Power: energy that is produced by mechanical, electrical or other means; the ability to do something or act in a particular way; authority or control*. And nowhere is the convergence of these meanings seen more strikingly, than at our favourite energy utility, Eskom.
Having sufficient power is a basic right and service we have as citizens, but having a single entity, which controls how it's made, reaches us, and what it costs is clearly problematic. As Eskom plans to hike electricity rates by 35%, every year, for the next three years, to keep our lights, ovens, washing machines, dishwashers, tumble dryers, TVs, PCs, alarm systems - our lives, essentially - up and running, we seem to be without any say or alternative in the matter.
Does any of this seem slightly, well, ludicrous? While you can exercise at least some choice in the food you buy, medical service you receive, and area you live in, there is virtually no competition in the power sector; no plan B, no option to refuse to use a supplier if they are poorly managed and inefficient.
Granted, you could switch to gas for many appliances, or go off-grid by installing a completely solar-powered system at home. But, realistically, this is out of reach for most people. The majority of the country sits with a massive void where their right to decide on power delivery should be.
At the recent National Energy Regulator of SA (Nersa) hearings to debate Eskom's tariff increase, representatives from human rights group to trade unions to industry bodies agreed the hikes would cause further impoverishment and business atrophy. There were statements that many small companies had only just found their feet after being pummelled by the recession, only to be hit by a fresh round of threats to their livelihood.
At the dark heart of SA's battle to keep the lights on is our coal-intensive energy economy, with coal-fired power stations still generating 90% of the country's electricity, and strong vested interests to keep it that way.
Renewable energies, despite being available, infinite, and offering greatly reduced or zero greenhouse gas emissions, are still largely underutilised. There have been a few token efforts to try and encourage renewable projects, with the aim of achieving government's pledge to produce of 10 000GWh of SA's electricity through alternative means by 2013. But these programmes have been approached in a way that sabotages any widespread uptake; stifling their potential as viable alternatives.
There is virtually no competition in the power sector; no option to refuse using a supplier if it's poorly managed and inefficient.
Lezette Engelbrecht, copy editor and journalist, ITWeb
The national solar water heater programme (SWHP), for example, only subsidises certain SABS-approved (and coincidentally, rather expensive) solar heaters. With water heating being responsible for as much as 50% of a household's electricity costs, a properly functioning SWH programme could be an extremely effective way for millions to use less electricity, pay less, and create a healthy and burgeoning new market. But thanks to the exclusion of several perfectly safe, reliable, and importantly, cheaper models, the market is floundering.
There's also the renewable energy feed-in tariff (Refit) programme, whereby independent power producers are paid fixed prices, rather than conventional consumer tariffs, for generating electricity through wind, hydro and solar energies. The tariff covers the cost of generation plus a "reasonable profit" to promote investment in emerging technologies.
The programme sees Eskom pay independent power producers a tariff, differentiated according to technology. But the Refit initiative has several snags, including unclear procurement policies for renewable power generators, and the role of Eskom as both an energy buyer and provider.
Many countries have shown that a fair and sustainable refit policy is achievable, most notably Germany, which has successfully implemented systems that have transformed the national energy industry and opened up new markets. And more and more countries are seeing the benefits of rethinking energy supply, and pooling available resources.
Europe announced the first electricity grid dedicated to renewable energy earlier this year, with nine countries planning to link their clean energy projects around the North Sea. The network, a Web of extensive undersea cables, attempts to tackle the criticism that renewable power is unreliable due to changes in weather. But an interlinked supergrid allows energy to be channelled from wherever the sun is shining, wind howling, or waves breaking.
Imagine a similar grid in Africa, connecting the DRC's hydro-electric power, Kenya's wind farms, and the concentrated solar energy in the Sahara and SA, to work together for continuous, reliable capacity.
Realistically, managing a mix of renewable energy resources in this way would require immense cooperation and infrastructure. But if realised, it could provide thousands of jobs predicted to be lost due to the hikes, and set the country up for a sustainable future in a world where finite fuel supplies are rapidly running dry.
Interestingly, as I was wrapping up this column, the power went off at our offices, serving as a merry reminder of how things grind to a halt without electricity; people wander the corridors trying to do the work they can via mobiles, or watch the minutes diminish on their available laptop battery power... you can practically hear the productivity being snuffed out.
The gravity of the situation is perhaps best summed up in a chilling statement made by Eskom CEO Mpho Makwana at the Nersa hearings: “If Eskom fails, we all fail” - a reality we cannot deny, but cannot accept either.
* AskOxford online dictionary
Share