Over the past week I’ve wanted to add my two cents’ worth to the (whining) discussions on the power cuts — each time I thought about what I wanted to write, I’d get up in the morning, read the headlines and realise that what I have to say could lead to a cyber-stoning. Not because what I say would be so bad, but more a case of becoming the subject of misplaced anger — and caffeine withdrawals.
But I’ve had enough. I can’t take any more of the complaining. What about the millions of people in South Africa who have not had the luxury of electricity? I have wondered if I would feel the same way if my business was affected or if I could not have my morning coffee five days in a row.
I am not trying to downplay that we have a crisis. Yes, there is a problem. Yes, Eskom and the government are to be blamed — and yes, they must be hauled over the coals and account for this atrocious planning and poor communication. When the first power cuts occurred about 18 months ago, there were reports then already that mentioned that load-shedding could occur for the next five to seven years. Eskom needed to continue to communicate this to the public. Did it think that it could get away with keeping people totally in the dark?
Anyway, the question of who to blame is immaterial now — the important question is: What are we going to do about it? I am not talking about stocking up on candles and buying generators for small homes, but about changing our behaviour and mindset to becoming a less energy-consuming and energy-wasting society.
South Africa is dependent on cheap “dirty” coal for our energy supplies, with only one entity supplying this power. Eskom has stated that it is planning to build more coal-fired and nuclear power stations to deal with the increasing demand. I do concede that at this time a coal-fired station is probably the quickest way to respond to the present crisis. However, it is not the best as we will be increasing our carbon-dioxide emissions. How many more documentaries on global warming, climate change, extinction of species and so forth must be made before people realise that our actions have an impact on the environment?
Now is the perfect opportunity for South Africans to take a step back and look at the direction in which we are heading. We need to take a bold step — and campaign for a greater focus on renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydro, bio and wave energy. In an article by Saliem Fakir, he states: “It is ironic that South Africa, which has the highest ultraviolet penetration in the world, lags so significantly in its use of solar power compared with countries such as Japan and Germany, where the sun’s rays struggle to pierce grim-looking skies.” An example of what we can do is to change from geysers to solar water heaters, which reduces household consumption significantly.
Furthermore, the argument that these sources are too expensive and will not be able to deal with the energy load required in South Africa is fast losing credibility. The rising cost of coal with an increasing demand for alternative sources of energy is already making renewable options more affordable. And yes, none of these on their own could solve the power demand. South Africa must diversify its power supply (and supplier!). We must change our dependence on coal and be open to other renewable, cleaner options. Saliem Fakir says it well: “Renewables are no longer a thing hippies dream about.” And the “environment” is not just about saving trees and dolphins!
How much electricity will SA save if we replace geysers with solar thermal water heaters? If we assume existing prices of these units will be unchanged over time, how much will it cost to replace all the geysers in SA with solar thermal water heaters? And how long will it take to replace them given the existing manufacturing capacity we have in SA (or even in the world)? Do we have the necessary capacity (of plumbers &/ electricians) in SA to install these units in every household?
Assuming 30% of households in SA could be enticed to change geysers, that means we need to manufacture & install about 3 million geysers. Solardome.co.za provide an estimate of over R10,000 per unit, so that will cost about R30bn to install solar heaters for just these 3 million households. While the cost will mostly be absorbed by the respective households, it may require that govt heavily subsidise the wide scale installation.
Assuming one person could install 4 units per day and there are 250 working days / year, it will require 3,000 trained technicians to install these units within 1 year. Training 100 persons is difficult enough, not to speak of 3,000.
If we are lucky, existing manufacturing capacity in Southern AFrica is about 100,000 units per year. So it may take 30 years to produce the required number of units if all of it is produced within SA.
Once Eskom’s electricity who’s are sorted out, there will be little incentive for households without these units to buy the units as Eskom supplied electricity will remain extremely cheap in comparison.
These are just some of the practicalities we must face when talking about renewable energy.
I think the argument about millions of people not having had electricity is self-evidently misguided. It’s a pretty cheap shot, actually. Those people depend on the economic engine that drives the country as much as those who own and operate it, albeit less directly.
Unfortunately, this crisis has set back their chances of being electrified even further. Which deepens the problem, and makes the situation one that is tragic as well as disastrous.
It’s certainly true that a lot of people with money don’t care at all about those without, and their focus is simply on staying comfortable. But that’s a completely separate and different point.
Gosh – what idiots we all are!!!! A slap on our collective wrists. Off to the Naughty Mat! Had we known it was as simple as you suggest, we’d all have coated our roofs with solar panels, run up a windmill in the back garden, and recycled all the potato peelings into biofuel.
I fully support investment in biofuels etc – but what difference do they make to total energy consumption in economies where they have been embraced and adopted with enthusiasm for years? Care to share that with us?
No?
Well, your readers should know that it’s about 2%. Yes, a whole two percent. And the energy shortfall in SA currently is…..? 20%.
And where is SA on the issue of biolfuels etc? A fat nowhere, that’s where. To get from here to 2% would take years.
Not to mention that European countries, which have promoted environmental policies and financially supported R&D into biofuels are reassessing them because a host of unforseen problems has arisen. And let’s talk about the cost of installing solar panels and all the associated equipment required to heat the geyser, make the lights run etc? I doubt that Mrs Khumalo who lives in Thembisa with her five children, four of whom are HIV-positive and none of which has a job, can afford to plonk solar panels on her roof.
And then there are all those squatters in Cape Town – naughty them for not making the most of the Cape Doctor and putting up wind turbines above their shacks. Funny – they must have forgotten to do so when they were dealing with the fact they have no toilet facilities, no sewerage, a cold tap between 500 people, and breathing in noxious fumes every night from the paraffin stoves.
Renewables are the way of the future – the problem in SA is the present.
You make it sound like all we have to do it click our heels together three times, and lo! As if by magic (certainly not by electricity) all our problems would be solved.
I do agree that the time has come for South Africans to look at alternate sources of energy. While the cost of installing solar paneling may be high on the short term the long term economic saving is tremendous – not to mention reducing our carbon footprint significantly!
Yes – we’ve been forced into a situation where we need to think creatively to save our backsides. That doesn’t absolve the fools in charge of Eskom. They are simply incompetent and the people in charge of them can’t even read and write properly. Technology to generate power on a large scale is available. They simply don’t know how to organize a pot of pap
In an attempt to find solutions to the problem in hand, Rodney Gold has written and distributed a viable plan to stop rolling blackouts:
The plan to stop blackouts
By Rodney Gold
18/01/2008
“We are in a national crisis regarding electricity supply and rolling blackouts.
I have originated a plan that will save our country billions of Rands.
The problem we face is that the inability to control demand for electricity at peak times has resulted in rolling shutdowns and huge losses to the economy.
DSM (demand side management) cannot be implemented by power authorities without shutting down FULL power to areas or towns or suburbs. The present infrastructure does not allow controlled, timely or selective switching of non-essential high power appliances at users sites. I have a system and plan that can implement selective switching using present infrastructure.
The concept is simple. We have extensive coverage over South Africa via the cell networks. All one needs is a SMS based switching mechanism that can be attached to ANY distribution board that can selectively switch circuits on or off.
Basically this is a cell engine and a set of relays. This type of product exists and is tried and tested. There is already a local product called a GSM commander ( http://www.gsmcommander.com/GSMC/ ) that can control 8 channels or devices based on a SMS received.
This product can be simplified and be used in every household and industry to turn off non essential powered devices and leave partial power so that both households and businesses DO NOT SHUT DOWN.
This selective switching will work almost instantly and would require a single command to implement and can work over just about the whole of South Africa at the same time.
What would you prefer, your geyser shut down for a few hours or a total blackout?
The story is this:
Households would have the power switch unit installed at their distribution board. The switcher would probably be a simple 3 channel device.
Channel 1 would be connected to the geyser, channel 2 to the stove and channel 3 to plug points or lights or some other power using circuit of the users choice.
Should demand rise above capacity, a simple SMS would be sent to the device and it would activate one of the relays starting at channel 1.
For example, if it gets a sms, the unit can shut off all geysers in a specific street, area, town, province or even nationally. If this doesn’t relieve the situation, the device could be sent another SMS to shut off channel 2, which are stoves and so on.
This sms based switching can also be extrapolated to industry, for example channel 1 could be the centralized air conditioner units at a mall, channel 2 could be all external lights and so on. It is easy to see how this can be implemented to selectively switch off or on any device that is non essential and has a large power draw. In fact the demand reduction in industry and larger buildings might even far eclipse households.
For home applications, simpler is better. However for industrial applications, I would suggest a multi channel device so that there are more choices as to switching off non essential devices as 3 channels would probably be insufficient or act too grossly.
One could use multiple devices at one site, for example at a large factory with multiple sections, the use of multiple devices will enable each section to control what would be shut down first. The user in this application has greater choice – at the moment there is NO CHOICE.
The device itself is simple to build.
It is a cell engine, a power supply, a tamper proof switch, switching relays or contactors, some lightening protection, an antenna and a sim card. It would be a sealed box about the size of a prepaid meter or smaller. I would imagine it would also have to be compliant with all electrical codes and SABS certified. This could be expedited,
All one would do is divert the incoming power to any single circuit thru one of the relays of this device and allow it to switch off when a particular SMS is received by it to turn off that relay. It would switch back on when it receives the “on” sms.
The estimated cost to build a 2 or 3 channel device is less than R500 based on larger quantities. A 1 channel device would be even cheaper.
We do have the capacity in South Africa to build this in quantity and the technology is already proven!!!!!! It’s a matter of merely simplifying an existing tried and tested product. I have a working model of this to prove the concept and demonstrate how it works.
Savings can be immense, just turning off a household geyser would average out at a 1.5kw saving, and this is an extremely conservative estimate as the savings would be more in excess of 2kw per geyser.
In all likelihood, the cost of building and installing such a unit would be far less than R2000, but for arguments sake, base it on R2000.
Lets do the mathematics.
If one had an installed base of 500 000 units saving 1.5kw, the saving if all units were activated is 750 mw – the cost of installing would be R1 billion, but a power station built to deliver this amount of electricity would cost the country R22 billion. I have not even considered the opportunity costs and coincidental damage costs of shutting down businesses or households. Make no mistake, I’m not saying that the power station won’t have to be built. We will still need it to cater for the future.
The cost to the country of the latest shutdowns is estimated at 2 billion a DAY!! Implementing this system should NEVER result in a shutdown – EVER.
As more units get installed, the power of Eskom to shape demand increases and the effects of reducing demand are spread wider with far less damage. Turning off 100 000 geysers for an hour or 2 is far preferable to shutting off 5 000 households and businesses. In all likelihood the effects of doing this would hardly be felt.
This could be done with a simple SMS all at one stroke.
To use another analogy, at the moment Eskom can only switch off the water pipeline, this method allows Eskom to switch off individual taps with finesse and control.
The unit could also have a time delay built in, and would beep and flash a light for 3-5 minutes before shutdown to warn consumers that one of the circuits is being shut down, in addition it would also send a SMS to any designated cell number warning of the shutdown.
Furthermore, the unit would also respond to a users cell phone if they wanted to shut down any of the circuits it’s attached to. So you could also SMS the unit to shut of the geyser when there is no one home and SMS it to switch on. IE remotely control your own consumption and save money.
If the unit gets a signal from Eskom, lets say level 1 turn off, the user would NOT be able to defeat it using their cell.
One does not even need a cell to make use of this unit, as the unit has it’s own Sim card. Thus it can be installed at any location, rural or low income areas included.
Each unit has its own unique cell number so even a single dwelling can be selected for shaping. The control is immense, one can shape a street, a suburb, a city , a nation!! It’s possible to even selectively target the highest power consumers and start with them, then go down from there so the first level of shaping would have the most impact.
Here are some Salient points
This plan allows Demand shaping without user intervention and it allows demand shaping to be specific to areas and to be implemented WHEN it’s needed and it will allow this with minimal time delay.
The unit should be tamper proof and would not be able to be user defeated when activated by the power authority.
If the unit fails, it would devolve to letting full power though, thus the household and business would not suffer a full switch off or not be able to turn a circuit on or off on any malfunction
The need for full area blackouts would be non-existent once a sufficient user base is installed.
Critical applications like hospitals, police stations, IT installations and traffic lights would NEVER be disrupted.
The use of generators and thus an extremely expensive form of electric generation and the use of precious fuel would be negated.
This is extremely environmentally friendly, no alternative energy has to be generated using inefficient technology or involve expensive capital costs.
The more units installed, the more power will be saved apart from mere demand shaping as users would make use of this system themselves.
House and business security will not be compromised by complete shutdowns which leave us all open to crime.
Consumer outrage will abate, there is light at the end of the tunnel and we will not have to suffer 5-10 years of these rolling blackouts which will get worse than they are now.
The savings to the country will be many billions of Rands in direct cost and much more than that in indirect – this money can be used far more effectively.
We can still attract foreign investment as confidence in electrical supply will increase and the proposal to shelve capital projects till 2013 is moot.
World cup 2010 will NOT be compromised
We will not look like just another banana republic
This is a high tech solution, showing SA is on the cutting edge and is capable of innovative technical solutions.
This solution is exportable to ANY location that has cell coverage and can be used worldwide and can result in many trillions of rands in terms of global savings let alone relief from insufficient energy for other countries in our situation.
The unit will also allow “soft starts” in that discrete blocks of cell numbers can be turned on, thus avoiding huge surges and damage to sensitive appliance or electronics.
The pressure will be taken off Eskom, allowing them more time to build cost effective power generating solutions rather than spending huge fortunes on inefficient generating plants like gas turbines as a mere panic measure and as band aids.
The confidence of the country and the outlook for the future will be radically changed on introduction of this plan, there will be some hope for consumers albeit it will not have instant results.
Most importantly, no one has put forward any other viable plan, I am offering a simple, yet effective solution that can easily be implemented using existing infrastructure and is in principle, viable.
The Downside
I doubt that any significant impact can be felt this year, this will require a pilot project to iron out any glitches and I doubt any significant rollout would happen before the last quarter of the year, however in 09 and ’10 there can be SIGNIFICANT impact. Unfortunately consumers will have to bear shutdowns in the short term and especially with winter coming on, but this is massively preferable to the situation continuing for the next 5-10 years and getting WORSE over that time. More installations means a better outlook over time , added to planned capacity , this could obviate any need for any blackout from 2010 and beyond.
Installation
In terms of installation of this unit and meeting potential demand, there is a problem. Ideally one would want to install at least 500 000 units or more per annum, which means around 1500-2000 per day.
The problem is that this is attached to a distribution board and is using high current and cannot be user installed without some safety risks, so installation would have to be overseen by qualified electricians.
I do not think we have the infrastructure to do this using soley the existing pool of already qualified people and to train a completely cold workforce to be qualified will take huge amounts of time, we do not have the time. It will also require training institutes and so forth to be set up.
However, SETA has funds available for skills training, and using local qualified electricians to train and oversee smaller workgroups of installers is certainly feasible. IE you could have many semi skilled installers doing the work and one qualified electrician approving the installation.
I would estimate that an installation should take about 1 hour per household and any small electrical contractor could install at least 10-15 units or more a day. Installation costs would be payable by government. This would have the added benefit of creating jobs and giving many folk some skills.
This is a long term plan, ostensibly one would want EVERY dwelling or factory or business to have a unit installed, thus providing work for many years for this workforce – sustainable work.
Installers can also provide a geyser blanket as well as energy efficient lights, thus fitting in with government’s existing programs and initiatives.
Apart from that, Eskom itself can devote some qualified electrical staff to intall and set up parallel installation infrastructures.
The cost to consumers
The unit will have to be free to the consumer, and in fact some incentive will have to be given to a user to install it.
Why the incentive? Well if all around you have not installed a unit and you have, you will be the only one to suffer if there is a need to shape load.
Thus what I suggest is this: If you have a unit installed, Eskom would give you 5%-10% of your electricity bill back bi annually, IE you will get a cash back amount 2x a year. So using this product will result in money in your pocket, no expense to you and the ability to save further monies by turning off your circuits voluntarily.
I cannot for the life of me see how a consumer can object to this!!!
In terms of the cash back costing Eskom money, well it is not every single household they are paying, it is only the installed user base.
Assuming one does manage 500 000 households after 2 years and each households electricity bill is R700 a month, the payback in that year is R210 million if 5% and R420 mil if 10% , a mere drop in the ocean to Eskom or government and this money will go back into the economy anyway.
There are some further considerations in using this unit:
1) The units security and the system must be paramount, one would NOT want a hacker to be able to shut down any dwelling or worse, any town or area, thus safeguards have to built in to ensure this cannot happen. I am not qualified to speculate how it might be done but its possible.
2) The installers have to be vetted as to their security and trustworthiness, no householder will allow any tom dick or harry to enter their premises in today’s climate
3) The unit should be tamperproof, but bearing in mind the unit can communicate both ways, it is easy for it to send an SMS to the controlling authority based on a tamper switch, that it has been compromised
4) The unit needs to communicate with the controlling authority to tell them that it is still active, easy to implement,
Initially I would target households and industries that use large amounts of power, this is easy to do based on power consumption figures, in the early stages of shaping, this would have the biggest impact. They should be prioritised for installation.
The Cell story
I think this needs to be implemented and partially controlled by one of the cell companies.
They would supply the sims, network time and control the SMS’s, they already have the infrastructure, the billing mechanism, the software, the programmers and they control the network health.
As bad as this may seem, Eskom are not currently “trusted” by consumers but the cell companies are, further enhancing the consumers’ confidence in the system. Eskom should merely issue the command and let the Cell company do the physical sending and so forth. They are far more qualified to maintain the system and ensure rapid delivery of the sms and are continually monitoring their networks as to capacity and can route effectively.
The Cell companies have vast financial muscle as well and they have huge and effective marketing infrastructure in place which will further expedite adoption of this plan.
The cell company would be paid by the Government for their SMS traffic and undoubtedly some arrangement regarding bulk rates can be reached.
Apart from this, government should subsidise setup costs to them to implement the system.
The box needs a SIM and they can provide that as well as the relevant number range required, they too can control the security of the system and have the facilities to update the unit via SMS. Further revenue can be generated for them in that users will be SMS’ing the unit to save power.
The problem with electing a cell co to control the system is the fact that they now have control of millions of households and businesses electrical supply, there has to be a control mechanism so that this cannot be abused.
There could also be a perception amongst consumers that their house has been “invaded” by “big Brother”, however if one thinks about it, Eskom at present has that capability in that they FULLY control the power to the establishment. At any rate, it is a small price to pay for the fact that we are not shutting down parts of the country.
The unit can be disconnected if things really go wrong or someone decides to make life difficult. This is a simple safeguard against total abuse. Undoubtedly a few consumers will try to abuse the system or the cash back incentive, there is probably little can be done to stop this but their actions would really be counterproductive to the country.
Marketing
The system needs to be marketed in a few ways, it should appeal to consumers national sense of pride in that installing a unit is good for SA, it will save them money, it’s FREE, it will put cash back into their pocket, it’s a solution to shutdown woes and it will stop THEM having total blackouts.
I cannot possibly see them having any objection to having a unit installed and in fact can see a huge demand for this, more than the installation infrastructure can cope with.
Governments Contribution
Government must fund the development of the commercial unit and pay for installation and the manufacturing costs.
It must make funds available for training and subsidise the cell’s ability to implement.
It must legislate that all new dwellings and electrical supply sites have this unit installed and that any pre paid meter has a unit installed too.
Pre paid meters already have a relay or switching contactor installed thus further savings will be available.
Govt must try to expedite this and not get it mired in red tape.
