To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 11.1.0 or greater is installed.
POLICY & REGULATION
South Africa’s IRP planning
loses its lustre
When South Africa launched its first integrated resource plan (IRP) in 2010
it was greeted with a good level of enthusiasm in many parts of
the power sector; its successor in 2013 less so.
T here are a number of reasons
for this. Certain sectors are
seen to be losers in the updated
draft IRP of 2013, such as wind, which
has had its allocations reduced in face
of complaints from opponents of this
technology, and more significantly the
increasing price competitiveness of solar
photovoltaic technology. Many of the
power generation technology options
have seen their scale reduced, including
the potential nuclear build programme,
based on projections of lower electricity
demand over the 20 year IRP period.
The pricing assumptions made by the
IRP draft update for nuclear energy have
been labelled as flawed.
Other reasons for a lack of
enthusiasm include real concerns
over the underestimation by the
update of future electricity demand
based on current usage figures and
developed world trends towards private
distributed power. There are fears this
fails to take into account the shortage
of power in sub-Saharan Africa and
existing supressed demand in South
Africa, as well as the desired future
industrialisation of the country and
region. The IRP update also focuses on a
list of technology choices and generation
options, but pays less attention to equally
important transmission and distribution
system requirements. Another major
problem with the IRP process in general
is that instead of being a modelling and
planning tool it has become prescriptive
and is being used to enforce state
control, as had been feared and warned
against, and the attempts to cover
different scenarios fail to hide that.
However, perhaps the overarching
reason the latest IRP update fails to
draw much enthusiasm is summed up
by the refreshingly outspoken chairman
of the South African Independent Power
Producers Association (Sappia), Doug
Kuni. “Does the IRP reflect reality?”
he asks, implying he believes that is
ESI AFRICA ISSUE 1 2014
anything but the case. Kuni worked on
the first IRP in 2009, and half a decade
later the country faces a similar scenario
to what it did then. It is a scenario of
power emergency notices by Eskom to
cut usage, as the utility struggles with a
fragile system, open cycle gas turbines
running well beyond just emergency
peaking demand, and the lights being
kept on barely but at the economy’s
expense. Kuni points to the assumption that
Medupi and Kusile are accepted as will
happen. As he is a former generation
manager at Eskom Generation, it is worth
noting what he says. He points out that
the first unit of Medupi was supposed to
be commissioned in June 2011, though
he said if it made June 2013 it would be
lucky. “The moment Eskom appointed
itself as project manager was a fatal
move. The 9,600 MW of Medupi and
Kusile will be a fifth of the country’s total
capacity, but we have been waiting for
new capacity since 2008.”
Kuni, who has executed a number
of power generation projects, says in
reference to Medupi that one cannot
start commissioning a unit until the
boiler protection system is in place and
working, and Siemens recently replaced
Alstom at Medupi in providing the boiler
protection system. He says Siemens will
mitigate risk on all interfaces before it
gives a date to say when the system will
be working and ready. “So when will the
first Medupi unit be commissioned? No
one knows. Construction sites are difficult
places. Cables get stolen from running
units let alone on such sites. When you
press the buttons to commission the
plant, only then will you find out what is
missing. It is unrealistic to see Medupi
and Kusile being promised by plans that
give certain dates. It suggests those
who are putting together such plans are
doing so on a wing and a prayer. The
risks associated with commissioning this
unit and having it at commercial load are
large.” Sappia chairman Doug Kuni (right) together with Eustace Davie who heads the energy policy unit of
the Free Market Foundation.
45