South Africa at risk of losing R47 billion climate finance package

[Jet-Fighter7700]

Somebody isn't getting a Christmas bonus,
Hope Iran and Hamas feeling generous

 

[Lupus]

I'm all for renewables but not if it comes with conditions that we need to shut down our coal generation.

Sure if the renewables can cover 30% of our demand and we can run the coal plants where they run the most efficiently and shut some down for maintenance and upgrades to make them easier on the environment. But these deals are hardly ever that.

So we'd need to install our entire current base load in renewables to get 24% of our needs.
Remember renewables are only 24 to maybe 30% of nameplate capacity, plus you can't really rely on them delivering when you need it, so you need to make sure you've got backups, which needs to be quick and dispatchable when the renewables are being finicky.
If you've got your own home solar system you can already see the reliability of solar. Without expensive batteries and over supply of panels you'll struggle through cloudy days.
Though solar is still a good option for homes and small businesses, take as much load off demand as possible.

 

[Johnatan56]

And as usual the renewable zealot pops in with his useless drivel.

You mean your useless drivel?

Wants the world to regress like Germany is currently. Their only saving grace is having other countries to import from.

Except that was due to gas and having issues with grid build-out that is a decade behind schedule?

We don't have that luxury so renewables will end up costing us more, cause we need expensive peakers to run.
So how would we pay that loan back?

Except that renewable is cheaper and the price issues are directly related to gas?

The intensity of spikes in power prices are predicted to fall in every country by the end of the decade if commitments to green energy are met, as natural gas dependency is cut.

The UK and Ireland would be the biggest beneficiaries, with 44% and 43% reductions in the severity of electricity price spikes by 2030, compared with last year.

Germany could experience a 31% decline in electricity price volatility, with the Netherlands and Belgium seeing price spikes ease by 38% and 33% respectively.

Electricity prices across Europe to stabilise if 2030 targets for renewable energy are met

National targets for solar and wind power will see reliance on natural gas plummet, reducing electricity price volatility across Europe, with major

www.cam.ac.uk

Nuclear only takes so long to build in western countries where your kind has scared them.

My kind? Western European as a race? Or American? Who'd have thought that implementing safety requirements after nuclear accidents would be considered as not rational. And it's still the most expensive form of power.

I'm all for renewables but not if it comes with conditions that we need to shut down our coal generation.

You do know that all those coal plants are reaching end of life, right? The conditions are usually don't use it to build more coal, and that they are cheaper, so those old coal plants are no longer competitive, so they are forced to shut down.

Sure if the renewables can cover 30% of our demand and we can run the coal plants where they run the most efficiently and shut some down for maintenance and upgrades to make them easier on the environment. But these deals are hardly ever that.

But you don't need the coal anymore once you finish the transition. There is no country on earth that has fully transitioned yet, so no, ignore Lupus' nonsense.

Awwwww hell no!
My volcano's beat your pathetic humans, any day of the week!

<2% of the global emissions for something we can't control. It's a red herring.

 

[Johnatan56]

So we'd need to install our entire current base load in renewables to get 24% of our needs.

Does it matter if it's substantially cheaper?

Remember renewables are only 24 to maybe 30% of nameplate capacity, plus you can't really rely on them delivering when you need it,

Except you can, you know what they're not intermittent and one can plan it in.
Here's the world economic forum on it:

Myth: intermittency makes renewable energy unreliable​

Conventional thinking has long held that renewable energy intermittency makes solar, wind and other green alternatives too unreliable. Thankfully, rapid technological innovation in recent years means this myth outdated.

It’s true that solar energy is only produced when the sun is shining on solar panels. Likewise, wind energy is dependent on the ebb and flow of air currents. But the sheer volume of renewable energy being deployed, the ability to store that energy for longer, and to match demand with supply using software, creates a balanced grid.

According to BloombergNEF, lithium-ion battery cell densities have almost tripled, and costs have declined by almost 90% in the past decade – making it easier to smooth out the peaks and troughs of generation to meet the shifts and cycles of demand. Renewable energy sources themselves have dropped by as much as 82% over the same timeframe. Further improvements to both generation and storage will continue driving down costs, making renewable energy even more attractive to consumers.

Take buildings as an example. Breakthroughs in battery capacity mean that it’s now perfectly feasible for homes and commercial buildings to install on-site solar renewable energy generation to harness energy when it’s available, then stockpile that energy to be used when it’s needed. Buildings can remain connected to the grid, using traditional grid-energy when costs are low, and shift to its renewable reserves during peak demand. Many countries have enabled energy consumers to sell excess electricity back to the grid when costs are high, and countries such as Australia, Germany, UK and the US are already piloting systems to enable peer-to-peer electricity trading.
...

Loading…

www.weforum.org

so you need to make sure you've got backups, which needs to be quick and dispatchable when the renewables are being finicky.

And you can, and it will still be cheaper than coal, and that's less than half the price of nuclear.

If you've got your own home solar system you can already see the reliability of solar. Without expensive batteries and over supply of panels you'll struggle through cloudy days.

Cool, based on my own solar and batteries, my break-even is within ten years, I am sure commercial can easily beat that.

You keep getting proven wrong in every thread, so you just move to the next one and start it again with saying how great nuclear and how terrible renewable is.

 

[Mirai]

EU money won't come. It will be needed to crank up the arms industry. Non-NATO European countries can contribute. However, soon NATO countries will also be handing them a bill for collective security. Free riding days for Ireland, Switzerland and Austria will soon be over too.

 

[Lupus]

Does it matter if it's substantially cheaper?

Except you can, you know what they're not intermittent and one can plan it in.
Here's the world economic forum on it:




And you can, and it will still be cheaper than coal, and that's less than half the price of nuclear.

Cool, based on my own solar and batteries, my break-even is within ten years, I am sure commercial can easily beat that.

You keep getting proven wrong in every thread, so you just move to the next one and start it again with saying how great nuclear and how terrible renewable is.

No it's not substantially cheaper, the big oil guys have you so wrapped.
Please dear sir explain why the heavily renewable areas have the most expensive electricity? You have never explained that cause your brain is so stupidly on, but they said its cheaper to install so uhmm derpy derpy duh.
You forget that they need massive amounts of backup, they need massive amounts of new infrastructure, they require expensive raw materials, they require a lot of inputs for little output, you require 4 times your actual demand, just cause they don't deliver 75% of the time.
Therefore the person using those renewables end up being the ones to pay, but the media will harp on about, but it's so cheap, when in reality it's not.
That's of course not taking into account replacement after 10 to 15 years.
But hey you like big oil so keep up with them.

 

[Bliksis]

Can we expect an article soon saying SA potentially NOT at risk of losing this? LOL

 

[Johnatan56]

Nope your usual drivel. The ramblings of one so far up the rear of renewables he doesn't realise that it actually costs more.

Your usual drivel, always starts with an insult.

Please dear zealot explain why all the renewable heavy areas pay more for a unit of electricity? Cause you need massive amounts of expensive backup power.

Do you mean Europe? Energy costs are always whatever the most expensive energy source used costs. So if gas is used, and lots of energy grids in Europe do, the price of all energy is the price of gas. You already know this.

Why does Germany need this gas? It has renewables why is it still burning expensive gas and importing from others? Right cause it's been caught with it's pants down.

So you agree they haven't finished building out renewable and are judging the power costs there based on fossil fuels?

Instead of building nuclear power and getting cheap electricity they went for a lie.

Except that you have no proof that nuclear would be cheaper, it's the most expensive form of power.

Now they have ugly turbines and solar dotting the skyline while still producing a ton of carbon.

Your opinion there.

Please renewables are not the answer, they are expensive and unreliable.

They are the cheapest form of power, that one you can't argue based on stats. Unreliable is your myth.

But of course you'll go and quote the LcOE which isn't actually reliable source for renewables cause it doesn't take into account all the stuff renewables need.

I quoted the world economic forum, not LCOE.

But hey believe the lie nuclear is expensive and takes long, when in the 60s and 70s they were being built faster than coal.

Ah yes, compare it to coal plants that were built 60 years ago, everything is definitely the same as then. Those nuclear plants definitely weren't smaller (<500MW) for the early 60's and definitely didn't lack a lot of safety features. Also that they were fully funded by governments, something South Africa can't afford.

They can be built in 5 years and Korea is showing that.

You mean South Korea? We already had this discussion, they have no decommission costs, no insurance in case of accident / government is on the rope for that, and their build times include fast tracking all plans. And their times are 8 years+ now, with most set to be longer.

All that is needed is you retarded greenies to realise you've gone and backed big oil in your stupidity. Why do you think they aren't too worried about renewables? Yet they started the smear campaign on nuclear. Cause renewables will still require big oil, while nuclear won't.

Why does renewable require big oil?

But hey keep supporting big oil, they love greenie zealots like you. Brainwashed into thinking renewables are better for the environment when they know they aren't.

Except they are? As usual, you're making claims without backing.

 

[TEXTILE GUY]

But that new road name sign will make up fot it right? You know the one there where the US embassy used to be ..... frikken yanks, bastids ..... But Leila Khaled Boulevard is worth it right?

That aunty gives a certain bunch of people in South Afrikistan wet dreams, especially when it comes to climate change .... political climate that would be ....

 

[Pegging]

Nice, somehow climate change deniers and someone that keeps harping on about how nuclear will solve everything are always the first to comment on these kinds of articles.

Climate change has been proven by the large oil companies themselves, with evidence of it being man-made, when it is in their best interests to not do so, which led to them trying to suppress that information for decades.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of power by a fair margin, plus takes 15-20 years to build (if including planning, etc.), with renewable (including grid) being cheaper and faster.


These loans are usually at or near 0% interest, plus some of them had it so if you meet certain milestones, some of the loan was forgiven. These are generally really good for South Africa, they bring in more jobs, transition to cleaner energy, and mean we can actually afford to shut down coal plants, while for US/Europe, they reduce emissions around the world, so climate change that also affects them is reduced. Just look at the California wildfires, chances were/are increased by climate change, paying to reduce the chance is a win-win for them.

But of course, Trump is going to argue how it's all lies, and terrible, since of course any trade deal he writes is the best trade deal, unless of course it was so bad a trade deal he wrote it himself /s (referring to the Canada trade deal he signed in his previous presidential term).

It takes 7 years.

Average is 11 to 12 years.

The fastest was 5 years.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-timeline-of-a-nuclear-plant-construction-and-start-up-project-Source-IAEA_fig5_304660691

Unless you are using the b.s numbers from the Australian leftisit liars.

 

[RaptorSA]

And the race is on.

 

[RaptorSA]

When I tell peeps that volcano's negate humans' effect on climate change, I get scoffed at.
Then I share the following link, and they promptly shut the hell up.

https://volcano.si.edu/reports_weekly.cfm

Makes sense.
Most people don't like telling someone they're an idiot to their face if the subject isn't worth the effort.

 

[HAL 9000]

No it's not substantially cheaper, the big oil guys have you so wrapped.
Please dear sir explain why the heavily renewable areas have the most expensive electricity? You have never explained that cause your brain is so stupidly on, but they said its cheaper to install so uhmm derpy derpy duh.
You forget that they need massive amounts of backup, they need massive amounts of new infrastructure, they require expensive raw materials, they require a lot of inputs for little output, you require 4 times your actual demand, just cause they don't deliver 75% of the time.
Therefore the person using those renewables end up being the ones to pay, but the media will harp on about, but it's so cheap, when in reality it's not.
That's of course not taking into account replacement after 10 to 15 years.
But hey you like big oil so keep up with them.

 

[Lupus]

View attachment 1805919

Should actually be them smiling going hey, look at that we still own the gas, the sun doesn't shine all day

 

[FiestaST]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1902967144930791478

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

so what is the solution? as at some point we need to make a call, else we will be running around with torches and fighting each other like cavemen for food. not to say we dont already do this

way I see it is coal and oil and gas will run out at some point, Fusion power isnt ready yet, and wind and tidal dont generate enough.
so that leaves us with Nuclear, but the stuff it produces is toxic for generations, unless we could somehow send if off world into space, and not pollute further Earth.

what else is there, gigantic solar Panels floating in space? geothermal?

were always going to struggle to generate clean sustainable power, until fusion is perfected and generates all the power we need.

 

[Lupus]

so what is the solution? as at some point we need to make a call, else we will be running around with torches and fighting each other like cavemen for food. not to say we dont already do this

way I see it is coal and oil and gas will run out at some point, Fusion power isnt ready yet, and wind and tidal dont generate enough.
so that leaves us with Nuclear, but the stuff it produces is toxic for generations, unless we could somehow send if off world into space, and not pollute further Earth.

what else is there, gigantic solar Panels floating in space? geothermal?

were always going to struggle to generate clean sustainable power, until fusion is perfected and generates all the power we need.

The amount it produces is tiny, plus it's not toxic, it's radioactive, which leads to radiotoxicity.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Nice, somehow climate change deniers and someone that keeps harping on about how nuclear will solve everything are always the first to comment on these kinds of articles.

Climate change has been proven by the large oil companies themselves, with evidence of it being man-made, when it is in their best interests to not do so, which led to them trying to suppress that information for decades.

Climate change is real. It has been happening naturally ever since the Earth gained an atmosphere. The BS being spewed is that humans are responsible for the present warming phase. We only have 150 years' worth of data. Extrapolating warming data below the maximum of the present epoch is conjectural as are the four warming models.

The Earth has been much warmer and was about 2 degrees C warmer than present during Roman times. An Earth with Ice at the poles is a rare event, as are ice ages. The ice free poles are borne out by the presence of oil and coal at the poles. You need jungles and rivers with more CO2 in the atmosphere for millions of years to produce those.

The present global temperatures are just above the average of the Holocene epoch, which started 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.

 

[Mirai]

No it's not substantially cheaper, the big oil guys have you so wrapped.
Please dear sir explain why the heavily renewable areas have the most expensive electricity? You have never explained that cause your brain is so stupidly on, but they said its cheaper to install so uhmm derpy derpy duh.
You forget that they need massive amounts of backup, they need massive amounts of new infrastructure, they require expensive raw materials, they require a lot of inputs for little output, you require 4 times your actual demand, just cause they don't deliver 75% of the time.
Therefore the person using those renewables end up being the ones to pay, but the media will harp on about, but it's so cheap, when in reality it's not.
That's of course not taking into account replacement after 10 to 15 years.
But hey you like big oil so keep up with them.

Europe has been shifting towards green for the last few years. In order to do this they've closed down coal (plentiful resource in Europe) and even nuclear power stations. But to tide them over they built Nordstream 1 and 2 to buy very cheap Russian gas, with the former German chancellor Gerhard Schreuder even sitting on the board of Gazprom. Russian gas was cheap for two reasons. Russians outside of St Petersburg and better suburbs of Moscow live in terrible conditions. Also it was a way for Russia to make Europe dependent on them. They then sold tons of gas at affordable prices with some European partners even acting as resellers. With this money Russia built up her military and now does what she's done for the past 300 years, currently in Ukraine. All of that green order led to the suffering in Ukraine. And it could have been avoided with a more sensible and judicious use of blended energy sources including NUCLEAR.

 

[system32]

Well it's a loan they weren't giving it to us for free

I called it a "$2.6b investment".
Does not matter if the $2.6b is:

• loan or
• investment or
• grant or
• financing or
• gift or
• ...

the $2.6b will be subject to many conditions.
Conditions to further US aims and may include conditions like:

• $2.6b not subject to Expropriation Without Compensation
• $2.6b not subject to B-BBEE racist laws
• $2.6b not subject to 30% local ownership