This is not really about electricity governance, but it is about leveling the playing field for everyone, so please indulge me.
What is it?
Project ubu proposes a way towards facilitating a world in which the basic needs of everyone can be met on an on-going basis (and this would include energy).
The trading mechanism being proposed is based on the UBU, or Universal Basic Unit.
Why and How?
The world’s population is divided into two groups: those with access to the economy and those with none.
Every person has economic value, yet almost 3 billion are excluded from economic participation. The global financial system doesn’t recognise their value.
ubu aims to create the world’s first fully fledged decentralised currency that works to the benefit of everyone without relying on taxation. It will be based on cryptocurrency and blockchain technology.
By applying proven technological innovations to forward thinking socioeconomic theory to achieve sustainable progression.
State-owned electricity utility Eskom has sounded a warning that, even if its allowable revenue is not increased at all for the 2018/19 year, tariffs will still need to rise by 9.4% simply to accommodate a “rebasing” of electricity sales volumes when compared with those approved in the third multiyear price determination period (MYPD3).
The utility has made a single-year application to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) for allowable revenue of R219.5-billion, which would translate to a hike of 19.9% from April 1 for direct customers and 27.5% for municipalities from July 1.
The submission, which is available on Nersa’s website, includes a request for R13.2-billion in higher operating expenses, R11.2-billion in additional independent powerproducer (IPP) costs, a R1-billion increase in primary-energycosts and R2.8-billion for international purchases. Even after “sacrificing” R12-billion in its return-on-assets request, based on a decision to “phase-in” its weighted average cost of capital over time, and factoring a R1.8-billion reduction in the environmental levy, owing to a fall in the amount of energysent out, its submission still translates to what would be a significantly above-inflation hike from April 1.
(Ed. note: And down the slippery slope we go – the higher the electricity tariffs, the less electricity we use, the higher the electricity tariffs – until everyone who can gets off the grid and Eskom and the municipalities are left with customers who can’t pay! Time for a new business model for our electricity utilities.)
(Ed. note: This article is about China, but it would definitely also apply to South Africa. Note that the author doesn’t include other EV benefits, such as SOx and NOx and other particulate emission reduction through EVs)
China’s offhand bombshell about potentially consigning gasoline-fueled cars to the scrapheap has met, predictably, with a round of cheers and jeers.
This is about one of the latter, which concerns the chart below:
With coal dominating China’s electricity generation, a common refrain about electric vehicles is: What’s the point? A car fed by a wire stretching back to a coalmine doesn’t seem like much of an improvement over a gasoline pump.
It’s a legitimate point. But it risks obscuring a different, more fundamental point.
The question here is whether or not an electric vehicle truly results in less greenhouse-gas emissions than a traditional one with an internal combustion engine. This doesn’t just encompass how the vehicles use their energy, but also where that energy comes from and how the vehicles get built in the first place — what are sometimes called “life-cycle” emissions.
The math around emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fuels and generating power is established. Meanwhile, some studies have also attempted to put numbers around the squishier concepts of emissions from building cars and batteries and producing and transporting fuels.
Different vehicles have different carbon footprints due to size, materials and so forth. For my purposes, I am going to use an assumption of 9.7 tons of carbon for a mid-sized vehicle, as per this study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2015.
Building a battery (I’m only considering full battery-electric vehicles here, not hybrids) adds further emissions for the electric vehicle. There are relatively few commercial-scale studies on this issue, with the ones I’ve seen offering estimates implying ranges of between roughly 150 to 330 pounds per kilowatt-hour of capacity. Taking the mid-point of that for a 60 kWh battery — similar to what you might find in a Chevy Bolt or maybe a Tesla Model 3 — equates to 7.3 tons of emissions.
Now the fuel, starting with gasoline:
Emissions from producing oil, refining it and distributing the fuel varies widely; Canadian oil sands, for example, require more energy to produce than many conventional fields. I’ve used the results of a model developed by the Argonne National Laboratory, which estimates about 5.2 pounds of emissions per gallon by the time it gets to the pump. Burning the stuff releases another 20 pounds.
Assuming a theoretical Chinese vehicle gets 35 miles per gallon — a slight improvement on the figure for 2015 — this adds up to just over 0.7 pounds per mile.
With the electric car, “fuel” emissions depend on the mix of power sources. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides estimates of these before any fuel is burned. Using those, along with standard emissions for fossil-fuel combustion and assuming 6 percent of the power gets lost as it is transmitted over the grid, results in these estimates per kWh for the major power sources:
Let’s assume the electric vehicle gets 3.5 miles per kWh. This is 240 miles of range divided by 60kWh, subtracting half a mile as a conservative factor to take account of sub-optimal driving conditions and possible degradation of the battery over time. Use China’s coal-heavy power mix and you get emissions of just over half a pound per mile.
