Comments on Energy Minister Dipuo Peters' speech at the Nuclear Roundtable 1 Dec

On the 1^st December, the Minister of Energy spoke at the nuclear Roundtable.

She said the following: “Nuclear energy is becoming a preferred solution address matters related to energy security and energy independence and in efforts to mitigate the dangers posed by climate change. A number of countries are showing renewed interest in nuclear energy while others are considering the expanding existing programmes, as is the case with our own country.” Preferred? I worry about that.

She also said: “Countries that have successful nuclear programmes have a high percentage of citizens who understand what nuclear energy is, the risks and benefits associated with it and therefore support such programmes.” That is a blatant mistruth. One only has to look at the European rejection of Nuclear Energy.

Below is a question proposed by the media, with a detailed response. I have briefly further critiqued her responses:

1. Why does government believe nuclear is a technology that should be pursued?

Government believes this for several reasons

• Nuclear power is a proven baseload electricity option
1. The baseload / peaking load paradigm is changing internationally. The introduction of IT and demand side management systems with dynamic supply/demand pricing structures is changing the game. Distributed energy is the future.
• Nuclear power can effectively reduce our greenhouse gas emissions
1. But not within a reasonable timeframe, and not without a massive CO₂ footprint during the build phase.
• Nuclear power could be used to improve local beneficiation of our uranium by creating jobs across all aspects of the fuel cycle
1. Very few jobs compared to Renewables
• Nuclear power is economically competitive, and is second only to coal power in terms of levelised cost of electricity
1. If this is true, why did ESKOM not go ahead with Nuclear 1? Because it was too expensive. So this is simply not true.
• Nuclear power is safe when well managed, and we have proven this for over 25 years at Koeberg.
1. Except for “the bolt” issue, and a few others.

Government is also aware that the following key issues that need to be addressed when embarking on a nuclear programme

• Disposal and/storage of long term radioactive waste
1. A major, internationally unresolved headache
• Non-proliferation of sensitive nuclear technology
1. Becoming harder and harder to do
• Security of nuclear installations and materials
1. We have already had scares of Greenpeace activists getting access to facilities and people being caught illegally trading sensitive nuclear materials.
• Safety of people and protection of the environment
1. Two words: ‘Black Swan”. A black swan is a highly unlikely high unpredictable catastrophic event. For examples, Chernobyl and the BP Gulf oil spill. There is no reason why this could not happen again.
• Public perception and understanding of nuclear technology
1. I think the public perception is right on – it is dangerous
• Skills development for localisation of industry
1. Minor compared to the job creation Renewables could have

What Nuclear does do is allow for an arms-deal size amount of money to be managed by a few greedy people, with no care for the real impact on South Africa’s economy and people.

Frank

Sustaining Cape Town - imagining a liveable city

The book in which I contributed a chapter has been published! “Sustaining Cape Town - imagining a liveable city” - I was quite delighted to see it for the first time in hard print yesterday.

The book grew out of some work done for the City of Cape Town on imagining what an alternative future for the City of Cape Town might look like, and how to achieve it. I was privileged enough to be able to do the work on Energy, and thus propose an alternative energy approach and solution for Cape Town and the Western Cape.

The book is printed by Sun Press, edited by Mark Swilling, ISBN 978-1-920338-30-5. It will shortly be available from www.sun-e-shop.co.za

Frank

SA Peak Coal

Here is a thought not taken into the IRP2 planning process: What if Peak Coal were hit to South Africa in 2020? Similar to peak oil, the argument is that a few years after discoveries have peaked, production will peak too, and this is independent of an increasing resource price. But the SA context is a little different, with the current reserves having just been DOWNSIZED from 50 gigatonnes to 15 gigatonnes!

This is detailed in a report from the consultancy Umvoto, a summary of which can be found here.

So it seems that there may be a new pressure coming to move away from coal: price.

Frank

IRP2 Figures released!

IRP2 is being released tomorrow, here are the figures for 2030:

• 48 % Baseload Coal
• 14 % Baseload Nuclear
• 16 % Renewable Energy (dispatchable)
• 9 % Peaking Open Cycle Gas Turbine
• 6 % Peaking Pump Storage
• 5 % Mid-merit Gas
• 2 % Baseload Import Hydro.

That means 33% of all new build will be Renewables, 25% Nuclear, 9% Coal. 4.5GW of wind for 2020.

Frank

One clear reason why the Energy Intensive User Group does not have South Africa's interest at heart

The South African Energy Efficiency Association should know better than to publish a pro big-energy business article like this one from the Energy Intensive User Group. The article claims to be unpacking the fallacies around the so called “secret deals”, but is in fact a defence of the tariff structure that favours them.

Let me start out by saying that the cheapest form of new generation is energy efficiency – thus if we reduce consumption, we can make that power saved available to other consumers. New build drives up the price of electricity, where as saving adds to the bottom line of business (and increases GDP). Thus saving energy will generally always be to the good of the country

But one of the more fascinating lines in this article says the following: “Note that if large users consume less or do not expand, there will be less levies recovered from them which means smaller users will have to pay even higher prices.” What???? Is the organisation that is promoting Energy Efficiency actually saying that large consumers should consume MORE i.e. NOT become energy efficient? This is ludicrous, and underlines the weak influence that the Energy Efficiency lobby has on government and industry.

In addition, the following is argued:

· Large residential users (>600kWh) are now cross-subsidising the poor (i.e. low consumers). This certainly does not encourage government to help such residential over-consumers reduce consumption; in fact they may encourage it.

· That “it is a fact” that “long-term and stable consumers are actually subsidising the smaller unpredictable consumers”. TO what extent? The smaller consumers only use a fraction of our electricity. The largest 138 customers consume nearly 40% of the energy, and largest 40 000 customers 75%. Residential consumption is 4% of sales and 10% of revenue! So who is profiting off who?

Energy efficiency should be at the heart of our energy policy. But it is not – policy is still ruled by big energy intensive business.

Frank

Nuclear socialism

Hi All

I am sitting in JHB international airport waiting to catch a flight to Maun, Botswana, where I will be commissioning another off-grid system. Do you know that if you fly in the customs union you cannot buy in Duty Free? I did not, and have done so before, although apparently you can get into a lot o ftrouble. Thing is, they won’t even charge you duty (VAT) to buy the items you want. Seems like a missed opportunity to make a sale.

But I digress.

Another study has come out showing why Nuclear is a bad idea simply due to finance problems. Check it out at: http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/IEE/20100909_cooperStudy.pdf

Some quotes:

“A nuclear plant will cost $7,000 to $10,000 per kilowatt”

“It shouldn't be called the French Nuclear Miracle. It's more like a recurring nightmare.”

The French Nuclear Miracle is a misconception. There is no reason to think that things will change if the U.S. follows France. It would replicate what I call Nuclear Socialism. Nuclear power would remain a ward of the state."

But scary thing – I saw an advert from the South Korean Nuclear Corporation in the Economist.... Sp it’s not just Areva in South Africa anymore.

Frank

Portugal powered by almost 45% Renewables

Power from Renewables can be done.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/science/earth/10portugal.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Frank

Solar PV is now cheaper than nuclear

Solar PV power is now cheaper than nuclear, according to a new paper, and this is without all the concerns of nuclear: long time to build, government guarantees, fuel and spent-fuel management risk, terrorist risk, etc.

And to think, CSP with storage will end up even cheaper!

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?_r=5&pagewanted=1&src=busln

Full report: http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

In response to: "An energy crisis or not? - Dr Philip Lloyd

Response from Dr Philip Lloyd:

Dear Frank

Thanks for your note. Debate always helps, and if I stir a little, it is to stimulate debate - as you do!

First, I must disagree with your love of diversity. Technologies become more robust as they are more widely applied, and that is particularly true in a single economy. I give you the example of France, which decided to go nuclear. It now has 58 reactors of essentially an identical design. A huge industry has been created to service this technology; about 230 000 jobs have been created; and the cost of bulk power in France is now the lowest in the world. "Spread the risk" you advise - minimising the risk in what you have may be a better option.

"The rest of the world seeks to tax carbon emissions." If you have been following the US debate, you will know the US ain't going that way any day soon. China isn't; India isn't. Some of the Europeans are going in that direction, but then, they have governments that desperately need new sources of revenue.

As regards our "dirty" act, consider for a moment that the average nation gets ~80% of its energy from fossil fuels, of which about one third comes from each of coal, oil and natural gas. We lack oil and natural gas, so instead of getting ~27% of our energy from coal, we get about 70%. That is the reason why we appear to be 'dirty' relative to our peers - in fact, we are providing our people with the most reliable and cheap power we can provide, and doing so from our own resources, which is a real merit in a developing nation such as our own.

