Free basic electricity problems in South Africa

[Swa]

On the note of efficiency. So someone used a 100W bulb in 2003 for like 5 hours a night. That's 0.5kWh per day or 15kWh per month. Now they use CCFLs and LEDs but guess what, they now have 2 or 3 in use for longer plus they have to replace the heat from the incandescent with something else. So they don't save 12kWh a month but far less.

Forget geysers and such as you still have to heat water. We don't have one and use an urn and it still costs 3kWh to heat it every day you bath. If you do it 10 times a month depending on the work you do it's 30kWh. Most indigents do manual labour and are dirty at the end of the day but let's keep it at 30. Boiling a kettle for 3 people uses like 0.1kWh. 3 times a day is 0.3kWh for 30 days is 9kWh. There's now little left of the 50kWh. Now add lights, tv, etc. Cellphones use more. Where one person had a phone that lasted for 10 days people now brag when getting 2 days out of their battery plus batteries have gotten larger and you have 3 people with one instead of one.

Now let's take a basic household using average 300kWh. If we subtract the FBE it's 250kWh they buy on top of it. That 250kWh now costs ten times more, but inflation has only been 150%. So the average person pays 6 times more for electricity than in 2003. So someone with no cash to spare at the end of the month can now only afford to buy a sixth of that which is the point here and not what someone can do with 50kWh compared to 2003. For the rest they have to choose between buying electricity or food.

 

[TrueSeeker]

That is wrong. The FBE doesn't get subsidised out of what you pay for electricity but from treasury. The FBE also does not increase the price of other goods and is irrelevant here. In fact if electricity was cheaper we could in fact afford to subsidise even more.

Ok let's see here wise guy...

Eskom is mandated to provide the FBE and transport electricity to every little hole in the ground out in the boonies, where most will be taking that FBE as well, by the government. And utltimately it's "funded" (note the quotes) through the LGES with local municipalities. Which have to buy the electricity from Eskom, give it to beneficiaries, and in return they get more of the profit from their local electricity sales. Profit generated from paying customers.

right?

It costs money to generate electricity. And to expand infrastructure. And for Eskom especially since it has also been ****ed by government mandate to provide so much employment over the years. Beyond what they would otherwise need. And then the years of state capture and the cadre shenanigans around coal, fuel and gas supply.

right?

Now... While so much electricity is being given away for free - Those who do pay, including businesses, have to pay more for electricity. So that Eskom doesn't run at a loss.

right?

What do you think this does to businesses? They pay more for electricity. Of course. And, very often businesses use a hell of a lot of electricity. Lighting, climate control, constant refrigeration or face expired food losses, etc. This is an increased operating expense that lowers their profitability margins.

right?

So, what's the effect for the consumer (both those paying for electricity and those whho not)"
A: Those who do pay - Have bigger electricity bills.
B: Everybody, when they walk into any shop and buy anything, have to pay more for what they buy, because the business needs to make a profit. They need to make a living. So they increase the prices of the goods and services they sell. Even the damned petrol stations use **** tons of electricity for lighting and pumps. And make no mistake - They do collectively have a say in the price of petrol. It is highly negotiated. And they too want to keep their profits healthy.

Right???

 

[Benedict A55h0le not]

Yep, the non-indigents subsidize the indigents and free loaders. The funny thing is, in 2003 the indigents paid the same price per kwh. Now the pay about half price per kwh compared to the non-indigent full price payer. Even after getting this massive 50% subsidy, they still can`t afford it today. This is socialism 101, and today we see the consequence.

 

[Mirai]

You don't know what the point was and how it was calculated. A lot more went into it than merely what you need for the basics. The real red herring here is your claim that the 50kW stretches much further today. So you can shave a few kWh off with more efficient appliances. It's not so much as you think as those applications never used so much to begin with and indigents usually get hand me downs which are less efficient.

No red herring. The claim was that 50KWh is not enough because it's from 2003.

Ultimately the hand me downs become more efficient as stuff available from the mid 2010s became more and more efficient as mandated by Europe and passed on to other markets.

Lighting takes a lot of power. The current LEDS run at 5-10W each instead of 60-100W as in the 2003 era. Very few hand me downs exist in 2025 from the 1990s or early 2000s.

The poor of 2003 also used hand me downs, but hand me downs from the 1980s or 70s. Those were even worse.

You claim that it's basic needs and people can live off 50kW but you yourself use a lot more.

Strawman. I don't have basic needs. I use more and I never claimed I only use basic. I also have medical aid and a nice house and a car and private security and computers back here... so that means everyone should have the same?

I, like you, subsidize a lot of people. Please don't make this personal.

The point of the 50kW was never that people should live off that and only that, but that they could buy the rest. It's not about the 50kW but the rest and what can be done to provide relief there but you're unable to understand that and that the 50kW and efficiency is the real her herring here.

That does not make sense. If they need to buy so much more than 50KWH is not that basic. Fact is that if it was fine in 2003, it's even more fine now.

The rest people HAVE to buy has gotten more expensive tenfold. Electricity has not rises with inflation as you claim but has driven inflation. It has gotten to the situation where MORE people now have to choose between buying electricity or food. Note, I'm not saying that some people never had to make this choice but that MORE people now have to.

That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that the free electricity has been above inflation. Electricity increased in price at above inflation rates but this stayed the same, ergo it increased at above inflationary rates. The need to use more electricity is not there. The whole thing about LEDs, LED TVs, and so on is that there is no need to use more now than in 2003.

Great, so we should just give up and not strive for better for everyone. You might as well go dig your grave then and lay in it.

Yes, you can start by voting out the ANC and partially abolishing the BEE.

 

[Mirai]

Yep, the non-indigents subsidize the indigents and free loaders. The funny thing is, in 2003 the indigents paid the same price per kwh. Now the pay about half price per kwh compared to the non-indigent full price payer. Even after getting this massive 50% subsidy, they still can`t afford it today. This is socialism 101, and today we see the consequence.

Mariner will claim they pay the same Runts per KWh.

 

[Benedict A55h0le not]

No red herring. The claim was that 50KWh is not enough because it's from 2003.

Ultimately the hand me downs become more efficient as stuff available from the mid 2010s became more and more efficient as mandated by Europe and passed on to other markets.

Lighting takes a lot of power. The current LEDS run at 5-10W each instead of 60-100W as in the 2003 era. Very few hand me downs exist in 2025 from the 1990s or early 2000s.

The poor of 2003 also used hand me downs, but hand me downs from the 1980s or 70s. Those were even worse.




Strawman. I don't have basic needs. I use more and I never claimed I only use basic. I also have medical aid and a nice house and a car and private security and computers back here... so that means everyone should have the same?

I, like you, subsidize a lot of people. Please don't make this personal.



That does not make sense. If they need to buy so much more than 50KWH is not that basic. Fact is that if it was fine in 2003, it's even more fine now.




That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that the free electricity has been above inflation. Electricity increased in price at above inflation rates but this stayed the same, ergo it increased at above inflationary rates. The need to use more electricity is not there. The whole thing about LEDs, LED TVs, and so on is that there is no need to use more now than in 2003.




Yes, you can start by voting out the ANC and partially abolishing the BEE.

You just don`t get it. Nope, lights do not take a lot of power in relation to a geyser and cooking. And during winter when the geyser is on even more and also a 2000w heater or 2, lights is a fart in the ozone layer. In 2003 there was also energy efficient light bulbs. It might be that they use slightly less electricity today, but this is also a fart in the ozone layer in relation to the price increases. Then you go on and think wrongly that they only use about 50kwh a month which is just completely wrong. It is right there in the article, the average is 350-400kwh per month. The bottom line is that they can not afford the extra 300-350 kwh today, therefor it is logical to want more free units. Your logic is flawed, we have explained it over and over, yet you will die on that hill.

 

[Mariner]

No red herring. The claim was that 50KWh is not enough because it's from 2003.

That was never the claim. My claim was that the poor now in 2025 cannot afford the supplementary electricity to the 50kW that they could afford in 2003 due to the price of electricity being 1000% more expensive, Way above inflation.

That does not make sense. If they need to buy so much more than 50KWH is not that basic. Fact is that if it was fine in 2003, it's even more fine now.

So, according to you, the poor can afford the 1000% price increase of electricity since 2003?

That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that the free electricity has been above inflation. Electricity increased in price at above inflation rates but this stayed the same, ergo it increased at above inflationary rates.

50kW of electricity remains 50kW, no matter the cost. It's a unit of energy, not a financial unit. 50kW in 1900, 1940, 1990, 2003 and 2025 remains 50kW.

Mariner will claim they pay the same Runts per KWh.

Again, my claim is that the indigent pay 1000% more per kW now compared to 2003. You don't seem to be capable of understanding this.

 

[Mirai]

That was never the claim. My claim was that the poor now in 2025 cannot afford the supplementary electricity to the 50kW that they could afford in 2003 due to the price of electricity being 1000% more expensive, Way above inflation.

You responded to me buddy.

This is what I typed initially:

I'm sorry but how is it relevant that it was set all the way back in 2003? In fact back in 2003 we still used incandescent bulbs and CCFLs. Now most of the lights are LED based, ergo the consumption is less. And in fact other appliances may be a bit more energy efficient eg if people use an induction cooker. Fewer people watch TVs, especially those old CRT ones which drew a lot of power. Now people watch stuff on their smartphones which need very little power.

But that 50kWh was set in 2003 would be a positive. It's not as though electricity use increases as the decades fly by. It's not as though R50 worth of power was set in 2003 and we still give them R50 worth of power. The free amount has kept up with inflation and all increases. It's 50kWh worth of energy.

So, according to you, the poor can afford the 1000% price increase of electricity since 2003?

LOL, this is your strawman.

The poor couldn't afford enough electricity in 2003 and they still can't afford that and in 10 years time they still won't afford it.

50kW of electricity remains 50kW, no matter the cost. It's a unit of energy, not a financial unit. 50kW in 1900, 1940, 1990, 2003 and 2025 remains 50kW.

Exactly. But we know that 1kWh of electricity costs now way over inflation in 2025 as opposed to 2003, ergo the energy supplied is above inflation, one of very few things so given.

Again, my claim is that the indigent pay 1000% more per kW now compared to 2003. You don't seem to be capable of understanding this.

Your claim is irrelevant. You're arguing irrationally.

Look buddy, I don't know why you're a white knight for the 'poor' here. You are just another poster here. You don't have any special insight into anything. You can't even reason.

The poor are poor. Take it up with the ANC. And by all means give away all your money if you really care about them instead of posting nonsense here.

 

[Benedict A55h0le not]

You responded to me buddy.

This is what I typed initially:

I'm sorry but how is it relevant that it was set all the way back in 2003? In fact back in 2003 we still used incandescent bulbs and CCFLs. Now most of the lights are LED based, ergo the consumption is less. And in fact other appliances may be a bit more energy efficient eg if people use an induction cooker. Fewer people watch TVs, especially those old CRT ones which drew a lot of power. Now people watch stuff on their smartphones which need very little power.

But that 50kWh was set in 2003 would be a positive. It's not as though electricity use increases as the decades fly by. It's not as though R50 worth of power was set in 2003 and we still give them R50 worth of power. The free amount has kept up with inflation and all increases. It's 50kWh worth of energy.




LOL, this is your strawman.

The poor couldn't afford enough electricity in 2003 and they still can't afford that and in 10 years time they still won't afford it.




Exactly. But we know that 1kWh of electricity costs now way over inflation in 2025 as opposed to 2003, ergo the energy supplied is above inflation, one of very few things so given.



Your claim is irrelevant. You're arguing irrationally.

Look buddy, I don't know why you're a white knight for the 'poor' here. You are just another poster here. You don't have any special insight into anything. You can't even reason.

The poor are poor. Take it up with the ANC. And by all means give away all your money if you really care about them instead of posting nonsense here.

Nope, your logic is flawed. You do not make sense. Probably why you are a DA fannyboy as well. The poor could afford way more electricity in 2003 since it was 1000% cheaper. The/your strawman is that they need much less electricity now.

 

[Mariner]

Your claim is irrelevant. You're arguing irrationally.

Stating that 50kW in 2003 is still 50kW in 2025 and that electricity costs have risen above the inflation rate is an irrational argument?

Look buddy, I don't know why you're a white knight for the 'poor' here. You are just another poster here. You don't have any special insight into anything. You can't even reason.

Why the personal attack? You have no idea who i am yet make assumptions about me? What's with the condescension in calling someone Dude or Buddy in an attempt at humilation to bolster your argument?

 

[Mirai]

You just don`t get it. Nope, lights do not take a lot of power in relation to a geyser and cooking.

A geyser is a luxury. If you're indigent you can't run a geyser. So again this is a red herring.

Cooking can be done in a limited way and people can top up.

You don't need to bake cakes, bread and cook hams every day. You can boil water. Cook some pap, heat some rice. You can also use gas and other non electrical means for that. But in 2003 people also cooked.

So I call BS on the cooking and geyser. Yes it's nice to have that, but those are FIRST WORLD standards. If you're poor in a third world country which is falling behind every year and becoming poorer every year, you can't expect apartheid era privileged geyser, cooking and maybe even a swimming pool while you're at it.

And besides you sh-t on the DA for helping the indigent. You are really an ANC troll.

And during winter when the geyser is on even more and also a 2000w heater or 2, lights is a fart in the ozone layer.

People can't heat in winter with 2KW heaters. It's too expensive. They will need fire, coal, paraffin or they'll need to pay in. Electricity is not an efficient source of heating.

If you go to the rich countries in Europe, nobody uses electricity to heat water or for heating. People use central heating (powered by gas or coal), they have homes which are well insulated and people don't use geysers. People who live in blocks of flats have water which is heated centrally with gas or coal, or they have local gas heaters. Electrical heating is small scale and very expensive. People can't afford that. Here you want the poorest of the poor to have that. And for free?

In 2003 there was also energy efficient light bulbs. It might be that they use slightly less electricity today, but this is also a fart in the ozone layer in relation to the price increases.

Price increases do not affect the 50KWh allowance.

Then you go on and think wrongly that they only use about 50kwh a month which is just completely wrong. It is right there in the article, the average is 350-400kwh per month.

350-400KWh per month is for a modest, first world standard of living. If you want to pay for others to have that, be my guest. You can hand over your salary today.

The bottom line is that they can not afford the extra 300-350 kwh today, therefor it is logical to want more free units. Your logic is flawed, we have explained it over and over, yet you will die on that hill.

They couldn't afford then and they can't now.

You are too trollish to realise that giving free 50KWh per month is worth more in value - it costs more now - and it powers more now than in 2003.

And again, geysers and electric only heating and cooking are inappropriate for SA. They're inappropriate for Europe. Dude. You need to stop being stuck in the old apartheid era: geyser, pool and oven/microwave for every postal worker, thinking.
South Africans produce little. The Rand is worth little. We therefore get what we produce. And we don't even have properly insulated homes, FFS.

 

[Mirai]

Stating that 50kW in 2003 is still 50kW in 2025 and that electricity costs have risen above the inflation rate is an irrational argument?



Why the personal attack? You have no idea who i am yet make assumptions about me?

Because you're white knighting for the 'poor' but you make no sense. Please get off your high horse.

If you care about the poor, donate your salary or something. Go out there and raise money for them instead of posting irrational stuff here.

Basic allowance remains the same in absolute terms (and even stretches further now). Ergo it can't be said it's too low because it's from 2003.

Put the above two sentences in your head and please just 'get' it now.

Don't bring in the price of top ups. All expenses have gone up. All things are now more expensive. That's not relevant.

The taxpayer can't afford to pay for 500KWH for everyone in SA to run a geyser, heater and an oven every day.
Besides ESKOM can't even generate and transmit that much power.

 

[Benedict A55h0le not]

A geyser is a luxury. If you're indigent you can't run a geyser. So again this is a red herring.

Cooking can be done in a limited way and people can top up.

You don't need to bake cakes, bread and cook hams every day. You can boil water. Cook some pap, heat some rice. You can also use gas and other non electrical means for that. But in 2003 people also cooked.

So I call BS on the cooking and geyser. Yes it's nice to have that, but those are FIRST WORLD standards. If you're poor in a third world country which is falling behind every year, more and more, you can't expect apartheid era privileged geyser, cooking and maybe even a swimming pool while you're at it.




People can't heat in winter with 2KW heaters. It's too expensive. They will need fire, coal, paraffin or they'll need to pay in. Electricity is not an efficient source of heating.

If you go to the rich countries in Europe, nobody uses electricity to heat water or for heating. People use central heating (powered by gas or coal), they have homes which are well insulated and people don't use geysers. People who live in blocks of flats have water which is heated centrally with gas or coal, or they have local gas heaters. Electrical heating is small scale and very expensive. People can't afford that. Here you want the poorest of the poor to have that. And for free?



Price increases do not affect the 50KWh allowance.



350-400KWh per month is for a modest, first world standard of living. If you want to pay for others to have that, be my guest. You can hand over your salary today.



They couldn't afford then and they can't now.

You are too trollish to realise that giving free 50KWh per month is worth more in value - it costs more now - and it powers more now than in 2003.

And again, geysers and electric only heating and cooking are inappropriate for SA. They're inappropriate for Europe. Dude. You need to stop being stuck in the old apartheid era: geyser, pool and oven/microwave for every postal worker, thinking.

Convince me by word spam again. I will respond to your 1st absurd statement. INDIGENT HOUSES HAS A NORMAL GEYSER IT. Indigent is not a plakker or shack dweller, you are clueless to what an indigent even is. Indigent is a socio-economic class above the poor class. In my town there are many indigent people with houses worth 1-2 million. You are confusing the poor and indigent classes. The poor class don`t pay for electricity at all.

 

[Mirai]

Convince me by word spam again. I will respond to your 1st absurd statement. INDIGENT HOUSES HAS A NORMAL GEYSER IT. Indigent is not a plakker, you are clueless to what an indigent even is. Indigent is a socio-economic class above the poor class. In my town there are many indigent people with houses worth 1-2 million. You are confusing the poor and indigent classes. The poor class don`t pay for electricity at all.

Geysers are not an efficient way of heating water. They're also not used in Europe for the most part. 2KW heaters are also not an efficient way of heating because electricity is expensive. Heating should be done via gas or coal or other kinds of fuel and proper insulation.

The days of apartheid era postal workers who drove two cars, had a pool and had 2-3 bedroom homes are over. All of that with cheap electricity and no insulation.

Look at how Europeans heat their water. And please stop being such a troll.

 

[Benedict A55h0le not]

Geysers are not an efficient way of heating water. They're also not used in Europe for the most part.

The days of apartheid era postal workers who drove two cars, had a pool and had 2-3 bedroom homes are over. All of that with cheap electricity and no insulation.

Look at how Europeans heat their water. And please stop being such a troll.

LOL! WTF has Europe got to do with it? So what if there are better ways to heat water? Indigents heat their water with a normal geyser. You are completely absurd.

 

[Mirai]

LOL! WTF has Europe got to do with it?

You want to do here what Europeans themselves can't afford.

So what if there are better ways to heat water? Indigents heat their water with a normal geyser. You are completely absurd.

You seem to not understand what's said to you.

I'll say it again, GEYSERS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE IN EUROPE and ESPECIALLY SOUTH AFRICA.

In the old days when the Runt was high, whites mostly had the wealth, and the economy was good but mostly geared to favour the whites, SA decided to use electricity and not gas to heat water and heat homes. People also lived in mostly in spread out homes like the rich in Europe and not in flats which are more compact and could be heated centrally. ESKOM was king and electricity was cheap. People would run geysers 24/7 and shower twice a day.

When democracy came and disinvestment came, there was now less of this wealth and what there was has to be shared more with those people who lived mostly in hokkies before or in the countryside. But the incorrect system of large homes, with no insulation and electric only heating remains. Heck some people now even install air conditioners. I drive through lower middle class neighbourhoods and I see a/c units. Far more than I've seen in Europe.


Anyway, the point is that electric geysers and electric heaters are not efficient, they're expensive and they're not sustainable.

For the poor, showering even daily is not sustainable. Weekly showers or baths and for the rest of the week, wash the face, hands, groin, butt and armpits (in a tub of water or over a bidet), in addition to teeth and shaving. Daily showers and waste of potable water and heat cannot be sustained by our declining economy and our ever less and less productive workforce and industrial output. You can't have a 1st world quality of life in a third world country.

