- \n
- Kendal (201)<\/li>\n
- Matla (192)<\/li>\n
- Duvha (143)<\/li>\n
- Kriel (141)<\/li>\n
- Hendrina (105)<\/li>\n
- Arnot (79)<\/li>\n
- Komati (28)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
A decade ago, 31 000 square kilometers of the Highveld was declared a Highveld Priority Area (HPA)<\/a>\u00a0in terms of the Air Quality Act. At the time it was home to about 3,6 million people.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mobserver.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/92\/2017\/10\/1Eskom-infograph1.jpg\")
Source: Dr Mike Holland, Health impacts of coal fired power plants in South Africa, 2017<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n Today,\u00a0residents in the area are still dying prematurely or suffering from chronic respiratory and cardiac illnesses.<\/p>\n
This is mainly because of the government\u2019s controversial non-enforcement of minimum emission standards for Eskom<\/a>\u00a0and Sasol<\/a>.<\/p>\n
These are only some of the findings in a damning report entitled \u2018Broken Promises: The Failure of the Highveld Priority Area\u2019.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The report was released earlier this month by the Centre for Environmental Rights<\/a>, groundWork<\/a> and the Highveld Environmental Justice Network<\/a>.<\/p>\n
The HPA was created in 2007 because, as the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) said at the time, \u201cpeople living and working in these areas do not enjoy air quality that is not harmful to their health and well-being.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mobserver.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/92\/2017\/10\/1Eskom-infograph2.jpg\")
Source: Dr Mike Holland, Health impacts of coal fired power plants in South Africa, 2017<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n In 2015, Eskom and Sasol were permitted postponements of compliance with minimum emission standards which meant that the two energy giants can contribute to air pollution in an uncontrollable manner.<\/p>\n
Also contributing to poor air quality on the Highveld are the myriad of metal smelters, coal mines and producers of fertilizers, chemicals, explosives and charcoal found in the region.<\/p>\n
The \u2018Broken Promises Report<\/a>\u2019 estimates that nationwide emissions from Eskom Power Stations alone cause:<\/h4>\n
- \n
- 2 239 deaths a year,<\/li>\n
- 94 680 days of asthma symptoms,<\/li>\n
- 9 533 cases of bronchitis in children,<\/li>\n
- 996 628 lost working days,<\/li>\n
- nearly four million days of restricted activity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
All at a cost of US$2,3 billion a year.<\/p>\n
\u201cA decade after the HPA\u2019s declaration,\u201d says the report, \u201cair quality in the HPA remains poor and out of compliance with health-based national ambient air quality standards.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mobserver.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/92\/2017\/10\/1Eskom-infograph4.jpg\")
Source: Dr Mike Holland, Health impacts of coal fired power plants in South Africa, 2017<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n The report sets out a number of key recommendations that authorities should implement to demonstrate that improving air quality in the HPA is, in fact, a priority for the government.<\/p>\n
These include:<\/h4>\n
- \n
- The insistence that all facilities in the HPA comply with at least the minimum emission standards<\/li>\n
- That no further postponements of compliance be allowed<\/li>\n
- That licensing authorities suspend the issuing of all new emission licences until there is consistent compliance<\/li>\n
- Effective compliance monitoring<\/li>\n
- The strengthening of monitoring institutions<\/li>\n
- Transparency in dealings with the DEA<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
In response to the \u2018Broken Promises Report\u2019 Eskom Mpumalanga Operating Unit (Corporate Affairs) at Eskom Park in eMalahleni, issued a statement to the\u00a0Middelburg Observer.<\/i><\/p>\n
The energy giant does not dispute the fact that coal-fired power stations impact on human health. It does, however, dispute the number of annual fatalities attributed to emissions from its power stations.<\/p>\n
\u201cEskom has to balance the costs of the current electricity generation, with the benefits of providing affordable electricity to underpin economic activity.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\u201cRecognizing its environmental impacts, and legislative requirements, Eskom is actively working to reduce its environmental impact with its approach to improving air quality,\u201d the statement reads.<\/p>\n
Eskom has launched a programme to reduce power station emissions through a series of upgrades and retrofits.<\/p>\n
The retrofits are focused on Eskom\u2019s higher emitting and newer power stations and are estimated to cost over R100 billion between now and March 2030.<\/p>\n
For the Eskom fleet (by 2026):<\/h4>\n
- \n
- Relative particulate emissions should be reduced by 63%<\/li>\n
- Relative SO2 (sulphur dioxide) emissions should be reduced by 18%<\/li>\n
- Relative NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions by 23%<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
An estimated\u00a047 000 households in Mpumalanga will be switched to cleaner energy by 2025.<\/p>\n
Eskom estimates that outdoor air pollution in South Africa results in 11 355 deaths per annum, at a total cost of $10.8 billion.<\/p>\n
\u201cPower stations account for 20% (2 271) of the outdoor air pollution-related deaths and 22% of the outdoor air pollution-related costs in South Africa.<\/p>\n
It is clear that power stations are only one of many sources of air pollution which harm health in South Africa, and which contribute to premature deaths.<\/p>\n
\u201cHowever it is irresponsible for NGO\u2019s to distribute information which is exaggerated,\u201d says Eskom.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According to Dr Kristy Langerman, Eskom\u2019s air quality specialist, a simple calculation demonstrates that the number of deaths presented in the \u2018Broken Promises Report\u2019 is in all likelihood too high.<\/p>\n
Eskom contends that the calculated costs of Eskom\u2019s emissions are higher than the actual costs since the health impact has been over-estimated.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mobserver.co.za\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/92\/2017\/10\/1Eskom-infograph3.jpg\")
Source: Dr Mike Holland, Health impacts of coal fired power plants in South Africa, 2017<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n \u201cExpressed simply, if half the number of people breathe the pollution, then half the harmful health effects are expected, all other things being equal.<\/p>\n
The number of deaths calculated in the \u2018Broken Promises Report\u2019 is exaggerated given the actual number of deaths in South Africa per year, and the number of deaths allocated per power station has also been calculated incorrectly since population distribution has been over-simplified.\u201d<\/p>\n
Of all Eskom power stations, Matimba and Medupi near Lephalale emit the highest quantities of sulfur dioxide, but they are located in a sparsely populated region.<\/p>\n