An assessment of new coal plants in South Africa’s electricity future

The study finds that new coal-fired power plants are not necessary to meet South Africa's electricity demand at the lowest cost and that committing to the Thabametsi and Khanyisa IPPs would substantially increase both system costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Using the South African Times Model (SATIM), the authors demonstrate that a least-cost build plan relies on wind, solar PV, and gas, while the coal IPPs would create a generation surplus and potentially accelerate Eskom's financial crisis. The report highlights that the emissions from these plants would almost entirely offset the savings from the National Energy Efficiency Strategy or the expected reductions from the carbon tax.

• In all modelled scenarios, neither new coal nor new nuclear power plants are required to meet South Africa's electricity demand at the lowest cost.
• The inclusion of the coal IPPs increases total discounted system costs across all scenarios, ranging from R16.4 billion in the best-case scenario to R27.99 billion in the climate change mitigation (CCP) scenario.
• In the reference scenario, the combined coal IPPs would increase greenhouse gas emissions by 205.7 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent over the period, which represents a negative carbon price of R96 per tonne of CO2-eq.
• The greenhouse gas emissions from the coal IPPs in the reference and worst-case scenarios would nearly negate the projected 214 million tonnes of CO2-eq savings from the post-2015 National Energy Efficiency Strategy to 2050.
• The coal IPPs use fluidised bed combustion (FBC) technology, which results in a GHG intensity of 1.23 tCO2-eq/MWh—approximately 24% higher than the current Eskom fleet average and 58% higher than the Medupi and Kusile plants.
• Committing to the coal IPPs while attempting to meet the low-PPD carbon budget (9.5 Gt CO2-eq from 2020-2050) would dramatically increase costs, requiring higher investment in renewables to displace existing coal assets and increasing the mitigation burden on other sectors.
• The coal IPPs are not necessary for supply security, as the model maintains a 15% firm reserve margin of fully dispatchable plant without them; furthermore, South Africa currently faces a large surplus in inflexible base supply capacity.
• The 85% fixed minimum off-take requirement in the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for the coal IPPs effectively locks the country into future emissions and higher costs while reducing system flexibility.

APA

Ireland, G., & Burton, J. (2018). An assessment of new coal plants in South Africa’s electricity future. Centre for Environmental Rights. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Annexure-10-ERC-Coal-IPP-Study-Report-May-2018.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Ireland, Gregory, and Jesse Burton. An assessment of new coal plants in South Africa’s electricity future. Centre for Environmental Rights, 2018. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Annexure-10-ERC-Coal-IPP-Study-Report-May-2018.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Ireland |first1=Gregory |last2=Burton |first2=Jesse |title=An assessment of new coal plants in South Africa’s electricity future |publisher=Centre for Environmental Rights |date=28 May 2018 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Annexure-10-ERC-Coal-IPP-Study-Report-May-2018.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{ireland2018assessment, author = {Ireland, Gregory and Burton, Jesse}, title = {{An assessment of new coal plants in South Africa’s electricity future}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2018}, month = may, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Annexure-10-ERC-Coal-IPP-Study-Report-May-2018.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }