Did the Government deliberately prevent Eskom from building new power stations and fail to curb multinational coal exports to China and India etc, in order to perpetuate the impression that SA lacked energy and to convince us that newer more radical vectors of energy, such as nuclear and biofuels were required?
Years of caffeine, lack of sleep, dog, cat and parrot shit, not to mention multiple dreams of Johnny Depp, have dulled the razor blade that was my mind. Now, it’s nothing more than a blunt post that houses the rear end of smokers on their way to cognitive dissonance smoke less via hypnosis groups; uuuuuuge digression as the Donald would say, so onward to the energy line-up: South Africa’s energy output is operating at a minimum deficit of 9000 MW — or three cities the size of Johannesburg. In SA, to the best of my crooked memory, about 90% of our energy is derived from fossil fuels, more specifically coal and to a lesser degree petroleum, of which over 50% is imported.
South Africa apparently has the world’s sixth largest recoverable coal mines, 5,5% of the world’s known coal reserves. Over 71% of our recoverable coal reserves lie in just three locations, the Highveld, Waterberg and Witbank.
BHP Billiton, an Aussie multinational, exported over 51 948 million tonnes of coal in 2006.
Billiton is self described as a leading global natural resources company, one of the world’s premier mining companies, and they claim they are keen to enrich their culture — one of stripping land, exporting our energy and making money.
According to BHP’s website, they own and operate five coal joints: Douglas Mine — 15-year mine life and 8,5-million tones; Khutala — 24-year mine life with 15,1-million tonnes produced annually; Klipspruit — still the baby, producing only 3,6-million tonnes per annum; Middelburg, which has a 30-year mine life and is also Eskom’s principal supplier; and Optimum, which has a 17-year mine life producing over 13,5-million tonnes.
Most, if not all of these joints are located close to the recoverable coal reserves in Witbank etc
Over one third of all coal extracted is exported, another third is utilised by foreign multinationals operating off our base, the last third is used for domestic energy consumption. And we are already in our third phase of load-shedding. I don’t feel any lighter knowing this, do you? Over the next seven years, load-shedding, that euphemism for government rhetorics, is going to intensify.
BHP is primarily an exporter, shipping our dark crusty rocks to the Far East, Africa, South America and India, yet BHP is also Eskom’s largest supplier of coal of late.
Even though Eskom is constantly trumpeting about wet coal, the reality is that their coal yards are empty empty empty, just as my mind was the day I went in for my final maths exam after spending the night reading Garcia Marquez and Archie comics.
And by the way, wet coal burns better than dry coal, simple physics.
Billiton, alas, has not adjusted the coal exports in proportion to local energy shortages. Interestingly enough, details of the last contract that leaked into the public revealed that Jacob Maroga, Eskom’s Big Man on campus and a Harvard dude, failed to utilise his extensive education by qualifying statements as to whether Eskom was still supplying Billiton with energy for “foreign” projects, such as that of Mozambique-based Mozal.
The last contract signed with Botswana and Mozambique was in January 2008, to supply a minimum of 1 040MW.
Maroga claims to have rolled back energy supplies to other countries, but could he be lying?
South Africa has thirteen coal-fired power stations, generating 37 698MW, burning at an average rate of 50 000 tonnes per day. A modern coal station costs R30-billion to build and is very expensive to operate.
Needless to say, at the current rate of extraction and export via companies like BHP Billiton, coupled with the lack of coal supplies and lack of fully operational power stations, as well as the rate of national consumption by large multinationals that have not cut back on energy usage, there is no doubt as to the cause of energy shortage.
In August of 2000, at a large summit filled with produce such as caviar, fish eggs wrenched from the bodies of critically endangered species, some of which was illegally procured by the Russians, the Iranians, etc (may their genitalia rot off in a state of syphilis) the Policy Framework for an Accelerated Agenda for the Restructuring of State-owned Enterprises was discussed.
The document articulated government’s aims regarding privatisation of energy production and supplies. More specifically, Eskom was “ordered” not to build a new R30-billion coal-fired power station. The government was hoping, it seems, that a private investor would come along and do it for them. In this way, they would make money without having to spend any.
Unfortunately, although BHP and the rest of the multinationals are indeed exploiting our resources, they do not particularly care to develop our infrastructure.
Between the periods of 2000 and 2004, Eskom was actively prevented from establishing new power stations or working towards generating more electricity — unless it was the product of biofuel or nuclear energy, two government favourites. Both of these options are accompanied by behemoth-like northern multinationals who seek to privatise our national and natural resources — including water and patented seeds.
And imposing upon us the forced use of seeds that self-destruct with implication of dependence on the “supplier”, intense use of toxic agrochemicals, deforestation with accompanying desertification of water tables, fertile land, as well as contamination of our air, soil and water, flora and fauna, our ecosystems and ecological biomes; Biofuels lead to economic lockdown, environmental terrorism and socio-political chaos. Not to mention the fact that the altered genetic coding of modified produce is not recognised by our own DNA.
Biofuels represent agendas that clearly reflect the vested interests and machinations of global corporations that have proclaimed it a crime even to have kids — yes, human genome corporations married to pharma corps, own 24% of our DNA. Once this figure hits 50%, not only do they own significant portions our genes but they would be able to sue us for breach of contract, assuming we have kids, for that would conclude that we have used physical and intellectual properties owned by another entity, contravening modern rights of ownership. It’s ridiculous, but the study of patents in general reveals that it is not impossible.
Now Asgisa, the agricultural et al development arm of the government has, according to Kevin Nassiep, given the stamp of approval to the biofuels initiative and in record time — he claims that it was a perfect political solution.
I asked Kadri Nassiep whether adequate (or any) research had been done on the subject of GM seeds, intensive water usage, the privatisation of natural and national resources by foreign multinationals, the physiological implication of patented crops (medical, ethical, political, ecological and economical), the socio-political effects on farmers, the desertification of land — our heritage, our sustenance — the depletion of water sources, the mass contamination of agrochemicals that always accompany the patented Biofuels projects, and most of all, the sheer irrationality that is derived from using land for fuel, knowing that fuel is used rapaciously and two fifths of world land is already desertified due to aggressive cash cropping producing high yields. His answer was that the research was out-contracted and discussing Biofuels in relation to GM would ‘divert from the main subject.’
The biofuels initiative would allegedly provide over 10 000 jobs; unmentioned and unnoticed perhaps, is the fact that biofuels is rooted in the culture of GM monocultures, over 92% of GM seeds worldwide are owned by Monsanto.
The world depends on agriculture; nothing erodes fertility more than cash cropping, a process of high dense yields that renders the land barren after just three years; coupled to this are the patents that ludicrously claim the US owns our feet merely because they discovered it attached to our ankles. In order to prevent Monsanto from patenting flora and fauna endemic to you neighborhood, one would have to patent it first and circulate the claims to US patent offices worldwide.
Its Colonialism to be sure, but a newer,subtler more virulent form — one that claims life itself as reified properties belonging to the ‘discovered’.
Someone is playing God.
When it comes to nuclear energy, it appears that SA houses the only nuclear power-station on the African continent. The Koeberg Power Station generates a maximum of 1 920 MW, is situated in Duynefontein, 30km north-west of Cape Town. The two reactors supply 6% of domestic energy needs. The Koeberg reactor regularly experiences (twice a year +) broken bolts, amongst other accidents, releasing radioactive gas emissions.
It does not take an accident to release the gas.
Every nuclear reactor allows for purges into the atmosphere: venting or releasing radioactive gases to decrease the intensely toxic environment for the workers.
Stations such as Koeberg vent 22 times per day, releasing over 100 cubic feet of gas hourly, through vents lodged in the ceiling. This is done to prevent the staff from being poisoned.
These gases entering the atmosphere and our food, water, air and soil environmental interface are not biochemically inert; they bind themselves to other heavy substances such as depleted uranium (DU), a very dense and toxic substance that is the off-shoot of nuclear energy, discarded and subsequently dumped.
DU has been widely documented: it causes a variety of cancers, congenital malformations, endocrine, neuronal, motor and cognitive dysfunction, brain retardation, slow muscle and memory recall, reduced fertility, respiratory insufficiency, autoimmune disorders etc
The cost of maintaining the nuclear station is not economically viable and is toxic to the environment, human health, the state of our flora and fauna. The mere extraction process releases masses of heavy metals into the soil.
Even if, by some small miracle, we hit a skip in terms of SA’s version of “Chernobyl” (although we did have a smaller version at Pelindaba that was immediately crushed by the Government), the daily venting of toxic gases is more than enough to poison us.
The reality also states that trucks containing nuclear waste would have to travel through the land networks of our country, that we lack adequate containment facilities, that nuclear waste cannot be made inert,- instead it exists in a state of toxicity, buried until such time as the containment facilities are eroded — this will be the world we hand over to our children.
Radioactive waste survives for 100 000 years.
We are damning the future.
Nuclear energy is the financial equivalent to coal; yet with a yield of one twentieth of the energy, it is clearly no a longer a solution for most European countries. Spain, Scandinavia, Germany and even Russia are closing or have closed down their facilities.
When it comes to oil, according to the South African Petroleum Industries Association (SAPIA), SA consumed 319 000 bbl/d of imported oil in the last year. SA refineries received crude oil from the Middle East, Iran, Nigeria, Angola and Yemen — regions that have been tagged “conflict zones” — the war for oil resources between the developed nations places them at the top of the list.
Over 50% of our oil is imported, although we have 15-million barrels of oil in reserve; according to the Oil and Gas Journal, the oil is difficult, time-consuming and expensive to extract and refine.
The imported oil ratio is as follows: Saudi Arabia: 43%, Iran: 43%, Nigeria: 7%, Angola/Yemen: private importers.
In terms of natural gas: South Africa has 353-billion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. The extraction process is slow and dangerous, less than 79 BCF are consumed domestically, according to Cedigaz. To counter the lack of natural gas reserves, SA has developed alliances with countries such as Mozambique; receiving natural gas through a pipeline from Pande and Temane.
Eskom owns two gas turbines, Port Rex and Acacia, situated in East London and Cape Town respectively, producing 929 MW of energy.
It appears that the powers-that-be have deliberately perpetuated the concept directly alluding to energy shortages in order to impress upon us the need to accept radical energy vectors such as nuclear and biofuels — but the facts speak otherwise.
We are not running at an energy deficit — the deficit exists due to the recoding of our resources.
What is required now is the prioritising of energy resources, reduction of coal exports to China and India, purging the control of the multinationals on our resources and a just allocation as to the volumes consumed by even domestic corporations. The bulk of our country lies off Eskom’s energy grid – load shedding is nothing more than doublespeak, in other words, a load of rubbish.
As humans, and consumers, we need to use our energy to convince them, whether passively or actively, that our energy is our own — not theirs, nor Billitons, nor even Eskom’s; certainly not the French and their nuclear agendas (which stand to make them over $19,2-billion off of such deals; or the Americans under Monsanto, Syngenta and other such corporations with their biofuels agenda that would see our descent into economic fragmentation.
If anything our government deserves a solid verbal thrashing. It’s one thing to mismanage a household when the cupboards are bare and the bills have not been paid; it’s entirely another to mismanage the resources of a nation, casually throwing into the belly of the volcano our future, by mortgaging our land, our environment and our health.
The government, it seems, needs to be shaken and made aware of the deliberate blunders emanating from their policies; whether of Asgisa’s approval of the biofuels initiative before research and analysis of the implication had been conducted, or the nuclear death-trap, or even the sale of our coal reserves to foreign multinationals.
Stirring the diplomatic pot no longer works.
You saying the government purposely allowing export of our coal etc to create shortage so we go through load shedding and become desperate, accepting even nuclear? Brilliant.I didnt know that document existed or that our government ordered eskom not to build stations to meet demand until private investors came along.
Sadly, tis true. Our exports to China contribute to their annual growth which is the equivalent of our energy capacity in totality.
The artificially created shortages are designed to propel us to move towards certain goals and objectives, namely the privatisation of our resources and energy sectors through foreign injected capital, technology and accessories (nuclear and biofuel)…
Amazing that the government connived to trick us into energy shortages by stealing resources and then claiming that nuclear is the answer.a powerful article!
Commentators are quick to decry energy technologies without offering any viable solution to the countries’ base load energy requirements.
Excluding the issue of liquid transportation fuels, which also constitutes a looming crisis, South Africa must supply upwards of 40,000 megawatts base load, growing at some 1000 megawatts annually, if growth and development is to continue…period.
Do some research and actually LOOK at the realized or projected load capacities of the largest ‘alternative’ energy projects in the world, installed or under construction. i.e.; the real world ones, not some futurist pie in the sky ‘potential capacities’
Compare this with our base load requirements.
An example is the proposed giant Port Waikato wind farm in New Zealand, with 218 turbines standing 150m high, costing up to $2 billion, covering an area of 320sq km, and having the potential to produce up to 650MW. Typically, wind farms produce only about 40% average of the peak rating.
The Western Cape installation outside Darling is to produce a staggering 5.2 megawatts peak, when the wind is blowing favorably We will need 200 such installations built every 12 months just to keep pace with growth requirements, while keeping the coal fires burning at full capacity to produce the other 40,000 megawatts.
Real world solar fares little better.
Practical solar needs to be accompanied by massive (hydro-electric) pumped storage schemes. The current pumped storage schemes under construction, such as the R9billion Ingula site (1,300MW peak load) in Limpopo are already earmarked for addressing peak demand from existing power infrastructure.
South Africa is water scarce and water stressed, these schemes cannot simply be rolled out on a massive scale. The number of suitable sites is limited.
Yes, we can put solar geysers on the roof, but most electric power, some 75%, is required by industry, a beefy and brutal 30,000 megawatts and growing.
Coal and nuclear are the only real alternatives available in the here and now.
For economic reasons the best coal gets cherry picked and exported first, some 52 billion tons in 2006 by BHP alone, according to Kahdija, and the lifespan of the mentioned mines are measured in decades, not centuries…what then?
A 1000MW HPW nuclear plant produces a pile of high level waste (spent fuel) about 4meters on a side, (a bit bigger than a bedroom) in 6 years of operation.
Over the same period, a coal fired station makes a hole in the ground equivalent to half a kilometer wide, a kilometer long and about 7 meters deep ( the typical coal seam thickness in Mapumalanga) excluding the volume of sandstone which must also be removed. Once mined out, water reacts with pyrites and other minerals to produce sulphuric acid and other pollutants which percolates into groundwater, ‘poisoning’ the environment and making it unsuitable for agriculture of any kind. Coal mining is not without long term ‘toxic waste’ problems.
The ‘unsolvable problem’ of high level waste, is largely a myth.
The obstructions to effective and widespread reprocessing of ‘waste’ into fuel for MOX (mixed oxide) reactors have been political, centering around the issue of proliferation of nuclear weapons.
An effective nuclear program requires the employment of several different types of reactor and reprocessing facilities to get the best out of the available fuel resources and minimize unusable waste.
Unfortunately, this is not what the French, who have been reprocessing without incident since 1966, are offering. I concur with Kahdija regarding the ‘privatisation’ of our resources by multinationals, aided and abetted by our political elite.
What an impressive piece of writing for someone so young — no offence meant! It’s the mind of a fine poet hooked behind a locomotive designed by a fine engineer. Very, very well done, Khadija!
This may all be very true, and the source is very and sometimes wonderfully reliable in my experience.
What troubles me is a solution, which is not the solution of further reliance on nuclear fission or fossil fuels even in the interim. Nuclear fusion could bring the sun to earth in manageable portions but we are silly to rely on only one possibility.
Just as biofuels so long trumpeted as the solution have on closer examination proven to be an illusion so any other solution presently proposed seems to be illusionary.
Perhaps the fringes of poetry and art are the field we should be researching for it seems to me we need to use our imagination to find a way to focus on another as yet unseen area to find a way through.
In this frame of mind it seems relevant not just to dream but in order to direct the dreams to question the premises that bind the present discussion.
Centralised supply of energy resources needs to be looked at hard.
Why must we convert natural sources of energy to electricity to use it?
Why must we burn to produce energy?
What are the total energy costs of producing energy? Are we not pursuing an infinite regression?
One thing that is freely available to everyone and already brings the sun to earth in manageable portions to drive the energy requirements of the world in ways so ubiquitous that we forget all about it, is the wind. It is as if the earth itself is a huge solar panel and wind is the physical, directly available resource that it makes available for us. Converting it to electricity, although not always so, is not very efficient or even environmentally acceptable. But it can provide direct power to move us as the sailors who have travelled the world for more than 50000 years have proved. Our knowledge of aerodynamics is advanced enough now to make 180 km/hr in a home made land vehicle a proven goal.
And the stuff is right outside our windows.
It is a crazy idea entailing radical social alteration but this is pleasant, accessible, optional crazy in relation to the mad imposed crazy social alteration that the present milieu is heading towards.
This mad-crazy is pessimistic in its insistence that we must kill the world to stay the same. We need to be crazy-optimistic and embrace change. One way is the fly like eagles and sparrows and whatever is in between on the generosity of the wind.
Whatever anyone says or does I believe that something like this is what is going to happen. The more others work towards this something the happier the process will be.
Thank you for a well researched article. This deserves a Pulitzer.
I am a very old lady actually very glad that my days are numbered.
I am distraught that this beautiful, unique and very special land is being sucked dry by greedy capitalists and **** politicians.[Use your own epithet.]
However, the younger generation – people who think like you, Khadija, gives me a last hope – that a New Order will arise from the ashes.
That is my fervent blessing to my beloved country, the most southern on this magnificent continent, that is busy self-destructing.
Khadija this is what we want. Proper research backing claims. I for one agree totally with what you have written. I hope more people read this article.
Thank you for this one! I started reading with a preconception that it would be an easy logical brush-off, a simple ‘why shoot oneself in the foot to prove a relatively small point?’ and found myself pondering your points seriously.
I can’t class myself as informed enough to seriously enter the nuclear debate but I think we can all acknowledge that Eskom’s predominantly coal-fired generation, dirty by any standards, needs some serious improvement.
I also think that detractors from renewables need to get away from knee-jerk reactions, as probably do nuclear detractors. Renewables are a perfectly viable source of power for residential and light industrial users.
If, as is claimed by some, renewables are of absolutely no use as they contribute only to the ‘means-nothing’ segment of energy use then this merely pulls in more strength to Khadija’s points, as follows.
If residential and light industry is the ‘means-nothing’ segment, why bother load-shedding them at all? Surely the savings are minimal to nothing? If that is the case then perhaps we are indeed being load-shed to minimise our resistance to new, untested power sources.
If residential and light industry mean anything, and shedding is genuinely reducing peak power usage, then we need to get on to some renewables quickly as well to cover that usage. Then build a nuclear power station next to that nice smelter coming on at Coega to provide for its needs. Run it as a separate project, all running costs to be financed out of revenue from the smelter’s owners.
If the era of cheap electricity is no more for impoverished South African consumer, I fail to see why multinationals with billions under their fat backsides need this kind of support.
“As humans, and consumers, we need to use our energy to convince them, whether passively or actively, that our energy is our own”
And how do you propose we do that? petitions? demonstrations? I’ve become increasingly cynical about making changes, not least of all because, in the UK atleast, you have to ask permission to demonstrate.
Compelling writting. Pity that you are so far of the mark on the nuclear issue and other small details, like the wet coal burns better statement (Pulverised WET coal does NOT inject properly into a boiler furnace), that it flushes away your whole article as a piece of crap.
Vapour, are you serious when you describe this as “Proper research backing claims”?
I would like to keep it with(and my girlfriend,I hope I´m not censored again!):
Nobel prize-winning author George Bernard Shaw who said that “all great truths begin as blasphemies”.
“We are under no illusions that there will be a lot of cynicism out there about our proposition, as it currently challenges one of the basic principles of physics. However, the implications of our technology go far beyond scientific curiosity: addressing many urgent global needs including security of energy supply and zero emission energy production. In order for these benefits to be achieved, we need the public validation and endorsement of the scientific community”.
“We’re playing our part in making that happen by throwing down the gauntlet with today’s announcement – now it’s over to the scientists to ensure that the real potential and benefits of our technology can be realised.”
warran dukas
For more of my opinion-
you can contact:warrandukas@budweiser.com
or 512 37 19.
Hi C Brink – Eskom claimed in a confidential document circulated throughout the company that the energy shortages were due to wet coal, when in fact the coal yards are out in the open, exposed to the elements including torrential rains, and are usually in a damp state, never before has wet/damp coal caused energy shortages. The reason we lack energy is because companies like Billiton who are the main supplier to Eskom have not cut down on exports, subsequently, Eskoms coal yards are empty.
Salaam H, I think protests and demonstrations are basically useless and in most cases only enact what can be called manufactured dissent – the real change lies in the methods and instruments of energy that is lies beyond the scope of finite resources, such as solar energy. This is not on the cusp technology but technology that is actually being used in countries like Germany that hold high population densities with low land mass.
By investing in technology that erodes the power of multinationals trading in ore etc extracted from the ground, we can divert the center of power, create sustainable and accessible alternatives that could quickly become the mainstream.
Germans and much of Europe will soon be able to access this technology – even though it was developed in SA and not Europe.
Phoenix Institute has been in contact with the Central Energy Fund concerning share subscriptions and negotiations concerning access to and development of the products. Unfortunately, we feel that there is a good chance the technology may be ‘bought’ out by those whose interests do not lie in the development of sustainable resources, but rather control of markets, supply and demand – energy is power, power is control, control of course, would be over us.
Hi FHM, Fahima, Vapour – thanks for reading and writing. I read through your responses and am grateful that people of such obvious intelligence, knowledge and education took the time to read it. I appreciate all the feedback.
Hi Kit – you’re right about the accumulation of capital, its pretty obvious what they’re doing and the ways in which they hope to achieve their goals – very right in stating also that they prefer to use certain methods against others, profering lip service as they receive heavy corporate tax cuts, whilst the average man on the street is forced to doll out his wages – overcompensation? why should the little man subsidise the big man?
Hi Jon;)))))))))) I’m young lol and mostly a troll, but thanks for reading, really appreciate your comment, made me laugh;)I have my idiotic moments regularly, like trying to figure out how my phone/computer/remote control works;)
Hi Female, Pale Face: Thanks for reading, I feel as you do, a mad sense of urgency that soon my time will be up and what will have changed? I feel worried about having kids too…wonder the type of world they would have to adapt too, with nuclear energy, no doubt, the level of aggressive cancers, autoimmune disorders etc would rise stratospherically…I think what we have seen with the organic and fair trade industry (which did about $4.7 billion trade in 2007 cumulatively) is that a New Order will arise, thats what we believe in too, its why we call our Enviro Institute, the Phoenix, it seems that we all think in remarkably similar ways…Unfortunately, Phoenix doesn’t have the finances to really launch ourselves, we are working on a few projects such as a sustainable stock exchange, a few solar energy initiatives with really great architects, building up organic brands etc however, because we don’t want finance from corporate companies whose aims refute our own, the money is the real obstacle…Thanks so much for reading;) I appreciate it and your comments.
Hi MidaFo, like you, I believe that solar and wind are technologies already in use, if we the same volume of cash (R30 big ones) for a power station was invested in wind energy particularly near the coastlines and other areas which experience high velocity and power, we could get something very definitive. It doesn’t appear possible because thus far, whats probable and what isn’t has been spelt out to us by various ‘authorities’ for whom it doesn’t benefit to have a free ‘sustainable’ source of energy. Energy is the key to capital accumulation, conventional finite energy resources demand mass casualised labor, pennies trickle down, billions are siphoned upwards, everything is controlled by a few – thats their plan, obviously.
Hi Perry Curling-Hope, Thanks so much for reading.I will write a post soon about solar technology already available, in use, and extremely efficient at storing and converting energy in an economically affordable way, that will simultaneously allow for a natural energy monopoly. Not what the Americans or the French have in mind.
Great, great, great article. I am so irritated by boring un-fresh journalism this piece knocks me over. Colonialism is far from over and anyone who reads this article (some above are guilty) with the view that its an answer, or seeks an answer, understands little.
Its the questions we ask, or are inspired to ask, that count, its not the answers that count. Your accountants do answers…
Further to my whimsical expression of desire for different energy sources:
If South Africa wishes to take a lead in the world, then selling the increasingly apparent failure called coal to BHP Billiton and using the money they pay us to develop more efficient energy needs and resources is a good way to go. Winning in this high risk game is a matter of balance and the game is very dangerously poised.
The risk is high but not as high as being completely unprepared for the fossil fuel generated disaster staring us in the face.
Both honestly wise and duplicitously destructive people will welcome pain now to avoid terrible affliction in the future. But the affliction in this case is not global warming. It is worse than that.
Don’t for a moment believe it was ‘silly’ Bush/Blair’s decision to begin the current conflicts. America/England, or the Western economy, is not a stupid entity like their President(s) and a vast number of their voters. Its economy is driven by canny financiers and capitalists each knowing the other has the well developed ability to stab not only all others but even their own mothers and children in the back if need be. The current behaviour of this tenuous, seething, blind clump of self seekers is a concerted push towards the future that is their happening. This, the mounting consequences of the degradation of man, not of the natural environment, is the threat we face.
The long-term expenditure on the artefacts of warfare, the wars based on transparent lies and the continuing barefaced superficial modification of these lies in the face of exposure together with the multiplicity of red herrings spouted by the media (e.g. Bush’s stupidity, or that the war is for the oil)should indicate to any grade of intellect other than that in the possession of a fool that America is leading a group trying to strangle the perceived economic threat of, amongst others, the Chinese by inhibiting their access to oil. And by means of owning the oil it is willing to both kill extensively and pay not only more, but much, much more, for its own oil addiction to maintain what it perceives as its lead by increasing the cost of energy that China and other developing nations have to pay and so continue to trample others into poverty just as Israel does the Palestinians.
They are fully aware of the cost of the wars. It is clear they are taking a calculated risk.
Theirs is not optimism; not the tactic of peace. It is pessimism; the cynical tactic of war indicative of an obsessive inclination towards degradation. Our Western strategists arrive at this need in terms of what they call Game Theory, which for those who know it with its premise of the absolute malevolence of the opposition, is pessimism itself. It is a stunningly simplistic lie, being the propagandist’s term for what is in fact a War Theory which of course they will never admit to in times of ostensible peace. Its ends are being promoted loudly throughout the world by means of what they call Public Diplomacy which anyone who studies it knows is the propagandists’ own duplicitously invented term to deny the nature of their simplistic, dirty art; the art of speaking loudly and not listening. It is easy to see this. Just remember that the function of the propagandist is to keep others stupid and that this means the self stupefaction of the propagandist himself.
We must think about the ‘democratic’ brouhaha of the primaries presently on the go in the USA and see the candidates and their supporters for the transparent idiots they are; look at the startling ineptitude of Brown and even the recently deposed Howard in Australia, and be very frightened.
Westerners—leaders of the world? ‘Se voet!’
Think of the burning corpses that the war monger’s boastfully developed ‘state of the art’ weaponry create and in reaction look not only for a source of power but, more importantly, also for a life that is not dependant on burning.
For this dependence on burning is the glue that keeps the highly fractious and wholly destructive clump of pessimists together.
A contrarian thought.
Somebody once said : Never attribute anything more to a man’s actions if they can be explained by sheer incompetance.
Sure when political colonisation ended corporate colonisation took over and globalisation of big corporates is the extension of this process where corporates act above national laws.
Many initiatives have sprung up to counter this ‘threat’. The formation of the European Union is one such example. (ie form a bigger national club to avoid exploitation.)
However, Eskom started buying coal from BEE suppliers whose very low grade supply is erratic and they let their coal reserves fall too low. This was an act of sheer incompetance. btw It also forced companies like Billiton to find new customers.
To say that this was a plan of some sort defies my logic. If one can plan to sabotage ones own country when one is in power then there is something radically wrong with the ANC government.
The gist of what your hypothesis is: They are clever enough to manipulate an Eskom failure but not clever enough to run things properly and are manipulated by big corporations.
In general, Are you not blaming big corporations when bad / incompetant governments or even the lack thereof (eastern DRC) are the real problem?
I agree that our government’s policies and the implementation therefof are lettings us down – so we should change the government. What are the alternatives as the Polokwane alternative looks no better?
Hi Owen
I think the idea, personally and I may be wrong, was to deliberately push us towards the direction of certain vectors of energy such as nuclear and biofuels which are politically convenient for two super-powers (france and US,) who may then confer favorable status on our government, as well as many large corps who have even larger interests in our country…I don’t think they accidentally blundered, look at our nuclear history and Eskoms use of excessive aggressiveness in trying to convince us that nuclear is the answer – it appears to me that politicians are for the most part opportunists, demagogues who say mostly anything to get into power, this is not a generalised depiction but an ontological representation of the current states of political realms, jargon, policies, – populations these days, are always sabotaged and manipulated and the age of information presents to us only a few possible options which we are required to buy into, without question.
Yes we are out of power because of the incompetence of all who control Eskom’s output.
Of course to allow this truth to sink to levels of racism as is predictably happening elsewhere in Thought Leader is useless.
But to simply assert we must burn more coal, or anything else, as in we should have built more power stations, is almost as useless. Global warming is indeed one very important issue but it is not the most important here.
The topic of discussion must move on to other means of generation, as KS points out. But also and more importantly it must move on to other ideas in terms of distribution and utilisation because the alternative means (that KS mentions and the wind whispers in my ears) are not going to be adequate. Bio fuel is a very good example of how the consequences of new sources of power can be surprisingly damaging.
The structure of our dependence on energy, our relationship with the centralised supplier of what was cheap electricity needs to be examined and changed. The shock of the apparent incompetence within Eskom is very possibly hiding the fact that what used to work will not work in the future.
It seems clear that private capital and economists and politicians have recognised this and have proposed privatisation in the hope that the markets will iron out the difficulties. But this is not radical enough. The current state of international affairs clearly indicates that while things are driven by the likes of Halliburton they will get a lot worse.
How anyone never thought otherwise is not really a mystery. They remained stuck in the well established pattern of thought associated with centralised supply and could think of no alternative other than privatisation, which was seductively marketed by people equally stuck in the established pattern of thinking.
I like to blow crazy ideas at seemingly intractable difficulties, but one of the reasons for Eskom’s inactivity may perhaps be associated with the Pebble Bed Reactor initiative. The type of small easily controlled reactors associated with this technology satisfies the idea of relative decentralisation, which could radically alter the current balance of distribution and utilisation of power. Perry Curling-Hope seems to know most about this kind of thing here and his comments would be very interesting.
Khadija
Why am I so happy to have met you when everything I read of yours makes me so depressed.
This is really so bad. It’s like knowing your hand is going to shoot you in the foot and not be able to do anything about it.
The great thing that you, Phoenix etc is doing is building the big picture – once you’ve got more of the pieces and we start to see the picture we will be able to locate the vital organ and destroy it.
Just keep doing it Girl – if necessary we’ll kidnap Johnny Depp for you!
Sorry, but the reaction to this article is disappointing. It began as an interesting article, but reading further uncovered so many factually incorrect claims on so many aspects (if you know anything about the subject matter) that it cannot be taken seriously. Take nuclear for example: There is ZERO evidence GLOBALLY that cancers are higher for those living close to nuclear power stations; you get greater radiation exposure FROM YOUR TV (or a coal fired power station) than living next door to a nuclear power station (I kid you not!) see: http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/ ; if “the cost of maintaining the nuclear station is not economically viable and is toxic to the environment” how has the French economy grown over the last 40 years relying on almost 80% nuclear energy? Wouldn’t their people be riddled with cancers and their wine industry destroyed by now?
The list of inaccuracies, I’m afraid, would extend considerably if I had the time.
Please readers, do not take all you read on the internet as factually correct! I encourage you to do your own research – but go to credible sources!
Kahdija,
I would indeed be interested in the potential solutions you have discovered regarding solar energy, particularly those relating to large load electricity storage.
It is true that at our latitude, the incident solar energy approximates 600watts per square meter, which seems very promising….in theory.
Let’s look at the worlds’ most powerful ‘solar farm’ a PV (photovoltaic) array recently commissioned in Spain;
“With an installed peak power of 20 MW, the solar park at Jumilla, Murcia (Southeastern Spain) is the world’s current highest capacity PV plant and the most efficient to-date.
The plant covers an area of 100 hectares in La Hoya de Vicentes, Jumilla”
(120,000 solar panels, cost unknown, design life 35years, realized efficiency 3%)
A staggering 20 MW!….Wow, we need to place around 4,000 of these installations on order immediately. (With a further 100 installations year on year to accommodate expected ‘growth’)
I believe PV systems have a legitimate role to play in remote rural locations, much to the betterment of the lives of the inhabitants there, but cannot be entertained as a viable base load replacement.
Solar-thermal schemes, the ‘mirrors and boiler’ idea, offers a little more promise.
Stirling Energy Systems technology employs a reflecting ‘dish’ and a sealed ‘Stirling’ engine, and are currently closest to real commercialization.
From Sandia National Laboratories press release, Feb 2008:-
“Sandia, Stirling Energy Systems set new world record for solar-to-grid conversion efficiency”
“ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. —On a perfect New Mexico winter day — with the sky almost 10 percent brighter than usual — Sandia National Laboratories and Stirling Energy Systems (SES) set a new solar-to-grid system conversion efficiency record by achieving a 31.25 percent net efficiency rate. The old 1984 record of 29.4 percent was toppled Jan. 31 {2008] on SES’s “Serial #3” solar dish Stirling system at Sandia’s National Solar Thermal Test Facility.”
That’s the best, now let’s look at the biggest:-
From “The Arizona Republic” Feb 19, 2008.
“Phoenix Company to build most powerful solar plant”
“Stirling’s 20,000-dish project would be built in the desert near Victorville, about 70 miles northeast of Los Angeles, with construction expected to be finished by 2010. It would be capable of expanding beyond the planned 500 megawatts”
(A 4,500-acre project, approximately 1800 hectare, which realizes slightly better efficiency, about 3.6%)
500 megawatts?… much better, now we only need only 160 such projects to replace our base load, plus 4 projects completed year on year to accommodate growth.
Once commercialized, each 10meter self steering dish is expected to cost about $50,000 US. To replace one 1000megawatt coal fired power plant will cost some R32 billion for the dishes, excluding the essential storage system (of technology unknown, please let us know, Kahdija), project installation costs, distribution network, budget overruns, bribes and kickbacks.
We will, however, not wrest ourselves free of coal, as crude oil prices are expected to continue their steepening rise indefinitely….a point will be reached where the price cannot be sustained by the ‘growing’ economy. (Say $200/barrel or higher by 2010?)
I trust the state will have learned something from the current energy debacle and not monopolize, meddle and dilly dally in obstructing the construction of more coal to liquid infrastructure
@Alan. You say the article is riddled with innacuracies then go on to mention exactly one issue. Which quite frankly time may well prove otherwise… Then on the basis of that you dismiss the entire article. Please try to argue coherently and actually do invest the time in expounding the “list of inaccuracies”, as you put it.
Nuclear waste is a fraction of fossil fuel, sure, but sticks around for millenia. If it happens to pollute our environment in 1000 years because of some disaster or engineering oversight – like, say, at Chernobyl – will you still think its worth it? Or is it simply a case of “Apres moi le deluge”?
Khadija and other TL readers have made a compelling case towards the use of sustainable or green energy; and the gist of the main argument is simply that our energy choices are being vectored by vested interests or, to paraphrase Midafo, burning pessimists … of which you appear to be one.
Kadija, if you have done a bit more research after my initial post, you would have found that some coal fired power stations does not use the old system of a moving bed of coal, but a system called pulverised coal injection. Coal is milled finer than talcum powder and injected by way of a nozzle into the furnace. The injection equipment is designed to inject dry coal powder. If this coal is in the form of a wet slurry, the dispertion pattern is unpredictive and the furnace does not sustain a flame. This stop/starts places much higher than normal thermal stress on the systems.
It is true that coal has always been outside in the rain, but then ESKOM had more than three weeks supply and the intake side had time to dry. Also look at the rainfall figures for the period in question and you would see a longer than usual period of constant rain and no sun to dry the coal.
This shortage of supply was partly due to the employment of BEE companies to transport the coal. These guys were just too glad to get a contract, but were paid way too little to run an effective business, with the resultant breakdown of the trucking fleet and thus a slowdown in supply. This is also general knowledge and I am surprised that you did not pick up on it.
Jeff, you question Alan on his view of save nuclear power. I have a question for you. Do you see the burning of coal with the resultant sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide, all contributing towards global warming, as a “safe” technology? Are you aware that any nuclear plant have to comply with strict international regulations regarding radioactivity, yet for coal ash dumps which emit far more rediation into the environment than a nuclear power station, there are absolutely no regulatory control regarding radioactivity?
Please everyone,
Concentrate on the main problem – so we can stop this scam. This is just another arms deal. Remember when we borrowed money to buy arms we did not need ? This is about MONEY!!! The government wants to speand R700 BILLION on Nuclear. Imagine how many kickbacks, bribes,slush funds and BEE deals can be generated!
First IMPORTANT point: even their own experts say these nuclear stations can not be ready for 10 years – so why the rush to commit now? If it will take 10 years it might at well take 11, and we discuss it properly. We need to decide how we can solve the supply problem for the next 10 years and THEN decide if we will still need nuclear.
Second Point: Hydroelectric, renewable energy etc are all being trashed by the experts (?). They say:
Hydroelectric: South Africa does not have capacity. Cabora Bassa was a joint project with Mozambique – guarded by SA army against being blown up during construction. Victoria Falls, much bigger than Niagara Falls, which produces lots,could be done as a joint project(non Zim side).
Renewable Energy: This is being punted as unreliable, and only operating when the son shines or the wind blows. Now exactly how many days in the year do you think the son does not shine in the Kalahari, Namaqualand, and the Karroo – ALL on the SAME day? We are also told these plants must be backed up by a cosl plant. Why? How do German households feed into a grid ? Is that not what a grid is for? And if we build enough plants and only operate them when the son shines, some will always operate. And do the tides also stop? The
experts are very quiet about this one.
Gas: The Dominican Republic imported piped gas for power and subsidised it to stop their forests being felled. Don’t tell me a small country like theirs can do it and we can’t do the same.
Cost: We do not have R700 billion so we will have to borrow (again- like the arms deal). Private enterprise will not lend unless there is profit. Electricity at that price will be unafforable for all ordinary people in ten years time.
Think like activists: suspect any argument for BORROWING LOTS OF MONEY. Suspect all negative experts. There are vast sums at stake – and experts can be bought (or conned). Even suspect negatives on this blog.
But concentrate on the government FIRST explaining how we get power between now and the first nuclear power station being ready in ten years time; and ask WHY THE HURRY TO BORROW AND SPEND?
but it also depends on the quality of coal, was it brown coal or black? re: coal is transported on conveyor systems to the furnace where it is pulverised, not talking about coal made wet during that process although some engineers do demand that the coal is made wet when the organic structure is such re: the ratio of carbon and water, certain coal variants combust too quickly – i was referring specifically to coal re: report of eskom that stipulated reason for shortage as COAL MADE WET IN COAL YARDS that were in fact in empty.
