Eskom to charge solar users in South Africa to remain connected to the grid

[Swa]

yip, I can't wait for like-minded companies to install and maintain electricity networks to new developments and only rely on consumption... even when the consumption drops to zero - great business model

Consumption will not drop to zero while there's a need for a supply. If consumption was to drop to zero there's no need to maintain infrastructure any more. How is it that rationality always prevails in the private sector but when monopolies enter they somehow become special?

 

[quovadis]

Oh and for Quovadis wanting to know how a private entity can reduce the cost to R1/kWh, would a private entity pay R240,000 for a broom?

Still oblivious to how base costs work?

 

[quovadis]

yip, I can't wait for like-minded companies to install and maintain electricity networks to new developments and only rely on consumption... even when the consumption drops to zero - great business model

@Swa is very upset about wasted expenditure and the cost of a kWh but has no problem with subsidizing other’s electricity connections in every kWh he consumes for their convenience. If they can sort out the broom issue that subsidization can continue

 

[Thugscub]

Escum is managed by the well known ANC thieves.
Thieves need cash.
Consumer gets fusked over by the thieves.
Peasants support the thieves cos they don't pay for anything.
Easy as that.

 

[Swa]

@Swa is very upset about wasted expenditure and the cost of a kWh but has no problem with subsidizing other’s electricity connections in every kWh he consumes for their convenience. If they can sort out the broom issue that subsidization can continue

Cross subsidise = to use money generated from one service or type of service to make another cheaper or cover a loss.
Subsidise = to use money from one user on a service to make it cheaper or free for another.

Using money from one component on a service to cover the cost of another on the same service isn't a subsidy of any sort. It's how most services and products are priced. You just decided it shouldn't be the case here for a reason you can't explain. I.e. you just don't like it, feels.

As for Eskom you still don't seem to understand that it isn't just the cost of coal at play here. Eskom has enormous inefficiencies and corruption to deal with and an unskilled workforce. They also have a debt of R400bn+, used to be R500bn before De Ruyter paid some of it off. There's a lot of room for IPPs to reduce cost especially when using other more modern technologies.

 

[quovadis]

Cross subsidise = to use money generated from one service or type of service to make another cheaper or cover a loss.
Subsidise = to use money from one user on a service to make it cheaper or free for another.

Using money from one component on a service to cover the cost of another on the same service isn't a subsidy of any sort. It's how most services and products are priced. You just decided it shouldn't be the case here for a reason you can't explain. I.e. you just don't like it, feels.

As for Eskom you still don't seem to understand that it isn't just the cost of coal at play here. Eskom has enormous inefficiencies and corruption to deal with and an unskilled workforce. They also have a debt of R400bn+, used to be R500bn before De Ruyter paid some of it off. There's a lot of room for IPPs to reduce cost especially when using other more modern technologies.

Youre off on another tangent. Still waiting for you to advise how one CUSTOMER is not subsidizing another CUSTOMER that is not utilising their available connection under the current pricing structure?

 

[quovadis]

As for Eskom you still don't seem to understand that it isn't just the cost of coal at play here.

I forgot to address this. What you're missing is you keep working backwards. The base input is still coal and the cost of delivering it. I'm countering your argument that stated it could be R0,50 or R1. We're nearing that just with that single input cost?!?!?!

 

[Swa]

Youre off on another tangent. Still waiting for you to advise how one CUSTOMER is not subsidizing another CUSTOMER that is not utilising their available connection under the current pricing structure?

It's average cost. Every service where you pay for usage has fixed costs built into the tariff. It's not subsidising. You've just decided it shouldn't be the case with electricity but you're happy to utilise it if you use prepaid airtime.

I forgot to address this. What you're missing is you keep working backwards. The base input is still coal and the cost of delivering it. I'm countering your argument that stated it could be R0,50 or R1. We're nearing that just with that single input cost?!?!?!

Oh holy moly. The free market actually does work backwards to do things in the most efficient and cheapest manner.

Now does Eskom use the cheapest supplier with the best product? Do they use the cheapest transport? Can they reduce reliance on diesel and convert to gas? Can they supplement with other cheaper energy sources?

You have no idea if it can or can't be R1 with that fixation of yours on the coal santa gave you. You have no effing idea and are talking out your arse if you claim to know.

 

[quovadis]

It's average cost. Every service where you pay for usage has fixed costs built into the tariff. It's not subsidising. You've just decided it shouldn't be the case with electricity but you're happy to utilise it if you use prepaid airtime.

There are two costs Swa, the cost of the infrastructure to deliver the energy and the energy itself. Currently the energy cost includes much of the infrastructure cost. So if energy is not being consumed the infrastructure cost isn't being recovered?

Everyone simply has to pay more per kWh if they need to recover that under-recovery. Hence some customers subsidizing the others.

You're welcome to show me even simplified math to prove me wrong.

Oh holy moly. The free market actually does work backwards to do things in the most efficient and cheapest manner.

Now does Eskom use the cheapest supplier with the best product? Do they use the cheapest transport? Can they reduce reliance on diesel and convert to gas? Can they supplement with other cheaper energy sources?

You have no idea if it can or can't be R1 with that fixation of yours on the coal santa gave you. You have no effing idea and are talking out your arse if you claim to know.

Your argument was that electricity could cost as low as R0,50 per kWh

Crappy coal costs R550 per ton (Export coal is $106 per ton). To transport by road R750 per ton. By train R250 per ton. Let's average it and assume it's 50/50.

That's an input cost for coal at R1050 per ton minimum. Eskom's power plants at best might generate 2000kWh average across the fleet from that ton of coal being burned. That's a base cost per kWh of ~53c regardless of how much electricity you generate or sell. Now work your way up from there. No way you're at R1.00 either.

Clearly I have a bit of a better idea than you. Also, levellised average cost per kWh for coal produced energy is ~R1,62 worldwide. I'm guessing Eskom is below average.

 

[somothabang]

This is going to be interesting

Since having solar, my bill has dropped to R500 for 4 months, where-else before I was paying R1 800 - R2400 on prepaid electricity.

Why would I not cough out an extra 10-20k for a descent generator, and, perhaps an extra battery in time?


This week we had a bad weather day or two, but still used 0kWh from Eskom, and yeah, if it continues for a few days it might be an issue, but you can also manage your consumption

This is going to force some of us to get completely disconnected, since we’ve already put in the initial investment already

 

[Swa]

There are two costs Swa, the cost of the infrastructure to deliver the energy and the energy itself. Currently the energy cost includes much of the infrastructure cost. So if energy is not being consumed the infrastructure cost isn't being recovered?

Everyone simply has to pay more per kWh if they need to recover that under-recovery. Hence some customers subsidizing the others.

You're welcome to show me even simplified math to prove me wrong.

You're describing every bloody product. Again why should electricity be special here? It's just your contention that it should. It makes zero sense to punish users who've contributed to the solution. It makes zero sense to punish those using less of your product because of your incompetence.

Your argument was that electricity could cost as low as R0,50 per kWh

Crappy coal costs R550 per ton (Export coal is $106 per ton). To transport by road R750 per ton. By train R250 per ton. Let's average it and assume it's 50/50.

That's an input cost for coal at R1050 per ton minimum. Eskom's power plants at best might generate 2000kWh average across the fleet from that ton of coal being burned. That's a base cost per kWh of ~53c regardless of how much electricity you generate or sell. Now work your way up from there. No way you're at R1.00 either.

Clearly I have a bit of a better idea than you. Also, levellised average cost per kWh for coal produced energy is ~R1,62 worldwide. I'm guessing Eskom is below average.

No you don't. I said it may cost. We just don't know because we don't have a free market.