The cost to government of implementing this solution is paltry compared to the damaging costs of rolling blackouts. It is also paltry compared to the cost of building a 750mw power station (over R20 billion)
Even if development and installation costs are R5000 a unit, it is still economically viable, as R20 billion would put 4 million units in place and could conceivably reduce demand by up to 4 GIGAWATTS.
Even if only 25% of the units were activated at this level, the savings would be in excess of 1 gigawatt, and that is ONLY turning off hot water cylinders. Industrial applications would save even more.
The government does not have to spend a cent on infrastructure, it already exists.
Eskom’s Contribution
All Eskom has to do is provide the 5% (or greater) cash back or incentive scheme, it also has to control the extent of the partial shutdowns and the level at which it must be implemented. It has to aid installation and train installers. It has to participate in the development of the consumer unit and perhaps share its cost with govt.
Alternatives
Yes there are essentially similar solutions partially in place, like ripple switches that turn off geysers on a signal sent down the electrical line, intelligent metering and radio based switching. Some of these are cheaper than this proposal, however there is a problem with most.
Due to the routing and infrastructure of electrical supply and the devolved control of various spurs and areas, implementing an instantaneous blanket switching using ripple switching is well nigh impossible, it also will give no warning to a consumer. It is only single channel and allows almost no selectivity for business or for households.
Radio switching requires a radio infrastructure to be installed, we already have an infrasttructure, the cell networks.
This is a workable and viable plan, I am the originator of it and it is my idea, I developed it with the intention of helping the country.
I do not have any commercial interests at the present in manufacturing of the unit, barring that the manufacturer of the GSM commander on which the simple proposed household unit is based, is a customer of mine for stickers.
I looked at this unit and came up with the concept. The unit is not unique, but it is at least tried and tested and exists”.
I belive this is worth being published, I mean if this could be a sustainable solution and experts in this field agrees, why not pressure the government to adopt it?
Thank you for your comments!
I am not prescribing a “quick fix” neither am I saying that it is simple. The point I am making is that while we find solutions in the short term we need to look more long term and thus re-look at where we are heading. We have to start changing our consumption patterns and this is the opportunity for us to do it. I am also advocating that we need to diversify our power supply. The reliance on one type of energy and one company to supply this energy is proving to be detrimental.
• Solar water heaters – I mentioned this as only one example so it is not the only thing we can do. You have raised very important issues of cost and capacity – I agree it will take a while to change ALL geysers in SA – I am saying that we have to START!!!! In the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality there is a public-public partnership project to install SWH – households will pay the same amount that they pay for their present water and lights bill – the amount will then serve as a ‘higher purchase’ – so that after a number of years they could pay off their solar water heater. There are many examples of similar activities happening around the country.
• Eskom’s energy is not going to remain cheap – the prices will increase and as technology on renewables improves the costs will be reduced (Moore’s law)
• “How much of our energy needs could we supply using renewable energy technologies?”
o If we start now and increase investment in renewables then – Banks and Schaffler (2006, xii) argue that it would be possible to provide up to 70% of South Africa’s electricity needs by 2050 using renewable energy technologies
• Expat: I agree that the coal fired stations planned by eskom are necessary – but that it is time for us to be less wasteful. This is not a challenge for just SA – it is a global issue. But as long as we have to deal with the challenge of climate change and global warming we must start thinking outside the norm – otherwise there will be no earth left to even bother.
meshack – thanks – very useful information. A similar device is being used in the Nelson Mandela Metro to assist with reducing power usage. The device is connected to geysers, which is then switched off during certain periods of the day.
Meshack – I fully agree that the best short term course of action is effective Demand Side Management. It fits into Ferrial’s & Sandy Carrol’s core argument that SAns are highly inefficient in using electricity and the main reason is our cheap electricity of the past. The rapid increase in electricity costs from Eskom (the price of electricity will likely double in the next 4 years and triple in the next 10 years) will force most of us to become more efficient and aware of our electricity wastes.
I believe something similar to what you suggest is used overseas but they use the electricity grid to send out the signal, not the mobile phone network. You rightly point out that installing this will take time. There are 3 core areas in the electricity market – Generation, Transmission & Distribution. Eskom generates 95%+ of electricity consumed in SA, controls the transmission network (lines carrying power from power stations to cities), but only a small part of distribution (this responsibility lie mostly with municipalities). Eskom only supply directly to consumers in small, rural municipalities, or per agreement to large industrial/mining projects.
Thus, your solution must be addressed to municipalities, not Eskom per se. (or get Eskom to force municipalities to implement this). It is up to the local municipalities to then implement it. It could also be as simple as getting the local council to develop a new policy & bylaw requiring all houses in the area to have these devices installed within 3 years (all new houses must be build with this already installed) with a detailed plan to manage this effectively.
Yes, Ferrial, the only way to scale this huge mountain is to start climbing it one step at a time. Its a journey we will have to start now.
There’s one elementary flaw in Ms Adams’ argument: “What about the millions of people in South Africa who have not had the luxury of electricity?”
Those without the luxury of electricity also have the luxury of not getting an electricty bill every month. We – the whiners – PAY for our electricity supply, whether reliable or erratic.
I think you make the right point: we need diverse supply, and should focus on renewables. The amazing thing is that renewables, could potentially mean more jobs. Interesting then that the Energy Master Plan – check the DME website – is premised mostly on coal fired stations.
Ms Five Clips (Half-a-Gee)
I think Meshaks proposal is very good. It needs to be considered… and you have the network to do just that. Get it published, get people to lobby for it.
There are areas I would challenge in his discussion but the very good basic idea needs to see the light.
The module if bought in quantity, would probably cost less than R400 a household with installation (by the thousand) being an additional cost of perhaps R300 each and there are many creative ways of funding this.
Eskom have devices developed by those cleaver Afrikaans heavy current Eskom engineers now working elsewhere in the world because Eskom didn’t want white employees. These devices connect to the power lines and can remotely switch but the current Eskom Technocrats are too incompetent to exploit either the current system or the one proposed here. This is where private enterprise comes in. Get a number of service providers to control power.
It would obviously be lekker if Meshak can play some part in exploiting his idea…
So lets see if you have the courage to try and make a differsnce
- Siemens sell suitable cellphone switching units which if bought in quantities of 10 units cost R600. Thetre is a bit more circuitery needed and three large relays but even the first 100 prototype units are unlikely to be more than a thousand five hundred Rand each (excluding the design and prototyping costs).
They touch my geyser at their peril! I paid thousands for a generator and have spent an average of R180 a week to fuel it for the past month because these clowns stole the maintenance money. I’m buggered if they’re going to disconnect my geyser from the electricity I produce and pay for.
Selectively disconnecting geysers and stoves will not work. People will buy plug-in hot plates to cook on and will boil kettles for bathwater.
I also have a generator, and resent the idea that some remote button-pusher can deny me hot water while my neighbour uses more electricity than the whole street with his welding every day.
We had water rationing (in KZN) in the early 80s, and while it was unfair in that a single person’s allocation was the same as that of a family of six, the system worked. If we overstepped the mark, we paid dearly for the extra litres used.
Set electricity usage limits per household or business, and give us some way of monitoring our own usage. Only the greedy will suffer.
Oh, and set the limit for Eskom’s CEO at zero.
All you renewable energy hoodlums – viva nuclear power!
The cheapest is none of the above – just use ripple control. That’s the cheapest and easiest. Solar panels good – but only when you can sell back to Eskom otherwise PV and solar geysers lot of hot air if it is not subsidised.
Savaga
I asked an energy efficiency expert about the Rodney Gold plan, described in a posting above, and he said: “It seems that something is missing. The author seems to equate DSM with what is sometimes called load shedding (i.e. selectively shutting off certain customers or a portion of their load). Load shedding is sometimes accomplished through a subset of DSM efforts called Demand Response programs (in which customers are paid to get off the grid or reduce their load). While not necessarily a bad thing, Demand Response programs are but a subset of what you can do. DSM can also be investments in efficiency that save energy all the time and do not require customers to sacrifice service. Such programs can – over time at least – produce much more peak savings than Demand Response programs. However, this need not be an either/or scenario – you can do both.”