New energy law planned for Cape

Nod

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
9,112
Source : News24
Johannesburg - Energy in the Western Cape is set to become cleaner and greener with the introduction of ground-breaking legislation that will kick-start the renewable energy industry throughout the province.

The legislation includes a range of incentives, tariffs and tax breaks to stimulate the use of renewable energy across the residential, commercial and industrial sectors, the Cape Times reported on Tuesday.

It may even see the introduction of a mechanism that pays residents who produce their own renewable energy, to feed this energy back into the national grid.

Tasneem Essop, MEC for both Economic Development and for Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, announced at the climate change and renewable energy conference held in the city that she would begin the drafting of a renewable energy act for the Western Cape.

The new legislation will also improve energy security in a province hamstrung by blackouts, and will help reduce the country's carbon footprint.

SA is world's 7th highest per capita emitter of carbon

It is also likely to include regulations that make it mandatory for new large housing projects, such as golf course developments, to have solar water heating and energy-efficient devices in all houses.

The director of the province's strategic environmental management, Mark Gordon, said on Monday that because energy was not a provincial competency, the provincial government had to partner with national government to draw up the new legislation, particularly with the Treasury, the Department of Minerals and Energy and the National Energy Regulator of SA (Nersa).

South Africa, which burns coal for over 90% of its electricity, is the seventh highest per capita emitter of carbon in the world.

The legislation will be promulgated within two years.
A move in the right direction, IMO.
 

porn$tar

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
10,386
And what are they going to do about all the illegal connections in the squatter camps? Or are ppl who pay for electricity going to have to continue footing the bill?
 

Moederloos

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
12,476
And what are they going to do about all the illegal connections in the squatter camps? Or are ppl who pay for electricity going to have to continue footing the bill?
I honestly don't see what that has to do with this thread.
Please explain.
 

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,230
This is a very positive step in the right direction.
 

BandwidthAddict

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,284
Carbon-smargon. It's not a problem peeps, the world is not going to end. Doomsday has been called off.
 

vespax

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
1,810
Carbon-smargon. It's not a problem peeps, the world is not going to end. Doomsday has been called off.
Right bandy, but it is going to get more and more uncomfortable.

It may even see the introduction of a mechanism that pays residents who produce their own renewable energy, to feed this energy back into the national grid.
This is very good. Others countries do it and they have an increase in people installing solar panels on their houses. Now to get some tax credits for the install of the panels on the books as well.
 

flarkit

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
6,468
It is also likely to include regulations that make it mandatory for new large housing projects, such as golf course developments, to have solar water heating and energy-efficient devices in all houses.
But why only golf-course developments?? Why not start including solar water-heating and energy-efficient devices in all houses, period? We have an abundance of sunlight, so by using solar water-heating and possibly even solar-batteries for the lighting, we'd be making a serious dent in our electricity demand. Have pipes painted black running on the roof to heat the water a bit and you lower the heating requirement even further!

The argument about cost just doesn't hold water for me either. If the cost is included in the construction costs, then a buyer would simply repay it with their bond.
 

Inertia

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
1,250
Quite surprised by that.
It's mostly due to the fact that our GDP is pretty low compared to our carbon emmisions on a relative level. If our GDP was closer to a developed economy, i doubt we would even feature on the top 50 list.
 

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,230
It's mostly due to the fact that our GDP is pretty low compared to our carbon emmisions on a relative level. If our GDP was closer to a developed economy, i doubt we would even feature on the top 50 list.
I'm not sure I follow you.
 

Koos Custodiet

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
580
The argument about cost just doesn't hold water for me either. If the cost is included in the construction costs, then a buyer would simply repay it with their bond.
Run that one past me slowly? If your house is more expensive it's not a problem because you're using a bond to pay for the house? :confused:

While the cost of electricity from the plug is cheaper than the alternatives, it would be silly to use the alternatives.

The main problem IMO is that a fair number of people depend on mining coal for a living. This might explain why Martinus' other face approved another coal fired power station. If we close all the coal fired power stations, it's better for the environment but a lot worse for the country.
 

flarkit

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
6,468
Run that one past me slowly? If your house is more expensive it's not a problem because you're using a bond to pay for the house? :confused:

While the cost of electricity from the plug is cheaper than the alternatives, it would be silly to use the alternatives.

The main problem IMO is that a fair number of people depend on mining coal for a living. This might explain why Martinus' other face approved another coal fired power station. If we close all the coal fired power stations, it's better for the environment but a lot worse for the country.
I meant that paying R100 more per month for one's bond, whilst saving on the electrical bill, makes sense.

The extra powerstation is meant to help with the demand for power. Now instead of needing more powerstations, why not reduce our dependency?

And why should we use coal-mining as a labour market, instead of agriculture and public services?
 

Moederloos

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
12,476
Putting a solar geyser in should cost around R200 on a bond and save roughly the same.
I believe there are now LEDs with the same light output as a 60W bulb - but they use 2W. (Not such a stretch as enery savers produce 60W equivalent on 11W). These can run all night on a days solar charge - quite easily.

Unless you use gas, cooking is still Eskom power - but that is small potatoes (punny!) compared to the hot water alone.
 

CathJ

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
3,878
.. Why not start including solar water-heating and energy-efficient devices in all houses, period? ...

The argument about cost just doesn't hold water for me either. If the cost is included in the construction costs, then a buyer would simply repay it with their bond.
Simply?! Even if it's added to your bond, you still have to pay for it... and pay interest on it... and it would make the initial bond cost higher, making it more difficult for you to get a bond in the first place.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. But you can't just say 'simply include it in the bond'.
 

vespax

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
1,810
I agree that panels should be built into all new housing/small business units in the province. It will drive the cost of these systems down through increase in production quantity.

Also, it is my understanding that the new EIA guidelines for the WC make it almost impossible to gain approval for a new golf course. So saying all new golf courses have to have this is a waste, because many other factors are not allowing that golf course to be approved even before you consider using more efficient energy for the development.

:(
 

Koos Custodiet

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
580
I meant that paying R100 more per month for one's bond, whilst saving on the electrical bill, makes sense.
You left out "while saving R100 or more on the electrical bill". Saving R10 while paying R100 more makes no sense.

Using your bond is just one way of financing. It's not a magical way of getting something for nothing.

The extra powerstation is meant to help with the demand for power. Now instead of needing more powerstations, why not reduce our dependency?
1. Yes, but why another low grade coal burning powerstation?

2. How would one reduce dependency? Efficient transport would definitely make a difference, yet our railways are a shadow of what they were. But we're not concerned, because it's good for the taxi and long-distance hauling companies. Not to mention Sasol.

3. Yes, using solar power can help. In Europe, there's an incentive to buy solar panels, can't remember the details but ISTR you get most of the cost back. Why is this necessary? Because if you pay full price for the panels it doesn't make economic sense.

And why should we use coal-mining as a labour market, instead of agriculture and public services?
Good question. But we do. Look it up.
 

porn$tar

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
10,386
Putting a solar geyser in should cost around R200 on a bond and save roughly the same.
I believe there are now LEDs with the same light output as a 60W bulb - but they use 2W. (Not such a stretch as enery savers produce 60W equivalent on 11W). These can run all night on a days solar charge - quite easily.

Unless you use gas, cooking is still Eskom power - but that is small potatoes (punny!) compared to the hot water alone.
As usual, it always comes down to cost for the end-user. You're talking bout cost and energy savings, and a significant enough portion of the power produced by Eskom is used by ppl with illegal connections, subsidized by ppl who pay for electricity.

Along with this new energy saving legislation, there's also plans for an 18% increase in electricity costs.

Ppl in the lower income brackets don't buy energy saver bulbs, cos they just can't afford and it. The only ppl conscious about saving electricity are the ppl who pay for it.

You'd be surprised how many shacks have got fridges, stoves and electric heaters.

So I believe my previous statement carries some relevance to this thread.
 
Top