Power warning from Eskom

BTTB said:
Hi chopsky.

Here is my 2c on the matter. :);)

I am not entirely sure that Private Enterprise would have alleviated our problems? At least not all, but part perhaps?
They would have helped with Capacity, but as far as pricing goes I think we would be paying a lot more now than what we are currently paying.
Prices for Electricity in South Africa have been cheap for decades, hence the lack of feasibility for Private Enterprises to enter the market.

I think the debate will rage on as to what ifs and why nots.
Government should just have provided more funding and heeded the calls 10 years ago. They did apologise.:p

Private Enterprises on the other hand have shareholders and any Company's duty is to provide value first and foremost to their shareholders which would ultimately mean we would be paying more for Electricity to fund Shareholder Value.
Whereas we as the General Public are the shareholders in Eskom and all benefits or surpluses ultimately should be returned in the way of upgrades and more facilities.

I know what I propose is basically Socialism, but be that as it may I reckon a State Owned Institution providing Electricity needs in the long run would be a better option than Private Companies that can go bust at any time.

Electricity like Water should be State provided.
Here and there an opportunity for a Private Power Utility like IPSA may present itself and they can connect to the National Grid, but for the long term and the bulk of our Electricity needs, this should be provided by Eskom.

Can you just imagine where we would be now had it been left up to Private Enterprise to find the hundreds of Billions of Rands needed to fund new Power Plants in the current world financial chaos. I much rather choose Eskom with Government support.

Just keep a careful eye over Government that they do not use Eskom as a Cash Cow and stick to their mandate of providing cheap power to South Africa, end of story.

Regards,
BTTB.
Click to expand...

Firstly, pricing is what it is, because you and I (and everyone else) fund Eskom through taxes! It's really not as cheap as you think it is. You're mistaken if you think that the bill received every month is all that the average tax-paying citizen pays. It's same with the post office. Sure postage is fairly cheap, but what we don't see is all the money that is pumped into the system via taxes.

If private enterprise was unable to provide a better alternative, they'd have no reason to keep the industry regulated. They do so because they know that Eskom would be unable to compete within a competitive market (assuming it was relieved of its tax funding).

But enough from me on this topic. I disagree with pretty much your entire post, but I don't want this to end up being a 10 page debate. As far as I I'm concerned, Government has no role to play in providing electricity, water, or any other marketable service. There is absolutely NO good reason for it, neither on an economical basis, nor (and more importantly) on a moral basis. I can very proudly say I am not a Keynesian. Fresh water and electricity exist because other individuals make it so. The right to these services did not exist 500 years ago, and do not exist today. Not unless you infringe upon the rights of others in the process. A government exists to protect an individual's right to life, liberty and property - end of story.
 
The time to buy bigger UPS is not over yet... We still hav e abig problem for the next 5 years or more .

get a solar geyser , fire wood and candles.. back to the dark ages.

Eskom is SA biggest polluter. I'm Pro Nuclear. We need three more nuclear stations within the next ten years.
 
Last edited:
chopsky said:
Firstly, pricing is what it is, because you and I (and everyone else) fund Eskom through taxes! It's really not as cheap as you think it is. You're mistaken if you think that the bill received every month is all that the average tax-paying citizen pays. It's same with the post office. Sure postage is fairly cheap, but what we don't see is all the money that is pumped into the system via taxes.

If private enterprise was unable to provide a better alternative, they'd have no reason to keep the industry regulated. They do so because they know that Eskom would be unable to compete within a competitive market (assuming it was relieved of its tax funding).

But enough from me on this topic. I disagree with pretty much your entire post, but I don't want this to end up being a 10 page debate. As far as I I'm concerned, Government has no role to play in providing electricity, water, or any other marketable service. There is absolutely NO good reason for it, neither on an economical basis, nor (and more importantly) on a moral basis. I can very proudly say I am not a Keynesian. Fresh water and electricity exist because other individuals make it so. The right to these services did not exist 500 years ago, and do not exist today. Not unless you infringe upon the rights of others in the process. A government exists to protect an individual's right to life, liberty and property - end of story.
Click to expand...
Point taken. :)
Thanks.

I am not qualified to debate Eskom issues as I know not know enough about the matter. I just hope they get it right as I do not wish to be without Electricity.
I suppose I am just peeved at Government. They should be lightening our financial stress load, yet instead at every turn we get price increases completely out of kilter with the Inflation Targets set by Government itself.
 
chopsky said:
A government exists to protect an individual's right to life, liberty and property - end of story.
Click to expand...
IMO, the right to life would include access to adequate health care, education, communication and transport.
In terms of health care, the provision of safe water and sanitation is probaly *the* most important contributor to health, as we can now see with the cholera outbreak in Zim.
AFAIK, all the experiments with privatising water provisions needed to be reversed or abandonned.
The current state of the financial markets should be enough to show that the free market's ability to regulate and correct itself has limitations.
 
Gaz{M} said:
Where is the task team to disconnect the 3800 MW of ILLEGAL connections in townships and un-policed areas? There's your 10% saving for free.
Click to expand...

They are currently holding a discussion around the possibility of setting up a committee to establish the validity of setting up a task team to investigate the feasibility of a committee to establish a task team to do exactly what you suggest.

The task team should be established imminently
 
Well, cooling down shouldn't be a problem. Get some liquid nitrogen, or hydrogen :O
 
chopsky said:
But enough from me on this topic. I disagree with pretty much your entire post, but I don't want this to end up being a 10 page debate. As far as I I'm concerned, Government has no role to play in providing electricity, water, or any other marketable service. There is absolutely NO good reason for it, neither on an economical basis, nor (and more importantly) on a moral basis. I can very proudly say I am not a Keynesian. Fresh water and electricity exist because other individuals make it so. The right to these services did not exist 500 years ago, and do not exist today. Not unless you infringe upon the rights of others in the process. A government exists to protect an individual's right to life, liberty and property - end of story.
Click to expand...

One Word..... Enron
 
risingtide said:
IMO, the right to life would include access to adequate health care, education, communication and transport.
In terms of health care, the provision of safe water and sanitation is probaly *the* most important contributor to health, as we can now see with the cholera outbreak in Zim.
AFAIK, all the experiments with privatising water provisions needed to be reversed or abandonned.
The current state of the financial markets should be enough to show that the free market's ability to regulate and correct itself has limitations.
Click to expand...

Check your premises there.
The only way you can provide someone with the right to those services, is by directly infringing upon the rights of others. If you think Zim's problem is that the government did not provide those services, you're sadly mistaken. Their problem is that the government didn't allow for a free market to take place, and that goes for almost all of Africa. And if you seriously think the current financial crisis is an effect of a free market, that's essentially like watching a paraplegic soccer game and afterwards declaring soccer to be a crap sport. The banking industry in the USA is already one of the most heavilly regulated industries there. The Government essentially tied their feet and hands, and when problems arose and they were unable to rescue themselves, the world (or the media) blamed it on the free market.

But please, don't take me on faith. I could argue this until the cows come home. Instead of listening to all that you hear on the daily basis from the leftist media, try look for the facts.

An interesting vid for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWBM92HjCWc
 
Forgot to mention, as irony would have it, the power in my area was out from 11pm last night to 8am this morning (without notice). To hell with these scumbags.
 
I know some people very high up in Eskom and in the mining industry and both confirm that there are hundreds of ways to relieve Eskom of the pressure of providing electricity, but then the government will loose a substantial amount of cash each month.

I have suggested to others as well that all the metropolitan areas (JHB, PTA, CPT, DBN, PE) build their own electricity stations, and was met with much the same response. This IMHO, is the way forward, each one providing for itself.
 
Please tell me why Koeberg is up and down more often than a prostitute on the weekend? Surely this isn't normal for nuclear stations?
 
Mu$tang said:
It's a complex situation.
1. The most experienced people have left ESKOM.
2. The station is old and they have to rely on France for parts and advice.
3. Maintenance has been low priority for all govt institutions.
4. The design is old. The newest reactors don't have to be touched for 30 years or so.
5. There is the surrounding infrastructure to consider as well. ESKOM will blame the transmission wires, the transformers, the conduits, the Council etc.
5. We are as likely to get useful information out of them as we are to get real stats from the police.
Click to expand...

There are not many companies in the world that specialise in this as it is extremely expensive, only two to be precise. The company in France (Ariva) is also responsible for the nuclear stations (they also own it) in France.

The cores have to be replaced every 18 months.

I cannot give you an amount but the price for a nuclear station is several times than that of a coal station.
 
Last edited:
friedpiggy said:
They are currently holding a discussion around the possibility of setting up a committee to establish the validity of setting up a task team to investigate the feasibility of a committee to establish a task team to do exactly what you suggest.
Click to expand...

I think that the feasibility study of this is still being planned ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X