You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App

NEW SENS search and JSE share prices

More about the app

CSIR’s outlook for South Africa’s future electricity mix

CSIR presents a re-optimised, least-cost mix for new electricity generation capacity technologies to 2040.

In the absence of an update to the outdated national Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity, IRP2010-2030, the CSIR Energy Centre has presented its own study to re-optimise the South African power capacity and energy mix from 2016 to 2040.

The CSIR study by Dr. Tobias Bischof-Niemz, Jarrad Wright, Joanne Calitz and Crescent Mushwana was presented at the Windaba 2016 conference in Cape Town on 3 November 2016.

The capacity and energy mix re-optimisation by the CSIR takes into account the considerably lower electricity demand forecast for the years ahead, the significantly reduced cost of electricity from solar photo-voltaic (PV) and wind capacity, and South Africa’s international commitments to constrain CO2 emissions following the country’s “peak-plateau-decline” objectives.

Following a similar modeling exercise, and using the same software platform as that used by the Department of Energy and Eskom planners to prepare the IRP, the CSIR study in effect does what the long-awaited 2016 IRP Update should have done ages ago.

As such, the CSIR presents what it calculates to be the re-optimised, least-cost mix for new electricity generation capacity technologies for the years ahead to 2040, taking into account and updating all the necessary economic, electricity demand, technology cost and other assumptions.

Fig 1: Energy mix for “Business as Usual” vs. “Re-optimised” scenario from 2016 to 2040

energy-1

Source: CSIR

On 15 September 2016, at the second meeting of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Energy (MACE) since it was first conceived in June 2014, Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson presented the 2016 Draft IRP Update report to her advisory forum of energy experts and stakeholders.

The minister sought MACE’s endorsement of the draft before its submission to the cabinet, after which the minister indicated that it would be made available publicly for wider input and comment through a public promulgation process.

However, instead of simply endorsing the 2016 Draft IRP Update, the advisory body established a subcommittee comprising Prof. Anton Eberhard, Dr. Tobias Bischof-Niemz, Prof. Johan van Dyk and Mr. Mike Levington to analyse it fully, and to report back to MACE and the minister with its recommendations. In the meantime, submission of the 2016 Draft IRP Update to cabinet and the public was delayed.

It is understood that the final recommendations of the MACE subcommittee were presented to MACE earlier this week.  

In addition to updating the economic, electricity demand, technology cost and other assumptions, the CSIR study has removed the artificial capacity delivery constraints of approximately 1000 MW per annum for solar PV, and 1600 MW per annum for wind that had been applied in IRP2010-2030 and the 2013 Draft IRP Update (which was never accepted by the cabinet), as well as the wind and solar PV restraints that exist in the 2016 Draft IRP Update.

Fig. 2: Capacity mix for “Business as Usual” vs. “Re-optimised” scenario from 2016 to 2040

energy-2

Source: CSIR

The CSIR study shows that without these artificial and arbitrary annual constraints on the delivery of new solar PV and wind capacity, together with the reduced electricity demand forecast and the reduced wind and solar PV costs, the need for new coal and new nuclear power is completely removed from the re-optimised, least-cost mix for the years ahead to 2040.

At the same time, the increased role of PV, wind and gas in place of new coal and nuclear power in the re-optimised, least-cost mix, and the declining role of coal as Eskom’s old, coal-fired generation plant is retired, results in CO2 emissions that are some 60% lower than that of the “business as usual” scenario based on the 2016 Draft IRP Update assumptions.

Similarly, the avoidance of new coal power in the re-optimised, least-cost mix, and the declining role of coal as Eskom’s old, coal-fired generation plant is retired, results in a water usage some 60% lower than that of the “business as usual” scenario, with a saving of 40-billion litres of water per annum by 2040.

Fig. 3: CO2 emissions and water use for “Business as Usual” vs. “Re-optimised” scenario from 2016 to 2040

energy-3

Source: CSIR

But most importantly, the CSIR study shows that the re-optimised, least-cost mix for new generation capacity in South Africa between 2016 and 2040, with its emphasis on new solar, PV and gas, while avoiding new coal and new nuclear, would save some R330-billion over this period, rising to R87-billion per annum by 2040.

This would translate into a price of electricity some 18% lower per kWh if South Africa followed the re-optimised, least-cost mix proposed by the CSIR, as compared to that of the “Business as Usual” scenario based on the 2016 Draft IRP Update assumptions.

Fig. 4: Costs for “Business as Usual” vs. “Re-optimised” scenario from 2016 to 2040

energy4

Source: CSIR

Dr. Tobias Bischof-Niemz concluded by saying that solar PV, wind and natural gas now provide the cheapest new-build mix for the South African power system, and that a cost-optimal expansion should aim for a 70% renewable energy share of mix by 2040. He further argued that the building of the re-optimised capacities in the years to 2040 would provide a steady anchor off-take for a South African solar PV and wind manufacturing industry.

“Avoiding CO2 emissions and least-cost is not a trade-off anymore – South Africa can de-carbonise its electricity sector at negative carbon-avoidance cost”, said Dr. Tobias-Niemz.

Chris Yelland CEng, investigative editor, EE Publishers

VIDEOS

COMMENTS   9

Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in and an Insider Gold subscriber to comment.

SUBSCRIBE NOW SIGN IN

Congratulations to the CSIR. This is the path of scientific and economic rationality that SA needs to acknowledge and embrace.

Now the big question is whether the politicians – who have probably already started lining their pockets from the irrational decision to go with the Russian nuclear “solution” – can be cajoled to do the right thing.

Normal intelligent people consider the facts, and from that they build a sound strategy. ANC politicians and cronies work the other way around. The Guptas decide what the outcome should be and then they manufacture the “facts” to support their agenda.

The future energy mix is a tug-of-war between state-capture, represented by the Guptas, and sound governance and science represented by Dr. Tobias Bischof-Niemz. Let’s hope that logic and ethics destroys the Guptas.

Yes, Sensei, unfortunately this is true – unless there are equally significant kickbacks on wind/solar as they are probably getting from the Russians on nuclear and from the Guptas on coal/nuclear this is unlikely to be accepted by the government.

PLEASE this report must have a far wider exposure. There is no need to impoverish and poison ourselves with coal and nuclear solutions. Hopefully Brian Molefe and his crowd will soon be forced out of Eskom and replaced with more sensible people.

You got it right Lynne – did you hear Molefe’s response to a question on alternate energy yesterday? He said he doesn’t know if it would be better because at 7 pm when the controllers need more power then the sun doesn’t shine and the wind might not blow. Now that’s a truly informed opinion. And from the guy that is reputedly, single handedly nogal, meant to have turned Eskom around (what a joke)!!!

The re-optimised scenario keeps hydro (and pumped storage) at the same level for the next 25 years.

Surely there would have to be massive investment in pumped storage to act as storage for the renewable power sources? – other storage technologies will probably not become more efficient than pumped storage in the next 25 years.

I’m assuming this was a study to compare generation costs, it would be useful to see something similar that takes into account all of the variables that would be required to deliver on the projections (e.g. additional storage and changes to the power grid).

Now here’s a report that Molefe doesn’t need to cry about because it’s Gupta and nuclear free. Any report written by Chris Yelland has credibility, is backed by verified facts and flies in the face of Eskom’s so-called facts about nuclear being necessary.Eskom should only be allowed to distribute power – not generate it.

Who generates power should not be the part that distributes it. Consider the many state-owned companies around the World.

Problem with Csir findings is there is not enough GRRRAAAAVVVY for the cabal.

End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR
BTC / USD

Podcasts

INSIDER SUBSCRIPTION APP VIDEOS RADIO / LISTEN LIVE SHOP OFFERS WEBINARS NEWSLETTERS TRENDING

Follow us:

Search Articles:
Click a Company: