A DIRTY CAULDRON

Oh dear! Here we go again! Eskom or Eishkom as it has become known, cannot produce clean, safe electricity and it is now the fault of the minority who can afford it and therefore use it, for the chances of catastrphic weather patterns. It will become encumbant upon that minority to dig down deep into their pockets once again, to change over to gas or solar energy, whilst Eishkom, will continue to produce dirty, unsafe electricity of the cash strapped magority. I guess that too will become the fault of the minority one way or another!

A dirty energy cauldron

Kevin Dawie

08 February 2007 11:59

Energy provision in South Africa is in a cauldron. Internationally, 2 500 of the world’s leading climate scientists have found in a United Nations study that climate change is being fuelled by carbon emissions and that drastic cuts are necessary to reduce the chances of catastrophic weather patterns. Meanwhile, back home, a major study into energy usage by cities finds that if current policies continue, energy usage in South Africa is likely to double over the next 20 years.

The State of Energy in SA Cities report by Sustainable Energy Africa warns that South Africa’s disproportionately large contribution to global warming is likely to come under international scrutiny and pressure. At the same time a confidential report released by the department of public enterprises finds numerous shortcomings in electricity provision, including inadequate efforts to encourage energy savings. “There are a number of measures that can be introduced in the short term to alleviate the problems currently being experienced,” says the report.

It says media campaigns should be instituted requesting customers to reduce thermostat levels, improve insulation and install energy-efficient lighting, motors and fridges. These should include encouraging people to switch off freezers, fridges and geysers during peak periods and to switch to gas for cooking purposes. Critics are also arguing that government is continuing its policy of attracting high-energy use industries while planning the expansion of more dirty, coal-based energy sources.

Writing in this issue of the M&G Business, the WWF’s Peet du Plooy argues that the Coega project will consume 3% of the country’s electricity, yet create only 1 000 jobs. While coal-based power stations cost R30-billion to develop, a solar­powered water-heating industry can create 120 000 jobs. Using Eskom’s own figures Du Plooy points out that new electricity provision costs R10 a kilowatt. Saving the same amount of electricity costs R3 or less.

The previously confidential public enterprises report finds numerous shortcomings in electricity provision, including a lack of transparency, and little focus on short and medium-term supply security. “Steps could be taken now to improve the short-term position,” the report says. It reviews electricity provision in a number of countries, finding that in all of these markets there is significant information in the public domain concerning security of supply and reserve margin. “In contrast, in South Africa almost all of Eskom’s documents on security supply and reserve margin are either unpublished or deemed to be confidential.”

The report says it is vital that plans over energy provision have the widest possible exposure “to enable alternative options to be considered. Eskom does not have a monopoly on good ideas.” It also criticises the fact that the industry uses two separate overall planning systems — one run by the national energy regulator, the other by Eskom. Currently there is a lack of agreement between Eskom and the regulator about the assumed level of economic growth the industry is preparing to meet. The report says there is a lack of coordination with municipalities over supply requirements. The authors also say the monitoring of the reserve margin is inadequate and inconsistent. Electricity provision currently takes place without an explicit energy security standard. Eskom is also criticised for not including weather forecasting in its planning. The State of Energy in SA Cities report says South African metros exhibit per capita carbon emissions levels of an average 6,5 tons, “close to that of a city such as London, even though its GDP is far lower. “This is due to the high carbon-emissions levels of ‘dirty’ South African coal, or energy intensive development and availability of cheap electricity, which has failed to encourage efficiency in industry, business and high-income households.”

Carbon emissions rise significantly in South Africa’s industrial towns, notably in Richards Bay and Saldanha Bay, and in the Vaal Triangle. The report says 16% of households do not have access to clean, safe, affordable energy and that 25% of South Africans live in “energy poverty”. It says transport fuels contribute as much as half of all the energy used in our cities. “Rapid and ongoing motori­sation of our cities exacerbates local health problems and contributes significantly to climate change.” Nearly 40% of South Africa’s city resi­dents commute by foot, not because this is a lifestyle choice, but because they cannot afford transport. “These walkers are twice as likely to die through a motor-vehicle accident than the driver of the vehicle themselves.”

“A small minority of wealthy households consume substantial amounts of energy, contributing to local and global pollution,” it adds. The report says that energy conservation measures can lead to a reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by between 15% and 20% over the next 20 years. Interventions to reduce the use of fossil fuels include shifting from private to public transport, introducing stepped tariffs to make heavy electricity users pay more and encouraging energy efficiency such as using solar water heaters and better insulation. This could be achieved through awareness campaigns and by-laws. “Local government is tasked with local economic development,” says the report. “Developing a local economy that draws on local resources, including sunlight, wind and efficient design, to generate energy provides an exciting development opportunity barely explored. This would also improve local energy security, reducing city reliance on centralised energy supplies.” The world’s scientists gave their starkest warning yet that a failure to cut greenhouse-gas emissions will bring devastating climate change within a few decades, The Guardian reported last Saturday. “Average temperatures could increase by as much as 6,4°C by the end of the century if emissions continue to rise, with a rise of 4°C most likely, according to the final report of an expert panel set up by the UN to study the problem.”