Civil society blows fuse at new energy plan
THE draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) base case scenario introduced by the Department of Energy this week has been described as nothing more than renewed attempts by the department and Eskom to “promote vested interests in nuclear and coal”.
This is the verdict of the Life After Coal Campaign (Centre for Environmental Rights, Earthlife Africa and groundWork) Greenpeace Africa, 350Africa.org, SA Women’s Agricultural Union and Bishop Geoff Davies, the patron of the SA Faith Communities Environment Institute.
“The long-awaited IRP 2016 is a rigged model that forces nuclear energy into the mix, even though it is clearly not cost competitive. The base case proposes a ridiculous scenario for 20GW of nuclear and 15GW of new coal by 2050.
“Nuclear and coal power should not appear in the base case at all if it is modelled purely for cost optimisation,” the organisations said yesterday. “Any deviations from the base case should be included as policy interventions under the scenarios that are still to be presented and must be clearly articulated in detail.”
The Campaign objects to the inclusion of any new coal or nuclear generation into South Africa’s future energy mix, given the significant health, environment, climate change and cost implications. “With South Africa’s world-leading potential for renewable energy sources, there is no place for risky and costly investments in coal and nuclear in our energy mix. It’s clear that both new coal and nuclear would significantly constrain the real potential growth in renewables: renewable energy potential would not be fully realised… With some of the best wind and solar resources in the world, it is sheer common sense to follow the renewable energy route.”
The government refuses to “see the light”, they say. “As shown by the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research’s Dr Tobias Bischof-Niemz, the cost assumptions for solar and wind energy used in the IRP base case are incorrect and are not based on the latest actual tariff information.
Dr Bischof-Niemz’s calculations show the cost for solar PV in the IRP is roughly 80 percent too high, and for wind it’s 55 percent too high, thus creating the perception that the economic case for nuclear is much more attractive than it actually is. The IRP makes no mention of which technology types will create jobs. There is enormous job creation potential in renewable energy.
“The previous IRP update was abandoned because it showed no immediate need for nuclear power and the Department of Energy seems to have done everything in its power to make sure nuclear is supported in the current IRP base case, to the extent of misrepresenting costs. Civil society calls on the Department of Energy.”
In December, the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environmental Institute (Safcei) and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg will oppose the government’s “unconstitutional” approach to energy planning in court. Safcei spokesperson Liz McDaid says the most urgent matter is the government’s proposed time-frame and plans for public input.
“The department proposes to hold consultative workshops in major cities over a short seven days (December 7 to 15), in which time they would be expected to review the plan and all related information. This move clearly demonstrates the government’s attempt to deliberately limit public input.”