Submitted by David Drew
The misinformation being spread by the government and Eskom is getting past the point where we can believe that it is well-meaning but somewhat misguided. The more I hear, the more I believe that either we are suffering from a complete lack of common sense or we’re being treated like mushrooms — “Keep them in the dark and feed them on shit!”
Every day we are exposed to advertising, much of it sponsored by Eskom or the government, that is inaccurate in many cases and, as Bryan Hadfield so clearly points out, builds myths about how we can effectively save electricity or how we could be penalised for not doing so.
While there are clearly ways in which the public can contribute to load reduction or load spreading, when confronted by these “half-truths” and ridiculous schemes one wonders whether the focus is more about shedding blame than shedding load. But enough about geysers and light bulbs …
In January, we suffered unprecedented interruption to electricity supply, presumably because demand was too high. Eskom claimed force majeure and mines were closed. It now emerges that during this time, demand for electricity was between 31 000MW and 33 000MW (Engineering News), but Eskom was, for a number of reasons, only able to produce between 27 000MW and 30 000MW (Carte Blanche). The result: massive load-shedding.
In winter 2007, however, according to Eskom, demand peaked at around 36 000MW. In fact, from Eskom’s own data (graciously sent to me by Jacob Maroga), every winter since 2004 the peak demand has exceeded the levels that caused the January blackouts. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the issue was not demand, but supply!
Perhaps the most interesting concept being promoted at present is the mythical “saving of 10%”. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that we need either to reduce demand or to increase capacity to prevent load-shedding, but threats to ration load-shedding to areas or substations where “10%” is not saved create a very interesting question.
Ten percent of what exactly are we to save? Next week Eskom tells us we will suffer “scheduled load-shedding” because we haven’t “reduced demand by 10%”. Perhaps we need to save 10% of the problematic January demand?
As every household paying for electricity already knows, as the days get shorter your electricity bill gets larger. In my experience, my winter bill could be up to three times my summer consumption. So how, pray tell, can I save 10% and prevent load-shedding this winter?
Call me a pariah, but the reality is that in May, when the first frosts covers the ground in Gauteng, my under-floor heating is going to be switched on and, as a consequence, my electricity consumption is going to be considerably higher than it was in January. Perhaps the government should place a blanket ban on the sales of electrical heating equipment? Clearly saving 10% of my January consumption is ridiculous; perhaps I should rather focus on saving 10% of my bill for the same period last year?
Obviously this is a much more plausible solution as it will take the seasonal demand into account. I simply need to look at last year’s bill, save 10% in kWh and then send proof to Eskom so that my load is not shed.
Well, I would love to — but there is a small problem. Like many other South Africans who have moved house or bought their first home, I don’t have last year’s bill. I have no basis for saving 10%. Trivial as this may seem, it simply highlights the point that we cannot implement any kind of system based on penalising individuals or companies for “not saving 10%”. Myriad legitimate circumstances will make a mockery of such a system.
Consider the household that has had insulation, gas stove and a solar water heater for years. Does it now need to save 10% versus its wasteful neighbour? Consider a business that has doubled its output and employed more people by buying an electricity-hungry machine. Consider those connected to a substation in an area where cluster developments replace old houses every year. Could they ever reach this magical 10% saving? Changing situations change demand, and when individuals are negatively affected for positive behaviour, enthusiasm quickly wanes …
Should we devise a system based on the number of individuals in a house or employees in a business? I don’t think so; can you imagine the abuse?
It has been suggested that we will move to household meters that discount off-peak consumption to spread demand. Not likely! While placing “intelligent” meters with large industrial customers is certainly practical (this has been in place in some areas since the 1980s), it will never be a solution to reducing household demand in the short term. The number of meters that would need to be replaced is mind-boggling. Placing remote-controlled geyser switches will be enough of a challenge. Domestic load spreading will remain an act of good conscience rather than a financial one.
No. The only way to manage demand is through a tariff structure that encourages everyone to make energy-conscious decisions. To reduce domestic electricity demand quickly, a sliding-scale tariff structure is required. The flat-rate increases proposed by Eskom are a blunt instrument that will not maximise demand reduction but rather maximise its income in order to finance capacity expansion.
An intelligent system needs to start with a monthly portion of cheap or even free electricity in kWh, followed by simple benchmarks in kWh above which the rate per kWh increases. Yes, these will have to be done on a per-household basis and will not be perfect, but it is the only practicable solution. And yes, industrial or commercial customers may need different structures, but the logic is the same.
At present it is the largest consumers that have the cheapest electricity. Perhaps our electricity rates are “too cheap” by global standards and therefore average rates should increase, but it’s the way in which this is formulated across the scale that will have the biggest impact, not the percentage increase.
The implementation of most electricity-saving measures has a real cost to the household or business, a cost that needs to be offset with a monthly saving for it to make sense. A non-linear tariff scale will encourage those considering such measures to do so and, most importantly, reward those who already have.
So, come on, Eskom, stop treating us like mushrooms and start treating us like intelligent consumers. Give us a simple system that rewards those who make an effort to save electricity where it matters most — in our pockets.
David Drew is a graduate chemical engineer by training who has drifted into mainstream business over the past 10 years. He is a victim of random load-shedding and “pen pal” of Jacob Maroga. He longs for honest, intelligent discussion about our electricity crisis
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
