Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Profiteering Municpalities

It is about time someone picked up on the fact that municipalities are profiteering from the ESKOM price hikes. See http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?from=rss_&fArticleId=5296242. Let me explain what is happening.

Firstly, ESKOM was granted a price increase by NERSA in June of 23.23% for municipalities. Then an additional government environmental levy of 1.97 c/kWh was also added, bringing the price hike to 31.3%. Thus the price went from 25.24c/kWh to 33.14c/kWh, or an increase of 7.9 c/kWh. Thus, one would assume municipalities would put their price up by 7.9 c/kWh to maintain the same amount of “profit” from electricity.

But they did not. Most also increased their price by about 31.3%, but since they already markup the price of electricity, this lead to a much bigger increase than 7.9 c/kWh. For example, let me use my tariff at home in Cape Town. Prior to the tariff increase, I was paying 56.89 c/kWh. Now I pay 77.37 c/kWh, an increase of 36% but an increase of 20.48 c/kWh. Another example: a large client in Stellenbosch has gone from around 41 c/kWh to 54 c/kWh, an increase of around 31.3% but an increase of 13 c/kWh.

So why is everyone shouting at ESKOM when they should be taking on their own municipalities??!! They are generating more revenue than they ought off the ESKOM price increase.

Frank

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Copenhagen = Green-wash

The climate deal was finally struck. And what a failure. It recognises the fact that global warming needs to be kept below 2 deg C, but nothing is put in place to achieve it. A miserable USD 10 billion a year was pledged for 3 years for adaptation in developing countries, when over USD 100 billion a year is needed.

In the future, our children could considered this outcome a crime against humanity.

You can read the Copenhagen Accord at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf

Guardian article on Copenhagen failure: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal

George Monbiot on the failure: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/18/scramble-for-the-atmosphere/

In fact, let me quote Monbiot on our future: “Goodbye Africa, goodbye south Asia; goodbye glaciers and sea ice, coral reefs and rainforest; it was nice knowing you, not that we really cared. The governments which moved so swiftly to save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns.”

Frank

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Tracking the Copenhagen negotiations with Arthur Chapman

From: http://www.oneworldgroup.co.za/tracking-the-copenhagen-negotiations/

Tracking the Copenhagen negotiations with Arthur Chapman

The Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has just kicked off in Copenhagen. Negotiating strategies and positions of different countries appear to be clarifying already. The gist of the text below is summarised from the COP15 news website.

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer says there are four essentials to the COP15 negotiations:

  1. How much are the industrialised countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?
  2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?
  3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?
  4. How is that money going to be managed?

Large emitting nations are taking care not to commit early to any absolute reductions in carbon emissions, or are aiming to commit to reductions with as long a timeframe as possible (e.g. 2050). Developing countries are calling for large emitters (the developed countries) to make commitments for significant reductions by 2020, or pay up.

The developing, less developed and least developed countries are trying to create a strong negotiating position by trying to force the larger economies and emitters into a corner. Either commit to large reductions in CO2 to reduce the climate impact in their own countries, or put in place significant financial and technical aid so that less developed countries can adapt to the changes already occurring, is the message coming from developing and less developed countries. Clearly, countries appear to be for sale and evidence of that may be increasingly evident.

Purportedly, up to Є3 billion for the duration 2010—2012 is up for grabs by vulnerable developing countries, apparently offered by the EU in a "show of good faith". The EU is also making an offer of commitment (to reduce CO2 emissions relative to 1990) but will reveal its hand only at the end of COP15, once other countries have revealed their bids. The EU tactic apparently is to keep up the pressure on the US and China, among others, to make large commitments, or allow all to scale back their promises to cut CO2 emissions if there is no agreement. According to de Boer, the key is that the USA sign on to any agreement that comes out of Copenhagen and to do that, the US Senate has to approve the US commitments (which they did not in the Kyoto Protocol).

Meanwhile, South Africa is negotiating to reduce its emissions by 34 percent by 2020—up to 42 percent, depending on the amount of aid given South Africa. However, South Africa's undertaking is conditional upon finance, technology and technology being made available. Notably, South African electricity is mostly coal fired and new coal-based power stations are being built.

Countries are offering bids on so-called reductions. No solid reductions in CO2 have yet been promised (that will lead to a reduction in atmospheric CO2), but on offer is to become more efficient in use of carbon, the effect of which is that CO2 emissions and therefore atmospheric CO2 will keep rising—perhaps at a slower pace, for example, an emissions total about 47 billion tons (gigatons) at present would be reduced to 46 gigatons by 2020. In reality, significant cuts by 2020 are required to bring atmospheric CO2 from the current 387 ppm to 350 ppm, the "safe" level. In essence, a "slightly more efficient but business as usual" approach is the theme of discussion at COP15 now.

Unfortunately, this stance will ensure that atmospheric CO2 will keep rising for the foreseeable future, committing the world to further warming and climate change. It also means that negotiators are considering current emissions to be the carbon cap.

Some are looking to the forests and carbon trading to save the atmosphere. Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) are seen as a real and achievable option and new agreements on REDD could be one of the more easily attainable agreements of COP15. REDD has a certain attraction—poorer countries maintain and grow their forests and richer ones buy the carbon credits available. Maintaining (and even increasing) the world's forests is seen as a low-hanging fruit of sequestering atmospheric carbon. Like everything else, however, there are significant hurdles, with the potential for corruption one of the very visible obstacles.

Presidents of several nations plan to appear in the final days of the negotiations to enhance the possibility of an agreement,as well as boost their own profiles amongst their supportive electorates.

Arthur Chapman is a hydrologist at OneWorld Sustainable Investments and project manager for the Southern African Regional Climate Change Programme.

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

The Climate Change Scandal

There has been a lot of debate recently about whether some leaked e-mails show that Climate Change is all a hoax.

If would like to know why Climate Change is still sound, and get an understanding of how large Corporates try to sow disinformation about climate change into the mix, then read:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/

and

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/case-studies/

Frank

No third coal power station

At last someone has worked out the our Climate Change Strategy means no new Coal Power Stations: http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?from=rss_&fArticleId=5277734

Frank

Monday, December 07, 2009

SA announces emissions target as climate talks start

“South Africa will undertake mitigation actions which will result in a deviation below the current emissions baseline of around 34% by 2020 and by around 42% by 2025. This level of effort enables the country's emissions to peak between 2020 and 2025, plateau for about a decade and decline in absolute terms thereafter, said the Presidency on Sunday.”

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/sa-announces-emissions-target-as-climate-talks-start-2009-12-07

Frank

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

New SA Renewable Energy / Energy Efficiency Fund

The South African government, the African Development Bank, the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation have recently launched the Clean Technology Fund. Apparently they have around USD 500 million to invest. There focus areas will be:
  • 1) The market development and retrofitting of 500,000 solar water heaters
  • 2) The ESKOM 100MW CSP plant
  • 3) The ESKOM 100MW wind farm
  • 4) Energy Efficiency

Increasing potential energy efficiency investments through expansion of bank lending to commercial and industrial sectors through lines of credit to commercial banks, contingent financing to foster energy service companies, and financial incentives or risk products to market leaders.

See: http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/5488/world-bank-funds-half-million-for-renewable-energy-and-efficiency-in-south-africa

Frank

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Three new forms of colonialism

Colonialism & imperalism is not dead. It continues to live in the hands of powerful companies and states. I give you three examples:

  • Energy – Desertec, the largest project in the world, aiming to harness the sun in the Sahara and take its energy to Europe
  • Water – Example of Israel and Palestine, where Israel is hoarding scare water supplies
  • Land – Ethiopia, Madagascar, and many other places in Africa re leasing huge tracts of land on decade long leases to rich companies so that they may guarantee their food supplies, while continuing to compromise their own.

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22land-t.html?_r=2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112201478.html?hpid=artslot

Frank

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Green Technologies for Social Good

What do drip-irrigation, solar lighting, libraries, South African Zinc-Air batteries and hearing aids have in common? They are technologies aimed to help the poorest, their entrepreneurs honoured at the Tech Awards in San Jose.

The fascinating article is at: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/greentech-for-social-good

Frank

Monster wind turbine blade

Ever wondered how they transport the massive wind turbine blades? Well, here is a video of a 61.5m blade for an offshore wind turbine being transpoted to COP-15 in Copenhagen: http://about.elsevier.com/media/on_road_to_COP15.wmv

Want to know why wind is a good idea? Check this out: http://www.windpowerworks.net/

Frank

Saturday, November 21, 2009

The Johanna Shenanigans

What IS going on with the supposed ultra-cheap South African PV invention from Dr Vivian Albers??

Back in 2006, it was announced that by 2007, 1000 modules/day (or 30 MW/year) would be produced from the German factory. By 2010, they were supposed to have THREE factories like this, one of which would be in SA. (See http://free.financialmail.co.za/innovations/06/1103/cinn.htm)

So one would expect a fair amount to have been produced to date. But how much actually has been produced today? Practically ZERO.

Yesterday it is announced that a large scale commercial project should start in Germany by the end of the year, and that in 2½ years a South African production facility will open. (See http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/sa-thin-film-solar-plant-may-be-operating-within-two-and-a-half-years-2009-11-20)

Seems to me like they have some serious issues with ramping up their technology to mass production. Rumour has it that their ovens don’t work so well...

In the mean time, other companies are ALREADY brining similar PV technologies to market. See http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/miasole-starts-shipping-has-30-customers and http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/swapping-cigs-for-silicon.

Sounds to me like they have missed the boat and that their dear investors, SASOL and the CEF, who we love to hate, are being driven down the highway to nowhere. This sucks, South Africa could have become a PV leader, but all squandered.

Frank

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Nukes off the table, but what about more Renewables?

No surprise that Nuclear 1 is off the table for now – just too expensive, and too long to build. But still our focus is on coal – expensive to the climate, and expensive to supply in the near future when, like oil, it starts to run short... Independent Power Producers are supposed to supply 14 GW by 2017, but it is likely that very little of this will be Renewables.

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/eskoms-base-load-expansion-to-focus-on-coal-for-now-2009-11-18

Frank

Friday, November 13, 2009

Burried in Earhtskin - A South African Nuclear Waste Documentary

"Who pays the ultimate price for our convenient electricity? Alternative solutions are blowing in the wind, but can we access them? Who holds the power and can a critical mass shift the paradigm? This is a must-see film for every concerned Capetonian.”

See http://whileyouweresleeping.wordpress.com/

Frank

Thursday, November 12, 2009

ESKOM, EE and DSM

Just had the privilege of hearing Andrew Etzinger, MD of ESKOM, talk on EE & DSM. Some notes:

· Price increase will be 45% for 3 years, then 5%, then 9%.

· EE budget is 34 billion for 5.5 GW / 19423 GWh/year

I posed the question to him about why ESKOM is driving both DSM (Demand Side Management) and EE (Energy Efficiency), since DSM is about managing the demand so you can sell more electricity, and EE is about reducing the amount of electricity sold? He replied that at the moment they are the only body with the capacity to do EE, and would like, in time, see that role go to some other body.

I say, will the NEEA (National Energy Efficiency Agency) please stand up, please stand up, and ask that the R34 billion rather go to them – I guarantee you that they can do significantly more with it!

Frank

RE: SAEEC & DoE Minister

I am currently attending the South African Energy Efficiency Conference, and the minister of energy, Dipuo Peters, just spoke. Here are my notes from her talk:

· There was a cabinet discussion yesterday on the National Integrated Resource Plan

o President asked – “Are there the necessary skills and resources?”

o Minister, after seeing the audience today, would reply: “Yes – they need to be deployed appropriately”

· Energy Sector = Critical for growth, criticial for poor South Africans

· Minerals gave form to industrialisation

· Cheap Energy has not promoted Energy Efficiency – they have been opposed to each other

o This is an unsustainable paradigm, supply orientated only

o Energy / GDP very high

· Energy = 80% of emissions

· Must do more RE & EE

· 2005 EE target - 12% against projected national energy usage by 2015

· Mines can do 15% with no cost / low cost technologies + good housekeeping

· Biofuels into mix for road freight

· Alternative ways for heating in low-cost housing

· Integrated Energy Centres for communities

· Technologies on the road map: Nuclear, wind, solar, CCS

· Have we done what is required? Do we live our lives according to what we preach? We all should be living energy efficiently

· Need more Energy Efficiency activists

Frank

RE: Is Africa selling out its farmers?

Great article on the farming dilemmas in Africa:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN11358061

Thanks Annie for this.

Frank

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The EE and RE strategy for SA in a nutshell

“In October, developed and developing countries endorsed a Clean Technology Fund (CTF) funding envelope of $500-million for South Africa's CTF Investment Plan (IP). The money will be used to help South Africa move closer to its vision of generating four percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2013, improving energy efficiency by 12% by 2015, and providing one-million households with solar water heating over the next five years.”

From: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/sa-will-not-raise-renewable-goals---minister-2009-11-10

But will we even achieve these targets with all the dilly-dallying circus-ring performances at ESKOM and DoE?

Frank

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Friday, November 06, 2009

Concentrated solar thermal power (CSP) market could reach 24 GW by 2020

679 MW of installed CSP capacity, 2000 MW under construction, & 88% of projects in Spain. South Africa? Thus far, zero. Crazy when one thinks our worst solar irradiation is better than the best in Spain...

http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/5008/concentrated-solar-thermal-power-csp-market-could-reach-24-gw-by-2020

Frank

RE 1,000,000 Solar Water Heaters

The target for Solar Water Heaters has been set at 1 million over the next 5 years. http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/solar-water-heater-rollout-target-easily-attainable-peters-2009-11-05

“Department of Energy acting DG Nelisizwe Magubane highlighted that for the target to be reached, no less than 200 000 SWH units would need to be installed a year.” Which at least goes to show that the DoE can do some math. It is my understanding that this would contribute approximately 50% of the 2013 Renewable Energy target of 10000 GWh.

The following policy is soon to come out:

· the finalisation of the SWH framework;

· provision of rules by the National Energy regulator of South Africa (Nersa);

· drawing up mandates for utilities to outline their responsibilities;

· ensuring building codes and regulations were aligned;

· assisting municipalities to draw up bylaws including SWH;

· and encouraging local manufacture.

It appears that this is still being driven by a Demand Side Management approach and not an Energy Efficiency approach. But nevertheless, it is an ambitious target, and I do hope they get it right!

I do also hope that in their policy they allow for all energy efficient water heating technologies to be used, as heat pumps can outperform Solar Water Heaters in terms of net energy consumed over a year, and they also reduce the winter energy demand, which is crucial in SA.

Frank

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

RE: ESKOM knew they would have coal shortages

Seems ESKOM is even more incompetent that I thought. 50% critical post vacancies during the blackouts period due to lack of coal, and not only that, they had warning of the looming coal shortage, and what did they do? They fired the person who warned them! More scary is the indication that we can expect ESKOM to have additional coal supply issues with coal in the short-term.

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/da-calls-for-maroga-to-resign-as-it-issues-details-of-confidential-eskom-skills-report-2009-11-02

Frank

Friday, October 30, 2009

RE: REFIT phase II

The REFIT phase II tariffs have been announced!

CSP trough without storage = R3,14/kWh.

CSP tower with storage (6 hours) = R2,31/kWh.
Solid biomass = R1,18/kWh.

Biogas = R0,96/kWh.
Large grid connected PV = R3,94/kWh.

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/nersa-makes-refit-phase-two-decision-ppa-expected-in-nov-2009-10-30

But, as many of us know, the hurdles now lie with the so called “beauty parade” tendering process and the caps on Renewables in the NIRP.

Frank

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Traditional Economics goes against the laws of Physics

This is a great article about why “Neoclassical economics is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics”, and introduces the new “biophysical economics”. Frank

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/23/23greenwire-new-school-of-thought-brings-energy-to-the-dis-63367.html?pagewanted=2

Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use

In this US, the cost of using fossil fuels to produce electricity is estimated to to increase the healthcare bill by USD120 billion, which works out to an externalised cost of 3.2 US cents per kWh, or about 23 SA cents per kWh. Makes you wonder what the real cost to the South African economy the use of fossil fuels for electricity may be...

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/energy-and-health-the-120b-hidden-cost

Frank

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

RE: ISES Calls for Feed-in Tariffs Worldwide

Here is the resolution from the International Solar Energy Society (ISES) congress that I was at last week. Department of Energy, take note... 100% Renewables by 2050. Frank

http://public.ises.org/news/SWCResolution.pdf

ISES Solar World Congress 2009

Johannesburg, South Africa, 11-14 October 2009

Resolution

The ISES Solar World Congress 2009 hosted by the Sustainable Energy

Society of Southern Africa in Johannesburg, South Africa, attended by

participants from all over the world resolves as follows:

The global target of 100 % renewable energies is both attainable and

necessary by the middle of the current century. This is motivated on

grounds of ecological, economic and social sustainability.

The unacceptable backlog in energy supply in the third world countries

can only be covered cost effectively and in time by the use of renewable

energies. Especially the industrialised countries have to increase their

efforts in transitioning to renewable energies.

The world's governments are called upon to implement without further

delay policies that have been proven internationally to be the most

effective and efficient in the rapid transition to a renewable energy

world, giving priority to renewable energy and refraining from any kind

of caps that may slow down renewable energy deployment.

As a guiding principle, local and rural communities and people should be

actively involved and benefit directly from renewable energies.

Governments should especially encourage and support community power

projects and distributed generation as well as investment in renewable

energy manufacturing facilities in order to foster the local creation of

jobs.

The Congress applauds the first steps taken by the South African

Government in introducing the renewable energy feed-in tariff. The

Congress requests government to urgently address concerns expressed by

the public and by potential investors about aspects of REFIT policy.

These include transparency, certainty, removal of contradictions between

legislation and regulations governing the REFIT and providing a roadmap

with clear commitments and timelines to its implementation.

The introduction of a Green Energy Act is strongly recommended as

crucial to providing an overarching and comprehensive framework for

renewable energy uptake so that in the near future the necessary steps

will be taken to attract local as well as international investors.

The Congress strongly recommends the world's governments to establish an

obligation to use renewable energy for water heating as well as space

heating and cooling in residential, industrial, commercial and public

sector buildings.

On the international level, the introduction of a global feed-in tariff

system is recommended as a primary instrument to foster international

technology transfer and finance scaling up of renewables, especially in

the third world. Such a global feed-in tariff has the unique potential

of overcoming the blockage in the current climate change negotiations.

For offgrid and non-electrical systems, further intelligent financing

mechanisms such as large-scaled microcredit and soft loan programmes

should be applied. All aspects of capacity building for renewable

energy, including resource assessment, have to be given priority in

education as well as in research and development. This is ineluctable in

order to create awareness and knowledge of the true and full potential

and vast variety of renewable energies as well as the true threats of

fossil and nuclear energies.

The Congress welcomes and endorses the strong support and the

cooperation of all the renewable energy technologies through the

International Renewable Energy Alliance.

The Congress is delighted by the recent establishment of the

International Renewable Energy Agency Irena and urges all renewable

energy proponents worldwide as well as the world's governments to give

full support to the establishment process in order to make sure that

IRENA can realise its leadership role on our way to a renewable energy

world.

Johannesburg, 14 October 2009

Monday, October 19, 2009

Who do they think they're fooling!

This is a brilliant article on how ESKOM misleads the public about power from IPPs and from Renewables:

http://www.eepublishers.co.za/view.php?sid=19111

Frank

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

ESKOM - Money & mis-information

So I was wrong. I have been saying that I thought the electricity price would be going up around 40% per year. But ESKOM has asked for 45% for the next 3 years.

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/eskom-to-face-funding-gaps-despite-tariff-increase-2009-10-13

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?from=rss_&fArticleId=5201562

The truth is, due to poor planning on government’s part and ESKOM’s profit focussed madness of the last few years, the truth is that electricity does indeed need to go up this much in order to fund ESKOM’s new build programme, and there is little doubt that conventional energy (coal and nuclear) will continue to become more expensive. Is there another way?

Those of us in the know would say a resounding YES! This is the way:

1) Energy Efficiency – the CHEAPEST way to create extra capacity and save business money. But this needs to be driven by someone other than ESKOM, as ESKOM does NOT WANT to their customers to reduce their consumption, whatever they might say. Consumption = profit. In ESKOM’s so called low-carbon model, Energy Efficiency plays the smallest of roles, where it should be creating an extra 40% of capacity, negating the need for new power stations

2) Renewable Energy – by the time a new nuclear plant is built in South Africa, there is a good chance solar technologies will be CHEAPER. Renewables are becoming cheaper all the time. They work with distributed multiple technology generation models, that increase energy security, using local resources. They create jobs. They can move revenue for energy from large corporations to communities or small local businesses. They can be introduced FAST.

Both the above also MASSIVELY reduced carbon emissions.

But ESKOM does not want you to know this, and they are doing everything in their power to distribute misinformation about the best way forward. I used to think that ESKOM was an elephant, blustering about doing their own thing. They are not. They are a HERD of elephants – one bull leading them forward, but many blustering about behind, leaving destruction in their path, all for their own benefit.

Even at the International Solar Energy Congress that I am attending in JHB, which ESKOM ironically is the main sponsor, the few times I have heard ESKOM speak they pretend to be keen on Renewables, but quietly introduce “problems” for their adoption – they are too expensive, the grid is not ready for large Renewables, they can’t do baseload. All not true.

But, whether in the short term, or the long term, Renewables will prevail in South Africa – but t what cost, economic, social and environmental, will be imposed on our country, before it does?

Frank

Sunday, October 11, 2009

ISES Congress Kicks Off

So, the International Solar Energy Society Congress for 2009 has just kicked off. Of course, the Platinum Sponsor is ESKOM, which is a great irony considering ESKOM’s negativity towards Renewables! SHARP is also a sponsor, being one of the world leaders in PV in the world, and also taking a very proactive view to the South African market, sponsoring policy development here, and even looking at local manufacturing.

G-Tech is proud to be a distributor of SHARP PV, and to be represented here at the ISES Congress – I hope to get an opportunity to stick my foot in it, to advocate for the use of Renewables in South Africa, and raise awareness of the energy security and climate change issues facing our current Energy Policy.

Watch this space for more ISES updates – if you would like to be on this mailing list and aren’t already, please let me know.

Frank

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Confidential e-mail reveals that the new Medupi Power Station may not have enough water!

This makes for scary reading! The DA has blown the whistle on the fact that adequate water has not been secured for the new R70 billion, 4200 MW Medupi coal-power station in Limpopo, due for full operation in 2015. In fact, it could precipitate an environmental catastrophe in which Hartebeespoort dam could be pumped dry.

See the following link for the article: http://www.da.org.za/newsroom.htm?action=view-news-item&id=7326

The confidential e-mail is available at: http://www.damediacentre.co.za/documentvault/emailsmedupi.pdf

Frank

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

The benefits of efficient building

Buildings = 40% of emissions. Energy Efficiency can cut 1/3 of emissions with investments that pay for themselves. So why don’t we do it?? Frank

http://blog.reegle.info/blog/the-benefits-of-efficient-building.htm#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed

Population growth has no relation to global warming

Quote: ‘...the real problem is the growth in consumers and consumerism– not just “people.”’

http://www.urbansprout.co.za/population_growth_has_no_relation_to_global_warming

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Model shows that China can power itself completely from wind - no coal or nuclear required

Amazing! This should put the wind-cant-be-used-as-baseload denialists into shock!

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23460/?a=f

Google aims for R0,40 / kWh from solar

If they do it, bye coal and nuclear! Again, it highlights the short sightedness of SA’s current energy policy. We should be doing this research here in SA!

http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalClimateandAlternativeEnergy09/idUSTRE58867I20090909?pageNumber=1

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Frank & the Proven 15kW Wind Turbine


Ive been on a 3 week overseas mission to meet with suppliers and prospective suppliers. Spent a week in Soctland hands-on with these big 15kW Wind Turbines. The first one in South Africa will be in installed next week!

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

A Moment of Silence

MOMENT OF SILENCE - By EMMANUEL ORTIZ, 11 Sep 2002


Before I start this poem,
I'd like to ask you to join me
In a moment of silence
In honor of those who died in the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon last September 11th.

I would also like to ask you
To offer up a moment of silence
For all of those who have been harassed, imprisoned,
disappeared, tortured, raped, or killed in retaliation for those strikes
For the victims in both Afghanistan and the U.S.

And if I could just add one more thing...
A full day of silence
For the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have died at the
hands of U.S.-backed Israeli
forces over decades of occupation.
Six months of silence for the million and-a-half Iraqi people,
mostly children, who have died of
malnourishment or starvation as a result of an 11-year U.S.
embargo against the country.

Before I begin this poem,
Two months of silence for the Blacks under Apartheid in South Africa,
Where homeland security made them aliens in their own country.
Nine months of silence for the dead in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
Where death rained down and peeled back every layer of
concrete, steel, earth and skin
And the survivors went on as if alive.
A year of silence for the millions of dead in Vietnam - a people,
not a war - for those who
know a thing or two about the scent of burning fuel, their
relatives' bones buried in it, their babies born of it.
A year of silence for the dead in Cambodia and Laos, victims of
a secret war ... ssssshhhhhhh...
Say nothing
we don't want them to learn that they are dead.
Two months of silence for the decades of dead in Colombia,
Whose names, like the corpses they once represented,
have piled up and slipped off our tongues.

Before I begin this poem.
An hour of silence for El Salvador ...
An afternoon of silence for Nicaragua ...
Two days of silence for the Guatemaltecos ...
None of whom ever knew a moment of peace in their living years.
45 seconds of silence for the 45 dead at Acteal, Chiapas

25 years of silence for the hundred million Africans who found
their graves far deeper in the ocean than any building could
poke into the sky.
There will be no DNA testing or dental records to identify their remains.
And for those who were strung and swung from the heights of
sycamore trees in the south, the north, the east, and the west...

100 years of silence...
For the hundreds of millions of Indigenous peoples from this half
of right here,
Whose land and lives were stolen,
In postcard-perfect plots like Pine Ridge, Wounded Knee, Sand Creek,
Fallen Timbers, or the Trail of Tears.
Names now reduced to innocuous magnetic poetry on the
refrigerator of our consciousness ...

So you want a moment of silence?
And we are all left speechless
Our tongues snatched from our mouths
Our eyes stapled shut
A moment of silence
And the poets have all been laid to rest
The drums disintegrating into dust.

Before I begin this poem,
You want a moment of silence
You mourn now as if the world will never be the same
And the rest of us hope to hell it won't be.
Not like it always has
been.

Because this is not a 9/11 poem.
This is a 9/10 poem,
It is a 9/9 poem,
A 9/8 poem,
A 9/7 poem
This is a 1492 poem.

This is a poem about what causes poems like this to be written.
And if this is a 9/11 poem, then:
This is a September 11th poem for Chile, 1971.
This is a September 12th poem for Steven Biko in South Africa, 1977.
This is a September 13th poem for the brothers at Attica Prison, New York,
1971.
This is a September 14th poem for Somalia, 1992.
This is a poem for every date that falls to the ground in ashes
This is a poem for the 110 stories that were never told
The 110 stories that history chose not to write in textbooks
The 110 stories that CNN, BBC, The New York Times, and Newsweek ignored.
This is a poem for interrupting this program.

And still you want a moment of silence for your dead?
We could give you lifetimes of empty:
The unmarked graves
The lost languages
The uprooted trees and histories
The dead stares on the faces of nameless children
Before I start this poem we could be silent forever
Or just long enough to hunger,
For the dust to bury us
And you would still ask us
For more of our silence.

If you want a moment of silence
Then stop the oil pumps
Turn off the engines and the televisions
Sink the cruise ships
Crash the stock markets
Unplug the marquee lights,
Delete the instant messages,
Derail the trains, the light rail transit.

If you want a moment of silence, put a brick through the window of Taco
Bell,
And pay the workers for wages lost.
Tear down the liquor stores,
The townhouses, the White Houses, the jailhouses, the
Penthouses and the Playboys.

If you want a moment of silence,
Then take it
On Super Bowl Sunday,
The Fourth of July
During Dayton's 13 hour sale
Or the next time your white guilt fills the room where my beautiful
people have gathered.

You want a moment of silence
Then take it NOW,
Before this poem begins.
Here, in the echo of my voice,
In the pause between goosesteps of the second hand,
In the space between bodies in embrace,
Here is your silence,
Take it.
But take it all...
Don't cut in line.
Let your silence begin at the beginning of crime.
But we,
Tonight we will keep right on singing
For our dead.

Emmanuel Ortiz is a third-generation Chicano/Puerto
Rican/Irish-American community organizer and spoken word poet residing
in Minneapolis, MN. He currently serves on the board of directors for
the Minnesota Spoken Word Association, and is the coordinator of
Guerrilla Wordfare, a Twin Cities-based grassroots project bringing
together artists of color to address socio-political issues and raise
funds for progressive organizing in communities of color through art
as a tool of social change.

Hawaii Tries Green Tools in Remaking Power Grids

1x Clever Island :) Frank


From http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/science/earth/15hawaii.html?th&emc=th

Thursday, September 10, 2009

One of SA's largest SWH projects rolled out at platinum mine

Awesome to see some big solar water heating projects being rolled out! This one has 270 collectors. At a guess, this system can deliver around 45,000 litres of hot water per day, although they only have 28 000 litres of storage, which is a bit small. It works out at 45 litres each day for each of the 1500 miners– enough for a short quick efficient shower. I hope they were clever enough to put low flow heads on the showers!

As the storage is a bit small, the electrical side will definitely kick-in between shifts, which is a bit of a waste, and on such a large system, why they did not use a heat pump instead of the electrical backup I do not know. Frank

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/one-of-sas-largest-swh-projects-rolled-out-at-platinum-mine-2009-09-09

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

PBMR socio-economic report flawed

Greetings from Scotland on a wet and windy day! In the article below the PBMR comes under more flack for a poorly done Socio-Economic Impact Assessment. Not surprising – PBMR’s have poor Socio Economic Impacts! Frank

http://www.energynews.co.za/web_main/article.php?story=20090827203547153&ltype=article

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Gotta love George.... "Not Even Wrong"

Gotta love George Mobiot, even if the stuff he writes sometimes makes the carbon stand up on the back of your neck! Like:

“The targets and methodology being used by governments and the United Nations - which will form the basis for their negotiations at Copenhagen - are not even wrong; they are irrelevant. Unless there is a radical change of plan between now and December, world leaders will not only be discussing the alignment of deckchairs on the Titanic, but hotly disputing whose deckchairs they really are and who has the responsibility for moving them. Fascinating as this argument may be, it does nothing to alter the course of the liner.”

More below. Frank

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/08/31/not-even-wrong/


Friday, August 28, 2009

More Mini-Nukes

Looks like the PBMR may get beaten in the race for a mini-nuke... Frank (PS: note the cents are US cents)

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/sandia-joins-race-for-mini-reactors

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Eskom slumps to record R9,7bn loss on big coal, metals-linked derivatives swing

This makes for scary reading! Frank

Eskom slumps to record R9,7bn loss on big coal, metals-linked derivatives swing

By: Terence Creamer

27th August 2009

State-owned power utility Eskom slumped to its worst ever loss of R9,7-billion in its 2008/9 financial year to end March, primarily on higher coal costs and a massive fair value loss on embedded derivatives, associated with pricing agreements the utility has with metals smelters in South Africa and Mozambique.

Had it not been for the big swing in the loss associated with metal-price-linked contracts, the Eskom's operating loss for the year was a considerably lower R3,1-billion.

But the results were also negatively affected by a 2,4% falloff in sales of electricity to 214 850 GWh, partly the result of load shedding and partly a consequence of the slowdown in demand brought on by the recession.

Eskom, which employs 37 857 people and has a total of 4,3-million customers, had a nominal capacity is 44 193 MW and net maximum capacity is 40 503 MW.

CEO Jacob Maroga indicated that actions were being taken in a bid to try and return the business to a breakeven position during the current 2009/10 financial year.

COAL CRUNCH

Eskom spent a whopping R25,4-billion on coal in the period, some R7-billion more than the R18,3-billion spent on the primary-energy source in 2007/8. It bought 133-million tons, 13-million tons more than the 120-million tons of 2008, and burnt 121-million tons, a level likely to be repeated in the current financial year.

The higher expenditure was mainly the result of Eskom's use of short-term contracts, deployed to rebuild stockpiles that had been depleted to unacceptable levels, and helped precipitate the load-shedding crisis of early 2008. Moreover, this restocking was implemented at a time when the export coal price was peaking at above $100/t.

Stock levels were now running at a far more comfortable 41 days as compared with the 13 days of stocks at the peak of the 2008 crisis.

The additional costs were also a consequence of the fact that the existing power-station fleet, which was having to be run harder owing to capacity shortfalls, was burning more coal than that contracted for with the dedicated, or tied, collieries. More coal also had to be transported from distant mines, which had added considerably to logistics costs.

Coal cost savings of R4-billion were being targeted for the current financial year, as Eskom gave greater priority to engagements with the coal-mining industry to better manage these costs. A national coal forum had been established to reduce the coal costs to Eskom and coal costs had already started to moderate.

Eskom was concerned, however, that there was currently insufficient coal-mining capacity in South Africa for long-term supply contracts to be concluded, as new mines had not been opened.

DISCOUNTED POWER CHALLENGE

A far more difficult problem to resolved, however, was the one relating to the discounted electricity prices to aluminium and ferrochrome producers - contracts that had been negotiated at a time when the utility was power flush and which effectively transformed South Africa into a major world aluminum producer in a matter of a few decades.

But as Eskom's reserve margin had declined and the country had experienced blackouts, the utility has been keen to extricate itself from the deal, which it viewed as unsustainable and in conflict with its shareholder's stated position that all State-owned enterprises move to end embedded-derivatives contracts that could cause undue earnings volatility.

In the year to March 31, Eskom's commodity-linked pricing contracts with aluminum producer BHP Billiton (which were based on London Metal Exchange prices adjusted for the rand: dollar exchange rate) as well as other smaller arrangements, had deepened the losses by a whopping R6,6-billion.

"Correcting embedded derivatives is a big issue," Eskom CEO Maroga told Engineering News Online, while chairperson Bobby Godsell added that Eskom would be engaging its commodity-liked customers with a view to achieving more equitable pricing.

Godsell stressed that it stilled valued its commodity-linked customers, but stressed that the contracts were concluded a long time ago and under very different circumstances.

"These customers have long-term as well as short-term interests and we will simply sit down with them and explain why these contracts are problematic, not only in price, but also because of the accounting uncertainty that they impose that makes proper strategic management of resources very difficult.

"We will look at both the form and the content of the contracts and I would hope that we could come to a good long-term basis of doing business," Godsell said.

NOT SUSTAINABLE

In the context of a R385-billion, five-year capital investment roll-out, the scale of the loss was viewed as "unsustainable" by Eskom, which still had an R80-billion funding shortfall for its Medupi, Kusile and Ngula projects.

The much discussed funding plan - which was meant to be finalised soon, given that Eskom wanted clarity ahead of the September deadline for its full submission to the regulator of a new tariff application under the second multiyear tariff determination period (MYPD-2) - would be key to placing the utility back on a sustainable footing.

Earlier, the National Energy Regulator of South Africa granted Eskom an "interim" 31,3% increase in its electricity tariff while it awaited the funding plan and the MYPD-2 application.

Eskom has continually stressed the need for an average tariff that reflected the full cost of electricity, as well as to support a build up of reserves to help it fund the capital expansion.

But business and labour have argued for a "smoothing" of such increases, suggesting that a spike would have devastating consequences for the economy and employment.

For that reason, the funding plan envisaged will probably not have an over-emphasis on revenue generated from tariffs alone, with the financing gap being closed through a combination of equity or near equity, government guarantees, commercial and development-finance debt, as well as consistent and transparent tariff increases.

Government had already provided R60-billion in the form of a subordinated loan with equity characteristics, and had made a further R176-billion available in the form of guarantees.

A development bond, which would enable South Africans to invest in the expansion of their energy system, was also being considered – with Martin Creamer.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Cars & the grid

This, my friends, is the way I see the future of electric cars and the grid. Viva the Smart Grid! Viva! Frank


PS: Cars are evil

http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/2913-ford-will-roll-out-plug-ins-with-smart-grid-tech


Tuesday, August 18, 2009

SA working on financial instruments to boost renewable projects

The article below talks about three funding mechanisms for Renewable Energy:

· REFIT – Best idea, let’s wait and see if it happens – see my comments below

· REFSO – A joke

· REMT – Brilliant, but little clout

ESKOM to produce 6000GWh of Renewables Energy, 60% of our target? How? They just shelved their only wind farm and only solar project?

“700 MW” of Renewables. If we assume 60% for ESKOM, that leaves 280MW for IPPs. It is a bad joke! Even 700MW is a bad joke. We can do 2GW wind in the Cape easy! See below...

“Challenge of connecting generators to the grid should not be underestimated, as it was substantial” = lots of excuses why NOT to connect renewable energy from Independent Power Producers.

To fund Renewable Energy “A massive electricity price increase would be required to meet those targets and costs.” = rubbish! The 2c levy by treasury is already enough for over 2GW of wind farms.

Seems to me that DoE (Department of ESKOM, er sorry, Energy) is eating up all the garbage that ESKOM is spewing to them.

Come on, we (South Africa) can do better than this!

Frank

From: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/sa-working-on-financial-instruments-to-boost-renewable-projects-2009-08-17

Monday, August 17, 2009

RE: 50|50 Environmental Program to be taken off the air

I think it is a travesty that the leading environmental program on TV is to be taken off the air. Please support this petition to try and stop this happening. Frank

BP stand for "back to petroleum" - oil giant shuts clean energy HQ, slashes renewables budget up to $900 million this year, dives into tar sands

You definitely cant leave it to big oil to solve the energy problems. They know how to make money from petrol, not from anything else. So I am dying of not surprise reading this article.

From: http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/30/bp-stand-for-back-to-petroleum-oil-giant-shuts-clean-energy-hq-slashes-renewables-budget/

Friday, August 14, 2009

RE: G.D.P. R.I.P.

This is a great article on why we should do away with GDP. One of the core flaws he picks up is that "every instance of replacement of a natural-capital service with a built-capital service shows up as a good thing" in GDP. Intuitively to do this makes no sense. Read on for more! Frank

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10zencey.html

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Another reason (or two) to not be building coal power stations

To run coal power stations, Eskom needs 1) coal and 2) water.

1) Coal – we don’t have enough. The world does not have enough. We don’t have enough oil either, and thanks to SASOL Coal = Oil. Thus the price is going to go through the roof. Thus running coal fired power stations will become expensive.

2) Water – we don’t have enough. And dry-cooling is expensive.

Frank

ESKOM's Energy Dilemma: http://business.iafrica.com/news/1857243.htm

RE: Chevrolet Volt

It’s amazing to what extent legislation can support green-washing. Chevrolet has just launched their hybrid electric-petrol car, the Volt, with the claim that it does 230 miles to the gallon, or approximately 100 km per litre. This calculation is according to the US Environmental Protection Agencies draft calculator for calculating such a value. The value, of course, is meaningless, as it is only for short distances and it INCLUDES the distance travelled using the electric charge when the car is not using any petrol at all!

Applying the same methodology to a completely electric car would claim that it gets an infinite amount of mileage for every gallon of gas...

Article on the Volt: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/gm-chevy-volt-gets-230-mpg/

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Monday, August 10, 2009

Wish you weren't here: The devastating effects of the new colonialists

This makes for scary reading. You could just as well replace “food” with “energy”. Those with money continue to exploit the poor, and as all resources become more scarce, one can only imagine the backlash from the deprived and dying.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/wish-you-werent-here-the-devastating-effects-of-the-new-colonialists-1767725.html

Sunday, August 09, 2009

China starts building first 10-GW mega wind farm

Imagine that! China builds one wind farm a quarter of the size of the whole of South Africa’s generation capacity! That’s probably about 5000 turbines.

From: http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5771IP20090808

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Cost of Nuclear 1 - SA

Alas, it appears that the figure quoted by Eskom chief executive Jacob Maroga for the cost of the new nuclear plant for South Africa was wrong. He said R300 billion. Seems that is the cost for the next THREE nuclear plants. Thus the cost of nuclear is not ZAR 75 million / MW but rather ZAR 25 million / MW. Still more than wind, and that is without overruns.

But, I am not sure what is more scary, the fact that nuclear is still expensive and we’ll do it anyway, or that the Chief Executive of ESKOM does not know what they cost!

Frank

Power to the Tower!

Concentrated Solar Towers are good to go! This one was turned on yesterday. Another company has orders for 2GW. Frank

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/esolar-shows-off-its-solar-thermal-tower/

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Update on Nukes

Here is a great little article on Nuclear from the Home Power magazine in the US that a friend sent me. http://www.homepower.com/article/?file=HP132_pg110_PowerPolitics

There is also another good article on the state of nuclear at http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5631 by Dr. Michael Dittmar, a researcher with the Institute of Particle Physics of ETH Zurich, and he also works at CERN in Geneva. Here are some highlights:

  • The overall fraction of nuclear energy to electric energy has gone down from 18% in 1993 to less than 14% in 2008. With electric energy providing roughly 16% of the world-wide energy end use, one finds overall a nuclear energy contribution of less than 2.5%.
  • The number of produced TWhe of electric energy from world-wide nuclear power plants is now lower than in 2005, and it has decreased by about 2% from a maximum of 2658 TWhe in 2006 to 2601 TWhe in 2008.
  • Today and world wide, 48 nuclear power plants with a capacity of about 40 GWe are under construction. Only 10% of them are being constructed within OECD countries, which host currently about 85% of the existing nuclear reactors. However, about 100 older reactors with slightly larger capacity are reaching their retirement age during the same period. It follows that even if all 48 reactors might be connected within the next 5 to 10 years to the electric grid, it will be difficult to maintain the current level of TWhe produced by nuclear energy.
  • The natural uranium equivalent required to operate the 370 GWe nuclear power plants of today is roughly 65,000 tons per year. However during the past 10 years, the world-wide uranium mines extracted, on average, only about 40,000 tons of uranium per year, and the difference had to be compensated for by secondary resources. According to the data from the Red Book 2007 and the WNA, the remaining civilian uranium stocks are expected to be exhausted during the next few years. Consequently the current uranium supply situation is unsustainable.
  • The urgency to increase world-wide uranium mining by a large amount is well documented in the current and past Red Book editions and related official declarations. However, the latest uranium mining data indicate that new uranium mines will not be capable to compensate for the diminishing secondary uranium resources, and that it will be difficult to fuel the existing 370 GWe. It seems that either a rather welcome but improbable further large conversion of nuclear weapons into reactor material will happen during the coming years, or fuel supply problems within the next 3-5 years will force a 10-20 GWe reduction of the operational nuclear power capacity.

Frank

Sasol sponsors Stellenbosch solar thermal energy research

With no offense to my friends at Stellenbosch University, but this is greenwashing on SASOL’s part. It is a pity that it is a giant petrochemical company is sponsoring this work, and R3-million is piddly sum too. Last year in June, during the oil crisis, SASOL was making R100 million per day!!! (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-06-06-sasols-profit-rockets-to-r100m-each-day). I challenge SASOL to give one days profit to Stellenbosch University.

When will the industrial sector / government see the light and invest in solar in the same way they invest in fossil fuel processes (coal to oil, gas to oil) and nuclear? The money is great for Stellenbosch, but greenwashing for SASOL.

Frank

Article at: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/sasol-sponsors-stellenbosch-solar-thermal-energy-research-2009-08-04

Fly TURTLE airlines

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

World is running out of oil

"The era of cheap oil has ended”.

Here we go again. Last time oil got to around USD160 a barrel, where will we go this time? And oil at that price means any economic recovery will stall.

Don’t forget this will impact the price of coal and food. Coal = oil (ie SASOL). Food = oil (ie biofuels). And all of these exacerbate climate change. For South Africa, you can guarantee electricity prices will continue to rise dramatically.

Frank

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?from=rss_&fArticleId=5111083

Monday, August 03, 2009

Cost of nuclear demo plant soars to R31bn

So a new conventional nuke (Nuclear-1 @ 4000 MW and 75% capacity factor) is going to cost us around ZAR 300 billion, and the much smaller PBMR around ZAR 31 billion (assuming 75% capacity factor). For the conventional nuke, that is ZAR 75 million / MW. Assuming that both the heat AND electricity are used form the PBMR, that is ZAR 110 million / MW.

Wind is only ZAR 16 million per a MW (assume 27% availability), and concentrated solar with storage (ie dispatchable, with 40% availability) ZAR 38 million per MW. Even taking into account capacity factors, that makes wind and solar cheaper than nuclear.

What on earth are we doing with our industrial strategy?????

Frank

From: http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?from=rss_&fArticleId=5109729

Sunday, August 02, 2009

Levi factory dumping waste

Here is a great (ie disgusting) example of “externalisation of costs”. I love Lesotho, and makes me sick the exploitation there, of the people (like in this example) and natural resources (like the Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme) - Frank

http://www.news24.com/Content/Africa/News/965/b96c0ad386474d2993707ba8dd4b2239/02-08-2009%2006-58/Levi_factory_dumping_waste

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Engineering News Highlights

A lot in the Engineering News this week.

First, DPE minister Barbara Hogan supports the PBMR: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/minister-re-affirms-that-government-is-behind-pbmr-nuclear-programme-2009-07-30. She argues that it is a great way to develop a product to export. It is not. And it wont be for electricity any more, but for heat. See also: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/sa-nuclear-company-concentrates-on-core-competences-and-diversifies-markets-2009-07-31

Then, a new “miracle” vertical axis turbine (VAWT): http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/sa-researcher-develops-new-vertical-axis-wind-turbine-configuration-2009-07-31. It is presented as increasing energy yields by 400%, but this is an unfair comparison to normal VAWTs as this configuration has more than 2x the wind area than a normal VAWT, so at best ,maybe a 30% increase, but this would probably put it beyond the limits of what can actually be harvested from the wind, so there is something else happening here. Not to mention that the configuration of the “blades” is awful in terms of vibration on the main shaft! I cannot see this design practically working versus a traditional VAWT of the same area.

And lastly, a summary of an energy caucus I went to: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/civil-society-should-be-directly-involved-in-determining-sas-energy-future-2009-07-31. Worth a read. The main outcome is an argument for openness and transparency in all that ESKOM and the DoE are doing – at the moment, most of the energy happenings happen behind closed doors.

Frank

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Exxon Embracing Algae Biofuels

Greenwash or serious? Just another away of making money, or a real attempt to save the planet? Those are the questions... Frank

http://ecogeek.org/biofuels/2879-exxon-embracing-algae-biofuels

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Incredible Shadow Art Created From Junk

Wouldn’t it be amazing if junk could not be turned into amazing art, but put to good use as inputs to other processes, and thus become beautiful again? Frank

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/incredible-shadow-art-created-from-junk/12265

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Asia Challenges the U.S. for Green-Tech Supremacy

The space-race is now the green-race. Maybe the East will win this one? Frank

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906704,00.html

ESKOM comments on everything of interest!

This is a very interesting interview, with comments about Coal, Renewables and IPPs that make for very interesting reading! A few highlights below. Frank

From: http://www.eepublishers.co.za/view.php?sid=18119

Coal is cheap, and this has been a driving force in developing the industrial economy that we have in South Africa today. Now we should diversify, and we are serious about reducing our carbon footprint and introducing renewable energy. But we all know that this is more expensive, and that we cannot deal with the current energy deficit through the provision of renewable energy now. Of the renewable energy resources that we have in the country, the most abundant one, solar, is certainly not at a stage of development that it could meet the country’s current energy deficit.

Eskom is still committed to nuclear energy, and we believe that there is a policy in the country that is very clear about nuclear energy and its future, and that nuclear energy should play a role in South Africa. Water is going to become a significant restraining resource, and you have already spoken about our carbon footprint. My personal view is that nuclear energy is South Africa’s best response. Eskom supports that it should have a nuclear programme, and that it should be based on the pressurised water reactor technology that we have at Koeberg, which is our existing skills base in South Africa.

We have decided to put the 100 MW wind farm project on hold.

In terms of Cahora Bassa, we have worked on the purchase of a fifth generator at Cahora Bassa, we have upgraded our Apollo substation to be able to import more power, and certainly we would be looking for the upgrade of the Tsonga substation in Mozambique to then facilitate the increased import through the HVDC line.

There is no specific plan in Eskom to keep IPPs out. But the one debate that nobody has is how much do you pay for this lot? And I can say to you, it’s not the price we have just got from the Regulator, and it’s not what we asked for – it is at least double. But that debate is never had. Unless we deal with how to fund, not only Eskom’s operation, how to deal with IPPs, and pay for this, and fund this as an industry, we cannot commit. You cannot expect us to commit into an agreement without having the money to pay for it. You will agree with me – like you said for the build programme – that would be irresponsible.