Eskom is planning up to 15 extra coal-fired power stations to cater for South Africa’s soaring electriÂcity demand — which would at least double South Africa’s contribution to global climate change.
Eskom coal speciaÂlist Johan Dempers identified the Waterberg in Limpopo as a new expansion area. He reportedly told a coal conference in Lephalale there was potential for eight new Eskom power stations in the Waterberg coalfields over the next 20 years.
And earlier in the week Minerals and Energy Minister Bulelwa Sonjica signed a memorandum of understanding with Botswana to explore a coal-fired power station in that country. She undertook to assist Botswana in establishing a new station on the border, near Lephalale.
The planned expansion of polluting power contravenes South Africa’s international climate change commitments. It also breaches an undertaking by Eskom chairperson Valli Moosa at a National Conference on Climate Change last October to reduce South Africa’s reliance on coal-fired power by 10% by 2012.
South Africa is among the world’s 20 worst offenders in terms of harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Eskom and Sasol account for 90% of these emissions.
According to Eskom’s own figures, its existing 10 coal-fired stations pumped out 203,7-million tons of carbon dioxide — the most damaging greenhouse gas — in the 15 months to the end of March this year.
Richard Worthington, a climate change expert at Earthlife Africa, said this week conservative estimates indicated that each new power station would increase the utility’s CO2 emissions by at least 7%. If all 15 proposed stations came on line, total CO2 emissions would at least double.
Another problem gas is sulphur dioxide. Under new air-quality management legislation introduced by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Eskom would have to reduce sulphur emissions by up to 70% at some stations.
Under pressure to meet the government’s target of 6% economic growth, Eskom and Minister of Public Enterprises Alec Erwin announced a R97-billion capital expenditure programme for electricity earlier this year.
Erwin’s spokesperson, Gaynor Kast, said this week that one new coal-fired power station had “been approved according to electricity demand forecast over the next 20-year planning period. It is important to mention that coal will remain part of the energy mix in South Africa for a number of years to come.”
Kast was referring to Matimba B, a new station in Lephalale, where an environmental impact assessment (EIA) is still under way. Erwin has recently come under flak for saying other large government infrastructure projects have been approved before the completion of EIA processes.
EIA procedures have been started for proposed power stations in Witbank and northern Free State. A new site is being sought for the Witbank station after the original location was declared unsuitable, and the Free State proposal was sent back to the drawing board after Sasol rejected it.
While the national government is overseeing the EIAs for these three proposed new stations, the Mpumalanga government must approve EIAs for the recommissioning of three mothballed stations in the province. Provincial representative Freddy Ngobe said assessments for Camden, Grootvlei and Komati were approved in 2003 and 2004, but the stations were not yet operational.
Eskom spokesperson Fani Zulu was not available this week to explain the company’s about-turn on Moosa’s pledge at last year’s climate change conference. Moosa said Eskom aimed to meet its commitment at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 to “displacing 10% of its coal-fired generating capacity with alternative sources by 2012 and to further reductions beyond 2012”.
Kast suggested Moosa’s commitment related to the introduction of renewable energy resources, not to “abandoning coal”. However, Moosa undertook to reduce the country’s reliance on coal as a primary source of energy by 10% by 2012.
The government has refused to take on legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets under the international Kyoto Protocol. But it has signed a United Nations agreement “to adopt national policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change”. It has also agreed to cooperate with other countries to ensure global CO2 levels are reduced to at least 1990 levels.