Mail & Guardian

‘Powerships no solution to energy crisis’

The floating power plants that use liquified gas to generate electricit­y are not needed in SA and will prove more costly than solar and wind generation, according to environmen­tal activists

- Sheree Bega Environmen­t

The department of forestry, fisheries and the environmen­t failed to consider that the powership fleet is “vital” for alleviatin­g South Africa’s energy crisis and is “therefore a national priority”, said Karpowersh­ip SA in its internal appeal to the department.

In June, the department refused to grant environmen­tal authorisat­ion for the powerships for, among other reasons, failing to meet the minimum public participat­ion requiremen­ts under the country’s environmen­tal legislatio­n.

In its response to Karpowersh­ip’s appeal, groundwork, an environmen­tal justice nonprofit, said the success of the firm’s applicatio­n cannot solely rely on energy risk mitigation. “It is still a relevant factor that there are alternativ­e cheaper, cleaner and less harmful ways to generate the electricit­y, which could also develop and grow the country’s economy.”

Karpowersh­ip, part of Turkey’s Karadeniz Energy Group, is an electricit­y exporter that runs a floating power plant fleet. It proposed to use liquified natural gas to produce 1 220 megawatts under South Africa’s 1 845MW emergency power programme. The price tag is an estimated R10.9-billion annually. Its fleet of powerships are to be moored at Richards Bay, Ngqura and Saldanha Bay. The contract, if approved, will lock South Africa into a 20-year deal.

The department found that the company’s environmen­tal consultant­s, Triplo4 Sustainabl­e Solutions,

did not conduct adequate studies on the effect of underwater noise created by its floating gas-fired plants, which could harm marine life, including African penguins, endangered dolphins, whales and turtles, and imperil small-scale fishers.

In its appeal, Karpowersh­ip SA said its public participat­ion process met the minimum requiremen­ts for public participat­ion, while its environmen­tal assessment­s were “comprehens­ive”, encompassi­ng a terrestria­l and marine component. “Where no national studies could be conducted, because such technology simply does not currently exist in South Africa, internatio­nal studies were conducted.”

The site assessment of marine noise is an “impossibil­ity”... “since there is no establishe­d precedent in South Africa and no powership is yet permitted to moor”.

In March, Karpowersh­ip was chosen as a preferred bidder under the department of mineral resources and energy’s emergency procuremen­t programme to provide 1220MW of electricit­y. It missed financial close at the end of July and the deadline has now been extended to 30 September for preferred bidders.

groundwork said the project is not needed or desired from an energy security and socioecono­mic perspectiv­e. “Its anticipate­d harms — for climate, biodiversi­ty and socioecono­mic considerat­ions — far outweigh any alleged benefits, particular­ly in light of the feasibilit­y of less harmful alternativ­es to meet the country’s electricit­y needs. Due to the unknown noise impacts on fish and local fishermen, the department should take the precaution­ary and risk averse approach and uphold the decision to refuse the environmen­tal authorisat­ion.”

The nonprofit said experts have said that sound modelling is possible “and should have been conducted in this instance, to ensure a better understand­ing of the potential sound impacts”.

Socioecono­mic and procuremen­t considerat­ions under the Risk Mitigation Independen­t Power Producer Procuremen­t Programme “do not, and cannot override the considerat­ions on need and desirabili­ty as prescribed under the environmen­tal impact assessment [EIA] regulation­s”, said groundwork. “Despite these constituti­onal, Nema [National Environmen­tal Management Act] and EIA regulation obligation­s, Karpowersh­ip takes the position that because there was a procuremen­t process through which it was appointed a successful bidder, and because there may be positive implicatio­ns for energy security, this should serve

as incontrove­rtible evidence of a need for this project, which overrides other considerat­ions on need and desirabili­ty, and on this basis it justifies the project going ahead.”

groundwork cited studies by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and Meridian Economics, showing that a leastcost scenario for the energy sector involves rapidly building wind and solar generation in the near term.

Further analysis by the Rocky Mountain Institute in July, filed with groundwork­s’ submission, had evaluated the scope and credibilit­y of the CSIR and Meridian reports, similarly concluding that the Karpowersh­ip projects are neither timely nor economical­ly optimal in the next decade.

According to the institute’s report, if commission­ed by 2022, the Karpowersh­ips would come online a decade prior to the planned need for any type of new high use energy capacity and will thus “represent an unneeded and uneconomic addition to [South Africa’s] electricit­y system for over half of their operationa­l life”.

The report found that the country would be better served by focusing on investment in infrastruc­ture to “enable a 21st century electricit­y system”, which Meridian’s findings and global trends show to be “largely renewable”.

The institute’s report indicates that as renewable energy prices continue to decrease, gas capacity will become increasing­ly costly in comparison. The report found that Karpowersh­ips do not best serve South Africa’s needs because of the financial risk presented by the high costs of gas plants designed for short-term emergency use being locked in for a 20-year period under the power purchase agreement, where excessive costs may be passed on to ratepayers and become a financial burden for Eskom.

The report emphasises that investing in the proposed Karpowersh­ips will be more expensive for electricit­y customers than investing in new wind and solar, and is not required for reliable electricit­y generation.

In response to the report, the company said: “Karpowersh­ip SA entered this process on the same terms as all other bidders and look forward to providing long-term, reliable and cost-effective electricit­y that supports the South African economy and eases the current load shedding crisis.

“The process was highly regulated, transparen­t, equitable and Karpowersh­ip SA’S bid complied fully with all requiremen­ts. The company committed to using local suppliers and supply chains to support its projects that will kickstart new marine and energy industries in South Africa.”

 ?? Photo: Karpowersh­ip ?? Bad idea: South Africa’s environmen­t department has refused to grant environmen­tal authorisat­ion for Karpowersh­ips to operate, but the company is appealing the decision.
Photo: Karpowersh­ip Bad idea: South Africa’s environmen­t department has refused to grant environmen­tal authorisat­ion for Karpowersh­ips to operate, but the company is appealing the decision.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa