Eskom might need R56.2bn to deploy a technology meant to reduce emissions at its Medupi coal plant, which, with its neighbouring Matimba, exposed nearly 1.7-million people to air pollution last year.
Built at a cost of more than R270bn, Medupi is one of the newest plants in Eskom’s ageing fleet — and has a lifespan running into 2071.
Eskom is now assessing the possible deployment of flue gas desulphurisation (FGD), a technology designed to remove sulphur dioxide (SO₂) from power-station emissions, which can affect air quality and public health.
To support this process, the power producer has asked for public and stakeholder input to inform its decision-making.
The consultation is based on a draft cost-benefit analysis. The analysis compares the technology costs against the environmental, health and social benefits of reducing emissions.
According to the public consultation document published on Tuesday, the wet version of the desulphurisation, which has the most public health benefits, would need an estimated R56.2bn in capital expenditure.
The cheaper semi-dry and dry versions will have fewer health benefits.
The draft report, prepared for Eskom by an independent consultation firm, Prime Africa Consult, assesses three technical desulphurisation retrofit options — wet FGD, semi-dry FGD and dry FGD — which aim to reduce SO₂ emissions, a contributor to respiratory illness and environmental pollution. Retrofitting refers to adding pollution-control technology to an existing plant.
Technical performance and cost
Each method differs in emission removal efficiency, water usage, energy requirements and operational complexity, which affects technical performance and cost.
Medupi currently operates without FGD, though the pollution-control technology was a condition of its environmental approvals and a commitment tied to a World Bank loan, with installation planned only at a later stage.
According to the report, the Wet FGD scenario achieves the highest SO₂ removal, capturing up to 90–95% of emissions, and delivers the largest absolute health benefits among the technical options.
Wet FGD is estimated to require R56.2bn in capital expenditure, R286.2bn in operational costs to 2071, and R29.2bn in carbon-related costs.
The semi-dry and dry FGD options involve lower capital and operating costs but achieve less emission reduction and lower health benefits, with even smaller benefit–cost ratios.
Additional challenges
All three options require substantial water, electricity and chemical inputs, creating additional challenges in the water-stressed Waterberg region.
The draft notes that retrofitting FGD at Medupi would be the first of its kind in South Africa and could lead to delays and require modifications to existing systems.
“The FGD plants have specialised equipment which is imported. This limits localisation and often requires a sole/single-source contract to be in place with the international vendors,” the document reads.
“This process is very bureaucratic and often requires supplier development, localisation and industrialisation and/or department of trade, industry & competition designation concessions.”
The FGD plants have specialised equipment which is imported. This limits localisation and often requires a sole/single-source contract to be in place with the international vendors.
— Document
The draft also examines early closure scenarios for Medupi, which could increase health benefits by reducing emissions over time.
However, the premature closure of Medupi, which has an installed capacity of 4,800 megawatts, or nearly five stages of shedding, could threaten electricity supply security and affect the financial sustainability of Eskom and is likely to drive higher electricity tariffs, as remaining investment costs would need to be recovered over a shorter period.
Eskom said the assessment was prepared by an independent service provider to support an evidence-based review that will aid the ministry of forestry, fisheries & the environment in decision-making.
Stakeholders, including communities, environmental groups, industry representatives and government bodies are invited to review the draft report and provide feedback by March 26. An online public meeting is scheduled for March 10 from 2pm to 4pm.
After the public comment period, Eskom will update the draft to incorporate stakeholder feedback and submit a final report to the minister, Willie Aucamp, who will determine whether and how FGD should be installed at Medupi.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.