Our Burning Planet


The collapse of old king coal – The war over the future of coal begins

The collapse of old king coal – The war over the future of coal begins
Illustrative image | Sources: Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy Gwede Mantashe (left). (Photo: Victoria O’Regan) | Eskom CEO Andre de Ruyter. (Photo: Gallo Images / Rapport / Deon Raath) | Waldo Swiegers

Eskom plans to spend at least R170bn in a bid to maintain and restore the coal fleet. Will this solve the energy crisis or are we simply throwing good money after bad?

It took 33 days of continuous load shedding in June and July this year to finally spur President Cyril Ramaphosa into action.

“After more than a decade without a reliable electricity supply, South Africans are justifiably frustrated and angry. They are fed up,” he said in a televised address.

“The crisis that we are facing requires that we should take bold, courageous and decisive action to close the electricity gap,” said Ramaphosa.

In the days that followed, the newly created National Energy Crisis Committee (Necom) announced concrete steps to bring a permanent end to load shedding.

In many ways, the plan is revolutionary: it will bring 15 gigawatts (GW) of new wind, solar and storage online, and force Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe to loosen his grip on energy planning.

In some ways, though, it is painfully familiar: “Government will focus on: first, improving the performance of Eskom’s existing power stations,” Minister in the Presidency Mondli Gungubele announced.

In a follow-up response, Mantashe said: “[T]he belief is that improving the operational efficiency of power plants already on the ground can get us out of the woods much quicker than any other option.”

The problem is that this has been “the plan” for years, but despite billions poured into the ageing coal fleet, its performance has continued to decline, reaching an all-time low of 55% availability in 2022.

The decline, as we detailed in Part One and Part Two of this series, has left a gaping hole in our energy supply and is the primary cause of load shedding today.

So, the question we set out to answer in the final part of our Eskom trilogy is: does it make sense to reinvest in the coal fleet, or is it time to let the coal fleet die?

The top six

Currently, Eskom’s fleet of 25 power stations is only available to produce electricity 56% of the time (12-month rolling average: 58.7%).

In a bid to reverse this decline, Eskom plans to spend R34-billion a year on maintenance over the next five years. At R170-billion, this is significantly more than the R144-billion spent in the previous five-year period.

Most of the extra budget will be spent on six power stations — dubbed the “top six” — which will receive VIP treatment, meaning the money, skills and time they need to carry out in-depth, restorative maintenance.

The “top six” coal stations — Tutuka, Majuba, Matla, Kusile, Kendal and Duvha — are among the worst performers in Eskom’s fleet, with an average energy availability factor (EAF) of 40%.

eskom coal

Tutuka, for instance, has an EAF of only 28%, meaning it produces about as much electricity as a wind or solar plant of the same size, but on a far more unpredictable schedule.

The six VIP stations are all scheduled to keep running after 2030.

Tutuka, for instance, is supposed to shut down its last unit in 2040, but the likelihood it will last another 18 years is slim.

Prof Mark Swilling, chair of the Development Bank and a seasoned energy expert, recently described it as “probably irredeemably corrupt and therefore damaged beyond repair”.

However, Eskom’s hope is that spending an additional R5.2-billion a year on maintenance — mostly at these six stations — can rein in breakdowns and put desperately needed electrons back on the grid: “[T]his would improve EAF by approximately 7%,” Eskom told us in a written response.

Not overnight, however: a presentation to Parliament in late August indicates Eskom anticipates that the EAF of the fleet could recover to 61% in six months, 63% in a year, and so on, only reaching 66% by 2025.

But this is a gamble. With independent power producers, we know the cost of the electricity we are buying in rands and cents per gigawatt hour. With the Eskom coal fleet, we are handing over billions with a hope and a prayer that we are not merely throwing good money after bad.

And if the plan fails, Eskom will be deeper in debt and no closer to providing the country with a stable supply of electricity.

  • eskom coal

The cost of coal

Eskom chief executive André de Ruyter has made the Reliability Maintenance Recovery programme a key part of his strategy to end load shedding, but the return on investment is yet to materialise.

Initially, chief operating officer Jan Oberholzer predicted that the EAF would rebound within 18 months. Now, 24 months later, he says it will likely take another 18 months to show results.

If the plan works and Eskom can squeeze another 7% availability out of the existing fleet, it should add electricity to the grid at between 40c and 50c/kWh, on par with prices paid for new wind and solar.

But those figures are misleading because they are subsidised by the large, sunk costs of the existing coal fleet, which generates power at over R1/kWh. And while these cheaper electrons would bring down the cost of coal-fired power, this would not be enough to make coal a competitive source of electricity.

AmaBhungane’s own calculations suggest that shutting down underperforming stations like Tutuka, Duvha and Kendal, and replacing their capacity with renewables, would be a far cheaper and more reliable option.

Eskom’s R170-billion budget also has no room for the technology needed to curb air pollutants, such as SOx, NOx and particulate matter.

At R300-billion, those may sound like nice-to-haves, but nine coal power plants will soon lose their licence to operate unless Eskom installs abatement technology or secures another “legal indulgence” from the regulator.

For financial reasons, if nothing else, coal is on a path to extinction.

Stage-managed decline

Knowing this, why would we spend another R170-billion on the coal fleet?

We put this to Eskom chief executive André De Ruyter when we interviewed him in July. His view is that the transition to a renewables-dominant system is “inevitable”, but that for now, Eskom must invest more in maintaining the coal fleet because it cannot pull the plug overnight.

“[W]e simply can’t deploy enough renewable energy capacity quickly enough,” he explained.

Under Eskom’s current plan, half of its 46GW fleet will be shut down by 2035, including nine coal-fired power stations. This is slightly more aggressive than government’s official plan that would shut down eight by 2035.

De Ruyter has long urged government to embrace the global transition away from high-carbon fossil fuels like coal. He sees his role as shepherding Eskom through a break-up that will leave it smaller — 12 coal power plants and thousands of employees lighter — but alive.

To others, De Ruyter is a grim reaper bringing death and the destruction of livelihoods to the Mpumalanga coal fields and, significantly, wiping out roughly R229-billion in future sales for a new generation of coal barons.

“I’m accused of being deployed to break Eskom, so that Patrice Motsepe can make money from renewable energy to line the President’s pockets and all sorts of conspiracy theories — which I can tell you are absolutely unfounded,” he told us.

Eskom has looked at all the options, De Ruyter said, including whether it is cost-effective to extend the life of the coal fleet.

“[T]he one that we’ve landed on… is this staged-managed deliberate decline, not ‘run it until it blows up’, which comes with its own risks.”

To restore Hendrina power station, for instance, and run it for five years past its 2026 shutdown date, would cost roughly R12-billion, De Ruyter told us.

“If you do the math, it doesn’t make sense. And therefore it’s far better to spend the R12-billion on enabling cleaner and greener generation capacity to be added by private sector by investing in the grid… but also by ensuring, from a system operator perspective, that we run a grid that can supply the 50 hertz 24/7, which is a huge challenge, significantly exacerbated by… renewable energies.”

In terms of value for money, “this is the best strategy… that we have been able to come up with”, De Ruyter said.

‘The uncertainty of the plan must be understood’

However, executing this maintenance-for-GW strategy means accepting the risk of more severe load shedding in the short term.

Eskom desperately needs another 4 to 6GW of additional capacity — new power plants, in other words — to shoulder the burden of providing electricity to the country while it conducts maintenance. But thanks to the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) slow-walking the rollout of renewables, those are, at best, two years away.

“Maintenance is not a solution to meaningfully shift the dial on load shedding…” analyst Peter Attard Montalto of Intellidex wrote in a recent briefing note to clients.

“Eskom’s strategy of doing just enough to try to stabilise the system whilst not exacerbating load shedding is the correct one given the age of the fleet and historic lack of maintenance, as well as financial constraints.”

In the absence of the 4 to 6GW of additional capacity, Eskom is pressing ahead with its strategy anyway.

“The uncertainty of the plan must be clearly communicated and understood by all stakeholders including government and the public,” Eskom officials warned Parliament in late August.

“The plan is ‘tight’ and any significant outage slips” — where maintenance runs over schedule — “will have a knock-on effect that will influence the plan from that point forward.”

To give the plan the best chance of success, Eskom built in a bigger buffer zone for breakdowns, assuming that 13 of the system’s 49GW would be lost to breakdowns at any one time, up from the previous assumption of 10GW.

Eskom assured Parliament that if this new base-case scenario materialised, there should be no load shedding in the upcoming months of September and October.

Instead, September would deliver 25 days of load shedding and October, 27 days of up to Stage 6 blackouts.

eskom coal graphic 3

When we interviewed De Ruyter back in July, his Reliability Maintenance strategy seemed to have the support of government. But an energy crisis years in the making was not going to be solved overnight. And as load shedding intensified, so too did calls for De Ruyter’s head.

Marching orders

“This is not about any political instruction… this is about what the country needs,” Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan told journalists on a Friday afternoon in late September.

What the country needed, in government’s view, was to end load shedding and restore Eskom’s ageing fleet to 75% EAF — far more than the 66% in De Ruyter’s already ambitious plan.

“[I]f experts tell me and others that it is possible to get there, then every effort must be made… to reach as close to 75%… as is possible,” Gordhan said.

Government has a long and inglorious history of setting unrealistic EAF targets for Eskom. The 2019 Integrated Resource Plan — the country’s official energy roadmap — is based on the flawed assumption that Eskom’s fleet would perform at 75%.

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

“I think privately many engineers in Eskom were shaking their heads at this,” De Ruyter told us when we asked him about the 75% figure.

“[But] this was the answer government wanted, and therefore that was the answer government got.”

It is easy to see why improving the EAF is so alluring: an EAF of 75% would be like adding 12.5GW of new capacity to the grid — far more than the 6GW shortfall causing the current energy crisis.

However, there is very little evidence that this can be achieved.

In 2017, Eskom predicted that the country would have an 8GW surplus of capacity by 2022 and an EAF of 80%. Each year since, the EAF number has been revised down but, without fail, has always been too optimistic.

Yet despite the bruising experience of the past five years, government seems determined to plough ahead with the same strategy.

“Normally, shareholder compacts are not just imposed — there’s also arm-wrestling and debates and discussions about what is realistically possible — but the job of a shareholder is not to accept at face value the lowest common denominator,” Gordhan told journalists.

“If it is possible, to get more megawatts out of the system… then clearly, both the board and the management and the shareholder have a responsibility to this country to ensure that the optimal is done.”

As for De Ruyter, his fate would be left in the hands of Eskom’s new board, Gordhan said.

The comeback

Within days of being appointed, the new Eskom chair, Mpho Makwana, weighed in. Makwana is an Eskom veteran: he served as chair from 2009 to 2011 and briefly as CEO.

“The immediate priority is to keep the lights on,” Makwana said in an interview a few days later.

“We have to grapple with how to return… the EAF to healthy levels. Under normal conditions, the EAF is 86%.”

It is worth noting that the EAF has not been at 86% since 2007, before load shedding began. During Makwana’s tenure, Eskom implemented the notorious “keeping the lights on” policy, which resulted in critical maintenance being sacrificed in order to avoid load shedding.

  • Read The collapse of old king coal, part 1: “[B]ack in the day you never had to run a unit for extended periods with a boiler tube leak… you shut it down [with] very little consequential damage… Post ‘keeping the lights on’, or once we adopted that, that all changed.”

Although Makwana calls government’s 75% target “a tall order”, he evidently believes it is achievable. (Makwana did not respond to our request for an interview.)

“[T]he challenge is to reignite in Eskom employees a passion for serving their country and its economy. Related to this is the idea of reigniting a sense of internal competitiveness between power stations… to see who maintains the highest EAF levels.

“This would get us well on the way to maintaining healthy [EAF] across our operations,” he said.

Open revolt

Others disagree and are saying so in public.

“There’s a danger here of chasing unrealistic EAF targets,” outgoing Eskom board member Busisiwe Mavuso wrote in a recent op-ed.

Mavuso, who is also the chief executive of Business Leadership South Africa, warned: “Eskom doesn’t have the money that would be required to undertake a high EAF strategy…

“This wouldn’t be a bit of maintenance around the edges, but would be paying to rebuild the old plants because they’re in such a poor condition.”

Swilling, the DBSA chair and head of the Centre for Sustainable Transitions at Stellenbosch University, echoed this: “I have an uneasy feeling that some recent decisions in the appointment of the new board are inappropriate, and I’m referring specifically to the mandate to this board to achieve a 75% energy availability.”

He compares it to trying to fix an aeroplane: “If you want to fix an aeroplane, you can’t do it while flying. You can only fix an aeroplane by landing it, putting it into a hangar and opening it up. That takes time.

“That’s what you have to do [with the coal fleet]. You have to take them off the grid in a systematic way, shut them down, repair them, rehabilitate them, and bring them back on to the grid.

“But you can’t do that because you would plunge [South Africa] into permanent load shedding.”

Asked what it would cost in additional maintenance to get the EAF to 75%, Eskom said this figure “has not been accurately determined”.

The coal lobby

De Ruyter has been coy about what he thinks the fleet can realistically achieve, but has said enough to put him on a collision course with the new board.

Last year, he told TechCentral that “given the age of the fleet, it would be unrealistic to expect a sustained performance above 75%”.

Of its more modest target of getting to 67%, Eskom recently told us it is “committed to doing everything we can to achieve this. However, without adequate space (and funding)… any performance improvement will be a challenge”.

Eskom’s system adequacy report, released over the weekend, says a “more likely” scenario is that we will see an average EAF of 58% over the next five years.

“South Africa has been faced with chronic power supply constraints for over 10 years. The current year has been the worst yet, and it is evident from this study that the situation will worsen as the plant performance of Eskom’s fleet continues to trend downwards, power stations shut down, and demand grows.”

When we asked De Ruyter in July if it was time to give up the dream of improving the EAF, he said: “I think that that’s a fair challenge. But you also need to think about the reality of the environment in which Eskom operates. [If] we go out there and we say ‘all is lost, it’s all over’, not only will there be significant pressure on the shareholder to remove management — because that’s not an acceptable message — [but] there’s a very strong coal lobby.

“So we need to maintain a balancing act between, on the one hand, trying to arrest the rate of decline as much as we can. But on the other hand… deploying renewable energy [to] scale as quickly as possible.”

The EAF matters to the coal industry. The difference between 58% and 75% is potentially R7-billion a year in coal sales. Add in the accelerated shutdown of Tutuka, and Eskom’s current strategy could cost the coal industry R279-billion by 2050.

Mantashe, the self-proclaimed “coal fundamentalist”, has made it clear he opposes any attempt to shut down coal-fired power stations, even a station like Tutuka which has an abysmal EAF of 29%.

“[Tutuka] has had a much higher EAF than 29%. The [Tutuka] problem must be found and resolved ASAP to improve its EAF… Until we understand the real reason behind EAF decline (which we are expecting the Necom work to uncover) it is wrong to assume this is an impossible task,” he told us in August.

There is no indication that either Gordhan or Makwana are trying to protect the coal industry with the 75% EAF target, but even the strategy of shutting down 22GW of coal by 2035, including Tutuka — which De Ruyter and Oberholzer have trumpeted in public — is now in question.

Asked for a copy of the shutdown schedule, Eskom declined, saying the strategy “is due for a review by the newly appointed board… the Board will in the coming months either confirm or revise the current strategy.”

De Ruyter was remarkably frank with us when we interviewed him in July. But he was also aware of how much is at stake.

“[T]here’s a fine balancing act you need to play in transitioning to this new electricity industry,” he said. Investor confidence, employee morale, a repeat of the wildcat strikes that shut down power plants in June — these were the things that played on his mind.

“[M]aybe you’ll say, ‘you’re playing your cards very close your chest and you’re not being fully transparent’, but I’m more than happy to let informed commentators make the conclusions on our behalf, rather than me sticking my head above the parapet and getting it chopped off.”

He is not speaking metaphorically either. De Ruyter has received death threats and now travels with a bodyguard. Every time he talks about closing a coal-fired power station, he adds a new target to his back.

The war over coal begins

Shooting for 75% is not the problem. The problem is that Eskom and government have, in the past, put all their chips on achieving a 75% EAF and failed to plan for any other eventuality.

As we have tried to demonstrate with this series, we are in an energy crisis today because both refused to acknowledge that the coal fleet was collapsing, and clung to unrealistic projections of how much electricity it could produce.

Read Part One and Part Two of The collapse of old king coal.

As a result, South Africa has a 6GW shortfall today and an official energy plan that is full of holes.

It is assumed, for instance, that the 1.5GW of new coal in the IRP will never be built. Eskom estimates that new coal would be two to four times more expensive than renewables, and take 10 to 12 years to build, “resulting in more years of load shedding”.

The emergency plan, announced by Ramaphosa, will bring forward the timeline for all the rest of the new capacity in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP): instead of gradually building 15GW of renewables, 3GW of gas and 0.5GW of storage by 2030, we will now add it as soon as is logistically possible.

That might solve the short-term problem, but in the long term the IRP still falls woefully short. And it is here that a battle is brewing.

On 28 October, Eskom released its annual transmission plan, which looks at how the grid needs to expand over the next decade.

Normally, the plan takes its cue from the IRP, but this year Eskom went off-script: “[A] substantial amount of additional generation capacity, over and above what is reflected in the IRP2019, would be required by 2032 to meet the country’s needs,” Segomoco Scheppers, the managing director of Eskom Transmission, warned.

South Africa currently has around 6.5GW of renewables on the grid. Scheppers estimates that we will need another 53GW by 2032, mostly from renewables to keep the lights on.

Those projects will largely be funded and built by the private sector, but Scheppers says Eskom Transmission will need at least R72-billion to expand the grid in the parts of the country with the best renewable resources. (De Ruyter puts the figures for transmission and distribution at R186-billion by 2030.)

If we want to accelerate the shutdown of coal — or if the performance of the coal fleet deteriorates further — we will need more, faster.

When Ramaphosa announced his emergency energy plan in July, the expectation was that government would adopt a single-minded approach to solving the energy crisis.

“[W]e as a nation will have to grit our teeth as things get worse, while we all pull together to achieve this one, unifying, strategic mission” of ending load shedding, Swilling wrote in an op-ed in May.

But instead of unity, what we are seeing is open warfare.

On Monday, Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana told a group of business leaders that Treasury would only agree to take over R400-billion of Eskom’s debt if the utility agreed to invest more money in “old reliable technologies” like nuclear and gas.

The DMRE has committed to drafting a new IRP to respond to the energy crisis, but it is unlikely to give up on coal. Instead, Mantashe wants to up the government’s high-stakes gamble on coal by investing in carbon capture technology.

The hope, he said during the recent Council for Geosciences Summit, is that “our Just Energy Transition programme can be attained with one of our most valuable commodit[ies]”.

“Our commitment to the international protocol on climate change remains resolute. Our transition from high to low carbon emissions might be achieved with coal as part of the solution, if the hypothesis of clean coal is proven.”

That is a big “if” — and the consequences for the country would be unthinkable if the experiment fails: Eskom’s own research says that failing to cut carbon emissions will soon put 46% of South Africa’s exports at risk as other countries impose carbon taxes at their borders.

Even if we can resuscitate the ailing coal fleet, and even if we develop as-yet-unproven carbon capture technology, what will we achieve?

Coal is already more expensive than new-generation technology.

Add the cost of carbon capture and the cost of air pollution abatement technology and we might as well burn R100 notes in Eskom’s furnaces to keep the lights on. DM

Absa OBP

Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • Roelf Pretorius says:

    Maybe R70 billion of the R144 billion should be spent on constructing the other six hydro-electric pump stations to store the energy coming from the sun and wind power generators. Ingula cost less than R10 billion. And we are going to need ways of storing the energy sometime anyway.

    • Johan Buys says:

      Ingula was supposed to cost R8b. It cost R26b and took 3 times time budget. In their decades old tradition Eskom knows better and did not do EPC Turnkey. Instead they had two dozen contractors, and many very bad design mistakes. EPC Turnkey places all design manufacture construction commissioning risk on the main contractor and usually comes with a warranty and a “motorplan”. We can launch all three projects in parallel right now. But yes, we need to spend on storage instead of spending billions a month on damned diesel that is needed because the damned coal stations are perpetually broken or sabotaged. If those three had been built a decade ago we would have zero loadshedding and zero diesel today.

  • Brian Cotter says:

    On a depressing note. Prof Mark Swilling, chair of the Development Bank and a seasoned energy expert, recently described Tutuka as “probably irredeemably corrupt and therefore damaged beyond repair”.
    This must be the first corrupted boiler unit worldwide. A first for South Africa and the ANC.

  • Roy Gordon says:

    There is no mention of carbon capture technology in any DM articles. The energy majors, (aka oil majors), all have significant investments in this technology. I am aware of two projects that have been commercialised. The future of coal may be here.

  • Bruce Sobey says:

    A good article. It could have been improved if you had added the last 10 years historical EAF to the graphs. One would more easily have seen how a decreasing graph needs to turn around to an upwards trend. Quantum jumps only happen in nuclear physics! Turnaround will not happen quickly. Although I fully agree with the renewables path, you need to add in the cost of battery storage as well when making comparisons. Although the pumped storage helps, people need to see that we also need battery storage. Reading that they were running a boiler with a tube leak for extended periods scares me. Those are high pressure boilers running at the creep temperature of steel. No wonder their engineers were leaving. The engineer carrying the Government Certificate for the safety would have been very uncomfortable.

  • Andrew Johnson says:

    Ah yes! the famous “Renewables”, prey enlighten us old fogies on what this magic word consists of?
    Is it also not susceptible to sabotage and faulty maintenance?
    Why don’t we build a gas-powered station at Beaufort West to burn Karoo Fracked gas?’
    And nuclear, that has to be first prize provided the spent fuel doesn’t get into the hands of some megla-maniac.
    The “old “Eskom had a realistic build plan for the replacement of aging stations but of course, in light of the modern way it was abandoned and any forward planning consigned to the waste paper baskets of Megabuck park.

    • Johan Buys says:

      Andrew : wind and solar are IPP so the project construction risk is theirs as well as subsequent operation of the generation facility. If their staff break a wind turbine or blow up an inverter, they don’t create energy to sell. Then, they supply at R0.42/kWh which no nuclear, coal or gas system can come close to, or even within R1/kWh

  • dandj.peters says:

    I am all for ridding the country of coal-fired powered stations but the pros and cons of alternative sources of energy need to be addressed in detail. Solar panels and wind turbines provide intermittent power. That means there has to be a means of storing the energy. How will this be done? If it will be with batteries tell us how many are required, what their useful life is and how they will be disposed of without damaging the environment? Where will the solar panels and wind turbines be located? How much land will they occupy? Won’t a significant additional power distribution infrastructure be required? How much of the generated power will be lost transmitting the power over long distances? Is there a strong, rational case for not adopting nuclear power? Let’s get it right.

