All countries urgently need more reliable, affordable electricity to create jobs, reduce poverty, and improve lives. South Africa is at a crossroads when it comes to electricity.
Dr Robert Jeffrey is an economist, business manager and energy expert. He has a Master’s degree in economics from Cambridge, a Master’s degree in Business Management Cum Laude and holds a PhD in Engineering Management. He was on the economic round table advising the South African Reserve Bank
Olivia Vaughan is a business strategist. She has a Bachelor of Commerce Cum Laude and an MBA and operates across key sectors in the circular economy, sustainable systems and the built environment. She is the co-founder and CEO of an energy innovation company in South Africa, Stratek Global, focused on SMRs and nuclear technologies.
Dr. Lars Schernikau has more than two decades of experience in the global energy and commodities industry. Co-founder, shareholder, and former supervisory board member of HMS Bergbau AG and IchorCoal NV—international commodity marketing and mining companies. Lars is an international speaker and has authored several books, including “The Unpopular Truth… About Electricity and the Future of Energy”.
Ronald Stein, P.E., is an engineer, columnist on energy literacy at America Out Loud NEWS, and advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.” He is also the recipient of an unsolicited Tribute to Ronald Stein from Stephen Heins.
Co-authored by Dr Robert Jeffrey, Olivia Vaughan, Dr. Lars Schernikau, and Ronald Stein
Published April 20, 2026, in America Out Loud NEWS
https://www.americaoutloud.news/wind-and-solar-focus-threaten-americas-and-south-africas-economy
An extensive economic review of South Africa’s Integrated Resource Plan 2025 (IRP 2025), approved by Cabinet in October 2025 has been conducted by the authors, and the report concludes that the South African IRP 2025’s emphasis on variable wind and solar electricity will raise the cost of electricity, undermine economic growth, and fail to deliver on South Africa’s national priorities of poverty alleviation, inequality reduction, and improved living standards. The findings and recommendations are applicable to any country, but especially to industrialized and developing economies.
Electricity is a service, not merely a product. It must be available on demand 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, at the correct frequency, voltage, phase, and current. This is the physical reality governed by the laws of thermodynamics and electromagnetism. Supply and demand must balance instantaneously, or the grid collapses.
In South African conditions, solar PV achieves annual natural capacity factors of ~26%, while wind reaches ~35% in favorable locations. These figures reflect the inherent variability of natural resources. Solar produces nothing at night and minimal during cloudy days, and wind can drop to near-zero during prolonged calm periods. Variable sources cannot guarantee dispatchable electricity without 100% backup from baseload generation in the form of coal, gas, or nuclear generated electricity. The cost of such backup increases with unpredictable wind and solar power in the system.
Electricity storage systems in the form of batteries may be added, but they merely shift the problem by 1 to 2 hours. Thay also add to the total system cost, but do not guarantee on demand electricity 24/7/365. It needs to be remembered that batteries need to be charged before they are available for use, and that they “lose” energy for providing storage. This means that vast overbuild of wind and solar is required to supply demand as well as charge the storage systems at the same time.
All electricity back up requirements must be built, fueled, staffed, and maintained regardless of whether wind and solar are generating electricity. The same dispatchable plants can simply run continuously at higher load factors, producing reliable electricity without the additional capital, land, transmission, and integration costs imposed by wind and solar. Adding significant variable capacity on top of full dispatchable backup is economically redundant, physically wasteful and harms the environment.
The True Cost of a Variable-Heavy System: Standard levelized cost metrics (LCOE) fail to capture these realities of intermittently generated electricity. Full Cost of Electricity (FCOE) analyses are more appropriate as a cost measure by incorporating intermittency, backup requirements, grid upgrades, overbuilding, and stability measures. When applied, the FCOE shows that high wind and solar pathways increase overall system costs compared to dispatchable-dominant systems and, costs increase the more wind and solar are in the system. Global evidence is clear: Adding more solar and wind to the energy supply pushes up the price of electricity for consumers and businesses. The prices of electricity in countries with high wind and solar penetration have consistently exceeded those in coal-dominant Poland and nuclear-dominant France by substantial margins, even after accounting for taxes and subsidies.
South Africa possesses abundant reserves of approximately 53 billion tons of coal and significant uranium (sixth largest in the world). Thus, providing a clear comparative advantage in high-density, dispatchable generation. These resources enable net load factors of ~90% for nuclear and strong performance from modern HELE coal plants, with minimal land use, low emissions and inherent rotational inertia for grid stability.
Economic and Social Consequences: The trajectory that South African policy makers have adopted risks higher effective electricity prices, reduced supply security, and diminished investor confidence in electricity-intensive sectors. Historical evidence shows that electricity price increases and supply uncertainty have already constrained GDP growth well below the 4%+ annual rate required to address unemployment and raise living standards meaningfully.
By contrast, a rebalanced mix prioritizing dispatchable sources, allocating approximately 80% to conventional and nuclear technologies while limiting “renewables” to 20%, would deliver significantly greater reliable output. This translates to potentially 75% more dispatchable electricity, at an estimated ~30% lower full system cost. This approach would better support industrial expansion, attract domestic and foreign investment, and align with strategies in high-growth economies such as India, China, Kazakhstan, and the ASEAN countries, which continue to emphasize coal and nuclear for industrialization.
Nuclear powered Electricity holds transformative potential beyond electricity generation. It fosters domestic manufacturing capability, advanced skills training, and potential export markets, generating sustained high-skill employment across the value chain. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs), Generation IV SMRs, are set to be the future of modern, zero-emission, clean electricity generation. A nuclear build is an economy changing event.
A Call for Physics-Aligned Policy: Electricity policy cannot defy thermodynamics. Intermittent sources cannot replace dispatchable electricity without substantial redundancy and cost escalation and increasing “environmental footprint”. The policy adopted in South Africa in 2025 establishes a foundation, but meaningful adjustments are essential to ensure electricity remains affordable and secure.
South Africa must leverage its natural endowments in coal and nuclear, supported by gas (where economically viable) and targeted wind and solar applications. Only a dispatchable-focused strategy will deliver the reliable, cost-effective electricity essential for higher economic growth and the fulfilment of national development priorities. The evidence is unambiguous – dispatchable electricity is not optional; it is the cornerstone of sustainable economic growth.
Policymakers carry a huge responsibility. The laws of physics don’t negotiate. If they are ignored, South Africans and many countries around the world will pay the price in darkness, higher bills, and lost opportunities. If they are respected, electricity systems that truly support the future of countries can be built.
The U.S and other countries who follow the South Africa path, will finally meet their objectives of providing reliable, affordable electricity to create jobs, reduce poverty, and improve living standards of their citizens.
Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.
Meanwhile, in the real world, countries see the advantages of renewables and move towards them at an ever faster pace.
While more and more people see the independence EVs provide.
Where is that, then? Come to think of it, which real world are you referring to?
Here on Earth, for example…
The electric vehicle revolution was supposed to be unstoppable. Governments mandated it. Investors demanded it. Boardrooms across Detroit, Wolfsburg, and Tokyo bet tens of billions on it. The logic seemed airtight: Tesla’s soaring valuation proved the market wanted EVs, and any legacy carmaker that failed to go all-in risked being left behind.
That logic has now cost the global auto industry at least $65 billion in writedowns, cancelled models, and restructured operations — and the bill is still rising. – European Business Magazine
From your link “Even if climate change is not real“
Ignorant tosh. The climate has and always will change. We know it is real. You need a new hobby.
a new
hobbyfantasy.In what nations can the majority of the population afford the much more expensive electricity and EVs? Is there much independence having an EV if you can’t find a charger?
A Dodge Charger?
Now you’re talkin’
I prefer a Corvette Stingray (1970)
It seems many Australians can…they keep voting for labour/Albanese…even the Liberals/??? are the same these days. No political statesmanship, just votes, paydays, perks, and pensions. No wonder Hansen’s One Nation is rising so quickly.
Fact Check = FALSE!
Any vehicle provides independence.
ICVs travel farther, faster and refuel in minutes regardless of season or temperature.
EVs refuel in hours, have poorer range in winter and far longer refueling time especially in sub zero temperatures.
EVs DON’T provide independence without severe caveats.
…
As far as Ruinable Adoption goes, even China won’t add Wind or Solar without also adding an equal capacity of Coal generation
According to the Global Energy Monitor/CREA study of China ‘Coal Power Biennial Review – H2 2025’
“2025 saw China’s current coal power build out cycle reach a new high.”
“Coal power capacity additions reached their highest level in a decade”
“New and reactivated coal power proposals surged to a record high”
“78GW of newly commissioned coal power capacity”
“in one year alone China commissioned more coal than India’s net coal power capacity additions over the 10 years 2015- 2024 despite India operating the world’s second largest coal fleet”
“52 coal units of 1GW or more entered operation” “83GW started construction” “291GW in the pipeline”
How much did their electricity generated from coal increase?
13.94%
(I just made that up, same as the wind & solar generated output bullshitters do)
Not only did it increase but their share of Global Emissions rose from 32% to almost 35% today
And China burns over 70% of the annual Global Coal supply.
And you can hook a caravan on the back of a big diesel or petrol SUV and tow it where ever you like.
Try hooking a big caravan on the back of an EV.. you would lucky to get out of your suburb. !
EV are the very opposite of “independence”..
They lock you into set routes, short distances, low towing weights, inability to drive anywhere in really cold weather..
They are , in fact.. highly restrictive…
… and outside inner city ghettos, more like a total liability.
Just a few More IMPORTANT caveats. Well stated.
There are still 120 countries in the world producing oil every single day
How many of them are net-importers of oil?
Not the US!
Attention…
Totally unbiased source. /major sarcasm
So . . . you’re entirely without scientific or engineering qualifications . . . AND you’re a frightened-to-death catastrophist.
That being the case, your comment is both utterly predictable and . . . pathetically ridiculous.
This basically a green-left LIE.
Let’s look at a “yougov” poll result about what Aussies think…
People are finally waking up that Australia needs to look after itself and actually USE the plentiful fossil fuels that we have.
The cost of electricity, c/kWh, increases in European countries, with more wind and solar capacity installed//inhabitant.
France has one of the lowest electricity costs because of 70% nuclear.
Poland is also low, because of 80% coal
Here is an example of full cost of energy analysis, FCOE
NEW MINE-MOUTH COAL ELECTRICITY LESS COSTLY, AVAILABLE NOW, NOT PIE IN THE SKY, LIKE EXPENSIVE FUSION AND SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/coal-electricity-less-costly-available-now-not-pie-in-the-sky
It is very easy for coal to compete with wind and solar
In the US, Utilities are forced to buy offshore wind electricity for about 15 cents/kWh.
That price would have been 30 cents/kWh, if no 50% subsidies.
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind, power plant-to-landfill basis.
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
Some values increase due to inflation and as more W/S systems are added to the grid.
Coal gets very little direct subsidies in the US.
Here is an example of the lifetime cost of a coal plant.
The key is running steadily at 90% output for 50 years, on average
.
Assume mine-mouth coal plant in Wyoming; 1800 MW (three x 600 MW); turnkey-cost $10 b; life 50 y; CF 0.9; no direct subsidies.
Payments to bank, $5 b at 6% for 50 y; $316 million/y x 50 = $15.8 b
Payments to Owner, $5 b at 10% for 50 y; $504 million/y x 50 = $21.2 b
Lifetime production, base-loaded, 1800 x 8766 x 0.9 x 50 = 710,046,000 MWh
.
Wyoming coal, low-sulfur, no CO2 scrubbers needed, at mine-mouth $15/US ton, 8600 Btu/lb, plant efficiency 40%, Btu/ton = 2000 x 8600 = 17.2 million
Lifetime coal use = 710,046,000,000 kWh/y x (3412 Btu/kWh/0.4)/17,200,000 Btu/US ton = 353 million US ton
Lifetime coal cost = $5.3 billion
.
The Owner can deduct interest on borrowed money, and can depreciate the entire plant over 50 y, or less, which helps him achieve his 10% return on investment.
Those are general government subsidies, indirectly charged to taxpayers and/or added to government debt.
.
Other costs:
Fixed O&M (labor, maintenance, insurance, taxes, land lease)
Variable O&M (water, chemicals, lubricants, waste disposal)
Fixed + Variable, newer plants 2 c/kWh, older plants up to 4 c/kWh
.
Year 1 Cost
O&M = $0.02/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 y x 1000 kWh/MWh = $0.284 b
Coal = $15/US ton x 353 million US ton/50 y = 0.106 b
Bank/Owner = (15.8, Bank + 21.2, Owner)/50 y= 0.740 b
Total = 1.130 b
Revenue = $0.08/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 x 1000 kWh/MWh = $1.136 b
Total revenue equals total cost at about 8 c/kWh
Banks and Owners get 0.74/1.136 = 65% of the project revenues
For lower electricity cost/kWh, borrow more money, say 70%
Traditional Nuclear has similar economics; life 60 to 80 y; CF 0.9 in the US.
.
For perspective, China used 2204.62/2000 x 4300 = 4740 million US ton in 2024.
China and Germany have multiple ultra-super-critical, USC, coal plants with efficiencies of 45% (LHV), 42% (HHV)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultrasupercritical-plant
A similar calculation can be made for natural-fueled, 60%-efficient, combined-cycle, gas-turbine power plants, that last about 40 years, turnkey cost/about $1.5 – $2 million/MW, and take about 2 years to build.
Trump’s ‘billion-dollar giveaway’?
There was no giveaway, as the leftist, woke, fake-news Media would have you believe with their malicious, slanted TDS reporting.
During the disastrous, autopen Biden regime, the French Total Energies had paid about $1 billion to the US to buy federal leases to put up a few thousand MW of offshore windmills.
However, Trump renegotiated the deal. He told the French, you will be in litigation for years to get your money back, or you can immediately invest that money in power plants for AI data centers. The French eagerly took the deal
The French will invest the lease money in power plants for AI data centers in Texas.
That investment in 60%-efficient, gas fired, CCGT power plants will start providing the French with guaranteed returns for about 40 years, as soon as those plants are up and running.
Your linked article is delusional. Written by someone with no knowledge electrical generation.
“In South African conditions, solar PV achieves annual natural capacity factors of ~26%, while wind reaches ~35% in favorable locations. These figures reflect the inherent variability of natural resources.”
No they dont. Your figures speak to the overall efficiency of wind and solar machines but not variability. How many times have you read weather reports stating something like “winds will be about 10 mph today with gusts up to 20.” When the gust arrives, the windmill power output will increase by a factor of 8! (the cube of the wind speed increase.) When it subsides, output will instantly decrease by the same. For solar, how many times have you read weather reports that it will be “partly cloudy” today? When that cloud arrives over the solar panel(s) their output will instantly decline by a factor of 2 or 3 or more in proportion to the density and size of the cloud. When the cloud departs, power will instantly increase by a similar factor. The grid must be managed and equipped to make sure that such variations do not alter the overall power delivered by the grid needed to meet demand at the time of the gust or cloud nor its voltage or frequency. These are the variability issues of concern with wind and solar and they are difficult and expensive to accommodate.
weather induced variations of output from wind & solar can be managed with permanent availability of on-call dispatchable power from sources such as coal & gas generators, and so . . .
wait – why have wind & solar in the first place?
what morons thought those were a good idea for utility scale power supply?
Great comment. Those are part of the reason Europe household and business have such high electric rates.
It is very easy for coal to compete with wind and solar
In the US, Utilities are forced to buy offshore wind electricity for about 15 cents/kWh.
That price would have been 30 cents/kWh, if no 50% subsidies.
.
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect far-flung W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if no curtailment, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Total ADDER 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind, power plant-to-landfill basis.
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
Some values increase due to inflation and as more W/S systems are added to the grid.
Miliband is quadrupling down on his net zero insanity, more windmills and more farmland covered in solar panels – food security is not required.
The UK is all over the place right now (politically) and the focus is anywhere but on energy and our every day real problems. The PM in the shadows – mad Ed Miliband – took the opportunity this morning to plunge the first dagger into his ’boss’. (E tu Brute!) See below
“I steered well clear of Peter Mandelson when I was leader”
If luck goes Miliband’s way he could end up in No10 by the summer – and we…. Well, need I say?
