Draft IRP 2024 is an ‘admission of failure’

The long-awaited updated Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that was published by government last week has already drawn sharp criticism from energy policy and investment specialist and advisor Professor Anton Eberhard, who calls it a “Neanderthal plan”.

The IRP is a long-term plan that sets out the country’s required energy mix to ensure future energy security. It must balance different priorities like grid stability, cost and environmental obligations, including emission standards, taking into consideration technological developments and market changes.

The current IRP was already outdated upon publication in 2019. One of the assumptions it was based on was a 75% availability factor for Eskom’s generation fleet. In reality this has been declining year after year and ended 2023 at an average of 54.72%.

Other new information that was considered in the new draft includes:

• The delayed shutdown of several Eskom’s coal-fired power stations;
• Challenges with the completion and operation of the Medupi and Kusile power stations;
• The planned 20-year life-extension of the Koeberg nuclear power station;
• The looming deadline for Eskom to comply with emission standards;
• The timing of getting new generation capacity online; and
• Limited capacity of the transmission grid.

The new draft IRP looks at two time horizons, namely up to 2030 and the period thereafter up to 2050.

Horizon 2030

Several scenarios were developed and for Horizon 2030 the following plan emerged:

The new coal-fired generation to be introduced in 2024 and 2025 refers to the two units at Kusile that are not yet in commercial operation.

From 2027 the plan relies heavily on improved plant performance by Eskom as well as 6 000MW of new generation from gas – half public and half private – that has not yet been procured, to balance increased public and private sector renewable generation.

In addition, it requires delaying the shutdown of coal-fired power stations “where technically and commercially feasible” and expansion of the transmission grid.

Risks to the execution of the plan identified in the document include the possible loss of 1 800MW of dispatchable generation capacity, should the life extension of Koeberg go south, and the loss of a further 16 000MW of capacity immediately and 30 000MW in 2025 if “challenges” around compliance with emission standards are not resolved.

In a posting on the social media platform X Eberhard points out that the new draft IRP 2024 admits much “unserved energy” for at least the next four years.

“It advocates delaying the closure of old coal power stations, working around minimum emission standards and provides dodgy conclusions on least-cost power system without detailing its input assumptions.”

He says it is an admission of failure around eliminating load shedding and fails to fulfil its declared purpose of ensuring energy security while minimising environmental impacts and the cost of supply.

Horizon 2050

For the 2050 horizon five different energy mixes were explored.

The least-cost option consists of solar PV, wind and gas generation, but is stated to be inadequate from a security of supply point of view.

Initially it shows a significant reduction in carbon emissions as the coal-fired power stations shut down, but from 2042 this increases due to high gas utilisation. This pathway is used as the reference case.

The second and third pathways explore only green energy with battery storage and green energy plus gas to fill the gap until the earliest date nuclear becomes available.

The document states that these two pathways have the least carbon emissions but the least energy security.

The renewable energy pathway is stated to have the highest cost.

The fourth pathway is based on delaying the shutdown of about 15 000MW of coal-fired power stations by 10 years. That means low new-build cost and will “adequately maintain security of supply,” but carbon emissions will be around the same level as anticipated in 2026.

The fifth pathway provides for clean coal technologies, capping new coal at 6 000MW. It has the second least new-build cost and low emissions.

Shortcomings

Eberhard describes the IRP 2024 as “a stitch-up, with pre-determined outcomes in line with what the energy minister has been advocating – wishful thinking around improvements in Eskom power station performance, delays in coal decommissioning, “clean” coal, nuclear energy and lots and lots of gas.

“Yet South Africa’s [Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy Gwede] Mantashe has failed to make progress in any of these areas in the four-and-a-half years he’s been energy minister.

“The only thing he has actually achieved is a slow-down in renewable energy investments: a measly 150MW from projects he’s procured have actually connected to the grid.”

Eberhard says: “One of the disastrous consequences of this IRP is that there will be no acceleration in publicly procured renewable energy or enabling regulatory reforms, and South Africa will get nowhere close to the R1.2 trillion investment it needs in 60GW of new capacity and grid expansion.”

He says stakeholders will expose the inadequacies in the document.

“They will demand more techno-economic rigour, call for more transparency in cost assumptions and point to the cost to our economy of embarking on this neanderthal plan.”

The public has until 23 February to submit written comments.