  • jimpowell says:

    Coal is getting as reliable as renewables. Only Treasury is talking about nuclear. The answer is Small Nuclear Modular Reactors. An enormous reduction in planned transmission lines. Throw the grid open to Private enterprise. Let the customer buy from who they want. This is the quickest way

  • Hermann Funk says:

    “The definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein.
    This clearly demonstrates our government’s approach.

  • Karsten Döpke says:

    Perhaps a good investment would be to steer some of that R144 billion towards the NPA, as trying to fix Escom while the looters and tenderpreneurs are hard at work is like trying to fill a sieve with water.

  • Louis Potgieter says:

    A camel is a horse that was designed by a committee.

  • Johan Buys says:

    We need a flexible system! Coal is not flexible and not reliable. We should be taking $3b from that aide package and put down $1b each to build in parallel those three pumped storage schemes that passed feasibility analysis 15 years ago. That would give us 7GW and I think 30h of storage. We must NOT let Eskom run these projects and they must be handed over to Transmission not Generation. They must be EPC Turnkey with a build, operate and transfer contract. $1b each will come close and one can pay the contractors a fee per kWh afterward. Eskom mismanaged Ngula 300% of budget and 300% of time. Reserve another $1b toward the possible very large pumped storage in Lesotho. With say 12GW 30h pumped storage and another 60GW of renewable IPP we would have a cheaper, more reliable and more flexible utility. Eskom will ask for 170b for coal, eventually spend 300b and it still will be as big a mess as their last two flagships that are brand new and stuck on a reef. You don’t let your children play with sharp knives – why would you give Eskom 170 billion??

    • Roy Haines says:

      Brilliantly said but alas our current government is too wound up in itself to ever listen to people who actually know what they’re talking about.

  • John Weinkove says:

    South Africa needs electricity generation. It needs lots and lots of gigawatts of power. Just get power generation and forget about transitions. The quickest and cheapest way to do this is to install solar and wind power. Coal power stations take decades to build as the government was told in 1998. Eskom coal generation is slowly going into the ground. Eskom will end coal power generation on it’s own.

  • Cunningham Ngcukana says:

    When people write such articles with a particular slant it creates two problems, the first is that people are seen to be opposed to coal for ulterior motives and secondly it politicises the Eskom issues as has been done. Already two Provinces have taken a decision to have a resolution at the ANC Conference to dismiss de Ruyter. It is not a a joke as the resolution would pass and set a precedent that SOE CEOs can be dismissed in conferences because of intransigence of the Minister and arrogance of the very CEO who has kept the country in the dark. The resolution is by KZN and LImpopo and will find resonance with Mpumalanga and Gauteng because of the damage the blackouts are doing to the economy as well as its effects on education, crime and transport. Let alone the extra costs for generators in homes and yet people write as if this is a laughing matter or matter related to Mantashe which is pure rubbish. Dealing with corruption and all risks are a responsibility of the board and the CEO and we can’t have a situation of a CEO complaining about issues instead of dealing with
    such because he was employed and is paid to deal with those issues not to make a running commentary on them!

  • Change is Good says:

    Well there we go again, Mantashe calling our shots for us. Treasury only agreeing to fund Nuclear and Gas. Corruption is still alive and well. Load shedding and Eskom bankruptcy is yet another ANC legacy.

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Become a Maverick Insider

This could have been a paywall

On another site this would have been a paywall. Maverick Insider keeps our content free for all.

Become an Insider
Elections24 Newsletter Banner

On May 29 2024, South Africans will make their mark in another way.

Get your exclusive, in-depth Election 2024 newsletter curated by Ferial Haffajee delivered straight to your inbox.