In the absence of an bring up to date to the outdated country’s Integrated Resource Cover Electricity, IRP2016-2030, the CSIR Vitality Centre has shown its own study in order to re-optimise the South African power capacity along with mix from 2016 to be able to 2040.
The CSIR study by Doctor. Tobias Bischof-Niemz, Jarrad Wright, Joanne Calitz and Crescent Mushwana was initially presented at the Windaba 2016 convention in Cape Township on 3 December 2016.
The capacity and energy combine re-optimisation by the CSIR takes into account the considerably lower electricity demand forecast for the years ahead, the actual significantly reduced cost of electricity from photo voltaic photo-voltaic (PV) and the wind capacity, and South Africa’s international commitments to constrain CO2 emissions pursuing the country’s “peak-plateau-decline” objectives.
Following much the same modeling exercise, and going to the same software software as that applied by the Department of Energy and Eskom planners to prepare your IRP, the CSIR study in place does what the long-awaited 2016 IRP Revise should have done grows older ago.
As such, this CSIR presents what it determines to be the re-optimised, least-cost incorporate for new electricity age bracket capacity technologies for your years ahead to help 2040, taking into account and changing all the necessary market, electricity demand, technologies cost and other suppositions.
Fig 1: Energy mix for “Business as Usual” vs. “Re-optimised” scenario from 2016 for you to 2040
On 15 September 2016, in the second meeting in the Ministerial Advisory Council on Electricity (MACE) since it was first conceptualized in June 2016, Reverend Tina Joemat-Pettersson presented the 2016 Nfl draft IRP Update report to the girl advisory forum of energy specialists and stakeholders.
The minister sought-after MACE’s endorsement of the version before its submitter to the cabinet, after which you can the minister revealed that it would be made available freely for wider insight and comment through a public promulgation process.
However, rather than simply endorsing this 2016 Draft IRP Update, your advisory body established the subcommittee comprising Prof. Anton Eberhard, Dr. Tobias Bischof-Niemz, Prof. Johan van Dyk and Mr. Mike Levington to analyse them fully, and to report back to MACE and the minister with its recommendations. While waiting, submission of the 2016 Draw up IRP Update to pantry and the public had been delayed.
It is understood how the final recommendations in the MACE subcommittee were presented to MACE the 2009 week.??
In addition to changing the economic, electricity demand, technology cost and various assumptions, the CSIR study has removed the bogus capacity delivery constraints of approximately 1000 MW every year for solar PV, together with 1600 MW per annum to get wind that had been applied to IRP2016-2030 and the 2016 Draft IRP Upgrade (which was never taken by the cabinet), plus the wind and solar PV constraints that exist in the 2016 Set up IRP Update.
Fig. 2: Capability mix for “Business when Usual” vs. “Re-optimised” scenario with 2016 to 2040
The CSIR study ensures that without these fake and arbitrary total annual constraints on the transport of new solar PV and also wind capacity, together with the reduced electricity require forecast and the diminished wind and solar PV expenditures, the need for new coal and new nuclear power is completely stripped away from the re-optimised, least-cost mix for the years ahead to help 2040.
At the same time, the increased function of PV, the wind and gas in preference to new coal together with nuclear power inside re-optimised, least-cost mix, and the regressing role of fossil fuel as Eskom’s old, coal-fired generation plant is retired, results in CO2 emissions that happen to be some 60% lower than that relating to the “business as usual” circumstance based on the 2016 Draft IRP Bring up to date assumptions.
Similarly, the protection of new coal electricity in the re-optimised, least-cost mix, as well as the declining role regarding coal as Eskom’s aged, coal-fired generation plant is certainly retired, results in a drinking water usage some 60% below that of the “business while usual” scenario, with a preserving of 40-billion litres water per annum by 2040.
Fig. 3: CO2 wastes and water work with for “Business as Usual” compared to. “Re-optimised” scenario from 2016 that will 2040
But most importantly, the CSIR examine shows that the re-optimised, least-cost combination for new generation volume in South Africa between 2016 and 2040, with its increased new solar, PV and gas, though avoiding new fossil fuel and new nuclear, would save some R330-billion around this period, rising to help R87-billion per annum by 2040.
This would result in a price of electrical energy some 18% lower in each kWh if South Africa adhered to the re-optimised, least-cost mix projected by the CSIR, as compared to that regarding the “Business as Usual” scenario based on the 2016 Draft IRP Upgrade assumptions.
Fig. 4: Rates for “Business as Usual” v .. “Re-optimised” scenario from 2016 for you to 2040
Dr. Tobias Bischof-Niemz concluded by on the grounds that solar PV, wind plus natural gas now deliver the cheapest new-build mix for any South African energy system, and that your cost-optimal expansion should strive for a 70% renewable energy share of mix through 2040. He further put forward the proposition that the building within the re-optimised capacities in the ages to 2040 would provide a gentle anchor off-take for a Southerly African solar PV plus wind manufacturing market.
“Avoiding CO2 emissions and least-cost isn’t an trade-off anymore C South Africa can easily de-carbonise its electricity field at negative carbon-avoidance cost”, reported Dr. Tobias-Niemz.
Chris Yelland CEng, investigative supervisor, EE Publishers