South Africa’s Controversial Roadmap to Electricity Stability: An Analysis of Failings and Oversights in the New Energy Plan

The South African government’s ongoing battle with electricity shortages reached a pivotal moment with the release of a new draft Integrated Resource Plan by Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe in the first week of 2024. South Africa’s debilitating energy crisis, mainly due to ageing coal power plants' persistent breakdowns, requires a bold and effective strategy to diversify and strengthen its power generation capabilities. However, the plan has been received with stern criticism from experts, including Hartmut Winkler, a Professor of Physics at the University of Johannesburg, who expresses concerns over the proposal’s economic feasibility and environmental impact.

The draft plan boldly states the construction of 6,000MW of new gas-fired power stations by 2030 as one of the government’s targets. But this approach, aside from the environmental regrets of desiring increased fossil fuel dependency, is flawed due to South Africa’s requirement to import gas, consequently exposing the nation to the whims of volatile international gas markets.

An area drawing severe scrutiny is the plan’s costings, which appear largely mismatched when contrasted with figures from Lazard’s Levelized Costs of Energy report. Instead of recognizing wind and photovoltaic solar power complemented by battery storage as the most cost-effective combination, the government’s plan erroneously propositions that scenarios revolving around gas are more economical. Lazard’s widely acclaimed cost per megawatt-hour analyses significantly differ from the calculations presumed to be used in South Africa’s draft plan, pointing to substantial errors or miscalculations that must be addressed.

The proposed scenarios within the draft plan are contentious and reveal several questionable assumptions:

- The ‘Reference Case’ suggests an equal dependency on gas and renewables such as wind and solar power, incorrectly touted as the most efficient financial option.

- The ‘Renewable Energy’ scenario oddly downplays photovoltaic solar power investment in favor of the more costly concentrated solar power.

- In the ‘Renewable Plus Nuclear’ scenario, the plan replaces renewable energy provisions with 15,000MW of new nuclear builds—an unexplained substitute given the current global trends in energy.

- The ‘Delayed Shutdown’ scenario prolongs the lifespan of the nation's coal plants past their projected decommissioning, disregarding environmental and financial ramifications.

- A 'Renewable Plus Coal' model supplements concentrated solar power or nuclear provisions with new gas and coal plants, another step back in sustainable energy progression.

The absence of a scenario prioritizing photovoltaic technology with substantial storage capabilities—a likely cost-effective strategy—is a notable exclusion from the government’s draft. The conspicuous discrepancy between the South African government’s approach and the Lazard's report figures presents credible doubts on whether the current roadmap can guide the nation to a reliable and economically stable energy future.

For the energy plan to reflect authentic solutions, it is vital that the South African government establish transparency regarding cost calculations and rationalize their technological choices. Energy security is paramount for the nation's economic and environmental well-being, and as such, the plan's development requires unrelenting scrutiny and revision to align with realistic, sustainable, and financially responsible practices.