SONA was uninspiring - Frost & Sullivan

© kudryshanna – za.fotolia.com

This is according to Johan Muller, programme manager for Energy & Environment at Frost & Sullivan.

"The fact that nuclear was emphasised comes as no surprise, since it is contained in all the relevant formal documents. However, I have yet to hear the motivation behind nuclear and, more importantly, the funding and practical implications of it. Also given the objective of a 2023 deadline, this is highly unlikely, given that global trends are indicating that nuclear plants in developed countries take 11 to 12 years to build," Muller says.

"The Honorable Members should rather have interrupted to ask about why nuclear, given current economic growth constraints, low economic growth projections and weighed this against the project management disaster that is Medupi. The gas objectives and conversion of the diesel turbines to gas turbines, coupled with the gas IPP (2,200MW) initiative, is a step in the right direction. Ideally this should have already been included in the 2013 or 2014 SONA," Muller comments.

Foreign investment

With reference to the Grand Inga project, Muller says South Africans are likely to hear about this in the 2016, 2017 and 2018 SONAs again. This project is not even worth mentioning in the short- to medium-term when it comes to solving South Africa's energy needs.

"Any person without energy knowledge would think that the energy issues have been adequately addressed. Mention was made of 'warrooms', diversification of the energy mix, SADC power pool initiatives, emergency funding to Eskom to the tune of another R23bn. However, investors with large amounts of foreign direct investment to invest into a country are a sophisticated and informed group who will look at last nights affair, and rather wait for the 2016 SONA before they invest into South Africa in 2017 at the earliest," Muller concludes.