Public hearings into the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) kicked off in Parliament last week, with several organisations voicing their concerns about the plan’s provision for new coal-fired power stations.
Attorney Robyn Hugo, of the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), told Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Energy that introducing new coal-fired power stations would be “unlawful, irrational and in conflict with the Constitution”.
CER lawyers concede that the draft IRP released for comment on August 27 is a “substantial improvement” on the IRP 2010 and the 2016 draft, but are unhappy about the inclusion of 1 000 MW of new capacity from the proposed independent power producer coal-fired power stations, Thabametsi and Khanyisa.
“This is despite the draft IRP’s own acknowledgement that a least-cost IRP would not include any new coal capacity and Energy Minister Jeff Radebe’s admission that forcing these two coal plants into the IRP would cost South Africa an additional R23-billion.”
The CER says the two plants would pose a major threat to the environment.
“Burning coal for electricity has a devastating impact [on the] climate, human health and the environment. Thabametsi and Khanyisa would be two of the most greenhouse-gas- (GHG-) emissions- intensive plants in the world and would have unacceptable impacts for South Africa’s water resources, air quality and climate at a time when the International Panel on Climate Change has, . . . issued its most dire warnings yet about the severe consequences of climate change for South Africa,” the CER warns.
Hugo argued that the coal projects would also “cause significant economic and financial harm” to Eskom, the National Treasury, municipalities and electricity consumers, as they were likely to result in electricity prices rising.
“South Africa does not need additional electricity capacity. Far from being good for our economy, it will cost R20-billion. There’s simply no benefit that justifies this harmful impact. Coal is far outpaced [in terms of] costs and efficiency by renewable sources, as well as gas.”
The CER says the draft IRP also places an “arbitrary and unreasonable” annual constraint on renewable-energy capacity up to 2030. It argues that coal power generation requires enormous volumes of water and pollutes South Africa’s scarce water resources.
The CER also says renewable-energy sources, such as wind and solar, would provide more jobs than the coal industry.
Meanwhile, Greenpeace South Africa’s Happy Khambule said the organisation was against coal for several reasons.
“Allowing the new coal-fired power plants to go ahead and to continue with the construction of units 5 and 6 of Kusile will be disastrous for water resources, air quality, health, land and the climate.
Including new coal in the IRP is irresponsible and puts future generations at risk. Not only should the IRP remove the 1 000 MW of new coal but it should also remove Kusile units 5 and 6, which Eskom does not have the money to complete and which will become stranded assets.”