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