SA grid not bad, for a third world state

[Nick333]

http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/2012/01/22/sa-grid-not-bad-for-a-third-world-state

Seems Eskom is not doing too badly compared to other third world countries.

I wonder though why consumers are not reducing their electricity consumption by 10%? The professional complainers in this forum might respond that it is because of government's disastrous planning which led to the 2008 electricity crises and Eskom's current request for consumers to reduce electricity usage, so therefore they won't reduce their electricity consumption so that a finger can be pointed at Eskom. Fair comment but the fact is if consumers don't reduce electricity consumption then load-shedding will occur. Government is doing something by providing free solar water heaters to RDP houses so that electricity usage on the grid can be minimized.

So, being in a developing country is an excuse for allowing existing 1st world infrastructure and systems degrade to 3rd world conditions. How soon you forget that there was no investment in upgrading or even maintaining the grid for more than a decade before we reached crisis point.

Really, you are a genius at putting a spin on a situation. It's not bad for a 3rd world state because it's the remnants of a 1st world grid.

 

[Nick333]

Let me address this as best as an uneducated black twit can.

Definition of power grid.
Now that is out of the way. There is no contest, the Apartheid government did build a high capacity network, it was producing way more than it could consume.

Before 1994, only 36% of the population had access to the Power grid, now more that 80% of the population have access to electricity. Access to electricity means access to the power grid, you cannot have the former without the latter. You have to be really naive to think the Apartheid grid was better than today's grid. Again I am referring to power grid not power generation.

Most of the 1st world countries had near 100% power penetration, how can that compare with 36%? Only in the world of the delusional.

The generating capacity was apartheid era infrastructure which sustianed over a decade of growth and supply to 80% of the population with no upgrades and pitiful maintenance before it began to show signs of strain.

 

[Sly21C]

So, being in a developing country is an excuse for allowing existing 1st world infrastructure and systems degrade to 3rd world conditions. How soon you forget that there was no investment in upgrading or even maintaining the grid for more than a decade before we reached crisis point.

Really, you are a genius at putting a spin on a situation. It's not bad for a 3rd world state because it's the remnants of a 1st world grid.

We live in a third world country, only a tiny minority in this country live in a 1st world country within a third world country. Most persimists will compare South Africa to India and China when it comes to economic growth, cheap labour and industry but not when it comes to electricity generation. Most persimists will say India's outsourcing industry is more reliable and cheap and they will also say China's labour force earn very little money for a lot of production. But why not compare China and India to South Africa when it comes to electricity reliability? Consitency should be applied in arguments such as yours.

 

[news24]

The generating capacity was apartheid era infrastructure which sustianed over a decade of growth and supply to 80% of the population with no upgrades and pitiful maintenance before it began to show signs of strain.

So what is your point? What I see is that the Apartheid government build the power generating capacity and the ANC government build an expansive network to reach 80 % of the population.

 

[xrapidx]

a tiny minority in this country

Cape Town isnt that small.

 

[SmartKit]

So what is your point? What I see is that the Apartheid government build the power generating capacity and the ANC government build an expansive network to reach 80 % of the population.

Without failing to increase capacity. They had an excellent platform to begin with, but were so intent on reaching racial (racist?) quotas, covering up the past and lining their own pockets that they failed to forecast or prepare for this future. Had it been an agenda of first providing basic needs and then redressing inequalities everyone (white and black alike) would have benefited fully.

 

[Nick333]

So what is your point? What I see is that the Apartheid government build the power generating capacity and the ANC government build an expansive network to reach 80 % of the population.

No to reach another 46% of the population.

And wow, that's great. They expanded an existing network while ignoring capacity requirements and maintainence of the infrastructure that powers the whole thing, until it reached crisis point. Severe lack of foresight and thought if you ask me. The point is, if existing generating infrastructure had just been maintained instead of neglected and in some cases decomissioned we wouldn't be sitting with a grid that's "not bad, for a third world state", we'd be sitting with a 1st world grid.

 

[news24]

News24 to the rescue, I've noticed that there are a lot of misguided and confused fellows on myBB.

Economics 101.
The term 3rd World was used to describe countries that were not aligned with the US & Nato during World War II.

Today there are 3 terms used to describe development of a country
1. Developed countryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
Turkey, and South Africa are classified as developed countries by the CIA

There is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing" countries or areas in the United Nations system,

The UN also notes
"In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania, and Europe are considered "developed" regions or areas. In international trade statistics, the Southern African Customs Union is also treated as a developed region and Israel as a developed country; countries emerging from the former Yugoslavia are treated as developing countries; and countries of eastern Europe and of the Commonwealth of Independent States (code 172) in Europe are not included under either developed or developing regions."

2. Newly Industrialized Countryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country

NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC. In many NICs, social upheaval can occur as primarily rural, or agricultural, populations migrate to the cities, where the growth of manufacturing concerns and factories can draw many thousands of laborers.

South Africa listed as of 2011

3. Developing Countryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

also known as a less-developed country[1], is a nation with a low level of material well-being. Since no single definition of the term developing country is recognized internationally, the levels of development may vary widely within so-called developing countries. Some developing countries have high average standards of living.

In conclusion, OP's article is incorrect in labeling South Africa, India and Brazil as 3rd world countries. By definition, we are nowhere near 3rd world status.

I

 

[SmartKit]

No to reach another 46% of the population.

And wow, that's great. They expanded an existing network while ignoring capacity requirements and maintainence of the infrastructure that powers the whole thing, until it reached crisis point. Severe lack of foresight and thought if you ask me. The point is, if existing generating infrastructure had just been maintained instead of neglected and in some cases decomissioned we wouldn't be sitting with a grid that's "not bad, for a third world state", we'd be sitting with a 1st world grid.

Even that isn't quite true. Many workers benefited from electrification of their work places, even if not at their homes. These work places provided their income, and without the "Apartheid electricity scheme" they would not have even been employed in any capacity. What about traffic lights on the way to work, malls, factories that provide their goods, fuelling stations, and so on and so on. The grid 20 years ago, at the very least, provided all this.

 

[Nick333]

We live in a third world country, only a tiny minority in this country live in a 1st world country within a third world country. Most persimists will compare South Africa to India and China when it comes to economic growth, cheap labour and industry but not when it comes to electricity generation. Most persimists will say India's outsourcing industry is more reliable and cheap and they will also say China's labour force earn very little money for a lot of production. But why not compare China and India to South Africa when it comes to electricity reliability? Consitency should be applied in arguments such as yours.

Again, great spin. It doesn't matter that we're a 3rd world country. The fact is we had 1st world infrastructure that could have been maintained and should have been upgraded. You are really saying: "Sure, we fccked it up, but not to a point where it's worse than the rest of the worlds s#!t holes". There's a losers definition of winning if there ever was one. Yay us! We don't suck too badly.

 

[Nick333]

News24 to the rescue, I've noticed that there are a lot of misguided and confused fellows on myBB.

Economics 101.
The term 3rd World was used to describe countries that were not aligned with the US & Nato during World War II.

Today there are 3 terms used to describe development of a country
1. Developed countryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
Turkey, and South Africa are classified as developed countries by the CIA

2. Newly Industrialized Countryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country
South Africa listed as of 2011

3. Developing Countryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country


In conclusion, OP's article is incorrect in labeling South Africa, India and Brazil as 3rd world countries. By definition, we are nowhere near 3rd world status.

I

Quite right. Anyone wanting to call us 3rd world has never been to Ghana or Somalia. We are not a poor country by any definition, we just have a lot of poor people.

 

[Vrotappel]

If it wasn't for apartheid this country would have had nothing.

 

[news24]

If it wasn't for apartheid this country would have had nothing.

Again, the elite's mentality is surfacing. What makes you think that South Africa would have nothing. Was there Apartheid in other African Countries? Are they without nothing?

Apartheid did not give us Natural Resources. You're actually thinking that, Apartheid government impregnated South African soil with mineral spoils, how naive.

 

[SmartKit]

If it wasn't for apartheid this country would have had nothing.

Oh, we'd have the economy of Rwanda or Liberia!

 

[news24]

I think what he is referring to is that European colonists built the infrastucture in Africa as there was none other than what was in North Africa.

In other words, if Jan van Riebeeck etc didn't pitch up here, there would be no Eskom, roads, mining etc.
But that has nothing to do with this thread.

That is such poor logic. Jan van Riebeeck is not the master of all.

How about this, if no one had left Africa, chances are you wouldn't be here today.

 

[Nick333]

That is such poor logic. Jan van Riebeeck is not the master of all.

It's not poor logic. Where do you think modern technology came from? Do you really think the Bantu would have gone from just barely iron age to modern in four hundred years without the intervention of a more technologically advanced culture? Or do you believe a more benevolent culture would have eventually turned up and shown black people the value of fossil resources and loving bestowed medical knowledge on the natives and treated them as equal partners.

I'd really love to know how this 1st world, technologically advanced, sub saharan africa would have come to be if there had been no colonisation?

How about this, if no one had left Africa, chances are you wouldn't be here today.

Ok, thanks for letting our ancestors leave? Or...um... :erm:

 

[Sly21C]

You are quite correct that we need to be compared to 3rd world countries now.
Nobody disputes that.

20 years ago we had 1st world infrastucture, and if it was properly maintained and expanded we would comparing SA to first world countries.

First world infrastructure for who? For everyone or for a few? Did the homelands have first world infrastructure?

Again, great spin. It doesn't matter that we're a 3rd world country. The fact is we had 1st world infrastructure that could have been maintained and should have been upgraded. You are really saying: "Sure, we fccked it up, but not to a point where it's worse than the rest of the worlds s#!t holes". There's a losers definition of winning if there ever was one. Yay us! We don't suck too badly.

The infrastructure was there I agree. Priority number one for the anti-Apartheid government was to make electricity available to a broad number of people, they messed up by not building adequate capacity.

My point still stands, we are a third world country therefore we should compare ourselves with third world countries. The reason why the poor are not literally dying of hunger is because of the social grant system.

 

[news24]

First world infrastructure for who? For everyone or for a few? Did the homelands have first world infrastructure?



The infrastructure was there I agree. Priority number one for the anti-Apartheid government was to make electricity available to a broad number of people, they messed up by not building adequate capacity.

My point still stands, we are a third world country therefore we should compare ourselves with third world countries. The reason why the poor are not literally dying of hunger is because of the social grant system.

I agree with you on everything except the 3rd World country part. Yes the ANC-lead government did Fusck up by not planning ahead, but our infrastructure is world class

 

[Ou grote]

First world infrastructure for who? For everyone or for a few? Did the homelands have first world infrastructure?



The infrastructure was there I agree. Priority number one for the anti-Apartheid government was to make electricity available to a broad number of people, they messed up by not building adequate capacity.

My point still stands, we are a third world country therefore we should compare ourselves with third world countries. The reason why the poor are not literally dying of hunger is because of the social grant system.

Yes, I see that you you now agree that 20 years ago we had first world infrastructure and because government did not maintain it it improve it, we now have 3rd world infrastructure.

Why you need to bring apartheid into it, race, or the old self-governing homelands into it, I have no idea.
There have been people of all races in government and Eskom in the last 20 years.
Blaming apartheid for last 20 years of mismanagent, poor planning and incompetence is ridiculous to say the least.

 

[news24]

Yes, I see that you you now agree that 20 years ago we had first world infrastructure and because government did not maintain it it improve it, we now have 3rd world infrastructure.

Why you need to bring apartheid into it, race, or the old self-governing homelands into it, I have no idea.
There have been people of all races in government and Eskom in the last 20 years.
Blaming apartheid for last 20 years of mismanagent, poor planning and incompetence is ridiculous to say the least.

Who is blaming Apartheid, you brought it up in the first place.