Browse all documents

port-rex-additional-information-b4f5da3b2b7ce26b.pdf

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

This briefing from Eskom to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) provides additional information supporting a postponement application for the Port Rex Power Station to comply with Minimum Emission Standards (MES). Eskom argues that full compliance by 2015 and 2020 is not practically feasible and proposes a phased approach, noting that the station is infrequently used and slated for decommissioning around 2026.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Port Rex Power Station's current stack emission limits for normal operating conditions include a particulate matter (PM) limit of 75 mg/Nm³ to be achieved by 31 March 2015, and a sulphur dioxide (SO2) limit of 1100 mg/Nm³ by 31 March 2015.
  • Eskom does not intend to upgrade Port Rex to meet the 'new plant' NOx emission limit, as the facility is an old station commissioned in the late 1970s and is expected to be decommissioned around 2026, depending on national electricity demand.
  • Eskom contends that full compliance with the Minimum Emission Standards (MES) by the 2015 and 2020 deadlines is not practically feasible or beneficial for South Africa, advocating instead for a "phased and prioritised approach".
  • Ambient air quality data from the Buffalo 1 monitoring station in the East London CBD is described as poor, with erratic NO2 readings in 2011, poor PM10 data availability, and a clear drift in SO2 readings, making it unsuitable for evaluating compliance.
  • Eskom asserts that PM and SO2 emissions from Port Rex do not significantly affect human health because the station is used infrequently and is located in an industrial zone. They argue that since NOx mass flow rates are higher than SO2 and PM, the health assessment for NOx serves as a conservative proxy for other pollutants.

Cite the original document

APA
Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). port-rex-additional-information-b4f5da3b2b7ce26b.pdf. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Port-Rex-Additional-Information.pdf?x21779
Chicago
Centre for Environmental Rights. port-rex-additional-information-b4f5da3b2b7ce26b.pdf. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Port-Rex-Additional-Information.pdf?x21779.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=port-rex-additional-information-b4f5da3b2b7ce26b.pdf |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Port-Rex-Additional-Information.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndportrexadditionalinformationb4f5da3b2b7ce26bpdf, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{port-rex-additional-information-b4f5da3b2b7ce26b.pdf}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Port-Rex-Additional-Information.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated