Discussion

This is a space for stakeholders to discuss the IRP 2010 and relevant issues surrounding it. To get it started  some questions have been posed below, please comment and voice your opinion. If you have other ideas to start new discussion topics, send them to Louise at ltait@idasa.org.za.

How useful have you found the information made available by the DoE?

Do you think the public participation process will produce meaningful changes to the draft IRP 2010?

What do you think is the most important thing missing from the draft IRP 2010?

What do you think is the single most important objective the IRP 2010 should be aiming to achieve?

 

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Discussion

  1. How useful have you found the information made available by the DoE?
    The process is skilfully engineered to arrive at preconceived conclusions.

    Do you think the public participation process will produce meaningful changes to the draft IRP 2010?
    No.

    What do you think is the most important thing missing from the draft IRP 2010?
    Honesty and integrity.

    What do you think is the single most important objective the IRP 2010 should be aiming to achieve?
    100% Renewable Energy before 2030

  2. Thanks for this space.

    The IRP posits a doubling of electricity demand by 2030. Electricity supply will be expanded from the current 43GW to ~85GW.

    Now, Rand Merchant Bank and the University of Pretoria have released papers arguing that the current IRP demand projection doesn’t take into account the effects of the planned electricity price increases on demands – and their projections show that when those effects are factored in, overall electricity demand will actually DROP.

    This seems to me to be an absolutely massive, spectacular, gaping hole in the IRP – yet when I’ve mentioned it in forums discussing the IRP, no-one seems particularly interested.

    Am I missing something here? Is an undergraduate level-error in basic economics at the heart of the IRP not something worth highlighting? Or is civil society uncomfortable highlighting it, because it’s an effect of price increases to which we were generally opposed?

    • Those who engaged with the PBMR will now be experiencing an overwhealming feeling of deja vu. The rationale is simple, if you want to build more unsustainable but readily monopolised coal, nuclear, gas, oil from coal; overstate expected demand.

      If there is a slow, or no recovery from recession, demand will be down.

      There is no ‘demand’ for uneconomical aluminium smelters.

      It is not so much that it is just the price increase that should be opposed, but the overall pricing structure – esecially discounts to higher per capita users (and at higher phases and voltages) instead of the opposite.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s