The Guardian is rallying to the cause
Ed Miliband has a rare chance to do for the climate what Nye Bevan did for health: create something future generations will be proud of
[Delusional thinking writ large]
If just one term is Labour’s destiny, what legacy will it leave behind? There is already in the making one great success that can’t be reversed, the transition to homegrown clean energy. This is a true “taking back control” escape from the clutches of febrile oil and gas markets.
Indeed it might become such a political success that it could rescue Labour’s electoral fortunes.
If? Besides, the NHS needs a complete rethink and reorganisation. Despite the huge staff and the huge budget it ain’t that great…
The NHS paid out over £3.1 billion in medical negligence claims and legal fees in 2024/25.
The Guardian – forever in la la land.
In my opinion this is the crux of the problem with nature provided “Free Fuel”. It isn’t available On Demand, only when nature decides to provide it.
.
Wind and Solar REQUIRE 100% reliable FF as back-up. Gas, Coal and Nuclear DON’T require Wind and Solar as back-up.
.
Renewables = Redundancies.
Coal is old solar energy packaged in an on-demand form. My compliments to the old ESKOM engineers who managed to design combustion systems that can handle 35% ash coal.
Solar PV with battery storage is great for remote locations well off the grid. That will continue but base load for the huge industries on the Vaal are going nowhere plugged into silly toys. South Africa’s old cohort of nuclear engineers are quite capable of popping up some small reactor designs with a 100% local fuel cycle. Go for it. Then, as other African countries wake up to the realities of the madness of the Euro-based renewables ideology, sell them turnkey systems based on a properly controlled fuel supply and processing system.
This article misses the point. Reduced industry and fewer jobs along with increased poverty will protect the environment and control the weather.
Turning the power off every day will make the population less dependent.
Story tip: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/08/electricity-in-south-africa-postcard-from-a-dystopian-future/#:~:text=Every%20country%20has%20a%20unique,the%20country%27s%20resource%2Drich%20Northeast.
The end of apartheid was obviously a huge step forward in human rights for the vast majority of South Africans, but the state of SA’s electrical grid (which has only gotten worse since the publication of the linked article) is clear evidence that throwing out an evil government was sadly only the necessary but insufficient first step. Ideally, the next government would have continued what the previous government did well in addition to eliminating its evil policies. Unfortunately, it only took a decade or so for the succession of governments that followed the Boers to ruin the best managed electrical grid in Africa if not the world. Their plan to follow the lead of countries like Germany and the UK in attacking their worsening grid reliability issues after years of neglect is evidence of utter incompetence or maybe something worse. A charitable interpretation of their plan to lean into wind and solar to build out their grid is that it might be a strategy to shake down Western-led institutions like the IMF for easy access to capital to solve a problem of their own making. But the availability of evidence demonstrating the futility of that approach suggests something else might be at play.
Even better: Limit unaffordable unreliables to 0%.
Article assumes that the choice of which energy generating technology is the problem making South Africa’s electric power unreliable. There might be other problems preventing reliable electricity there.
Lacking an analysis of alternatives, your point seems quite valid.
This exactly where the problem lies. Investors in wind and solar convinced politicians that generating should be a product and not a service.
Think of other services in developed countries. Roads, postal services, police, emergency people, air traffic controllers, sewer, water. How many of these services are allowed to operate on interruptible basi. ? Why has the electric supply been driven by politics into a product line similar to seasonal vegetables? MONEY! Money to investors, scientists, politicians and where does the money come from.
South Africa is falling apart, and will need a significant turn around in its current downwards trajectory before it can effectively install a system to meet future expectations.
Really important. The best thing the US can do for African nations is to help them develop their own natural resources. If they have coal build coal generators if they have gas build gas generators. The point is get them in a position where they can generate their own power. The first priority is to use that power to provide fresh water, refrigeration, lighting, cooking and proper disposal of sewage and other waste. Do this one thing and you will have accomplished the most important and critical things for them. All the other stuff can come after this.
The very valid humanitarian point of view. Well met!
This article is confusing. The conclusion;
“The U.S and other countries who follow the South Africa path, will finally meet their objectives of providing reliable, affordable electricity to create jobs, reduce poverty, and improve living standards of their citizens.”
Is it not the case that South Africa is installing more unreliable generation and moving to increased power outages? The US should follow SA in energy policy?
Aren’t they on a Marxist path to de industrialization?