Proposed Gauteng vs Western Cape energy targets

I have put together my own comparison of the energy targets in the Draft Western Cape Sustainable Energy White Paper Amendment (Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning) and the Gauteng Integrated Energy Strategy Draft (Department of Local Government and Housing).

Here it is:

Action	Gauteng Target	Western Cape Target
Renewable energy generation(electricity only)	7% by 2014, 16% by 2025	15% by 2014
Overall energy efficiency against business as usual scenario	7% by 2014, 15% by 2025	15% by 2014
Carbon dioxide emission reduction (in 2000 levels)	13% by 2014, 27% by 2025	14% by 2014, 15% by 2020
Renewable Energy purchased by Provincial Government	No Target	10% by 2020
Efficient Water Heater Installations	20% by 2014	No Target
Electrification targets (proclaimed stands)	100% by 2014	No Target
Free Basic Alternative Energy Access in informal households	20% by 2014, 80% by 2025	No Target

Basically the Western Cape has more ambitious renewable energy and energy efficiency targets, but the Gauteng strategy is more detailed and more long term focussed. One glaring problem in the Western Cape Strategy is a low long-term CO₂ reduction figure (15% by 2020).

I still think these targets could be improved, especially in terms of energy efficiency.

Frank

Maize farmers urge u-turn on biofuels

Why is it that South Africa farmers would really like to use maize for biofuels?

As some of you may be aware, South Africa banned the use of maize for biofuels a few years back in order to protect food security in the region. This was a wise choice, and I have written about it elsewhere, and have also commented on the USA’s policy to allow this.

Well the economics of why the farmers are desperate to do this are quite simple:

• Grain for bread etc = low price, therefore food = low price
• Oil = high price and increasing
• 1^st generation biofuels: grain = oil
• Thus high price for oil = high price for biofuels = high price for grain
• Therefore high grain price = high food price

This is not rocket science. If more money can be made converting grain into diesel, then this is what farmers will do. This will put pressure on food prices and food supplies, as the fact that 25% of the US’s corn market goes to biofuels has, and continues to do so.

What the farmers (and biofuel producers) really should be doing is looking at the developments in 2^nd and 3^rd generation biofuels. 2^nd generation is turning cellulosic materials (ie trees) into fuel, and 3^rd generation is using algae into fuel. Fast growing trees on a sustainable basis use less land for the same energy as grain, and algae can be grown in otherwise unusable sunny land for the production of fuel.

I have little doubt that the ban on using maize for biofuels should remain in place, and that strategically South Africa should be looking to new technologies in the biofuels space.

Frank

Why the ESKOM price hike does not need to add to inflation

So the decision has been taken. ESKOM electricity price to go up about 25% per year for the next 3 years. Some say too little (us Renewable Energy people), most say too much. It seems that everyone expects ESKOM to be able to deliver cheap power as they have for the last 20 years or more, everyone wants ESKOM to build new power stations, but they dare not charge more for the power.

But if they don’t put up the price and don’t build power stations, as the classical thinking goes, then there will be no additional power, just more blackouts. Everyone is talking about the inflationary effects of the price increase, but few have calculated the inflationary effects of having NO power.

But let me tell you why I think that the price increases need not add to inflation. Everyone is catching a wakeup about energy prices – the wakeup just has to be directed in the right direction. By investing in Energy Efficiency, we can stimulate economic growth, massively reduce demand (and our electricity bills), and reduce the need for new power stations (and maybe keep the price hikes down in the long-run). But this obvious intervention seems to be neglected by all. “A solar water heater is toooo expensive” bemoans the consumer, and then goes out in his/her 4x4 for take-aways.

Here’s my challenge: be you a business or an individual, get off your butt and find away to reduce your energy consumption and save money, DESPITE the price hike.

Frank

The Car Carbon Tax

“New passenger vehicles will be taxed based on their certified CO2 emissions at R75 per g/km for each g/km above 120 g/km.”

According to Car Pages, there are in the UK 904 cars under 120 g/km (no tax), 6142 between 120 and 185 g/km, and 2556 cars over 185 g/km (going up to 500 g/km for a Lamborghini Murcielago LP640 Roadster).

Thus, assuming similar cars come to SA, 9% will have no tax, 67% will be taxed between R0 and R5000, and 24% over R5000 per car. This is peanuts.

I recon the cars over 185 g/km (25% of all cars) should get NAILED!

Frank

Nuclear uncurrents

A little birdie whispered in my ear today. It said that the proposed 30% energy target from IPPs in the medium term is predominantly going to come from privately owned nuclear power. Of course, the government will need to give guarantees to make this work. Thus private corporations will profit while government (i.e. the taxpayer) takes huge risk.

This does not surprise me. Nuclear has been in the news a lot recently:

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/major-nuclear-power-new-build-programme-will-need-hefty-investment-2010-02-15

http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article305215.ece

These articles reveal a figure of 21 GW of new nuclear by 2035, about 30% of our electricity by then, at a cost of around R1 TRILLION, not including any overruns, and not including any of the PBMR white elephants.

Frank

Notes from Minister Sonjica's State of the Nation Address

The honourable minister of water and environmental affairs, BP Sonjica, gave her state of the nation address yesterday. Some highlights from her speech were as follows:

• Clarification of the climate change targets. A 34% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions relative to Business As Usual by 2020, and 42% by 2025 is proposed, but is conditional on a binding international treaty and means of implementation i.e. give us money and we will reduce emissions.
• A rise in carbon emissions in developing countries in the short term is allowed, thus we can build more coal power stations.
• To show a commitment to carbon reductions, a 100MW CSP plant and 1 million SWH will be rolled out in the short term, with “support” for wind projects.

What this means is that until the large emitters come to the table with reductions and money, South Africa will continue on a business-as-usual path. This is so short sighted. Building new coal commits us to high carbon emissions for a further 30 years or more. The commitment to low-carbon at a national level is thus far is nothing more than tokenism.

It is still up to local communities and cities to drive the change needed.

Frank

Attacks on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Obscure Real Science

The storm-in-a-teacup around Climategate seems to continue unabated. Yes politicians and corporations whose business is emitting carbon have blown in out of proportion in order to drive their own agenda – to stop any form of climate legislation in the USA.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has come up with a nice response: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/attacks-on-the-ipcc.html. Unfortunately it is unlikely to put the dispute to rest – the issue is no longer one of science but of one of politics.

Frank

Energy Planning

Some good moves on the part of the government announced in the State of the Nation Address:

• An inter-ministerial committee has been formed to develop a 20-year Integrated Resource Plan for generation in South Africa. I seriously hope that they take energy efficiency and renewable energy seriously.
• An Independent System Operator (ISO) is to be setup outside of ESKOM to run the electrical grid.

In addition, the Department of Energy has indicated that a target has been set to acquire 10% of energy from Independent Power Producers (IPPs) within 3 years, with a long term of 30% of power to be from IPPs.

On the climate change front, by the end of the year SA should have a Green Paper to follow up on the Copenhagen commitment reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 34 percent by 2020 and 40 percent by 2025.

Frank

UK's new feed-in tariff

UK just launched some pretty cool small-scale Renewable Energy Tariffs.

For electricity:

Technology	Scale	Tariffs (ZAR/kWh)
Anaerobic digestion	≤500kW	1.380
Anaerobic digestion	>500kW	1.080
Hydro	≤15 kW	2.388
Hydro	>15 - 100kW	2.136
Hydro	>100kW - 2MW	1.320
Hydro	>2kW - 5MW	0.540
MicroCHP pilot*	≤2 kW*	1.200
PV	≤4 kW (new build)	4.332
PV	≤4 kW (retrofit)	4.956
PV	>4-10kW	4.332
PV	>10 - 100kW	3.768
PV	>100kW - 5MW	3.516
PV	Standalone system	3.516
Wind	≤1.5kW	4.140
Wind	>1.5 - 15kW	3.204
Wind	>15 - 100kW	2.892
Wind	>100 - 500kW	2.256
Wind	>500kW - 1.5MW	1.128
Wind	>1.5MW - 5MW	0.540
Existing microgenerators transferred from the RO		1.080

For heat:

Technology	Scale	Tariffs (ZAR/kWh)
Small installations
Solid biomass	Up to 45kW	1.08
Biodiesel	Up to 45kW	0.78
Biogas on-site combustion	Up to 45kW	0.66
Ground source heat pumps	Up to 45kW	0.84
Air source heat pumps	Up to 45kW	0.9
Solar thermal	Up to 20kW	2.16
Medium installations
Solid biomass	45kW-500kW	0.78
Biogas on-soite combustion	45kW-200kW	0.66
Ground source heat pumps	45kW-350kW	0.66
Air source heat pumps	45kW-350kW	0.24
Solar thermal	20kW-100kW	2.04
Large installations
Solid biomass	500kW and above	0.192 - 0.300
Ground source heat pumps	350kW and above	0.18
Biomethane injection	All scales	0.48

More info at: http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/6908/uk-feed-in-tariffs-announced

Frank