Jeff, forgive me for the preceding confusing bullshit but simply put I think the case for centralised supply, namely huge installations burning to provide power to all at the click of a switch and at the turn of a key, needs to be carefully examined. Any monkey like me can see the economic costs are much, much higher than that of mere plant and equipment and pollution. It dominates our economies, even more than the arms industry with its tentacle effect does the American economy, for it drives aggression, seeks arms and results in war. America, a country full of good people, has become the disaster it is because of this.
Perry Curling-Hope
I am confused by your name change but both pieces are consistent in the criticism of alternative sources of energy and you make a good case. At the same time some who have posted seem to have not read your posts.
You still see a role for burning in the production of power and in the short to medium term it seems clear you are perfectly right. What about the longer term?
Perry, I’m not sure why you are figuring our base requirement at 80 gigawatts, but that is more than double SA’s current capacity.
At R30 billion per gigawatt for a Sterling engine solar farm, considering the reduced impact on the environment and free fuel, it’s starting to look attractive. Of course one would have to factor the disposal of the battery banks into the equation, but I reckon we’re getting close to a feasible solution.
Bear in mind SA is setting up a 4,200 megawatt coal generated power station at Medupi at a cost of R78 billion… excluding the fuel cost (aproximately 15 million tons per year) and the damage to the environment.
Basically though, the problem is that government wants us to be reliant on state controlled services; and though it’s feasible to promote individual use of solar, for example, that’s not how an oligarchy is supposed to function. Who sponsors the welfare state if the consumer is not dependent on government for power and communications?
So many people dissing alternative enrgy sources as being inefficient – is this not because large amounts of time/money have not been invested in improving the technology – the way it’s been done with Nuclear/coal etc.
The way I see it if the French come and build our power stations it will still be their technology and then we are dependant on them to maintain our energy source – bad move. Bio fuels I don’t see as an option at all.
I heard a story last year from someone I thought was a reliable source who claimed that McDonalds was recycling all their old chip oil into biofuels to fuel their vehicles – I mean if it was possible to make biofuels from waste I would say go for it – but it would only be a supplementary fuel.
The executive management of Eskom performed to such an extent over the past three years that long term performance bonuses of R10,3 million will be paid to them on 31 March 2008. The question is; how is it possible that South Africa is sitting without electricity while the government owned company that is responsible for power generation will pay out “performance” bonuses. The answer lies in the nature and the performance measurement criteria of these bonuses.
To read more visit http://www.powergroup.org.za under heading ESKOM MANAGEMENT TO RECEIVE “PERFORMANCE”
BONUSSES
It is now time to stop payout of the bonuses. Voice your concern. Visit http://www.mypetition.co.za.
Newsletter with recognition of http://www.forensies.com a partner of Powergroup. Contact us if you want to partner with Powergroup.
Riaan Oosthuysen
http://www.powergroup.org.za
http://www.mypetition.co.za
http://www.reoproks.co.za
Sandra, Jeff, Perry and others, this is becoming a very interesting exchange. Supplementary sources are being factored into the discussion in a balanced way now. They are not the answer: they are of the answers.
Allow an analogy.
Housing is problem in SA. Shortly after the change of government he solution was to be be imposed by the now democratic state. All the boffins and the ‘wonderful’ entrepreneurs were encouraged to participate, yet this has been a disaster. But if anyone bothers to go to the settlements and see the ingenuity with which some people who think for themselves use found items and employ their neighbours and circulate earned capital in the community they will be astonished. The inhabitants are much more effective than any state programme could ever be. They spend almost nothing and make better dwellings, sometimes against the law.
The funny thing is that all they need is recognition. So, 12 years ago, when I wandered around alone with my camera and took photo’s of the architects of wonderful dwellings in the squatter camps in the hope of generating a competition giving a prize to the Best of the Month, they would make sure they had Mom and wife and babies in the picture and the clear sense of achievement that my simple act of exposure generated makes Eskom look tiny.
There is infinitely more power in the people than there is in money or coal.
Power to the people is not given: it is eagerly and breathtakingly taken, but only if the educated controllers, what we often call ‘Capital’, allows it.
@jeff
Thanks for reading, and doing some elementary calculation. Very few do so before blundering into the fray touting their preconceived ‘solutions’ without even the most elementary research.
The reason for planning any solar installation to have a minimum of double the required base load capacity is because >50 percentile solar radiation is available on average 8 hours out of every 24, some 300 days a year in an ‘ideal’ site like Jumilla, (or the Karoo.) During periods the solar electric output is below demand, (or absent, like at night) the grid must be supplemented or supplied by storage, which was up loaded during periods of peak output. Hence the need for a large surplus.
Incidentally, you mentioned ‘battery banks’, these are not a credible option for large capacity load storage, least of all because of resource depletion / waste disposal.
These ‘BESS’ systems are used to ‘hold’ the load till generators kick in…..avoiding momentary blackouts.
“World’s Biggest Battery Switched On in Alaska’
[..]a 2,000 square meter 13,730 cell NiCad UPS that will provide backup power for the entire city of Fairbanks for up to seven minutes. ‘This is enough time, according to ABB, to start up diesel generators to restore power [...]
Hydroelectric pumped storage systems (BIG ones) like the aforementioned R9billion Ingula site (1,300MW peak load) in Limpopo, are needed, and lots of them, about 30, to ‘go green’ on our current base load. Great idea, but do we have that many suitable sites with necessary water resources?
I still concur fully with Kahdija on the original premise of her post… Can we wrest ourselves free of “Big Government” monopoly over minerals and energy, which allows them to foist politically expedient ‘solutions’ of the Western multinationals onto us?
Going solar can potentially do this, but I’m skeptical as to pumped storage being viable in South Africa, the inevitable dependence on coal for transport fuels (no ‘biofuel’ rubbish please!) and hence on state control, and weather the state will ‘allow’ private initiative in the power sector without their licensing, regulation, control, and general meddling.
Wow Khadija. You may just actually have real writting talent. Congrats. However, i didn’t read any further cause emotive outcries doesn’t serve my need to think rationally. I’m kinda very intelligent in that way…
PS: You just need to stop writing for white people. Eish…
@MidaFo
I know what you’re saying. I live in such an area where (thank dog) there are no building regulations. But the people do not realise how powerful they are. They are embarrassed that their structures do not look like they come from Marble Arch.
They talk of suffering and cannot understand the bliss I have found by moving to such a beautiful and free environment. The grass is always greener n all that.
Perry,
Have you heard of peak hours? Electricity can’t be stored like money in a bank. It must be used when produced. Surprisingly peak hours are when the son shines – most facories and offices work during the day not the night.
We certaintly must keep state control of electricity. I suppose you think we were right to privatise Telkom and Sasol?
When Mbeki threatened nationalising the mines – Anglo American pointed out that a mine was just “a hole in the ground”. One of the Southern African countries did take over all the mines, ran at a loss – no profits AND no taxes ! Do you really want the government to run our mines – like they run Home Affairs I suppose?
Khadija
Liansky is right. Why waste your potential talent as an investigative journalist on mushy “Facebook” type stuff.
Liansky, do you perhaps have a newspaper I could work for?;) You see, I’m pretty much a broke freelancer;)
and my other job doesn’t pay;) in fact, it takes money to keep it going.
Hi Lyndall, solar energy can be stored, in fact, Germany is currently using SA solar cell technology – Phoenix Institute has been in contact with the company J. Solar for a few years now – unfortunately, they have a license that is ex-Africa. Only the CEF and the PTIP can develop a factory in our country which they are in the process of doing, however, I feel that no doubt, teh bulk of solar cells produced will be exported whilst we are pushed into a corner re: nuclear and biofuels. very very sad.
Khadija,
If you are freelancing- you obviously must write as much as you can. Don’t mind me – I was just grumpy from reading so many silly comments on other blogs. But keep the investigative stuff up. Keep on the energy story – you know a lot already and the story is going to go on for months if not years.
I have a friend who had solar installed for her geyser – but it only kept water hot during the day. When I discussed this on talk radio, an engineer phoned in to say a conservancy tank (?) must be inserted for solar, and many plumbers dont do it. I don’t think the idiots planned this crisis – but I do see the greedy trying to capitalise, and the stupid being conned into spending more than is needed.
Afew weeks ago I phoned in to SAFM and said we had been discussing energy all day – but no-one had mentioned gas. The “expert” recommending nuclear was very dismissive. Even said we had no reserves of gas and would have to import at great expense. What do I see burning off Mossel Bay? I am pleased the government is doing something with gas. This is your story. Why not do a little research on how much electricity Niagera produces ? And Cabora Bassa – how much did that joint project cost? A plant on Vic Falls could bring the power through Botwana, not Zim. No one will invest in Zim at the moment.
I am not anti-nuclear, but it is too slow, and very expensive.
Dear Khadija,
Don’t mind me. I was just grumpy from reading silly comments on other blogs. Keep with the energy stories – they will sell for months if not years.
It took so much energy reading all of this, it feels like I need a nuclear injection of sorts…..you know what on second thought I’ll just have a beer!! lol…..
One day when we the people of Mzansi truly understand the value that women bring to our society at large, Khadija I want you to run for President…….for reasons as obvious as the GWB invasion of Iraq……
Time Magazine states energy has become a major problem for first World countries. First World education to manage and contain Nuclear Power – is a feasible solution. The article on Dubai Energy solution is excellent.
RSA – 3rd World – Think of 10 years hence, the landscape dotted with Nuclear Power. A very simple question I ask bloggers.
We do not have enough skills to operate a coal burning power station.
However, if it blows up…. at least the entire continent will not go under.
I think of all the Nuclear Energy Atomic stations in RSA. WOW.
I’m numerically challenged having ended with “Arithmetic” – maths was unknown to us oldies.
Will some bright spark please calculate the very real potential of “bolts screwing loose” in such an array of destructive forces on our doorsteps. The maths please? The reason I ask this idiotic question?
If this country – with its education expertise and competence record to date – can produce physicists and technicians capable of messing around with nuclear atoms – I would endorse the concept.
What an enjoyable time this blog has given me.
Liansky – it is your assessment of your superior intellect that is way above whites – that you claim Thought Leader favours – that is my cause for sheer terror at the thought of such power in the hands of such superior intellect. It is this superior intelligence that has us where we are – back in the dark ages.
Eish to you too.
Old female pale face, it’s not that we do not have enough skills to operate powerplants, coal or nuclear; remember we made the BOMB. SA is also one of the leading manufacturers of radio isotopes for medical and other use. The problem is we do not have politician skilled enough to understand that skin colour is not equal to competency. One can never be a nuclear scientist by vertue of your mother’s skin colour, that you achieve by years of HARD study and the earning of expertise from LONG hours of work.
Hi Khadijah,I nearly boycotted the blog without your informing and thought provoking articles so continuously.I really missed them and wish that you open avenues with the Powers that be.(We differ on Polokwane though)They are listening to you.e.g.Changes are in the pipeline on Food Grading did you see?Thanks.
C Brink, thank you. In one sentence, without prejudice or bias, you have summed up what this country sadly lacks and my intention to convey.
“COMPETENCY – that you achieve by years of HARD study and the earning of expertise from LONG hours of work” May I add the verb – dedication!
You name the skills of those that have proved their full value in the past.
They are the people emigrating to countries where their expertise will be highly valued.
Of course, we can import Chinese, Iranian, Pakistani and North Korean skill – and they even have bomb expertise too nogal.
But are these not “makwere-kwere” or whatever others are labelled?
No – our “superior intellectuals” are the only option.
Hi, if interest female, I wrote an article on nuclear.
Correction on the statement that government waited for foreign investors to invest! Because, They came, They saw, They indicated interest. Government played the waiting game, (this rational is yet to be understood) and they buggered off
I hosted discussions with 2 companies looking at opportunities as IPP’s (Independent Power Producer) in SA as far back as 1998.
The response from government in engaging these companies was cold and unresponsive.
In 1999, the country Power Profile I had developed indicated a capacity shortfall in 2005 – 2007, based on the growth rate of consumption and international power companies could see the value proposition to for both investors and ESKOM.
ESKOM as we have established is arrogant, Government was not too far off.
One Co in particular, International Power, had successfully won a bid to Build and Operate a power plant in Richards Bay in 2003 (raising their own finance to do so, with no financial recourse to ESKOM at all) This project came to nought because ESKOM did not want to negotiate a Power Purchase Agreement.
Current news is that ESKOM wants to push a rate increase to subsidise development. I think not! They lead us down this path and need to look at real world solutions other than milking the public to get us out of it.
Government should seriously rethink the future of ESKOM; they have not executed their mandate and should be accountable.
True accountability would be when the board is made to resign…what do you think?
Solar power is an affordable and effective alternative for hot water heating. A good place to start would be to replace your electric geyser with a solar powered geyser, as geysers consume a large portion of household electricity.
See the cost saving details on:
http://www.pdcsolar.co.za
If you install a Solar Geysers you can get your money back from the Fat Cats Eskom. As a insentive to cutting power usage the goverment has ear marked a billion rand to those who install a new Solar geyser or upgrade a existing geyser. Rebates vary from R1900 to R4700.00 per installation.
Any queries let me know.
the mean time Eskom bosses cant wait for the 31 of March 2008 due in 13 days when they will receive an huge bonus of more than R10 Million for allowing this Electricity crises and all we can do is complain, criticize en point fingers but doing nothing, I repeat nothing at all. When will we wake up? When will we put our money where our mouth is?