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

The real risk to ESKOM: coal

With all the current hype about ESKOM’s current request for massive tariff increases, a bigger threat to our energy security is currently being ignored. And that is the supply of coal.

Coal is a limited resource whose price has already come under extreme pressure (see http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-south-african&months=300). Having sat in the range of USD20-35 per ton for many years, since Jan 2007 it has sat above USD50 per ton, spiking to over USD160 per ton last year. South Africa was largely shielded from these large increase due to long term coal purchase contracts. However, significant new investment into coal is required to supply the new power stations being planned (Medupi currently being built, Kusile to be built).

China is building new coal powered stations at a rate, and by 2030 they are likely to have more than doubled their current coal consumption (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html). In addition, oil supply is constrained, and thanks to technology from companies like SASOL, coal can be turned into oil, so these prices have become linked.

To think that South Africa will continue to be able to buy coal at its historical low price is to believe pigs can fly. Thus when ESKOM states that we need urgent investment into coal mines (http://business.iafrica.com/news/2193264.htm), this should be raising alarm bells left right and centre! If ESKOM was prepared to may a market price for coal, companies would invest. But clearly they are not, hence the investment is not happening.

Watch out, South Africa, the blackouts from lack of coal are bound to return.

Frank

South Africa and the Nuclear Industry

It really distresses me that, instead of focussing on Renewables, there is still such emphasis on Nuclear in South Africa.

The background is that simply nuclear is too expensive as a future option (see http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nuclear-power-too-costly-to-revive). The claim is that nuclear can be a massive help in terms or reducing carbon emissions, but in reality there are two reasons why this is not true:

1. By the time a nuclear power plant is built, it is too late for any carbon benefits that they may have to accrue – we need climate change action now.
2. By the time a nuclear power plant is built (without the overruns that always happen), solar will be a cheaper option, creating more jobs, with far less risks.
3. Even now a combination of gas turbines + investments in carbon sequestration is cheaper and reduces carbon more per dollar invested than nuclear (see http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion).

So it’s no surprise that Ontario just cancelled their nuclear plans due to price reasons: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/ontario-puts-nuclear-expansion-plans-on-ice/

Yet in South Africa the nuclear lobby has setup an Industry Association (NIASA). R900,000 has been raised from the “sponsors” (including Eskom, Necsa, PBMR, Areva and Westinghouse) to promote Manufacturing, Education and Training, Communications and Regulation around Nuclear in South Africa. Due to this, it is likely that all major universities will have a curriculum in nuclear science and engineering by 2011. In addition, a 1 hour documentary is being produced for TV to promote Nuclear. (See http://www.eepublishers.co.za/view.php?sid=19842)

This is all, of course, backwards. Venture Capital in clean energy hit USD155.4 billion in 2008 in continues to grow, and the rest of the world is focusing on Clean Tech as the big next job creating space.

But here in South Africa it seems we are to continue on the risky, low jobs, capital intensive, big corporate profits Nuclear Path and ignore the obvious – that solar is our future.

Frank

FOOD TO FUEL

The whole biofuels space sometimes makes me sick. How can it be allowed that the US converts ¼ of their grain food crop into petrol when there are a billion people starving in the world? Not only has George Bush’s energy policies caused the Iraq/Afghanistan tragedies, they are now leading to people starving.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/22/quarter-us-grain-biofuels-food

Frank

Solar water heating up? Or will it explode?

As many may know, South Africa has a solar water heater subsidy scheme driven by ESKOM. Although I believe a subsidy scheme is a good idea to grow the market, I believe that the way it is currently being implemented isseriously problematic.

For a subsidy scheme to be successful, international experience has shown
that long-term market certainty is a pre-requisite for a successful solar
water heating market. Unfortunately, I do not believe this is the case in
South Africa for the following reasons.

Firstly, it is a major concern of mine that the Solar Water Heating
programme is driven as a Demand-Side Management intervention out of ESKOM.
ESKOM's current business model is predicated on selling as much electricity
as possible, not reducing consumption. Demand-Side Management is about
managing demand in such a way that you don't have grid failures so that you
can continue to sell as much electricity as possible. Right now, with more
demand than supply, it makes sense for ESKOM to promote DSM (including SWH)
as it will help keep the grid stable. However, as soon as additional
capacity is added to the grid, it will become business as usual again (i.e.
sell as much electricity as possible), and SWHs will no longer make sense to
ESKOM.

Secondly, the way ESKOM has handled the SWH subsidy programme so far is
laughable. The reasons for this include:

• The subsidies are calculated using a testing regime implemented by the SABS that is not similar to any other approved international way of testing solar water heaters. Thus the test biases towards powerful systems rather than towards optimal solutions. It also requires complete systems to be tested, an expensive process that only increase the revenue of the SABS and adds no value to the industry.
• The test does NOT really test the long term quality of the system, just the thermal performance.
• The first round of subsidies were not large enough to stimulate the market. Now there have been a sudden dramatic increase in subsidies, in some cases this is as much as 300% (not 120% as indicated in the article), in other cases it has been 0%.
• The new formula for calculating the subsidies is not public, and seems to be unreasonably biased to large powerful expensive systems.
• Lastly, and most importantly, there is no certainty around HOW this programme is going to run over the next few years, let alone next 10 years.

Thus the market may boom in the short term, but then there may be a sudden
change in the subsidy (again), leading to the market collapsing. This gives
investors little certainty about the market.

The lack of decent quality testing protocols and market certainty means that
we are likely to have a market flooded by cheap systems, where the suppliers
will disappear as quickly as they arrived if (when?) the subsidy changes,
leaving consumers in the lurch with low-quality products they cannot have
maintained or warranty support.

It is imperative that the SWH subsidy scheme be taken out of the hands of
ESKOM and be placed with an independent body who is primarily tasked with
ENERGY EFFICIENCY, or the reduction of electrical consumption, not DEMAND
SIDE MANAGEMENT, the management of electricity demand to increase sales
revenue. This body would require a long term funding source to drive a
long-term, transparent, consistent subsidy programme, and a proper quality
testing regime. Without this we run the risk of the bottom falling out of
the market.

Frank

2nd CO2 tax & the NIRP

If one department in government seems to understand that maybe climate change is an issue, it is treasury. Or maybe they just see it as another way to make revenue? Anyway, fist we had the 2c/kWh levy for fossil fuel based electricity; now there will be a tax on cars from March depending on how much CO₂ they spew: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/sa-to-introduce-new-car-tax-despite-concerns-2010-01-14. If you want that 4x4, better go buy it now.

Then the Integrated Resource Plan magically appeared in the government gazette on the 31^st December. As expected, a depressingly low 1020 MW is allocated to both the Medium-Term Power Purchase Plan (MTPPP) (for Independent Power Producers) and to the Renewable Energy Feed In Tariff (REFIT). 725 MW (I’ve heard) is for the Renewables, of which 400 MW will be wind. A tiny amount by all accounts. And amazingly they think they can get all of this online by 2011, starting 1^st March? Where’s the Power Purchase Agreement?

Of course, it should also be noted that this national plan does not align with ESKOM’s plans (surprise surprise). Read this article where the WWF takes the differences between the two to pieces: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/tick-the-box-style-power-plan-slammed-by-wwf-2010-01-14

Frank

Ontario cans nuclear power

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/ontario-puts-nuclear-expansion-plans-on-ice/

Is that the sound of chins hitting the floor in Areva and Westinghouse? Poor nuclear lobby, another deal in the can, gotta suck. All those billions of profits you could have made, all the millions spent wining & dining & putting-in-pockets down the tube.

It’s plain and simple: nuclear is too expensive and too risky (even with the so-called carbon benefits), and within 15 years solar will be way cheaper than nuclear. South Africa just needs to catch a wake-up and realise, that with its solar potential, Concentrated Solar Power is the way to go.

Frank

I spot some irked solar water heater customers

Boom, overnight EKSDOM decides to double its subsidy for Solar Water Heaters: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/eskom-hopes-to-accelerate-swh-rollout-as-it-doubles-rebates-2010-01-13

I can imagine the suckers who bought subsidised systems two years ago (700 of them) and last year (1600 of them) will be pretty irked. Glad I don’t have to deal with those customers phoning in!

But why now? Well, for one think ESKOM is taking some SERIOUS flak over their price tariffs, so why not a little feel-good distraction? And where are they getting the money for this sudden doubling. Oh yes, it’s in the 35% electricity hike. Cool, so those who don’t get a SWH will pay for those who do get one. Hehe.

But I still have my serious reservations about a company who is motivated to make profit through selling electricity running a program designed to reduce the sales of that exact same commodity. Sounds like a conflict in interest to me.

Hmm, guess I might hang around until the subsidy doubles again... or maybe they’ll halve it once they get their price hikes...

Frank

Why Cap and Trade for CO2 is a BAD idea...

This is another brilliant little animation from the same people who brought us “The Story of Stuff”. It is “The Story of Cap and Trade” and how we are being lead down the garden path around solutions for Climate Change:

http://storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/

For the Story of Stuff and other similar, see http://storyofstuff.com/.

Frank

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

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

Solar Panels with built in "windscreen-wipers"

Self cleaning solar: http://news.discovery.com/tech/dust-be-gone-with-self-cleaning-solar.html

Frank