Sustainable energy solutions for South Africa

The report documents a 2010 conference of the South African Civil Society Energy Caucus, focusing on the lack of transparency and public participation in the development of the second Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2). It critiques the government's continued reliance on coal and nuclear power, highlighting the failures of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) and the environmental risks of radioactive waste in the Witwatersrand goldfields. The document advocates for a 'just transition' toward renewable energy, specifically wind and solar, while calling for an independent system operator to resolve conflicts of interest within Eskom.

• South Africa's energy policy has historically been influenced by narrow interests, described as the 'minerals–energy complex', leading to a lack of accountability and transparency in current policy drafting.
• The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project is cited as a major failure in public spending and oversight, costing the South African government R7.6 billion (with total spending reaching R9 billion) over 12 years before being abandoned.
• The Integrated Resource Plan 2 (IRP2) process is criticized for being non-transparent, with a Technical Advisory Panel composed primarily of coal-mining and energy-intensive business interests, excluding NGOs and experts on gender, poverty, and externalities.
• There is significant radiological contamination in the Witwatersrand goldfields, where 270 tailings dams containing approximately 100,000 tons of uranium have caused air and water pollution, affecting poor communities and RDP housing.
• South Africa possesses world-class renewable energy potential, with an estimated 14.6 GW of wind potential and 548 GW of solar power potential, primarily in the Northern Cape.
• The current electricity market structure is dominated by Eskom, creating a conflict of interest as it acts as generator, planner, system operator, and single buyer of power.
• The proposed Independent Systems and Market Operator (ISMO) is intended to remove Eskom's conflict of interest by ring-fencing finances and governance to facilitate investment from Independent Power Producers (IPPs).
• The South African government's pursuit of nuclear energy is criticized for relying on over-optimistic cost estimates; while the government forecast $2,500 per kilowatt, actual bids were at least $6,000 per kilowatt.
• Civil society campaigns, such as the one against World Bank funding for the Medupi coal-fired power plant, have successfully pressured the government and triggered internal World Bank investigations.

APA

Baker, L. (2011). Sustainable energy solutions for South Africa. Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/EnergyCaucusReportSep2010.pdf

Chicago

Baker, Lucy. Sustainable energy solutions for South Africa. Institute for Security Studies, 2011. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/EnergyCaucusReportSep2010.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Baker |first1=Lucy |title=Sustainable energy solutions for South Africa |publisher=Institute for Security Studies |date=2011 |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/EnergyCaucusReportSep2010.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{baker2011sustainable, author = {Baker, Lucy}, title = {{Sustainable energy solutions for South Africa}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, year = {2011}, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/EnergyCaucusReportSep2010.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }