South Africa, like many other developed countries, has invested more than expected in the deployment of renewable energy and the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers’ (REIPPs) programme. To date, more than 7786 MW of REIPPs have been procured since 2011, from the emergency power programme and REIPPs bid window 1 to 6, on long-term state-guaranteed tenders commitment through Eskom.
And more windows of REIPPs and emergency power procurement projects have been contracted to assist Eskom in adding further megawatts to the grid. So anyone complaining that South Africa is doing nothing and should do more to procure additional renewable energy into the national grid is misleading the public.
The threshold of additional renewable capacity to the grid has long been met, and the target exceeded according to the planned IRP19 rollout plan forecast. In terms of the IRP19 and the current stage of the plan, South Africa has already achieved the target for renewable energy procurement and deployment into the national grid.
And that has come at the cost of diverting much-needed resources from maintenance and fixing existing Eskom's coal fleet power stations. Eskom's National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) allocated revenues have to be split into funding and subsidising the procurement of renewable energy contracts, and part of the revenues split into funding operations, maintenance and fixing of Eskom's own fleet of coal and baseload power stations.
The real question that should be asked is whether the deployment of renewable energy improved the grid or disadvantaged Eskom's priority plans, such as maintenance and refurbishment of power plants?Unfortunately, the stress that was placed on Eskom diverting its revenues into supporting the procurement of renewable energy has cost Eskom dearly in its budgeting and power plants fleet maintenance plan.
Eskom gets allocated a recoverable revenue levy by Nersa annually, and that recoverable revenue allocation is then split into all forms of day-to-day operations of Eskom as a whole. Every item list is listed when Eskom applies to Nersa for revenue recovery on the tariff rate. And based on that plan, Eskom is allowed by Nersa to draw and charge a particular revenue to recover its costs to operate as an entity.
During the Black Business Council's Summit, the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, Gwede Mantashe, accurately pointed out that South Africa rushed when it implemented its migration plan to move away from coal and transition towards renewable energy.
A great deal of stress was placed on power station managers in Eskom to reduce output by shutting down power station units, and, in some cases, where plant units broke down, they were not allocated necessary budgeting resources to fix and do proper required ongoing maintenance and support work on plant units.
This, in turn, caused the current high levels of load shedding we are experiencing. This was a great time of stress placed on power station managers who were just given instructions to do nothing about power station units that were busy breaking down at alarming rates.
There were no budgets allocated, and when station managers requested support from Head Office executives before and during André de Ruyter’s leadership era to release budgets, no support came forth, and as such, caused the unforeseen level of load shedding, and the power cuts we are experiencing are as a result of power station units shutting down randomly.
The power stations were also forced to shut down under the minimum emissions standards laws and regulations simply because units failed to meet the minimum allowed emissions standards imposed by the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DFFE) regulations.
The Minimum Emissions Standards (MES) law and regulations were introduced by the DFFE to limit the sulphur oxide (SO2) emission from coal power plants and large industries.
The DFFE has since made stringent amendments to coal fired power stations. The stringent MES for SO2 has been in effect since 2018, imposed by the Department. One would ask, why would South Africa impose such stringent regulation upon itself to extend where it threatens the energy security of the country?
The answer is in the agreement that South Africa willingly signed at the Paris Climate Accord. South Africa's MES were introduced in 2010 with leniency of emissions, and in 2015, more sets of standards were introduced, and by 2020, more stringent emissions standards were introduced to regulate the industry. This is what caused these high levels of load shedding and power cuts.
If South Africa wants to migrate from coal to cleaner energy options, it should opt for a nuclear energy route to replace coal as a baseload. Imported gas is expensive, and so nuclear power is the only viable baseload option that can fill the place of coal power if the country opts to exit from coal-based energy. So Mantashe is right in his fight for coal and nuclear and the rushed deployment of renewable energy sources.
In another international developing story, the International Atomic Energy Agency( IAEA) Director General, Rafael Grossi, says they are finalising the process to release the Fukushima 2011 radioactive disaster contaminated water into the ocean.
The IAEA provides international support and assistance to combat the misuse of nuclear technology and materials, and it seeks to promote and regulate nuclear safety and radiation protection and develop nuclear safety standards. The most important work by the agency is promoting safety and peaceful use of nuclear technology and innovation.
Japan, ever since the earthquake and the Fukushima tsunami disaster incident, has been forced to follow stringent regulatory processes to ensure its nuclear site safety.
Currently, the Fukushima nuclear wastewater treatment site is storing around 1.32 million metric tons of radioactive wastewater in isolated container tank pools. When the reactor cores overheated, causing the reactor's nuclear fuel to contaminate water in the facility with radioactive materials.
It is reported that the wastewater stored on the site now can fill about 500 Olympic sized swimming pools, although the wastewater has been treated and stored for many years and is now ready for safe disposal into the ocean, although neighbouring countries are still raising many concerns regarding the disposal of the water into the ocean.
In his view, Grossi says that the process has passed strict tests and said that while fears over the plan reflect a “very logical sense of uncertainty” that must be taken seriously, he is “completely convinced of the sound basis of conclusions”. The water is safe and can now be safely disposed of into the ocean.
Quick Facts:
The Fukushima disaster
The earthquake happened at the Japanese island of Honshu, and lasted for six minutes, which was followed by a huge tsunami with waves of 46 feet high strong waves destroying everything in its path. The tsunami was powerful. In the process, it hit and rocked the Fukushima nuclear power plant.
The Japan earthquake was measured at around a magnitude of about 9.1, which then triggered an ocean tsunami, and almost 20 000 people died due to the earthquake. The majority of those killed in the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that occurred after the earthquake were killed due to drowning over the tsunami rolling waves, and half of those that drowned were elderly people over the age of 65 years old who stayed on the Honshu island.
However, only one person was reported to have died at the Fukushima Daiichi tsunami disaster site ever since the nuclear power plant was hit. But nobody ever died of exposure to radiation.
Although the top structure of the reactor buildings suffered damage due to the explosion, the nuclear reactor cores units remained intact.
The Fukushima nuclear power plant is built on two levels. The semi-underground level is the nuclear reactor's core building that is built to withstand an earthquake or a strong tsunami, but the two top layer structure of the building is susceptible to destruction due to fire or an explosion.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor core building survived the damage caused by the tsunami. But the diesel generator installed as an emergency power generator within the core of the nuclear reactor building suffered due to the tsunami.
The emergency diesel generator stopped operating, and this led to a loss of power in the nuclear cores reactors. That further led to the failure of the water cooling system inside the three core reactor units.
Within days as the nuclear reactor cores cooling system failed, the cores overheated, pressure started building up, and hydrogen gasses escaped the first level cores structure leaking into the secnd top level building structure, hydrogen gas mixing with oxygen on the top structure, causing the explosion and a fire. High pressure water produces hydrogen. Hydrogen gas mixing with oxygen causes explosions. Nuclear is the cleanest and safest energy source.
Crown Prince Adil Nchabeleng is President of Transform RSA and an Independent Energy Expert.
Read the latest energy magazine below:
BUSINESS REPORT