ESKOM’S FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE VIABILITY OF COAL-FIRED POWER IN SOUTH AFRICA

The report argues that Eskom is facing a liquidity and financial crisis driven by stagnant electricity demand and the high costs of its coal-fired power construction programme. Through system-level modelling and station-specific analysis, the study finds that the levelised costs of operating older coal stations (Arnot, Camden, Grootvlei, Hendrina, and Komati) exceed their system alternative value, meaning they can be replaced by cheaper alternatives without compromising security of supply. Specifically, decommissioning Grootvlei, Hendrina, and Komati early could save Eskom R12.5bn in present value terms. Additionally, the report finds that cancelling Kusile units 5 and 6 is economically viable if capital cost savings exceed a threshold of approximately R4.7bn. The authors conclude that South Africa no longer requires new nuclear, coal, or gas procurement, as solar PV and wind have become the most competitive new-build options.

• Eskom is experiencing a significant surplus of generation capacity due to demand stagnation and the commissioning of Medupi and Kusile. The Minister of Finance indicated a surplus of 5 GW, while Eskom's own forecasts suggest excess capacity of 4 to 5 GW by 2019/20 and over 8 GW by 2022 under a low demand scenario.
• System-level analysis indicates that in a least-cost optimised plan, no new coal-fired or nuclear power capacity is required after Kusile. New demand should be met primarily through solar PV and wind, supplemented by storage and open-cycle gas turbines (OCGTs) for peaking in moderate demand scenarios.
• It is economically viable to decommission several older coal stations early because their levelised costs of electricity (LCOE) exceed their system alternative value (SAV). In a moderate demand scenario, early decommissioning of Grootvlei, Hendrina, and Komati (GrHeKo) could result in present value savings of R12.5bn.
• Cancelling the construction of Kusile units 5 and 6 is more economic than completing them if the capital cost saving exceeds a threshold of approximately R4.747bn in a moderate demand scenario. This threshold represents about 13% of the estimated cost to completion of Kusile.
• The combined financial savings from decommissioning GrHeKo and avoiding the completion of Kusile units 5 and 6 are estimated to be between R15bn and R17bn without affecting security of supply.
• New renewable energy is significantly cheaper than new coal. The latest renewable energy bids (Round 4.5) averaged 62 c/kWh, which is approximately 40% lower than bids for new independent coal plants. The LCOE for Medupi and Kusile are calculated at R1.70/kWh and R1.91/kWh respectively.
• Eskom's coal costs have risen from less than R200/ton in FY 2010 to R393/ton in FY 2017. This increase is attributed to geological challenges, mining cost inflation, a shift toward short-term contracts, and corruption.
• Compliance with Minimum Emission Standards (MES) requires significant capital investment in retrofits, particularly Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD), which is the costliest technology. FGD is required at all investigated stations except Kusile, which is fitted from the outset.

APA

Steyn, G., Burton, J., & Steenkamp, M. (2017). ESKOM’S FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE VIABILITY OF COAL-FIRED POWER IN SOUTH AFRICA. Centre for Environmental Rights. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Meridian-Economics-Eksoms-financial-crisis-and-the-viability-of-coal-fired-power-in-South-Africa.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Steyn, Grové, Jesse Burton, and Marco Steenkamp. ESKOM’S FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE VIABILITY OF COAL-FIRED POWER IN SOUTH AFRICA. Centre for Environmental Rights, 2017. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Meridian-Economics-Eksoms-financial-crisis-and-the-viability-of-coal-fired-power-in-South-Africa.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Steyn |first1=Grové |last2=Burton |first2=Jesse |last3=Steenkamp |first3=Marco |title=ESKOM’S FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE VIABILITY OF COAL-FIRED POWER IN SOUTH AFRICA |publisher=Centre for Environmental Rights |date=15 November 2017 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Meridian-Economics-Eksoms-financial-crisis-and-the-viability-of-coal-fired-power-in-South-Africa.pdf?x21779 |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{steyn2017eskoms, author = {Steyn, Grové and Burton, Jesse and Steenkamp, Marco}, title = {{ESKOM’S FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE VIABILITY OF COAL-FIRED POWER IN SOUTH AFRICA}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2017}, month = nov, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Meridian-Economics-Eksoms-financial-crisis-and-the-viability-of-coal-fired-power-in-South-Africa.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }