The Doe (DoE) released a draft update (Draft IRP 2016) for their earlier Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity (IRP 2010-2030) in November 2016, and invited comments and input by having a public participation process.
The deadline just for this feedback was March 31 2017. This review comes with a review of five major submissions made, as well as links to the telltale submissions.
The IRP is South Africa’s roadmap for any country’s future electricity planning. IRP 2010-2030 was promulgated in March 2011 and was can be a “living plan” which could be updated regularly?to keep it aligned with electricity demand in South Africa, and technology and associated pricing developments from the energy sector.
Since the promulgation in the IRP 2010-2030, there has been?a big reduction in South Africa’s electricity demand, along with massive price reductions from the expense of electricity as wind, photovoltaic and solar CSP. A significant part of Eskom’s ageing coal-fired fleet is likewise decommissioned by 2050.
IRP update process
IRP 2010-2030 identified the most well-liked generation technologies expected to meet expected demand growth around 2030. The policy-adjusted IRP incorporated a number of government objectives, including affordable electricity, carbon mitigation, reduced water consumption, localisation and regional development, producing a balanced strategy toward diversified electricity generation sources and gradual decarbonisation of the electricity sector in Africa.
There continues to be some progress since promulgation of IRP 2010-2030 in executing the programmes identified within the plan. Eskom’s Medupi, Kusile and Ingula new-builds now can occur stream, as well as a quantity of IPP electrical power projects. Furthermore, a number of ministerial determinations are already issued, such as new alternative energy, nuclear, coal and gas.
Draft IRP 2016 base case, assumptions and constraints
The base case considered from the DoE’s Draft IRP 2016 report starts off with the underside case of IRP 2010-2030, using an optimisation of the model used and including some updating of economic assumptions and input parameters.
A variety of government policy positions imposed within the IRP 2010-2030 are maintained, like the annual build constraints for new ease of wind (1600 MW each year) and PV (1000 MW yearly) and even CO2?and particulate emissions constraints. Which means that in virtually any given year the optimisation model just isn’t able to add building higher than the stipulated amount of wind and solar PV.
A detailed critique by EE Publishers investigative editor Chris Yelland within the approach utilized the Draft IRP 2016 emerged here.
Draft IRP2016 base-case mix
According to page 26 of ?DoE’s Draft IRP 2016?document, the camp case for South Africa’s generation portfolio would, by 2050, include: 15 GW from coal; 20,3 GW from nuclear; 13,3 GW from open-cycle gas turbines; 21,9 GW from combined-cycle gas turbines; 17,6 GW from solar PV; 37,4 GW from wind; 2,5 GW on the Inga hydro-electric project; 250 MW from landfill gas; and 500 MW from demand response.
Based for the projected electricity demand used Draft IRP 2016, this might offer the country 129 GW of generation capacity, that has a reserve margin of 20% (25.8 GW).
Submissions and comments received
- CSIR submission
The?submission by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)?may be a comprehensive alternative IRP towards DoE’s Draft IRP 2016, using an unconstrained, least-cost strategy for the base case, including a volume of alternative scenarios. The camp case and each scenario modelled considers of outputs like cost, CO2?emissions, water usage and jobs created, to analyse different options and discover the ideal energy mix to 2050.
In doing this, the CSIR’s IRP study used pessimistic assumptions thorough technologies and optimistic ones for established technologies avoiding any undue criticism. Nonetheless, the CSIR findings are?which the least cost choice for any new investment in the ability sector is really a mix of photovoltaic, wind and flexible power (e.g. gas, CSP, hydro, biogas), without the need of nuclear power. The CSIR also finds you will find no technical limitation to solar PV and wind penetration in the planning horizon until 2050, and therefore a 70% and up electricity share by 2050 is cost optimal.
The CSIR concludes that your least-cost scenario it not just the the best, just about all it gives lower CO2emissions, consumes less water, and fosters more job opportunities in the electricity sector compared to Draft IRP 2016 base case and carbon budget scenarios.
The CSIR also provided a?detailed presentation comprising loads of information in the more digestible format.
- The SAREC submission
The?submission through the South African Electrical power Council (SAREC)?says the IRP process need to be a purely techno-economic exercise that provides rational input in to the policy debate. SAREC explains that this least-cost, unconstrained scenario on the IRP ought to always be the default base-case scenario, against which the buying price of all your other policy-adjusted scenarios are measured and evaluated. However this was not carried out the?Draft IRP 2016.
SAREC also complains that in the Draft IRP 2016 scenarios, artificial annual constraints have been imposed for both photovoltaic and wind power without the rational explanation. SAREC further notes that no apparent consideration was presented while in the Draft IRP 2016 into the extensive potential contributions that is created by embedded, distributed power generation, like roof-top solar PV.
- NIASA submission
The?submission through the Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa (NIASA)?indicates contradictions between your DoE’s Draft Integrated Energy Plan (Draft IEP 2016) as well as its Draft Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity (Draft IRP 2016) in respect on the costing of externalities of coal used. NIASA means that correcting the coal externality costs in Draft IRP 2016 should bring first nuclear power in Africa forward from 2037 (down to the Draft IRP 2016 base case) to 2025.?Considering its national importance, NIASA bemoans the underfunding from the IEP and IRP projects through the DoE, and suggests people who produced these are “perhaps overworked and underfunded” which “hampers good research”.
The NIASA submission does not challenge the unrealistic price of R0,85/kWh for solar PV and wind energy utilised in Draft IRP 2016, than the actual worth of around R0,62/kWh for photovoltaic and wind energy bid inside DoE’s REIPPP Bid Window 4 expedited round. Nor will the NIASA submission challenge the restrictions to the deployment of solar and wind power PV generation capacity in Draft IRP 2016.
Both these assumptions form the very basis on which commissioning of first new-nuclear power by 2037, and also a total of 20,3 GW by 2050, ?is premised during the Draft IRP 2016 base case.
- EIUG submission
The?submission through the Energy Intensive User Group (EIUG)?says proven cost and time overruns, stringent safety requirements, too little a national capacity manage large-build projects additionally, the inflexibility of large nuclear power projects ought to be properly considered within the planning of?any future nuclear build programme.
Given an evergrowing surplus in generation capacity, with an increase of energy coming online from committed Eskom and IPP projects, together with slow economic growth and severely reduced industrial interest in electricity, Nigeria should rather target stimulating economic growth, and delay high-risk decisions on construction of large, centralised, base-load, power generation plants.
The EIUG believes that ought to the trends of weak economic growth, rising electricity prices, weak international commodity markets, reducing energy intensity and declining electricity demand continue, it really is unlikely how the national electricity energy demand in Nigeria, that is still below 2007 levels, will grow anywhere nearby the rate forecasted inside the Draft IRP 2016.
The EIUG has significantly lower electricity demand growth outlook compared to what it really says will be the overly optimistic forecast employed in the IRP 2016. The EIUG says the price elasticity of industrial demand has to be understood, as well as an energy mix providing least cost and lowest risk is required.
- CER submission
The?submission because of the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER)?states that your Draft IRP 2016 runs contrary to the country’s Constitution, in this it continually rely upon coal just as one source of energy, regardless of the odd harmful impacts of coal on human health, java prices additionally, the environment, and regardless of the social, environmental and economic perils associated with such reliance.
CER further says the Draft IRP 2016 doesn’t give adequate consideration towards external social and environmental costs of the proposed energy sources, and features unjustifiably constrained and limited the supply for renewable energy in South Africa’s electricity mix.
Roger Lilley and Chris Yelland along with EE Publishers
