 310 and 355 TWh in 2030 (about 100 TWh lower than envisaged in the 2010-2030 plan) with demand rising to between 390 and 530 TWh in 2050. This is based on projection models developed at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.

The construction of 37.4 GW (1 000 GigaWatts equal 1 TeraWatt) of wind capacity and 17.6 GW of solar photovoltaic capacity between 2020 and 2050.

The gradual decommissioning of most existing coal power stations by 2050 in line with international carbon emission agreements.

A substantial increase (35.3 GW) in electricity generation from gas. Due to the high cost of gas it is generally used only as a back up. It would in any case contribute only about 7% of total energy generation.

The construction of just over 20 GW of nuclear power. But this would only gradually come on line between 2037 and 2050. Given that construction of the plants would take ten years the decision to go ahead with the nuclear build could still be delayed for another decade.

Initial reactions Unsurprisingly, the nuclear industry and its supporters have reacted very negatively to the new draft. Strong nuclear advocates in the state electricity utility Eskom have gone so far as to defiantly declare that they will invite nuclear construction proposals before the end of the year.

But Eskom’s defiance is unlikely to lead to anything substantial. This is because the state utility is facing both a credibility crisis and its finances are in poor shape.

On the other hand advocates of faster growth in renewables have criticised two fundamental assumptions underpinning the “base case” model.

They argue that the model assumes renewable tariffs slightly higher than achieved in the last allocations made under the renewable energy procurement programme. Only by 2030 do these drop a further 20% for photovoltaics and 9% for wind. But given recent trends and projections there’s a strong likelihood that future renewable energy costs will be lower than that.

The “base case” also assumes a limit to how many solar and wind plants can be constructed annually. But based on past interest and delivery by private renewable power producers far greater annual developments are possible.

Several researchers have shown that by applying lower renewable tariffs and removing annual construction limits renewables can make up a much greater proportion of the energy mix, and that new nuclear might not even be needed in 2050.

Future energy demand The new energy plan is now subject to public input. It is due to be adopted by government in four months time after improvements and further scenario modelling has been added.

Even after adoption, updates will need to be done regularly, ideally every two years since even current projections could be overestimating future energy demand considerably.

This is particularly true given that energy consumption is declining in most developed countries because of advances in technology and energy saving initiatives.

If the energy sector is managed correctly, the current South African energy crisis may not be as far reaching as is often assumed.

The South African government has committed itself, by means of its Nuclear Energy Policy and Integrated Resource Plan, to an energy mix consisting of coal, gas, hydro, nuclear, solar and wind.

Yet, if the government is so determined to pursue nuclear power stations, why was no mention of the financing for this included in the minister of finance’s budget speech?

One would expect that since government wants to use nuclear power to address the shortage of electricity in South Africa, and in the light of high-level delegations which have signed inter-governmental agreements regarding nuclear power, that this expenditure would have been a focus in the energy portion of this year’s budget speech.

This was, however, not the case. Instead, the public was told that the electricity levy will be increased by a whopping 57% from 3,5 to 5,5 c/kWh, and that Eskom would receive additional equity to the tune of R23-billion in three tranches.

The public was also told that although the extra 2 c/kWh levy would be removed in time, a carbon tax can be expected soon. The fact that the R23-billion would be in the form of additional equity means that Eskom will not have repay the money.

This additional backing is meant to prop up the power utility’s balance sheet which should make it easier for the utility to borrow money on the open market.

Economists have pointed out however, that it will be impossible for Eskom to borrow money to build a fleet of nuclear power stations because of the vast amount of money needed. The capital cost of a nuclear power station is extremely high.

So who will fund these nuclear power plants? It has been suggested that the country which builds the stations will fund it, so-called vendor funding, and that South Africa would repay the debt over time as it sells the electricity generated by the plants over a lengthy period.

But surely that will make electricity very expensive because of the large debt and the interest incurred.

Electricity from nuclear power stations is expensive, despite being cheap to run, as they are very expensive to build.

The International Energy Agency estimated in 2010 that a pressurised water reactor (PWR) type of nuclear power station would cost approximately US$4800/kW to build.

In 2013; the South African government’s estimate was $6500/kW; and recent reports show that a Hungarian nuclear power station, built by the Russians, cost $7000/kW, while the French-built nuclear power station at Hinckley Point, UK, cost $7900/kW. The figures quoted are for the new-build costs alone and do not include operating costs or interest.

Despite the high cost of nuclear power stations, and the obvious fact that South Africa cannot afford such an enormous outlay, the departments of energy, public enterprises, and trade and industry all appear to be in favour of this form of generation.

How much electricity does South Africa the country actually need? Eskom’s website shows an existing total generation capacity of 42 000 MW excluding the additional power from IPPs.

The renewable energy independent power producers (REIPPs) have already added 1500 MW to the grid, and an additional 2500 MW is expected soon. Eskom’s Sere Wind farm will provide a further 100 MW, and a new privately owned 2400 MW coal-fired power station is on the cards under a so-called “coal IPP”.