Solar can help here but solar is expensive. It's like that induction cooker you or Mariner cr-pped on me when I spoke about investing in survival.

 

[Mariner]

If you go to the rich countries in Europe, nobody uses electricity to heat water or for heating. People use central heating (powered by gas or coal), they have homes which are well insulated and people don't use geysers. People who live in blocks of flats have water which is heated centrally with gas or coal, or they have local gas heaters. Electrical heating is small scale and very expensive. People can't afford that. Here you want the poorest of the poor to have that. And for free?

You're comparing expensive central heating, double glazing and insulation in Europe to heating an RDP house with a tin roof and no ceiling or a shack? The South African climate has short, acute winters with warm spells opposed to the long, persistently cold winters of Europe. There is no comparison.

Price increases do not affect the 50KWh allowance.

Exactly what I said. The 1000% price increase does affect the supplementary electricity that had to be bought in 2003 and now though.

 

[Benedict A55h0le not]

You want to do here what Europeans themselves can't afford.



You seem to not understand what's said to you.

I'll say it again, GEYSERS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE IN EUROPE and ESPECIALLY SOUTH AFRICA.

In the old days when the Runt was high, whites mostly had the wealth, and the economy was good but mostly geared to favour the whites, SA decided to use electricity and not gas to heat water and heat homes. People also lived in mostly in spread out homes like the rich in Europe and not in flats which are more compact and could be heated centrally. ESKOM was king and electricity was cheap. People would run geysers 24/7 and shower twice a day.

When democracy came and disinvestment came, there was now less of this wealth and what there was has to be shared more with those people who lived mostly in hokkies before or in the countryside. But the incorrect system of large homes, with no insulation and electric only heating remains. Heck some people now even install air conditioners. I drive through lower middle class neighbourhoods and I see a/c units. Far more than I've seen in Europe.


Anyway, the point is that electric geysers and electric heaters are not efficient, they're expensive and they're not sustainable.

For the poor, showering even daily is not sustainable. Weekly showers or baths and for the rest of the week, wash the face, hands, groin, butt and armpits (in a tub of water or over a bidet), in addition to teeth and shaving. Daily showers and waste of potable water and heat cannot be sustained by our declining economy and our ever less and less productive workforce and industrial output. You can't have a 1st world quality of life in a third world country.

Solar can help here but solar is expensive. It's like that induction cooker you or Mariner cr-pped on me when I spoke about investing in survival.

No, the point is that indigents (not the poor freeloader class) can`t afford to buy their needed electricity like they could in 2003. This is because of hyperinflation on the price. So they want more free units. The end.

 

[Mirai]

No, the point is that indigents (not the poor freeloader class) can`t afford to buy their needed electricity like they could in 2003. This is because of hyperinflation on the price. So they want more free units. The end.

They would probably prefer higher pensions.

But they still get the same absolute amount (KWH) which stretches further.

Unfortunately geysers and space heaters are no longer for them. Gas heating or some other biofuel heating is on the table, except it's not as SA put all her eggs in the electricity basket.

 

[Mirai]

You're comparing expensive central heating, double glazing and insulation in Europe to heating an RDP house with a tin roof and no ceiling or a shack? The South African climate has short, acute winters with warm spells opposed to the long, persistently cold winters of Europe. There is no comparison.

That hokkie is not geared for Western Cape winters. Sometimes the temps approach single digits. Never mind the wet.

Europe does not use electricity for the most part for heating/cooking. It could. It's just too expensive.

But fact remains that if you claim people need to heat, electricity is not the answer.

It's also not the answer for cooking.

Electricity is for lights, small appliances like microwaves, kettles, irons, fridges and washing machines. Heating, cooling, cooking needs to be done via other means.


Also you have not answered how you wish to bring in 240V power into hokkies. Do you want fires starting up?

If people have no proper houses, how can you argue for cheaper electricity? You make no sense, see how poor your whole muddled thinking here is?

Exactly what I said. The 1000% price increase does affect the supplementary electricity that had to be bought in 2003 and now though.

Supplementary electricity is something else. It's a logic fallacy to bring that in and claim the free allowance is less now.

Argue something else. You came in here first buddy.