record-13.2-pg-11-10-40259a5c1ad8056b.pdf

This document is an excerpt from the Eskom Air Quality Strategy, detailing the company's efforts, challenges, and strategic plans to reduce particulate and gaseous emissions from its coal-fired power stations to comply with South African air quality legislation and Minimum Emission Standards.

• Eskom has experienced severe delays in its emission reduction projects. For instance, the Fabric Filter Plant retrofit at Tutuka Power Station, originally planned for 2013, was rescheduled to 2018.
• The company identifies several critical barriers to air quality management, including a leadership focus on avoiding load shedding over emission compliance, lack of alignment between departments, insufficient skilled resources for design and construction, and funding gaps in the MYPD3 window.
• Eskom's emission reduction targets for 2030 include reducing relative SO2 emissions by 52% (or 59% if FGD is not installed at Matimba) and relative NOx emissions by 43%.
• The deployment of Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) technology is heavily dependent on water availability. Wet FGD can triple the water consumption of a dry-cooled power station and increase consumption of a wet-cooled station by approximately 20%.
• Eskom has adopted a 'phased and prioritised approach' to compliance, targeting the highest emitting stations first. This is because full compliance with Minimum Emission Standards is deemed unfeasible without risking financial and operational sustainability, while doing nothing is considered environmentally irresponsible.
• Coal quality impacts emissions, but the potential for reduction through coal changes is limited. Highveld coal is generally low in sulphur (under 1%), while Waterberg coal is higher (over 1%, sometimes over 2%) and cannot be beneficiated to remove sulphur because it is organically bound.
• In February 2014, Eskom applied for a 5-year postponement of compliance timeframes for plants unable to meet Minimum Emission Standards, basing the request on the cost of reductions versus the benefit to ambient air quality.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). record-13.2-pg-11-10-40259a5c1ad8056b.pdf. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Record-13.2-pg-11-10.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. record-13.2-pg-11-10-40259a5c1ad8056b.pdf. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Record-13.2-pg-11-10.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=record-13.2-pg-11-10-40259a5c1ad8056b.pdf |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Record-13.2-pg-11-10.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndrecord132pg111040259a5c1ad8056bpdf, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{record-13.2-pg-11-10-40259a5c1ad8056b.pdf}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Record-13.2-pg-11-10.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }