Governments and solar power

(1/2) > >>

GCG (September 13, 2010, 16:58:57 PM):
Randomly came accross this site http://ezinearticles.com/?Aint-No-Sunshine-%28And-Solar-Power%29-When-The-Political-Class-Gets-Involved&id=4982474, and wondered, what are the chances of governments actually pushing for solar power?
considering they wont get anything out of it, apart from the initial tax of purchase.
the government surely makes oodles of money off power generation, if not directly, then indirectly via the mining of the coal, the transport....
Is ESKOM government owned? im sure it is.
once a house is solar powered, the government is disabled from squeesing money out of you.
i have heard of businesses wanting to push for cheaper solar initiaves, were bullied by ESKOM, and their task was made impossible.
at a quick google i didnt find anything concrete.
im sure ESKOM will be very happy to implement solar power, if they can still charge you the same for your consumption, and they get to regulate the generation of the electricity.
thing is, joe soap can stick panels on his roof, and hey presto! they dont need ESKOM.
after the initial installation costs, and a bit of maintenance now and again, you can tell ESKOM to suck it.

BoogieMonster (September 13, 2010, 17:40:35 PM):
Until it gets cloudy for a month....

I'm all for people having solar panels and pumping excess electricity into the grid, and when it goes dark for too long and you need elec. from the grid, you're free to use it. (With the power you pumped into the grid as credit).

But alas, back in the real world money and power rules.
GCG (September 13, 2010, 18:05:30 PM):
there are loads of sites punting green power, even eskom is punting green power, but at the moment, solar power is not cheap at all, and i saw an article where government is subsidizing solar geysers in townships. could this be just a little media ploy, and to keep the squatters quiet while they try and figure out how to doupe the public a while longer, and then come up with promises at the next elections?
Lilli (September 14, 2010, 08:52:07 AM):
There are many different types of 'green' energy, and some of the initiatives are more successful than others. Solar water heaters, for example, are a cost-effective green technology in SA, and government programmes to install them as part of housing projects are under way. Security is a problem, because the solar geyser people's elec bills obviously are lower, and so the geysers get stolen. Photo-voltaic cell technology, on the other hand is not as well developed in SA, which is why it is not yet a cost-effective green technology. I have reason to believe people are working on it though. whether or not these people are literate, I have no idea.
As an aside: Building new townships (I'm talking not of townships like where the black and poor people live in shacks, I mean any new susburbs, extensions etc), the development HAS to be connected to the power grid, and the sewage network, and the water supply network etc. Legally, a township cannot be proclaimed unless the local municipality has sufficient evidence that the township has access to adequate service provision. So even with the initiatives from government to introduce 'green energy' into townships, Eskom is still getting their paychecks signed.
Lilli (September 14, 2010, 09:17:51 AM):
And by the way GCG, you are right, Eskom is a state-owned enterprise as far as I know.
Their productivity certainly seems to indicate that they operate on the same efficiency levels as most government departments.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page