Yes, I will grant you that in theory you can provide gigawatts of renewable power on demand - the problem is that no-one has so far succeeded, and until they do, it will have to remain a pipe dream. As for CSP plants, the costs (if NERSA is to be believed) are high, and I cannot figure out a way of paying for high cost power - and neither can NERSA. The question just gets passed around like a hot potato. Crack that one, and we will all thank you.

"Taking a lifecycle cost, the Renewables work out cheaper too." Really? Where? I can give you the US nuclear costs - they are the lowest of all the US sources of energy; or the French (which I have already quoted); and when I last looked, our Koeberg was at the bottom of the heap. A recent study on wind power found large turbines to be achieving a 4-year MTBF requiring a major overhaul - that knocks your lifecycle costs out of the window (http://www.ewec2010.info/fileadmin/ewec2010_files/documents/side_events/Reliability_PJT.pdf). Don't give me hypothetical costs - quote real life experience.

Yes, I entirely agree with you about energy efficiency. Eskom has been preaching it for years, with a definite modicum of success. Unfortunately even when there is energy efficiency, economic growth and energy consumption are very directly related, and we need economic growth, so that we are driven to supply more energy to meet the growing demand. The debate is how best to do that.

I admire your optimism, but, please, let it be tempered with just a touch of realism. I am sure that with persistence, renewables will find their rightful place - I am equally certain that, with 80% of the world's energy presently coming from fossil fuels, they will be with us for quite a while.

Best regards

Philip Lloyd

In response to: "An energy crisis or not? - Dr Philip Lloyd

Dear Editor, EE Publishers

I am surprised at the negative tone expressed towards diversified energy, carbon emission caps and renewable energy by Dr Philip Lloyd in “An energy crisis or not?” (http://www.eepublishers.co.za/view.php?sid=22258).

Firstly, he expresses that “Diversity of energy resources is a luxury you can afford if you have enough.” But diversity is precisely what you need when you DONT have enough, to ensure that you spread the risk of betting on a single technology. The more diversity, the less risk of failure, the more you can build quickly

In terms of carbon, as the rest of the world seeks to tax carbon emissions, South Africa has two options – either to pursue the dirty energy option and become an international pariah, or commit to cleaning up its act, starting with a form of carbon tax. Morally and ethically, in the light of climate change, the first option is unpalatable.

For Renewables, he claims that “no one has yet figured out a way to produce renewable gigawatts of power on demand except by hydropower”. He neglects to mention that Concentrated Solar Power with storage can do this, not to mention that distributed wind can also act as baseload with a high level confidence. Coupling multiple Renewables together with a little pumped storage can indeed provide 100% baseload. I draw you attention to some work done by Stanford University showing how California could supply 100% of its power from Renewables (“Matching Hourly and Peak Demand by Combining Different Renewable Energy Sources, http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/HosteFinalDraft.pdf). With a country as vast as ours with its abundant resources, it should be easier than for California!

But in reality, South Africa does not have a baseload problem – it has a peaking power problem. Again, CSP plants with storage would be ideal for this application, storing energy during the day and running as peaking plants on demand.

Dr Lloyd argues that we need to build coal power stations quickly, but we can roll out Renewables far faster than coal (2 years to build wind), and certainly many times faster than the other proposed alternative, Nuclear (20 years). Taking a lifecycle cost, the Renewables work out cheaper too, with less risks associated with long term fuel prices (for coal and uranium).

But the fastest way to create more capacity is by using less, and this is where Energy Efficiency could play a huge roll in South Africa. For too long our electricity has been too cheap, and we use it inefficiently. If we as a country were to drive a massive energy efficiency campaign, perhaps 100,000 jobs could be created, with a massive net boost to GDP, while alleviating for the short term any need for new power stations.

Thus it becomes quite clear that we can meet our energy needs quite quickly without reliance on coal. What is needed is the political will and foresight to see the benefits of Renewables while shunning the courtship of the current vested interests of coal and ESKOM.

Frank Spencer MSc(Eng) BPhil (Sus Dev)

Solar power at night

One of the negative things often levelled against solar power is that it can only produce power when the sun shines, and thus cannot be operated as a base load power plant.

Not anymore.

Solar power at night is now officially here, and I am not talking about moon and starlight power! The first Concentrated Solar Power plant with molten salt storage has gone live. The molten salt is a type of battery that stores energy produced during the day as heat, and then this heat can be used at night to create electricity.

See:

http://www.solarthermalmagazine.com/2010/07/14/enel-inaugerates-molten-salt-thermal-energy-storage-system-for-archimede-solar-thermal-power-plant/

http://www.ice.gov.it/sedi/umbria/energia/angelantoni/Archimede%20Company%20Profile.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/22/first-molten-salt-solar-power

CSP with storage is the future of base-load power for the grid - but will South Africa, with the best sun in the world, be riding this sunbeam?

Frank

REFIT project timeline

I am starting to wonder if we will see any Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff (REFIT) projects start before 2013. If so, we can say bye-bye to meeting our abysmal 4% RE target by 2013!

Here’s why: The new Single Buyers Office (SBO). The REFIT programme is going to be moved from the National Energy Regulator (NERSA) to the SBO (“The Single Buyer Office will execute the REFIT programme in accordance with the process set out in New Generation Regulations and in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria provided by the Regulator.”)

The SBO process will consist of the following steps:

· RFQ

· RFP

· Evaluation +Selection of Preferred Bidder(s)

· Negotiation with Preferred Bidder(s)

· Financial Close

The proposed timeline for this:

Project Milestones REFIT Proposed timeline
Establishment of enabling environment........ Q3 2010
Issue of RFQ............................................. 1 month after enabling environment established
Receipt of Statement of Qualification (SOQ)..2 months after RFQ
Issue of RFP...............................................2 to 3 months after SOQ
Bid submission date ....................................3 to 6 months after RFP
Bid evaluation and selection of preferred bidders.......................2 to 3 months
Financial close.............................................Up to 6 months

So that is 1½ years from Q3 2010 at best, which takes us to 2012 before licenses are awarded.

But hang-on, who is going to staff the SBO? ESKOM employees of course. Independent in name, but he who pays the piper calls the tune! So I guess one can assume that the above timeline is rather, um, optimistic...

Frank

RE: SWH vs Heat Pumps

Interesting Carte Blanche programme on SWH vs Heat Pumps: http://beta.mnet.co.za/carteblanche/Article.aspx?Id=4030&Showid=2

The South African Car Pricing Scam

It has amazed me that for years and years the South African public has been misled into believing that cars are “affordably” priced, both for new and used cars.

They are not – and we the taxpayer are being taken for a ride. A minimum Billion Rand a year ride. Let me explain.

South Africans are not allowed to import cars directly from overseas. We have a protected market, supposedly to support the local car manufacturing industry. However, if you live within the South African Customs Union (SACU), you CAN import cars, and at a fraction of the price. A Business Day article today has the National Association of Automotive Component and Allied Manufacturers bemoaning the fact that South Africa is losing over a Billion Rand in car revenue due to the import of some 10,000 Asian cars being imported into the SACU, and then ending up being driven in South Africa. That is a saving of R100,000 per car!!!

Great to know this! I definitely intend to try do this, because it will certainly save me a FORTUNE on a 2^nd hand car. And I will have R100,000 to spend in the South African economy on other things.

Car Price Examples:

New top of the range Prius in the US: R224,560, in South Africa: R378,000.

2^nd Hand 2006 Honda Civic in the UK: R80,000, in South Africa: R150,000.

And I could list a hundred more.

Capetonians can buy green electricity!

It is a great day in Cape Town. From today you can buy pure, carbon-free, wind produced electricity! And the price: Only 25c/kWh more than regular electricity. What a bargain!

Don’t believe me? Check out: www.capetown.gov.za/buygreenelectricity. You can get an application form there.

So what are you waiting for? Buy some green electricity today! (Capetonians only)

Frank

ESKOM's secret deals revealed

So the truth is out. The DA has released the secret ESKOM report (downloadable from their web-site here) that includes the details of the low-cost deals with some of the big electrical consumers in South Africa.

Here is my summary:

• Motraco, a Mozambican electricity distribution company, pays 12c/kWh. This agreement is in place until Dec 2025. Motraco owes ESKOM R100million.
• ESKOM’s projected cost of production in 2008/2009 was 32,2 c/kWh.
• Gross profit margin is 35.2%, Net profit margin is 6.9%.
• Net reserve margin in Mar 2009 was 8.5%. Critical is considered 15%.
• BHP Billiton consume 9.3% of all the electricity ESKOM consumes. Despite this, because of the commodity linked contracts, the revenue from BHP Billiton was 50% less in 2009/2010 than in 2008/2009. BHP contributes 0.1% to the SA GDP.
• ESKOM pays R108/ton on long-term coal contracts, but during the coal shortages, paid 150% more - R270/ton. The contributed heavily to ESKOMs R8.3billion shortfall in 2009/2010.
• ESKOM’s bad debt amounts to over R2.8billion. Soweto owes R1.8billion of this.
• An accounting provision is made for the Chief Executive Officer of R41.3m /year. This is why Jacob Maroga claimed R85m in severance (2 years package).
• Staff turnover of up to 7.3%.

There is another summary on Moneyweb.

In a nutshell, we have a poorly performing utility, selling a large chunk of its electricity well below cost that the rest of the consumers need to subsidise. If they can’t even get their coal contracts, large customer contracts and CEO contracts right, how can we trust them?

Frank

A sad day in South Africa's Ecological, Economic and Energy landscape

Last night the world bank loan was approved. To understand why this is a tragedy, Mark Swilling could not have explained it better in his article Intelligent Power, also published in the Cape Times a few days ago.

Frank

The World Bank Loan and South Africa's Energy Future

There has been a tremendous amount of debate and media coverage around two energy issues recently, both complex, both intertwined, both with the possibility of having a huge impact on South Africa’s energy future. The first is the proposed USD 3.75 billion loan from the World Bank to ESKOM to assist with the financing of the ZAR120-billion Medupi coal-power station, and the second is the current (2^nd) Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) which will determine South Africa’s energy electricity roadmap for the next 20 years.

When I first heard that a strong NGO movement was forming to oppose the World Bank loan, I had mixed feelings. On the one hand, there is an energy crisis in South Africa, and it could be argues that South Africa still has a “right” to a certain increased level of carbon emissions. On the other hand, perhaps not getting the loan is just the wakeup call South Africa needs to realise that growing carbon emissions, even in so called Developing Countries, are morally wrong, especially when there are definitely other solutions to the energy problem that are most cost effective, create more jobs, reduce emissions, and guarantee a higher level of energy security. Thus unsurprisingly I have ended up with my feet firmly in the latter camp. The attempts to greenwash the loan have not helped my perception at all - the claim is that the loan is also for wind and solar, but in reality only USD260million (7%) is earmarked for 1x wind and 1x solar farm, and the remaining 93% for coal.

The political comments being made about the loan have been fascinating. Public Enterprise Minister Barbara Hogan has said “"If there is a vote against, it will be the most unfortunate thing that has probably happened to this country in terms of its economy and in terms of developmental needs”. Scary that we are SOOO dependent on the World Bank! World Bank vice-president for Africa Obiageli Ezekwesili has agreed with the SA position, saying "There is no viable alternative to safeguard South Africa's energy security at this particular time”; I bet he is desperate to loan the money so he can get his bonus. In contrast, Avaaz, the large global web movement, has said “The proposed R29 billion World Bank loan to Eskom South Africa should not be extended because it would contribute to energy poverty, environmental destruction and climate change worldwide”. Pravin Gordon, the finance minister, has said that a "very small group of NGOs in South Africa" were placing "environmental concerns, which could not be immediately addressed, above the economic needs of South Africa". The small group consists of more than 65 South African civil society organizations, joined by 99 other groups in Africa and around the world. In addition, I don’t think Mr Pravin and our economic leadership appreciate or understand the inter-linkages between climate change, peak oil/coal and economic growth. But then our leadership, the ANC (the South African ruling party), stand to benefit enormously from the coal power stations – possibly up to R5,8-billion from their investment in Hitachi Power Africa.

The core issues is really whether we have to go the coal power station route to solve our energy problems, or if there is some other solution? That brings us to the 2^nd item, the long term energy planning of the IRP2.

The IRP2 process is being driven by an Inter-Ministerial Committee which includes the Department of Energy, Department of Finance and big business. Consultation with public bodies is expected to take place through April and May, and the IRP2 is expected to be gazetted by September 2009. It is my expectation from comments heard from senior players that we will see a strong focus on Nuclear and Renewables, in line with proposals in the Long Term Mitigation Strategy for carbon emission reduction, but still allowing for the current plan of three big new coal power stations.

The core issues with all of the above the fast, cheap way of creating additional power, namely Energy Efficiency, is hardly mentioned, despite the fact that we as a country are a terribly inefficient user of electricity with masses of opportunities to become more efficient. But as I have argued previously, this would reduce ESKOM’s revenue and profits, as well as other large corporations, such as Areva, which stand to make billions from new (expensive) nuke power stations. Another irony is that NERSA themselves have argued that all renewable technologies would be cheaper than oil, coal and gas technology by the end of 2015. Nuclear has got way to expensive, and takes too long to build to address the climate issues. Thus the solution to both our energy crisis and future energy security seems to be quite clear – energy efficiency to solve the short term problems, and renewable energy for the long haul.

So I hope we don’t get the loan. It may just get the IRP2 guys thinking about real long term sustainable job creating solutions.

Frank

Why I am a fan of Energy Efficiency, Clean Enery Manufacutring, and anti-nuclear...

Energy efficiency in US could create 333,000 jobs

California funds US$90m clean and renewable energy

Nuclear Power Does NOT Help to Combat Climate Change

Frank

Smoke (CTL) and mirrors (nuke)

At Copenhagen Pres Zuma indicated that South Africa would like to move to a low carbon economy, and meet the targets of the long term mitigation strategy to reduce carbon emissions by 34%. Since then, there have been many movements within national, provincial and local governments to be thinking about the green economy and green jobs.

This will all be for naught.

Not only are we planning to build 3 new huge coal power stations (which would make it simply impossible to meet these targets, and Carbon Capture and Storage is a pipe dream), but SASOL is rolling out a major expansion plan to boost its Secunda Coal to Liquid (CTL) plant by 5% at a cost of R12billion. To think Secunda is already the largest point source or carbon emissions in the world, and now they want to make it worse! (Well, on the bright side, that may not be the case for long, with SASOL building CTL plants in China, possibly China might overtake us in converting coal into petrol.)

Then, looking at nuclear, I have argued before that nuclear is too costly and takes too long to build to make any difference to climate change. The money would be much better used investing in other carbon emission reducing technologies and alternative energies. But it is now clear that the French Preseident Sarkozy is on the payroll of the nuclear industry. Not surprising really, since France has so much nuclear power (58 reactors), and Areva, the big nuke company, is stationed there. He is pushing to make the financing cheaper (i.e. shift more of the risk onto the taxpayer) and get developing countries to build them (i.e. another form of energy imperialism – more money flowing South to North).

If the SA government is srious about reorientating our economy to compete in the new green world, tehn they need to catch a wake up now, and deal with the carbon emission problem that is predominantly based in ESKOM, SASOL and their big customers.

Frank

Energy Efficiency Subsidy

South Africa is the unfortunate position of having it’s friendly behemoth ESKOM run it’s Solar Water Heater subsidy program, in the name of energy efficiency. Great idea, poor execution. Let’s see what the UK & US are doing:

Obama Announces Cash for Caulkers Program

* Small-scale upgrades like insulation, duct sealing, water heaters, HVAC units, windows, roofing and doors would be eligible for 50 percent rebates up to $1,500 or combined upgrade rebates of up to $3,000.

* Entire-home retrofits would be eligible for a rebate of $3,000 towards an energy audit and upgrades amounting to 20 percent energy savings. Any savings over that would be eligible for more rebates.

* Safeguards would be put in place to ensure that the upgrades actually improve efficiency: all contractors must be certified in energy efficient installations and independent auditors will perform surveys to make sure upgrades were installed correctly and are saving energy.

* The program would also help state and local governments create financing options for these retrofits so more consumers can participate.

UK launches Pay as you Save “Greener Homes Strategy”

* Cut emissions from homes by 29% by 2020.

* Give up to 7 million homes eco upgrades by 2020.

* Create up to 65,000 jobs in the green home industry.

Guess we could do a lot more to ramp up our Energy Efficiency programmes...

Frank

ESKOM's finance director Paul O'Flaherty is a DOFF BALL

On what planet does ESKOM’s finance director Paul O'Flaherty live?

The World Bank is considering loans to South Africa to the order of R29 Billion for new coal (3600 MW), nuclear (3000 MW+), and tiny little insignificantly solar plant (100MW). Commenting on this last week, in a news article entitled “Eskom goes low carbon”, he said, “The funding is well-aligned to jump-start progress on South Africa's commitment to a lower carbon footprint”. Lower carbon-footprint? What planet does he live on? Certainly not the rapidly heating up planet called Earth! How on this hot earth can the long term plans of THREE coal power stations + ONE nuclear + One tiny solar plant equal a commitment to a lower carbon footprint? This is a commitment to a HIGHER carbon footprint!

If ESKOM’s finance minister can’t get his math right, can we trust him with the World Bank’s money?

Frank

PS See also:

Gordhan pans opposition to Eskom's World Bank loan

Clean Energy for South Africa, not Coal

Proposed Gauteng vs Western Cape energy targets

I have put together my own comparison of the energy targets in the Draft Western Cape Sustainable Energy White Paper Amendment (Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning) and the Gauteng Integrated Energy Strategy Draft (Department of Local Government and Housing).

Here it is:

Action	Gauteng Target	Western Cape Target
Renewable energy generation(electricity only)	7% by 2014, 16% by 2025	15% by 2014
Overall energy efficiency against business as usual scenario	7% by 2014, 15% by 2025	15% by 2014
Carbon dioxide emission reduction (in 2000 levels)	13% by 2014, 27% by 2025	14% by 2014, 15% by 2020
Renewable Energy purchased by Provincial Government	No Target	10% by 2020
Efficient Water Heater Installations	20% by 2014	No Target
Electrification targets (proclaimed stands)	100% by 2014	No Target
Free Basic Alternative Energy Access in informal households	20% by 2014, 80% by 2025	No Target

Basically the Western Cape has more ambitious renewable energy and energy efficiency targets, but the Gauteng strategy is more detailed and more long term focussed. One glaring problem in the Western Cape Strategy is a low long-term CO₂ reduction figure (15% by 2020).

I still think these targets could be improved, especially in terms of energy efficiency.

Frank

Maize farmers urge u-turn on biofuels

Why is it that South Africa farmers would really like to use maize for biofuels?

As some of you may be aware, South Africa banned the use of maize for biofuels a few years back in order to protect food security in the region. This was a wise choice, and I have written about it elsewhere, and have also commented on the USA’s policy to allow this.

Well the economics of why the farmers are desperate to do this are quite simple:

• Grain for bread etc = low price, therefore food = low price
• Oil = high price and increasing
• 1^st generation biofuels: grain = oil
• Thus high price for oil = high price for biofuels = high price for grain
• Therefore high grain price = high food price

This is not rocket science. If more money can be made converting grain into diesel, then this is what farmers will do. This will put pressure on food prices and food supplies, as the fact that 25% of the US’s corn market goes to biofuels has, and continues to do so.

What the farmers (and biofuel producers) really should be doing is looking at the developments in 2^nd and 3^rd generation biofuels. 2^nd generation is turning cellulosic materials (ie trees) into fuel, and 3^rd generation is using algae into fuel. Fast growing trees on a sustainable basis use less land for the same energy as grain, and algae can be grown in otherwise unusable sunny land for the production of fuel.

I have little doubt that the ban on using maize for biofuels should remain in place, and that strategically South Africa should be looking to new technologies in the biofuels space.

Frank

Why the ESKOM price hike does not need to add to inflation

So the decision has been taken. ESKOM electricity price to go up about 25% per year for the next 3 years. Some say too little (us Renewable Energy people), most say too much. It seems that everyone expects ESKOM to be able to deliver cheap power as they have for the last 20 years or more, everyone wants ESKOM to build new power stations, but they dare not charge more for the power.

But if they don’t put up the price and don’t build power stations, as the classical thinking goes, then there will be no additional power, just more blackouts. Everyone is talking about the inflationary effects of the price increase, but few have calculated the inflationary effects of having NO power.

But let me tell you why I think that the price increases need not add to inflation. Everyone is catching a wakeup about energy prices – the wakeup just has to be directed in the right direction. By investing in Energy Efficiency, we can stimulate economic growth, massively reduce demand (and our electricity bills), and reduce the need for new power stations (and maybe keep the price hikes down in the long-run). But this obvious intervention seems to be neglected by all. “A solar water heater is toooo expensive” bemoans the consumer, and then goes out in his/her 4x4 for take-aways.

Here’s my challenge: be you a business or an individual, get off your butt and find away to reduce your energy consumption and save money, DESPITE the price hike.

Frank

The Car Carbon Tax

“New passenger vehicles will be taxed based on their certified CO2 emissions at R75 per g/km for each g/km above 120 g/km.”

According to Car Pages, there are in the UK 904 cars under 120 g/km (no tax), 6142 between 120 and 185 g/km, and 2556 cars over 185 g/km (going up to 500 g/km for a Lamborghini Murcielago LP640 Roadster).

Thus, assuming similar cars come to SA, 9% will have no tax, 67% will be taxed between R0 and R5000, and 24% over R5000 per car. This is peanuts.

I recon the cars over 185 g/km (25% of all cars) should get NAILED!

Frank

Nuclear uncurrents

A little birdie whispered in my ear today. It said that the proposed 30% energy target from IPPs in the medium term is predominantly going to come from privately owned nuclear power. Of course, the government will need to give guarantees to make this work. Thus private corporations will profit while government (i.e. the taxpayer) takes huge risk.

This does not surprise me. Nuclear has been in the news a lot recently:

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/major-nuclear-power-new-build-programme-will-need-hefty-investment-2010-02-15

http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article305215.ece

These articles reveal a figure of 21 GW of new nuclear by 2035, about 30% of our electricity by then, at a cost of around R1 TRILLION, not including any overruns, and not including any of the PBMR white elephants.

Frank

Notes from Minister Sonjica's State of the Nation Address

The honourable minister of water and environmental affairs, BP Sonjica, gave her state of the nation address yesterday. Some highlights from her speech were as follows:

• Clarification of the climate change targets. A 34% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions relative to Business As Usual by 2020, and 42% by 2025 is proposed, but is conditional on a binding international treaty and means of implementation i.e. give us money and we will reduce emissions.
• A rise in carbon emissions in developing countries in the short term is allowed, thus we can build more coal power stations.
• To show a commitment to carbon reductions, a 100MW CSP plant and 1 million SWH will be rolled out in the short term, with “support” for wind projects.

What this means is that until the large emitters come to the table with reductions and money, South Africa will continue on a business-as-usual path. This is so short sighted. Building new coal commits us to high carbon emissions for a further 30 years or more. The commitment to low-carbon at a national level is thus far is nothing more than tokenism.

It is still up to local communities and cities to drive the change needed.

Frank

Attacks on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Obscure Real Science

The storm-in-a-teacup around Climategate seems to continue unabated. Yes politicians and corporations whose business is emitting carbon have blown in out of proportion in order to drive their own agenda – to stop any form of climate legislation in the USA.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has come up with a nice response: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/attacks-on-the-ipcc.html. Unfortunately it is unlikely to put the dispute to rest – the issue is no longer one of science but of one of politics.

Frank

Energy Planning

Some good moves on the part of the government announced in the State of the Nation Address:

• An inter-ministerial committee has been formed to develop a 20-year Integrated Resource Plan for generation in South Africa. I seriously hope that they take energy efficiency and renewable energy seriously.
• An Independent System Operator (ISO) is to be setup outside of ESKOM to run the electrical grid.

In addition, the Department of Energy has indicated that a target has been set to acquire 10% of energy from Independent Power Producers (IPPs) within 3 years, with a long term of 30% of power to be from IPPs.

On the climate change front, by the end of the year SA should have a Green Paper to follow up on the Copenhagen commitment reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 34 percent by 2020 and 40 percent by 2025.

Frank

UK's new feed-in tariff

UK just launched some pretty cool small-scale Renewable Energy Tariffs.

For electricity:

Technology	Scale	Tariffs (ZAR/kWh)
Anaerobic digestion	≤500kW	1.380
Anaerobic digestion	>500kW	1.080
Hydro	≤15 kW	2.388
Hydro	>15 - 100kW	2.136
Hydro	>100kW - 2MW	1.320
Hydro	>2kW - 5MW	0.540
MicroCHP pilot*	≤2 kW*	1.200
PV	≤4 kW (new build)	4.332
PV	≤4 kW (retrofit)	4.956
PV	>4-10kW	4.332
PV	>10 - 100kW	3.768
PV	>100kW - 5MW	3.516
PV	Standalone system	3.516
Wind	≤1.5kW	4.140
Wind	>1.5 - 15kW	3.204
Wind	>15 - 100kW	2.892
Wind	>100 - 500kW	2.256
Wind	>500kW - 1.5MW	1.128
Wind	>1.5MW - 5MW	0.540
Existing microgenerators transferred from the RO		1.080

For heat:

Technology	Scale	Tariffs (ZAR/kWh)
Small installations
Solid biomass	Up to 45kW	1.08
Biodiesel	Up to 45kW	0.78
Biogas on-site combustion	Up to 45kW	0.66
Ground source heat pumps	Up to 45kW	0.84
Air source heat pumps	Up to 45kW	0.9
Solar thermal	Up to 20kW	2.16
Medium installations
Solid biomass	45kW-500kW	0.78
Biogas on-soite combustion	45kW-200kW	0.66
Ground source heat pumps	45kW-350kW	0.66
Air source heat pumps	45kW-350kW	0.24
Solar thermal	20kW-100kW	2.04
Large installations
Solid biomass	500kW and above	0.192 - 0.300
Ground source heat pumps	350kW and above	0.18
Biomethane injection	All scales	0.48

More info at: http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/6908/uk-feed-in-tariffs-announced

Frank