Eskom says that it will need between $30 billion (R460 billion) and $35 billion (R537 billion) over the next 15 years to transition away from generating electricity from coal.
Why should we commit economic suicide over this idiotic net zero religious fantasy?? It's not as if we don't have enough challenges already.
There are far more important environmental concerns anyway - plastic and other pollution, wetlands degradation, loss of unique habitats, poaching, etc etc. IMHO those real concerns are being badly neglected because of this monomaniacal focus on CO2.
Perspective: "Africa accounts for only 2–3 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions from energy and industrial sources."
Why should we commit economic suicide over this idiotic net zero religious fantasy?? It's not as if we don't have enough challenges already.
There are far more important environmental concerns anyway - plastic and other pollution, wetlands degradation, loss of unique habitats, poaching, etc etc. IMHO those real concerns are being badly neglected because of this monomaniacal focus on CO2.
Perspective: "Africa accounts for only 2–3 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions from energy and industrial sources."
Someone wants something, that's why... SA is always this special child in Africa, I honestly wish I knew why. But yes, DeRuyter (van die windtjie) is coming up with numbers because that nai wants to increase prices and also probably to tell the German donors how much he wants/needs.
Why should we commit economic suicide over this idiotic net zero religious fantasy?? It's not as if we don't have enough challenges already.
There are far more important environmental concerns anyway - plastic and other pollution, wetlands degradation, loss of unique habitats, poaching, etc etc. IMHO those real concerns are being badly neglected because of this monomaniacal focus on CO2.
Perspective: "Africa accounts for only 2–3 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions from energy and industrial sources."
If developed nations are prepared to hand over cash to do it then great. Otherwise Eskom is in a financially precarious position. It needs to do what it must to restore a reliable energy supply to this country. Part of that is to allow private generation, but if it also means burning coal for base load then burn it.
We, Eskom, are so inept and villainous that we are not able to construct or maintain the simplist bulk electrical generation system known to man, the coal powered steam generator.
Thus, because we don't have to face responsibility for our villainy, we will blame this on net zero, which we don't really give 0 FS for, and use net zero to create a nice pot for us, and our buddies.
Oh, you actually want to live in an electrically powered world? Well too bad, so sad. We win, you lose and what are you going to do about it!
Why should we commit economic suicide over this idiotic net zero religious fantasy?? It's not as if we don't have enough challenges already.
There are far more important environmental concerns anyway - plastic and other pollution, wetlands degradation, loss of unique habitats, poaching, etc etc. IMHO those real concerns are being badly neglected because of this monomaniacal focus on CO2.
"Economic suicide".
You realize that solar and wind are cheaper than coal? For building anything new, renewable is substantially cheaper.
It even competes well against existing coal, nuclear and gas as new.
And since South Africa has high interest rates and needs to build new power generation, the sensitivity to cost of capital is extremely important, do note as well that these "green" loans would come at a better interest rate (probably 0.05% SDR dollar denominated) while getting funding for coal etc. is near impossible since lots of banks/funds no longer want to deal with it.
Note again this is all levelized, taking into account the Capacity Factor:
"Economic suicide" is the dumbest thing to say, this is better and cheaper than current generation, meanwhile you do not have even close to as many emissions, the air pollution blown from those coal power stations all around Gauteng and MP is insane, a bad wind brings that all to Pretoria.
Why are you linking stuff from over a decade ago?
"Prepared by the United Nations for UN Climate Change Conference Nairobi 2006"
A bit out of date, don't you think?
But sure, you're right, but that's a red herring, everywhere everyone is trying to reduce emissions. There are also more emissions than just CO2, but let's look at CO2.
Okay, So Europe is trending down. So let's compare Germany, the great polluter with their coal and metal industry with South Africa, with their near 50% larger population, way larger heating requirements, and substantially higher GDP.
Wait what, Germany is cleaning up their act substantially? That can't be right?
Mhm, so fine, they are taking active measures reducing their carbon, guess that red herring doesn't really work, does it?
This is just for interest's sake, remember to take population and economy size into account, South Africa definitely does not have a larger economy than UK, but similar population size.
And that doesn't take NO2 into account, South Africa wins there: https://qz.com/africa/1441504/highest-concentration-of-deadly-air-pollution-found-in-south-africa/
And that's with most not being economically active in South Africa, most are kids.
But here is another for methane:
Sign up with Google