Eskom is currently running its open cycle gas turbines (OCGTs) very hard to keep the lights on. These generate 2426 MW and will probably be used less frequently once the additional capacity comes on stream.

In his recent State of the Nation address, President Zuma said that 2600 MW will be supplied from hydroelectric schemes in the SADC countries, and that a further 15 000 MW will be available to the country from the Grand Inga hydroelectric project.

He said that 9600 MW from the country’s nuclear new-build programme, as approved in the Integrated Resource Plan 2010-2030, would start to come online by 2023, just in time for Eskom to retire part of its aging power plants.

This means that South Africa may have more power capacity than it needs at exorbitant cost to the country’s economy. Expensive electricity will result in the country’s manufacturing sector losing its competitive advantage which will mitigate against growth and job creation.

At the same time the drive towards energy efficiency, which, according to the budget speech will be rewarded by an energy-efficiency savings incentive, set to increase by 111% to 95 c/kWh, will surely motivate people to use less electricity.

Perhaps it would be better for the country to continue to drive energy efficiency programmes and to support more IPP projects locally which will create the benefits of more job creation and additional power generation than to rely on foreign governments to build nuclear stations which we cannot afford, or to be reliant on foreign power from the Grand Inga project which is so far away.
By Chris Yelland - March 8, 2015
Source: EE Publishers

The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2010-30 was promulgated in March 2011. It was indicated at the time that the IRP should be a “living plan” which would be revised by the Department of Energy (DoE) every two years i.e. an Update is required in 2013. Since the promulgation of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2010-30 there have been a number of developments in the energy sector in South and Southern Africa. In addition the electricity demand outlook has changed markedly from that expected in 2010.

Consequently the Department of Energy have completed an IRP 2010 Update which is available for you to download. You are requested to consider this update and email your comments and or questions to Tshepo.Madingoane@energy.gov.za. The closing date for your submissions will be 7 February 2014.

Comments received will be considered in preparing a final draft IRP 2010 Update which will be submitted to Cabinet for final approval by March 2014. The approved document will then be promulgated and be published in the Government Gazette.

Download the :   Integrated Resource Plan 2010 Update         

The government wants South Africa to become a manufacturer of "green technology" such as parts for renewable energy plants, Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies said at the Living Planet Conference on Friday.

South Africa’s Integrated Resource Plan seeks 17.8GW of energy from renewables by 2030.

Mr Davies said the New Growth Path had identified "the green economy" as one of six growth drivers for South Africa. The New Growth Path was adopted in 2010 as the country’s framework for economic policy and the driver of its jobs strategy.

Read more....

The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2010-30) is not outdated but will be reviewed in line with the Integrated Energy Plan (IEP), Energy Minister Dipuo Peters said on Tuesday.
Responding to a question by media ahead of her department’s Budget Vote later today, Peters said the 20-year plan has been created deliberately so that it has loops for review.
“It was promulgated in May 2011.... This is the year that we are finalising the IEP of which the IRP is a subset. Within that total framework you are going to have a reviewed IRP in this particular financial year,” she said at a media briefing.
The IRP2010 places specific emphasis on broadening electricity supply technologies to include gas, imports, nuclear, biomass, renewables (wind, solar and hydro), in response to both the country's future electricity needs as well as reduce its CO2 emissions.
A study, commissioned by the National Planning Commission (NPC) and compiled by UCT’s Energy Research Centre, reported that the country’s energy blueprint was outdated and  went on to say among other things that the growth in electricity demand had been much lower than had been forecast among others.
“The NPC has got the right to do that [commission a study]. We have the mandate and responsibility to ensure that certainty is given to this country. Our plan is looking at the provision of energy. The National Development Plan (NDP) speaks about low carbon energy pro vision, the IRP speaks to that, and so does the IEP. We are the policy department, they [NPC] would sit and develop the framework for planning, and we would look at how to make it possible. The IRP is not outdated,” explained Peters.
Director General Nelisiwe Magubane said that assumptions that the demand for electricity have gone down were wrong and that the country faces challenges such as some plants having to be shutdown, adding that the fleet was no less than 35 years old.
The department will this year finalise the IEP. “We are going to do the IEP first and we are going to engage that for the next five months and in parallel we will be working on the IPR however the revision of the IRP will be informed by the input from the public on the IEP,” explained the director general. A specific date for the review of the IRP is not yet available.
The rationale for the IRP coming into being before the IEP was as a result of the 2008 energy shortage that was caused by a lack of long term planning. “The IRP was urgent [that it comes into being],” said Magubane.
In March 2012, the department held a consultative conference on the development of the IEP with work on the plan being completed in March 2013.  The completion and implementation of the IEP will enable the department to go ahead with the review of the IRP 2010. “We are now ready to equip the sector on our proposals for energy planning up to 2050,” said the department.
Peters said that the energy environment was a volatile one, while briefing reporters on the progress the department has made.