When fracking goes wrong the environmental impacts aren’t as severe as when coal mining goes right.

— Francois Fourie (@FrancoisFourie) March 5, 2012

This after an Econometrix report suggested that if estimates of the amount of shale gas under the Karoo were confirmed:

 …it could provide the equivalent of 400 years’ worth of energy consumption in South Africa.

Economist Tony Twine described it thus:

This is a big chicken; she is a big puppy.

And he doesn’t chuck his animal comparisons around lightly.

The decision on fracking in the Karoo isn’t going to be made any time soon, but while the (poorly put and misleading) environmental argument has been stated for some time now, the economic benefits of South Africa’s shale gas resources could literally turn the fortunes of this country around.
Much like the UK, I’m not sure that we – or the Government – can ignore that for very much longer.

Koeberg Emergency Plan Siren Test
29 February 2012
A full volume siren test of the Koeberg Public Warning System will be conducted in your area on the morning of 29 February 2012 between 10:00 and 12:00.

Only a test
The siren/public address systems installed in Atlantis, Duynefontein, Melkbosstrand, Van Riebeeckstrand, Philadelphia, Bloubergstrand, Bloubergrandt, West Beach, Sunningdale, Parklands, Robben Island and the farms surrounding Koeberg Power Station will be tested during this exercise.
Public Address announcements informing you of the test will be made before and after the sirens are sounded. No action needs to be taken by the public.
Remember: this is only a test.

Apologies if this ruins your plans for the rest of the week off with radiation sickness and a slow, agonising death.

Anyway, it was a reminder to up our power saving and in turn, it reminded me that I never updated you lot on how my Geyserwise installation had worked out.

Geyserwise is a timer that lets you decide when and to what temperature you choose to heat your water for use in the house. This might seem like a bit of a no-brainer for those overseas, but that fact is that most South African households (who have geysers) leave them on 24/7. And it’s a pain to remember to switch it off on your distribution board or to climb into your loft to alter the temperature on the thermostat.

Now, instead of our geyser being on 24/7 (or when I remembered to switch it on/off), it’s on for less than an hour each day. Instead of being set to 65°C, it’s set to 50°C. And wow – what a difference to our electricity bill.

That bill has come down by around 45%, which means that rather than paying for itself in the 3 months I was hoping, the unit started saving us money within 6 weeks. We’ve fiddled with it very slightly – just altering the times a little to suit us better and taking the temperature down a little more – but I cannot fault the unit or its effect.

If you’re reading this and have been considering getting one of these, just do it.

Those contact details again: Leon at Geysol (076 036 0623).

This is not a sponsored post.

As is their wont, in fact, since Eskom is currently struggling with huge demand and very limited supply. This is probably down mainly to the ridiculous heatwave that has crossed the country and the increased use of air-conditioning – especially in office buildings and the like – as people return to work after the summer break.

Thus, a little bit of forethought before you needlessly waste power would be nice. Because we all know the alternative:

Emergency loadshedding is a controlled way of managing available electricity distribution capacity when an unscheduled power shortage occurs.

The electricity loadshedding schedules for 2012 are now available. The schedules are indicative and would only be utilised in the event of national load-shedding being required by Eskom.

Customers are asked to switch off any unnecessary appliances in order to minimise or avoid this event.

The full list of loadshedding schedules is available in PDF here. Alternatively, you can go to the City website here and select from a detailed but limited list of suburbs to get a detailed map of the different areas and times.

And I’ll just write this bit again, in bold:

The schedules are indicative and would only be utilised in the event of national load-shedding being required by Eskom.

Even though no-one will pay any attention to it.

It’s a devastating admission to have to make, especially during the climate talks in Durban. But there would be no point in writing this column if I were not prepared to confront harsh truths. This year, the environmental movement to which I belong has done more harm to the planet’s living systems than climate change deniers have ever achieved.

As a result of shutting down its nuclear programme in response to green demands, Germany will produce an extra 300m tonnes of carbon dioxide between now and 2020. That’s almost as much as all the European savings resulting from the energy efficiency directive. Other countries are now heading the same way. These decisions are the result of an almost medievel misrepresentation of science and technology. For while the greens are right about most things, our views on nuclear power have been shaped by weapons-grade woo.

We may have mentioned the Germany faux pas here and here.

What follows Monbiot’s terrible admission is generally a plea to his fellow greenies to look again at nuclear technology, specifically a GEH proposal to build an Integral Fast Reactor at Sellafield in the UK, capable of using the waste radioactive material from other nuclear plants. The alternative plans for the waste – as described by George, at least – do seem far less palatable.

All in all it’s an interesting read and, if one is being rational, then supporting GEH’s plan seems like a no-brainer:

So we environmentalists have a choice. We can’t wish the waste away. Either it is stored and then buried. Or it is turned into mox fuels. Or it is used to power IFRs. The decision is being made at the moment, and we should determine where we stand.
I suggest we take the radical step of using science, not superstition, as our guide.

That last line is the kicker though, and probably explains why George’s is likely be the only green voice calling for a new reactor in Cumbria. Sad, but true.

A fully referenced version of this column is available here.

Cuadrilla, the gas exploration company drilling for shale gas in Lancashire, has announced its discovery of 200 trillion cubic feet of gas – a seriously big find.
If only a tenth of that were to be produced, it would still make it far larger than any gas field discovered in the North Sea, with the added benefit of it being accessible from dry land.
It represents a potential lottery win: not just for Cuadrilla, but for UK plc as a whole.

And here we are talking about 200 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of shale gas.
South Africa’s shale gas deposits are estimated to be at least 450tcf. That’s 450 000 000 000 000 cubic feet of gas. Putting that into some sort of perspective, Mossgas, the successful refinery in the Southern Cape, was built on the assumption that there was just 1 (one) tcf in deposits under the seabed.

The article continues:

Recent shale gas discoveries in the US have already transformed the North American gas market, changing it from a net importer to a net exporter in just two years, and significantly lowering gas prices there. If the Lancashire discovery turns out to be even remotely as big as has been announced, the UK will be in a position to keep its lights on cheaply – and cleanly – for a very long time to come.

Yes – locally produced shale gas means cheaper, cleaner energy.

The technology for shale gas production is controversial [including] the alleged – but disputed – potential for contamination of groundwater. Again, if the amounts of gas are as large as stated, the highest environmental standards could be imposed on its production and it would still be profitable.

Because abundant shale gas undermines the case for subsidising nuclear and renewable power generation, it faces a well-funded hostile lobby, keen to play up any negatives it can find.
Lurid films of gas-flames shooting out of bath-taps in America have comprehensively been shown to have nothing to do with shale gas production (it is a naturally-ocurring phenomenon in part of the US) but they capture the public imagination.
We can therefore expect largescale anti-shale gas protest from a range of vested “green” interests.

Indeed. I wonder if the British-born Lewis Pugh will take time out from poking his nose into other country’s affairs for long enough to “save” his homeland from an economic boom and cheaper, greener energy like he is trying to do here in South Africa.

After Angela Merkel’s short-sighted and silly plan of closing down Germany’s atomic power stations in a desperate attempt to prevent any more nuclear electoral disasters, it quickly appeared that Germany would run short of electricity. No matter, said Merkel – we’ll import our power from France while we decide what to do.

That’s France, which has 58 nuclear power stations and which produces almost 80% of its electricity using nuclear power.
Right.

Well, it seems that Merkel has flip-flopped her way to another momentous decision: her Government is going to encourage the construction of new coal and gas power plants using millions of Euros from a fund for… er… promoting clean energy and combating climate change.

Remember what risk perception expert David Ropeik told us about this?

We can fear too much (vaccines), or too little (particulate pollution from coal-burning power plants), despite the available evidence, and our perceptions can create risks all by themselves. Excessive fear of vaccines is allowing diseases that had almost been eradicated to spread once more. Conversely, inadequate concern about coal-burning power stations has meant coal has been favoured over “scarier” nuclear power, risking sickness and death for thousands of people from particulate air pollution. Fukushima is now playing a powerful part in this retreat from nuclear power.

Clear evidence, if any were needed, that for Merkel it was never really not about the issue of safe or green electricity production, it was only ever about the issue of trying to be popular with the electorate.

I think she’s messed that bit up now too.

No. Not really real. But really old.

Subject: ESKOM INCREASE – URGENT PETITION before 19th July

ESKOM TARIFF INCREASE:

Apparently it will be 45% increase each year for 3 years, totalling 135% over 3 years.  It has already been increased by about 100%.

I don’t know about you but I certainly can’t afford to have any more of my hard earned money ploughed into Eskom’s mistakes and poor management.  We have to try and fight this.

TAKE NOTE, ESKOM HAS STOPPED LOAD SHEDDING UNTIL AFTER THE RATE HIKE COMES IN…..SO THAT WE CAN ACCEPT THE HIKE…..WITHOUT TOO MUCH MOANING

We have until the 19th to petition and there has been a poor response.

PETITION AGAINST ESKOM’S ELECTRICITY RATE HIKE OF 53 %.    PEOPLE, PLEASE! WE HAVE TO STAND TOGETHER (IF ONLY THIS ONCE) ON THE ESKOM ISSUE.   IT IS HIGH TIME WE STAND UP FOR WHAT WE WORK SO HARD FOR.   DON’T BE PASSIVE – ADD YOUR NAME TO THIS LIST AND SEND IT ON

The latest is that Eskom is going to raise our electricity rates by 53%, and most of us think that it is unfair and outrageous!   Why should we pay for their mistakes?  Time is running out and we need to move fast!

Every 500th person must please CC to CEO of Eskom.  This e-mail has a table for 1000 names, starting with 1001 and ending with 2000.  Font is set to use capitals so just type in your name at the next open number.  The persons against numbers 1500 and 2000 must CC to CEO of Eskom address is on the next line – do a copy and paste into the To window

thulani.gcabashe@eskom.co.za <mailto:thulani.gcabashe@eskom.co.za>

Where to begin? Some mathematics, I think:

45% + 45% +45% isn’t 135%. You don’t just add them together, you know? But if your rudimentary calculations were correct and it has already increased by 100%, then we only have another 35% to go. Happy days.

And then, when the emotional appeal about your meagre salary gets too much, you HIT THE CAPS LOCK AND MAKE IT LOOK LIKE ESKOM HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAGIC UP SOME ELECTRICITY FROM THIN AIR SO THAT THERE’S NO MORE LOAD SHEDDING!

Is it still not working? People still aren’t interested?
Then add another 8% to Eskom’s demands in the next paragraph. USE CAPITALS AGAIN!

And then, when you’ve wasted your time reading this, and putting your name and that of your spouse, your kids, your dog, Doreen from the cubicle next door and two random fictitious characters into the table, make sure you forward it to everyone you know.

I really wouldn’t include Thulane Gcabashe though. He left Eskom over 4 years ago.

All in all, it adds up to bad news. We’re buggered. (Technically and metaphorically, anyway.)

“Shale gas could end SA’s oil dependence” says Professor Philip Lloyd, who heads the Energy Institute at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, in a wonderfully rational, fact-filled and unemotional article on the Karoo fracking saga.

If Shell should succeed with its exploration, said Lloyd, jobs would be created on a scale never before seen in South Africa. It would also bring about a large decline in greenhouse gas emissions in this country.
According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), which maintains global surveys of energy resources, Karoo shale gas is the fourth largest resource in the world. It was originally estimated that there was about 1 000 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of shale gas in the Karoo, but geological data collected over the years have reduced this to about 450 tcf.
The tcf unit is an abbreviation used in oil and exploitation to indicate the size of gas resources. It represents a million, million cubic feet.
This is enormous. Mossgas was built on the supposition that there was at most 1 tcf in the undersea gas resource feeding that plant.
If the Karoo resource is even close to the amount indicated by the USGS, South Africa would be able to erect gas turbines for electricity generation all along the coastline. This would end the country’s dependence on coal to generate electricity.

And that’s not all:

Shale gas is also the best available reducing agent for iron ore. New steel works could be created on the Sishen-Saldanha iron ore route, as “beautiful steel” could be manufactured using it, said Lloyd.
More than 40m tons of iron ore is exported along the Sishen-Saldanha route to Asia and Europe. Lump iron ore from Sishen is some of the most sought-after iron ore globally, but cannot be processed into steel here because of the cost, particularly that of energy for heat for the reduction process.

But Lewis Pugh says that it’s not a very good idea.

And now there is celebration as struggling German Chancellor, Angela Merkel pulls the plug (geddit?) on Germany’s nuclear power plants “due to Fukushima”, but probably much more likely “due to lost votes”:

The decision in the early morning hours today by coalition leaders in Berlin underscored Merkel’s flip-flop from a 2009 re- election promise to extend the life of nuclear reactors. She did her about-face after the March meltdown in Japan as the anti- nuclear Green Party gained in polls. Her party lost control of Baden-Wuerttemberg to the Greens in March and finished behind them in a state election for the first time on May 22.

Ironically, in order to address the energy shortfall that it faced when Merkel shut down seven reactors in a post-Fukushima kneejerk reaction in April, Germany began importing electricity from France: a country that produces 78% of its power from… er… nuclear energy. Oops.

But perhaps the local greenies shouldn’t be too happy, as Minister of Energy Dipuo Peters stated today that SA was not considering any German-style nonsense:

“We in South Africa have to understand that nuclear is not a quick-fix solution but a long-term method to address the energy crisis and climate-change challenge,” she said in a speech prepared for delivery at the second regional conference on energy and nuclear power in Africa, held in Cape Town.
Nuclear energy forms part of the integrated resources plan (IRP) that sets out the country’s energy mix up to 2030. Nuclear would contribute 23% of the energy supply.

I hope no-one has asked Lewis Pugh.

Lewis, of course, would surely be delighted were South Africa to adopt wind power. But probably only if he doesn’t live near a potential wind farm. Because wind power may be clean and green, but those big turbines are ever so invasive, aren’t they? And they whine constantly. And they kill birds.
That’s why the residents of several West Coast villages are up in arms about having wind farms erected in their back gardens.

West Coast properties owners are dismayed by the prospect of having a new wind farm in Parternoster, Western Cape and are determined to prevent the huge turbines from being erected near the town.
The wind farm – known as West Coast One – is just one of several that have been planned for the West Coast region and it has been given environmental approval by the Department of Environment Affairs.

The developers, Moyeng Energy, jointly owned by Investec Bank and French group GDF Suez, plan to build 55 turbines near Paternoster. Each turbine is about 80 metres tall and once complete the wind farm will cover an area of 55 square kilometres.

Residents in the small town are trying to mount an appeal against the environmental approval and if this is unsuccessful they intend to take legal action to prevent the development from going ahead. According to Andre Kleynhans, chairman of the Paternoster Ratepayers’ Association the wind farm will destroy the natural charm of this fishing village.

Yes, just like the residents of the Karoo and their objections to fracking; just like the residents of Bantamsklip & Thyspunt and their issues with having a nuclear power plant just around the corner, there are problems with siting even the cleanest and greenest of power generation methods.

So. What now, my eco-warrior friends? Must we produce our electricity by magic?
Because I think Isaac Newton might have something to say about that.

We have to come to terms with the fact that we need electricity and that we need to produce electricity. It’s time to realise that no matter what method we choose to produce it, someone is going to be unhappy.
Who then, is to say which method we should choose, where it should be and whose back yard it must be in? How are the (proven) problems of wind turbines worse than the (alarmist) problems of fracking? Who decides?

And where are Lewis Pugh and the Kelvin Grove protest meetings about the Paternoster wind farm?

Double standards, anyone?

Disclosure: 6000 banks with Investec and buys his petrol at Shell. Deal with it.

Firstly, there were a couple (literally two) objections to my use of the term “bunnyhugger” to describe those of a green persuasion. Now, I rebuffed these objections by questioning exactly what could be insulting about saying someone cuddles rabbits. But apparently, it’s a derogatory term. Aside from the fact that perhaps I wished to be derogatory, I would point out that “bunnyhugger” is merely a derivative of “treehugger”, which is a common term by which environmentalists refer to each other. See environmental website treehugger.com, for example.

Putting this neatly in perspective: I have called people worse.

Secondly, I found another good (fairly well balanced) article about natural gas and fracking. Since these sort of articles seem to be few and far between, I thought I would share it. It’s from MIT and weighs up the needs, the pros and the cons of natural gas and shale gas extraction.
Give it a read – at least until you get to the first bit where it says natural gas is good, then you can stop and throw rocks at me.

Thirdly, we may all be saved from fossil fuels forever anyway, thanks to the all new, all singing, all dancing (disclaimer: it neither sings, nor dances) artificial photosynthetic leaf:

The artificial leaf uses nickel and cobalt as catalysts to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen by facilitating oxygen-oxygen bonding.
Oxygen and hydrogen molecules are then sent to a fuel cell that can produce electricity. If the device is placed in a one-gallon bucket of water in bright sunlight, it can reportedly produce enough electricity to power a house in a developing nation.

The one immediate flaw I can see in their plan is that many people in developing countries don’t have buckets.

Oh, or water.

Finally, a word of caution from Dilbert on green technologies:

And did you know it’s illegal to have wind turbine in your back garden in Cape Town?
It must be true, because I heard it on Cape Talk last night.