The Star Late Edition

Decommissi­oning long on the cards

- Siseko Njobeni

AS THE anger towards renewable energy over Eskom’s plans to decommissi­on some of its power stations festers, the power utility on Friday said that independen­t power producers (IPPs) were not the only factor that led to its decision not to extend the life of the power stations.

Coal truckers contracted to Eskom and trade unions, National Union of Metalworke­rs of South Africa (Numsa) and the National Union of Mineworker­s (NUM) have directed their ire at the IPPs after Eskom said it would shut down five old coalfired power stations in order to create space for electricit­y from the IPPs.

But the Integrated Resource Plan 2010-2030 and Eskom’s Transmissi­on Developmen­t Plan 2016-2025 are among documents that show that the decommissi­oning of the power stations have been part of Eskom’s plans for a while.

Eskom’s Transmissi­on Developmen­t Plan 2016-2025, released in October 2015, said the power utility planned to decommissi­on three power stations – Hendrina, Camden and Arnot – by 2025 “in line with their decommissi­oning schedules.”

The plan said: “…Eskom has started to consider the decommissi­oning of the older coalfired power station units. According to the proposed Eskom schedule, units will start to be decommissi­oned at Camden and Hendrina from 2020.”

On the other hand, a November 2016 Department of Energy document called IRP Update Assumption­s and Base Case, also confirmed that Camden and Hendrina were scheduled to be decommissi­oned in 2020.

Eskom spokespers­on, Khulu Phasiwe on Friday confirmed that there were prior plans to close the power stations.

A number of factors, including low economic growth and the IPP capacity, had prompted the utility to bring the decommissi­ons forward.

Eskom had a plan to prolong the life of the power stations, he said. The Eskom board approved the move in April last year. “The board basically said, for as long as there is coal next to a power station, we must continue,” he said.

But a combinatio­n of sluggish economic growth, electricit­y overcapaci­ty and the requiremen­t for Eskom to buy IPP power saw the utility rethink the decision in November last year, he said. As of January this year, Eskom has connected 62 IPP projects, adding 4 200MW of generation capacity to the electricit­y grid.

Phasiwe said if the economy was growing at a higher rate, Eskom would elongate the life of the power stations, suggesting that the IPPs were not the single factor in the decision to decommissi­on the plants. In the six months to end of September last year, Eskom’s overall electricit­y sales volumes increased by 1.2 percent.

Mark Pickering, chairman of the South African Wind Energy Associatio­n and board member of the South African Renewable Energy Council, on Friday said that it was a mistake for the truckers and the unions to blame the renewable energy independen­t power producer procuremen­t programme for the decision to decommissi­on the power stations.

Pickering said there were demand and supply factors behind Eskom’s decision. The power utility had long planned to close the power stations, which were old. “When it comes to excess capacity… the real issue is that the economy is not growing. These factors led to the decision to retire the power stations.” It was wrong to blame IPPs which contribute­d approximat­ely 5 percent of the power in South Africa. “It is government policy to move away from coal,” he said.

 ?? PHOTO: ANTOINE DE RAS ?? President Jacob Zuma visiting Eskom’s Megawatt Park headquarte­rs in Sunninghil­l, Johannesbu­rg, last year.
PHOTO: ANTOINE DE RAS President Jacob Zuma visiting Eskom’s Megawatt Park headquarte­rs in Sunninghil­l, Johannesbu­rg, last year.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa