The true cost of Eskom's Medupi and Kusile power stations

J

Jamie McKane

MyBroadband Journalist
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
7,000
Reaction score
1,006
The true cost of Eskom's Medupi and Kusile power stations

Energy analyst Chris Yelland said he is disturbed by misinformed, outdated, and incorrect figures of the cost to completion for Medupi and Kusile.

Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) chairperson Kmhuleko Hlengwa said Medupi’s cost is R146 billion and Kusile R161 billion.
 
ANC isn't in the power to for free... it's what SA owes them for the freedom ... (in ANC eyes)
 
How many solar plants could have been built with that money... and by built, I mean finished and up and running, feeding power into the grid and cutting the air pollution that kills who knows how many every year (as well as the cost of that on the economy...) But yeah, go unions, let's keep building coal plants!
 
TheJman said:
How many solar plants could have been built with that money... and by built, I mean finished and up and running, feeding power into the grid and cutting the air pollution that kills who knows how many every year (as well as the cost of that on the economy...) But yeah, go unions, let's keep building coal plants!
Click to expand...
Considering it costs about a million dollars per a megawatt and the projected output of those two power stations is 9600 megawatts and the Jasper Solar energy project cost 2.3 billion rand in 2014 (3.9 now) and that only produces 96MW, we could've possibly built 100 solar plants that would've given the same output.
 
Lupus said:
Considering it costs about a million dollars per a megawatt and the projected output of those two power stations is 9600 megawatts and the Jasper Solar energy project cost 2.3 billion rand in 2014 (3.9 now) and that only produces 96MW, we could've possibly built 100 solar plants that would've given the same output.
Click to expand...

Question is, what are the operating costs of the two over their life-time... gotta keep putting coal in just for starters.

Also, it's all good and well to say that the coal produces more... my question is, neither of them is complete... solar we would have already had power being fed into the grid.

Now let's extrapolate on some hidden costs of coal:

1. The cost of pollution on society (this includes sick days, deaths, medical costs)

2. The loss of jobs because the plants still aren't finished and the resulting load shedding (fair I don't know if the solar would have stopped load shedding, but at least we would have had power being produced).

3. The on-going operation costs of a coal plant.

Last but not least, we still don't have completed power stations that are properly functioning, so how many more billions are we going to be pouring into them....
 
TheJman said:
Question is, what are the operating costs of the two over their life-time... gotta keep putting coal in just for starters.

Also, it's all good and well to say that the coal produces more... my question is, neither of them is complete... solar we would have already had power being fed into the grid.

Now let's extrapolate on some hidden costs of coal:

1. The cost of pollution on society (this includes sick days, deaths, medical costs)

2. The loss of jobs because the plants still aren't finished and the resulting load shedding (fair I don't know if the solar would have stopped load shedding, but at least we would have had power being produced).

3. The on-going operation costs of a coal plant.

Last but not least, we still don't have completed power stations that are properly functioning, so how many more billions are we going to be pouring into them....
Click to expand...

1. The cost of batteries for solar
2. The cost of mining those expensive metals for the panels and the batteries
3. The ongoing costs of the solar plant, it's not fire and forget, the batteries have to be replaced, the solar panels have to be repaired as well.

Don't think for a second solar is so much better it has it's cons as well.
 
Lupus said:
1. The cost of batteries for solar
2. The cost of mining those expensive metals for the panels and the batteries
3. The ongoing costs of the solar plant, it's not fire and forget, the batteries have to be replaced, the solar panels have to be repaired as well.

Don't think for a second solar is so much better it has it's cons as well.
Click to expand...

100% agree with you! Sadly there isn't a silver bullet, personally feel like the decision was made for coal for 'other reasons' that are not in our countries interest
 
TheJman said:
100% agree with you! Sadly there isn't a silver bullet, personally feel like the decision was made for coal for 'other reasons' that are not in our countries interest
Click to expand...
Coal is a quick win.

You start looking at expanding on renewable energy when you already have a stable grid, so that you can start migrating off it over time.

Our grid speaks for itself. Renewable is unfortunately not an option at the moment. Maybe in the next couple of decades...
 
Lupus said:
1. The cost of batteries for solar
2. The cost of mining those expensive metals for the panels and the batteries
3. The ongoing costs of the solar plant, it's not fire and forget, the batteries have to be replaced, the solar panels have to be repaired as well.

Don't think for a second solar is so much better it has it's cons as well.
Click to expand...
The Jasper solar project has no batteries or other storage. It would not be suitable for base load generation.
 
Happy Days said:
True cost for Medupi & Kusile = total Eskom Debt. When you look at it from that perspective, it makes you sick to realise that these two power stations has brought Eskom, and by extension, South Africa, to the brink of ruin.
Click to expand...
When you consider that the original costs were estimated as:
  • Medupi Initial project cost was given as R69 billion for 4764MW.
  • Kusile Initial project cost was given as R80-billion for 4800MW.
Medupi was started 2007 and initially Eskom expected the total duration of the project to be no longer than four years - 2011 finish.
Kusile - construction started in 2008 and was expected to be a 6 year project - 2014 finish.

The time and cost over run is insane.

That's why Eskom & ZA on the brink of ruin.
 
Lupus said:
1. The cost of batteries for solar
2. The cost of mining those expensive metals for the panels and the batteries
3. The ongoing costs of the solar plant, it's not fire and forget, the batteries have to be replaced, the solar panels have to be repaired as well.

Don't think for a second solar is so much better it has it's cons as well.
Click to expand...

Sure, but your first 2 points and half of you're 3rd point can be ignored by building a CSP solar plant where you don't need batteries.

Also as per today's article the cost for our 2 new coal plants have more than tripled from their original estimate. The figure you quoted earlier of $1m/MW for the 9600 MW combined they should have cost roughly R150bn (using R16/$, was much lower when the projects started). The total cost is now over R460bn, and will likely be even higher when the plants are finished.

In an ideal situation I think we should have a nuclear plant or 2 for base load, that should be running at 100% capacity the whole time to keep cost down, and the rest can be a mix of renewables and gas turbines for backup. Unfortunately in SA these big projects are currently unrealistic and it would be a lot better for private companies to manage a bunch of smaller renewable projects.
 
system32 said:
When you consider that the original costs were estimated as:
  • Medupi Initial project cost was given as R69 billion for 4764MW.
  • Kusile Initial project cost was given as R80-billion for 4800MW.
Medupi was started 2007 and initially Eskom expected the total duration of the project to be no longer than four years - 2011 finish.
Kusile - construction started in 2008 and was expected to be a 6 year project - 2014 finish.

The time and cost over run is insane.

That's why Eskom & ZA on the brink of ruin.
Click to expand...

Yes, combined they are about 300% over budget and a decade late each.
 
why not build a solar plant for day time usage, saving the other plants on the grid for night time?
or will there still be shortages?
 
Lupus said:
1. The cost of batteries for solar
2. The cost of mining those expensive metals for the panels and the batteries
3. The ongoing costs of the solar plant, it's not fire and forget, the batteries have to be replaced, the solar panels have to be repaired as well.

Don't think for a second solar is so much better it has it's cons as well.
Click to expand...
There are other, feasible bulk energy storage methods, like flywheels, pumped storage etc
 
This was posted in Disqus, but rejected as spam for some reason.

Nearly half a trillion rand spent/wasted on totally out dated technology that is polluting and produces tonnes of CO2.
This while PRIVATE companies have built already more than 5 GW of renewables in all less than 3 years up and running for about R 200 B. And this is also for a large part already outdated tech. Developments in
renewables have been enormous.In the first round of REIPPs around 2010, wind and PV solar came in at R1.60- R4/kWh. In the latest round this was 70 to 96 cts/kWh.
Very large PV solar projects in the middle east are producing at R 45 to 70 cts/kWh.The small CSP+TS plants in Kathu and Bokpoort of 50 and 100 mW can store heat=electricity 4 to 9hrs, at a cost of around R 1.69/kWh.
Much larger CSP+TS plants have come online in Australia, Chile, Arizona and Spain that can store the molten salt solution at temps up to 500 C up to 48 hrs, basically making it a 24/7/365 operation. At a cost of 70 to 100 randela cents per kWh.
Medupi and Kusile should probably never have been built.
Much is written about the "Energiewende" in Germany. and they surely made a few mistakes, just like their neighbour Denmark.
In the country of windmills and polders, near Rotterdam, the American engineering giant GE with local engineers are building now the worlds largest wind turbine with a total height of 260 m and blades of 107 m.
Read : www.popularmechanics.com/sc...
and : nos.nl/artikel/2297778-groo...
Nl was blessed with the discovery of a massive reserve of natural gas in 1959. Roughly between 1965 and 1975 almost the whole country was piped with natural gas. Houses and power stations were converted to gas.
Because of the gas reserve being below sand and clay, that mostly rural area of the country has been cursed increasingly over the last 20 years with earth tremors, resulting in cracked houses. The gas production has
now been reduced greatly, and will be ceased completely in 2022. As the change over is now to renewables and they do not want to import Russian piped gas, newer ways of heating houses, water and electricity production are now implemented.
My brother in NL is buying a newly built house,ready next year, that has no piped gas anymore, solar panels on the roof, triple pane windows,and the house and water is heated from a large communal heat pump, serving the neighboorhood. Geothermal energy that gets the heat from 2 or 3 km below. He will save 70 to 80% in his energy bills.
That is how the rest of the world is moving, busy with energy transition.
Here in SA we are still stuck with burning dirty coal and with a Dying Dinosaur called Eskom, that is slowly destroying the local economy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter