Wind & Solar Are Always Ruinously Expensive


South Africa faces energy calamity on two fronts. First is the disaster of Eskom. Second, and potentially worse, is the disaster of our REIPPPP (Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers’ Procurement Programme) and our lunatic IRP 2018 (Integrated Resource Plan).

The IRP is the mandatory plan laid down by the Department of Energy for our electricity supply until 2030. What it calls the “least cost” option is in fact the most expensive possible option, a mix of wind, solar and imported gas. If implemented, it would shut down the South African economy.

A very similar plan was actually implemented in South Australia and shows us what to expect in the real world. Driven by green ideology, South Australia shut down coal stations, which had been providing cheap, reliable electricity, and built a lot of wind turbines and some solar power. Australia, unlike us, has an abundance of cheap gas. The result was soaring electricity prices to final customers and two total state black-outs. At one point in July 2016, the price of electricity reached $14/kWh. This is R140/kWh. Their IRP’s “least cost” option resulted in electricity prices at one point being over 150 times Eskom’s average selling price.

Nature has made wind and solar inherently useless for grid electricity supply (although excellent for off-grid). The sun doesn’t shine strongly most of the time and not at all when most needed, in winter evenings. The wind blows in an intermittent, erratic and unpredictable way. A kWh of solar electricity has low value, wind no value at all – or even negative value. In a free market for grid electricity, nobody would buy any wind or solar. They have to be forced to buy it. The state has to command the system operator (Eskom in our case) to buy this electricity.

This happened under REIPPPP. The state ordered Eskom to buy renewable energy in 20 year PPAs (Power Purchase Agreements).

In its last annual report, Eskom stated that its average selling price of electricity was 89 cents/kWh and it was forced to pay 222 cents/kWh for renewable energy. But now comes the point that I cannot emphasise strongly enough, and which the Energy Minister, Jeff Radebe, doesn’t seem to understand. That 222 cents/kWh is the price Eskom has to pay, not the cost Eskom has to bear, which is much higher.

Here is the most important equation for renewable energy:

Cost of renewable energy = price of renewable energy + system cost

The system cost is the cost of incorporating the dilute, unpredictable, intermittent, violently fluctuating solar and wind power into the grid so that it doesn’t shut it down and continues to provide reliable electricity to customers all the time, including most of the time when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.

It requires stand-by generators, spinning reserve (generators running at below full power), generators having to ramp up and down and so using more fuel and taking more strain, extra transmission lines and a lot of extra capital. It is very expensive. The renewable energy companies do not pay for this expense. We, the consumers who are forced to buy their electricity, have to do so. Radebe said recently that renewables are “cost neutral” for Eskom. Nonsense. Eskom gets allowance for the extra price of renewable electricity but not for the huge system costs.

I’m estimating that the system costs for renewables in South Africa now are above 200 cents/kWh. This is based on the costs of the single renewable technology that does cover its system costs, concentrated solar power (CSP) with storage. If the price of wind or solar photovoltaics (converting sunlight directly into electricity) to Eskom were 20 cents/kWh, they would still be ruinously expensive.

The system costs explain an apparent paradox. Every day you hear politicians, newspaper editors, and green activists telling us that the cost of renewables is coming down (and is already cheaper than coal). But around the world, you see the price of electricity to consumers going up and up as more renewables are added to the grid. This is happening in Germany, Denmark, the UK, Australia, and everywhere else where solar and wind are used on a big scale.

Two things drive renewable energy: money and ideology. The renewable companies hope to make great sacksful of money from the people of South Africa. The greens, often funded by these power companies, long to see our lovely landscape dominated by thousands of gigantic wind turbines and solar arrays, sending their electricity to customer hundreds of kilometres away, all linked together in a vast, centrally controlled grid.

If the market could choose, our future electricity would be nuclear followed by coal, and perhaps gas or imported hydro in future. There would be no wind or solar on the grid.

Author: Andrew Kenny – Kenny is a mechanical engineer qualified in nuclear physics.

Author: GBA News Desk/ESI-Africa Contributor

This article was originally published on ESI Africa and is republished with permission with minor editorial changes.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Green Building Africa or our staff. 


  1. This is fake. There are numerous incorrect statements in this article.
    It doesn’t make sense to promote a so-called “balanced” discussion by including an article which spreads untruths.
    Before publishing, I recommend that the editor does some fact-checks first. and does not just publish incorrect facts.
    We need to stop the spread of opinions which have no basis in fact.

    • Green Building Africa - Net Carbon Zero Buildings and Cities on

      Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Green Building Africa or our staff. 

    • Please identify the incorrect statements in the article.
      It would be good to know exactly which facts are untrue, inaccurate and what is the actual facts.

      Otherwise it’s most likely all true?

  2. Lester , this whole article is ridiculous in the extreme – I’d love to be able to do a full reply – most of what the author raises is just pure emotive conjecture and I am a bit surprised that he has not stated any facts in the article but just gone on an emotional rant – maybe I shouldn’t be surprised as Andrew has been anti-renewables for decades- pity he hasn’t been able to follow global developments in RE or for that matter spent time in the control centre at Wemmerpan
    Please Editor, chec the facts in stories such as these before they discredit this platform

Leave A Reply

About Author

Green Building Africa promotes the need for net carbon zero buildings and cities in Africa. We are fiercely independent and encourage outlying thinkers to contribute to the #netcarbonzero movement. Climate change is upon us and now is the time to react in a more diverse and broader approach to sustainability in the built environment. We challenge architects, property developers, urban planners, renewable energy professionals and green building specialists. We also challenge the funding houses and regulators and the role they play in facilitating investment into green projects. Lastly, we explore and investigate new technology and real-time data to speed up the journey in realising a net carbon zero environment for our children.

Copyright Green Building Africa 2024.