Eskom’s Multi-Billion Rand Diesel Dependency Validates De Ruyter’s Warnings About South Africa’s Power Crisis
In the complex tapestry of South Africa’s energy landscape, a troubling pattern continues to emerge—one that former Eskom CEO André de Ruyter predicted with unsettling accuracy. The power utility’s reliance on expensive diesel generation has reached staggering proportions, raising serious questions about the sustainability of the country’s electricity stability and the veracity of Eskom’s recovery narrative.
The Diesel-Fueled Mirage of Stability
As autumn leaves began to fall across South Africa in October 2025, Eskom released an operational update that presented a curious paradox. On the surface, the report celebrated 168 consecutive days without load-shedding—a remarkable achievement for a nation that has grown accustomed to rolling blackouts. Yet beneath this veneer of stability lies an inconvenient truth: the lights remain on primarily because Eskom is burning diesel at an unprecedented rate.
Between April 1 and October 30, 2025, Eskom generated 1,023.67 gigawatt-hours from its Open-Cycle Gas Turbines (OCGTs), consuming R6.074 billion worth of diesel in the process. This represents a significant increase from the 947.34 GWh produced during the same period the previous year, indicating a growing dependency on the most expensive form of power generation in Eskom’s arsenal.
What does this tell us about the true state of South Africa’s power grid? The numbers speak volumes about the underlying fragility of our energy system, despite surface-level improvements.
De Ruyter’s Prophetic Warning Comes to Fruition
Flashback to May 2024, when André de Ruyter addressed delegates at the PSG Financial Services’ Annual Conference. The former chief executive delivered a stark assessment that now reads like prophecy. “We were very aware of how we had to scrimp and save to use diesel very frugally and carefully,” he remarked, noting that during his tenure, Eskom operated with an annual diesel budget of approximately R6 billion.
His subsequent warning now echoes through Eskom’s balance sheets: “So, if the lights are on, well done, but they are on because we are pouring money into diesel at the rate of knots.”
Current expenditure patterns suggest De Ruyter’s analysis was not merely speculative but prescient. The R6.074 billion spent on diesel in just seven months represents a spending trajectory that could easily surpass R10 billion annually—a dramatic increase from the austerity De Ruyter described.
The Elusive Energy Availability Factor: Broken Promises and Missed Targets
To understand why Eskom finds itself in this precarious position, one must examine the Energy Availability Factor (EAF)—the critical metric that measures what percentage of time power stations are available when needed. This figure represents the heartbeat of Eskom’s operational health, and currently, that heartbeat remains irregular.
In October 2022, Eskom’s board and then-Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan unveiled ambitious EAF targets: 60% by March 2023, 65% by March 2024, and the holy grail of 70% by March 2025. Former Eskom chair Mpho Makwana reinforced this timeline, asserting it would take two years to improve EAF from 58% to 70%.
Fast forward to 2025, and reality has delivered a sobering correction. Eskom’s year-to-date EAF stood at 56.43% in May 2025—actually declining from 58.30% during the same period last year. The latest operational data shows a financial year-to-date EAF of 63.06%, essentially unchanged from the previous year and falling far short of the promised 70%.
How did Eskom respond to missing its own targets by such a substantial margin? Curiously, by celebrating what it called “significant improvement”—a characterization that raises questions about the utility’s accountability standards.
The Generation Recovery Plan: Aspiration Versus Reality
Eskom chairman Mteto Nyati had previously stated that the company’s Generation Recovery Plan would be completed by March 31, 2025, marking what he suggested would be the end of load-shedding. The plan was meant to herald a new era of reliable, affordable electricity for South Africa.
Instead, South Africans find themselves in a peculiar situation: while load-shedding has indeed diminished, the cost of this stability is being measured in billions of rands flowing toward diesel suppliers rather than toward sustainable infrastructure improvements.
The fundamental question remains: are we witnessing genuine recovery or merely the financialization of grid stability through unsustainable expenditure?
The Ripple Effects: Economic and Environmental Consequences
The implications of Eskom’s diesel dependency extend far beyond the balance sheet. Each rand spent on diesel represents capital that cannot be invested in long-term solutions like renewable energy infrastructure, transmission upgrades, or proper maintenance of existing coal-fired power stations.
From an environmental perspective, the increased reliance on OCGTs raises concerns about South Africa’s carbon footprint. While often framed as “emergency” generation sources, these turbines have become semi-permanent features of our energy mix, operating far beyond their intended purpose as peaking plants.
Economically, the situation creates a precarious foundation for growth. Businesses may enjoy temporary relief from load-shedding, but the underlying instability of the grid and the massive costs being incurred to maintain stability will inevitably manifest in higher electricity tariffs or increased fiscal pressure on the national budget.
The Unplanned Capacity Loss Factor: A Glimmer of Hope?
Amid the concerning trends, Eskom’s report did contain some positive indicators. The Unplanned Capacity Loss Factor (UCLF) showed improvement, declining to 21.78% during October 2025 compared to 24.51% during the same period last year—a 2.73% improvement.
This reduction in unplanned outages suggests that maintenance operations and operational discipline may be yielding some results. However, the improvement remains insufficient to offset the broader reliability issues plaguing the generation fleet.
The question becomes: are these incremental improvements happening quickly enough to outpace the deterioration of aging power stations? The continued reliance on diesel suggests not.
Looking Ahead: The Path to Sustainable Energy Security
South Africa stands at an energy crossroads. The current approach—maintaining grid stability through expensive diesel generation—represents a short-term fix with long-term consequences. True energy security will require confronting several uncomfortable truths.
First, Eskom’s generation fleet requires more fundamental intervention than current recovery plans have delivered. The consistent failure to meet EAF targets indicates systemic issues that cannot be resolved through incremental improvements alone.
Second, South Africa must accelerate its transition toward a diversified energy mix. The continued delays in bringing independent power producers online and expanding renewable capacity leave the country vulnerable to the limitations of its aging coal fleet and the exorbitant cost of diesel generation.
Third, transparency and accountability must become cornerstones of Eskom’s communication strategy. Celebrating performance while missing critical targets by wide margins undermines public trust and obscures the true nature of the challenges at hand.
A Nation at an Energy Crossroads
As South Africans enjoy the temporary reprieve from load-shedding, the specter of De Ruyter’s warning looms large. The former CEO’s assertion that stability was being purchased through unsustainable diesel expenditure appears increasingly validated by each passing month.
The road ahead requires difficult choices and honest assessment. Will South Africa continue to burn billions on temporary solutions, or will it muster the political will and operational excellence needed to build a truly resilient energy system? The answer to this question will determine not just our energy future, but our economic trajectory for decades to come.
One thing remains certain: the current path is financially unsustainable, environmentally questionable, and operationally fragile. The temporary stability we’re experiencing comes with a price tag that South Africa cannot afford to pay indefinitely.
Source: Original article on MyBroadband