Aside from moving the world towards dealing with climate change and avoiding climate disaster, these are mostly loans which will need to be paid back. South Africa is currently top ranking on the G20 list for countries most reliant on coal-fired power by quite a large margin.
Ye but we all the way down here in the south, the little pollution we make doesn’t affect anyone or anything or the northern countries.
Why ?
Erm, those loans are usually linked to either no interest or dollar repo rate. They're not meant to make money.
They get the world to produce less CO2, SO2, NO2 and methane. Pollution affects the entire world, not just isolated areas.
Above, and not just South Africa, they're trying to help all countries across the world transition.
What in your opinion peaked our(the worlds) N02, C02, S02 levels in recent years?
Not opinion, fact, it's coal...
Note that Norlisk "beats" South Africa as highest as Bloomberg/Greenpeace separated it based on each town, and usually a town of workers pops up next to coal stations. The highest concentration for a larger area are those coal mines.(Bloomberg) — The level of sulfur dioxide emissions in the Kriel area in Mpumalanga province only lags the Norilsk Nickel metal complex in the Russian town of Norilsk, the environmental group said in a statement, citing 2018 data from NASA satellites. The province is home to most of Eskom’s 15 coal-fired power plants as well as coal-to-fuel plants owned by Sasol Ltd., South Africa’s biggest company by revenue.
[...]
Eskom accounts for 42% of South Africa’s greenhouse gases, while Sasol emits 11% of the total, the companies have said.
South Africa: Greenpeace Says South Africa Is No. 2 Sulfur Dioxide Hotspot
The area around coal-fired plants owned by South Africa’s state power utility Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd. ranks as the world’s second-largest hotspot of sulfur dioxide emissions, according to Greenpeace.www.dailymaverick.co.za
That was 1 year and was the start of rolling black outs. It’s not a consistent representation of our national emissions. However it’s not to say there won’t be other years.
The pollution we produce impacts the entire planet I'm afraid.
Sorry, what? What does that have to do with anything, most of those coal plants are still operating, Eskom is still breaking a lot of rules in regards to emissions standards./
You still produce those emissions, they are still affecting the entire world, they don't just go "oh, we got blown into the atlantic, lets all stick in this little spot now and never bother the rest of the world or destroy the ozone layer/increase heat trapping", it's one giant cycle. You seem quite ignorant on what climate change actually is.
It is actually urgent based on climate change trend. You're basically saying South Africa should go "f the rest of the world" and keep producing it.
You have no clue what you're talking about. World bank loans like for Medupi and Kusile had certain conditions like flue-gas desulfurisation installations, which they failed to do, that was a $3.75bn loan with very low interest rates, those loans are designed to be as low interest as possible to help economies invest in infrastructure.
Volcanos produce the exact composition of gasses and more when compared to us burning coal.
Ah, so because a volcano can produce gasses, we should also burn coal?
Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.
Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities?
Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year.www.climate.gov
Have you been to those coal stations in Mpumalanga?
www.news24.com
Another whataboutism argument. Doesn't detract from coal plants being a huge issue and that South Africa should be moving to renewables (besides it being cheaper).
That's a pretty dumb argument, even those oil rich nations are moving to renewables.
You do know that renwables are the cheapest power generation source, right? What exactly are you arguing?
Yes and no, climate change has become quite a political issue, e.g. Germany due to the recent unprecedented floods is now intensifying its efforts even more.
I linked the WMF loan that Eskom failed to adhere to, namely to install filters....
That probably summarizes how lacking you are in understanding any of this.
How much investment needed for wind and solar farms to power JHB? What the ROI on that if we cap the utility bill with a 50% mark up of current prices?Ah, so because a volcano can produce gasses, we should also burn coal?
So because your neighbor went and stabbed someone, you should as well?
That whataboutism is just stupid.
A quick Google:
Have you been to those coal stations in Mpumalanga?
The consequences are long lasting and irreversible if continued, breaking the cycle would do a lot of harm vs just sorting out the issues now.Coal dust and smog plague lives in Mpumalanga | News24
South Africa has placed a heavy bet on coal for its development, but campaign groups say health and climate costs are high.
Another whataboutism argument. Doesn't detract from coal plants being a huge issue and that South Africa should be moving to renewables (besides it being cheaper).
That's a pretty dumb argument, even those oil rich nations are moving to renewables.
You could argue then that South Africa should be one of those who would be the fastest to try and move in that direction since lots of sun, wind, and LNG just to the north in Mozambique.
You do know that renwables are the cheapest power generation source, right? What exactly are you arguing?
Yes and no, climate change has become quite a political issue, e.g. Germany due to the recent unprecedented floods is now intensifying its efforts even more.
I linked the WMF loan that Eskom failed to adhere to, namely to install filters....
Coal is becoming more and more expensive and it makes no sense to add more of it to the grid, renewable is cheaper with less environmental impact.
That probably summarizes how lacking you are in understanding any of this.
Nuclear is generally the most expensive source of power as it requires huge capital with most nuclear power stations in the world having huge cost overruns and delays, you're looking at decades of construction. You're also taking the risk of what happens if something goes wrong, the area would be off-limits for decades to centuries depending on the severity. Nuclear is the safest/cleanest energy source until something goes wrong, then it is by far the worst. CSP is slightly cheaper than nuclear, and in South Africa with the Kalahari etc., it would probably be even more reliable and new innovations are constantly being made, e.g. Dubai manged a 15 hour storage CSP, EV1 "energy vault" for storage, etc.
But yes, lock it in and spend at least 10 years to build a nuclear plant that will probably take a good 20 at least with money that South Africa doesn't have and take a loan it can't repay on top of the debt that is already threatening to cripple the entire country. Good idea.
Maybe they just want to sell us all the latest in renewable technology so the loan US the money towards buying the tech, from them and then hope we pay them back
Sign up with Google