You are still stuck in your dinosaur fossil fool mentality here. I guess you'll have a problem there as well. Those who use the electrons from coal should pay for them and those who use the electrons from solar should pay for them. I wonder how we're going to mark them.

Oh and, that R1.62 is actually R0.63 in real world purchasing price terms. The Rand is undervalued which does not translate to local costs.

 

[quovadis]

You're describing every bloody product. Again why should electricity be special here? It's just your contention that it should. It makes zero sense to punish users who've contributed to the solution. It makes zero sense to punish those using less of your product because of your incompetence.


No you don't. I said it may cost. We just don't know because we don't have a free market.

You are still stuck in your dinosaur fossil fool mentality here. I guess you'll have a problem there as well. Those who use the electrons from coal should pay for them and those who use the electrons from solar should pay for them. I wonder how we're going to mark them.

Oh and, that R1.62 is actually R0.63 in real world purchasing price terms. The Rand is undervalued which does not translate to local costs.

Still ignoring the core of the argument. As for shifting the argument to renewables you might want to check what eskoms paying for those.

No need to respond.

 

[Swa]

Still ignoring the core of the argument. As for shifting the argument to renewables you might want to check what eskoms paying for those.

No need to respond.

Your argument is a fecking bogus one. It should be so because Quovadis said it should be so. Great argument my man. You deserve a Bells.


Let me explain it to you like this. What you're describing as subsidising is not subsidising but average cost. It's in every product. Those who use more of the product pay more towards infrastructure to make or deliver that product. Subsidising is when tariffs are unequal. Someone pays less for a product. The loss is then borne by someone else paying more for it. Usually it also has nothing to do with how much you use of a product but rather your status.

That is not the case here. Everyone pays the same tariff whether you use a little or a lot.

 

[quovadis]

Your argument is a fecking bogus one. It should be so because Quovadis said it should be so. Great argument my man. You deserve a Bells.


Let me explain it to you like this. What you're describing as subsidising is not subsidising but average cost. It's in every product. Those who use more of the product pay more towards infrastructure to make or deliver that product. Subsidising is when tariffs are unequal. Someone pays less for a product. The loss is then borne by someone else paying more for it. Usually it also has nothing to do with how much you use of a product but rather your status.

That is not the case here. Everyone pays the same tariff whether you use a little or a lot.

Do the math. Thanks again for the chat.

 

[Swa]

Do the math. Thanks again for the chat.

I don't care about the maths. I want to know why it has to be different to other products. You haven't provided any argument or technical reason. It's all just baah nobody should be subsidising anybody else. It's not subsidising. You and the politician cronies just decided it seems that's how it should be.

 

[quovadis]

I don't care about the maths

Cool bro

 

[Bundu]

........ Those who use more of the product pay more towards infrastructure to make or deliver that product. .......

what happens when many customers suddenly use hardly any of the product? How do you recover infrastructure costs?

 

[Swa]

what happens when many customers suddenly use hardly any of the product? How do you recover infrastructure costs?

What does any company do when many customers suddenly use hardly any of their products?

Also your thinking is not rational. What are you going to do in any case when customers say we're fed up go stick your product where the sun doesn't shine? Force them to pay for it even though they're not using it? Yeah that plan has always worked very well in paying for infrastructure...

 

[Bundu]

What does any company do when many customers suddenly use hardly any of their products?

Also your thinking is not rational. What are you going to do in any case when customers say we're fed up go stick your product where the sun doesn't shine? Force them to pay for it even though they're not using it? Yeah that plan has always worked very well in paying for infrastructure...

ok, so you're not answering my inconvenient question?

and by the way, the option to "stick it" is available, go off the grid.

 

[Swa]

ok, so you're not answering my inconvenient question?

and by the way, the option to "stick it" is available, go off the grid.

Exactly, people can leave whether you ask a "connection fee" or not. You people really haven't thought this through lol.

Oh and it isn't inconvenient, it's irrelevant to the issue.