There has been a bit of comment in the media about the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) of the Department of Energy. The plan that is currently used as the planning base is the IRP 2010.
Comment now is that the plan needs updating. That, of course, is quite correct. Any plan needs updates from time to time. But there is one aspect that is seriously wrong with calls to update the IRP 2010 – there are people who imagine that the updated plan will come to very different conclusions to those of the 2010 plan. That, of course, is baseless, and it would be scary if different conclusions were arrived at.
The IRP 2010 and, for that matter, any IRP, should be a serious long-term plan. It should be a document that is drawn up from serious study, and not from someone’s personal whims.
So, what does this mean? Well, it means that any IRP should not change much as time goes by. Think about it. Let me use an analogy for a moment. Imagine that we want to create a housing development plan entailing the building of 100 000 houses over the next ten years. We start out by saying that houses will be built in Tzaneen, Richards Bay and Saldanha Bay. The idea will be that this initiative will support the citrus farming industry in Tzaneen, the expansion of port operations in Richards Bay and the expansion of Atlantic fishing in Saldanha. The builders then start working.
Imagine then that five years pass and the plan is updated. Imagine that the update says: “Let us scrap Tzaneen entirely and move to Stellenbosch to support the wine industry, and let us shift the Saldanha plans to Port Elizabeth.” The immediate reaction should be: “How on earth did the people, five years ago, get a long-range plan so wrong that such drastic changes have to be made?” Imagine the expense of stopping building in Tzaneen and reappointing new contractors in Stellenbosch.
If that were to happen, it would mean that there had been something horribly wrong with the long-term forward planning of five years before. So, obviously, such drastic changes should not happen. An update of the building plan should, for example, be that the Tzaneen houses should now be connected to the water supply from the south and from the north as well because the northern water development has progressed faster than was anticipated five years ago.
Now, back to the energy – nobody should expect the IRP 2010 to change much if the people who put it together in 2010 did their job properly. Certainly, some business- environment changes have taken place, and these can require some tweaking, and ‘reshaping’ of the edges of the plan may also be necessary. But, certainly, the plan should not change, as in shifting from Tzaneen to Stellenbosch.
Some people are making noises in public that they want to see nuclear power dumped in the new, refined IRP and that they want to see vast quantities of imported gas incorporated. Interestingly, none of the gas enthusiasts say where the gas will come from or how it will get to South Africa. Some do some hand waving about gas from Mozambique, but when I ask: “How do you get it to Cape Town and Port Elizabeth?” they go all blank. I have asked if they intend to lay a pipeline from Mozambique to Cape Town or bring the gas in by ship.
Judging from the looks I get, the gas enthusiasts have never given a moment’s thought to how this magical gas will appear. They have not even asked if Mozambique can, or will, supply it. When asked how much reserve gas would be stored in Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, they go 100% blank. Do not even try to ask where these giant gas tanks will be located or how they will be constructed and protected.
So, one should not expect the IRP 2010, which is the result of a lot hard work, to alter drastically on the basis of the whims of some.