Now, assume both vehicles get driven 10,500 miles per yearand last 12 years. Here’s how much carbon they emit overall:
So it takes about seven years to offset the emissions from making the battery, even with all that coal factored in. Granted, an 11 percent drop in cumulative emissions still may not seem worth the effort; a couple of alterations to the assumptions and you might end up with no savings at all.
But this brings us to the real story here: choice.
The vehicle with the internal combustion engine can be tweaked in terms of miles-per-gallon. But chemistry dictates that burning gasoline will always, more or less, send 20 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It’s a closed system.
The battery vehicle, in contrast, is an open platform. Its menu of energy options can change dramatically according to the types of generation in your region, whether you’re using centralized or distributed power sources, and even the time of day you charge up. Critically, all those inputs can, and will, change over time.
To see how this affects things, the chart below shows my estimate of life-cycle emissions for the two vehicles described above, but also for Chinese vehicles using the International Energy Agency’s projected mix of power there in 2030. For this, I’ve also boosted the efficiency of the vehicles by almost 30 percent, so the one using gasoline gets about 45 miles per gallon, while the electric vehicle gets about 4.5 miles per kWh. I’ve done the same for U.S. vehicles traveling 13,000 miles per year, and starting at 31 miles per gallon for the gasoline vehicle now, using the country’s current and projected power mix:
There are valid arguments against electric vehicles, be it their high cost or concerns around charging infrastructure, range anxiety or whatever. Yet it should also be acknowledged that all those concerns have diminished in importance over time and may well continue to do so. Certainly, much of the incumbent auto industry – not to mention some petro-states — seems to be thinking that way.
When it comes to carbon emissions, though, the argument that electric vehicles are as bad or worse than those burning gasoline is already hard to square with today’s numbers — and that will get harder over time. It ignores the inherent potential for change and choice that an electric drive-train opens up versus burning gasoline. Oil bulls dismissing this should take note that governments look ever less likely to do the same.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.
This is the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation, or GREET, model; released in late 2016 and updated earlier this year.
This is the average for a passenger vehicle in China as estimated by Bloomberg New Energy Finance in a report published in March 2017.
The IEA’s “World Energy Outlook 2016″ projects China’s electricity output by source to be as follows (under the ‘New Policies’ scenario): Coal (51 percent), hydro (16 percent), nuclear (10 percent), wind (10 percent), natural gas (7 percent), solar (5 percent), other (2 percent). A new edition of the annual study, with a particular focus on China, is due in November 2017.
Energy: Necsa chair optimistic about nuclear procurement restart
(Ed. note: Well, he would be, wouldn’t he? Let’s hope the DOE and Eskom show some common sense and listen to the CSIR on energy policy)
Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) chair Kelvin Kemm believes that SA could restart a procurement process for its nuclear expansion project as soon as next month. However, he noted that government still has to determine the exact timing, says a Moneyweb report. SA is planning to build several new nuclear reactors with a combined capacity of 9 600MW – one of the world’s biggest nuclear deals in decades. The plans were disrupted this year when the High Court ruled that a nuclear co-operation pact with Russia was unlawful. Kemm said SA officials have made progress on the nuclear project since the court ruling, and that Eskom and Necsa were ready to proceed. ‘All that needs to happen is for the politicians to press the restart button,’ Kemm is quoted in the report as saying. He added officials had sought Environment Ministry approval for one of the sites – at Thyspunt in the Eastern Cape – and approval could be granted in the next couple of months. The next step would probably be for SA to issue a request-for-proposal to the world’s top nuclear reactor firms, all of which had responded to the government’s previous request-for-information (RFI), he said, adding he did not see the need for a new RFI after the ruling.
The Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality is blazing a trail on renewable energy. Port Elizabeth energy services company, Energyworx, is poised to supply several Nelson Mandela Bay outlets of a national fast food chain with green power. A report in The Herald notes that Energyworx is awaiting approval from the National Energy Regulator of SA (Nersa), after which it will start supplying more than a dozen KFC outlets in the area with renewable energy. It operates from Port Elizabeth’s technology and innovation hub and the custodian of the metro’s SmartCity ambitions, the Propella Business Incubator in Humewood. This was revealed last week by Energyworx director Tim Whitaker, who said the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality was the only metro authority in the country which allowed ‘wheeling’. This enabled Energyworx, through a licensed renewable energy retailer, to supply renewable energy – such as that from wind and solar sources – to commercial entities in the region. ‘As an indication of the benefits to KFC, the company should field a 3% saving in rand terms of its overall energy costs and at no cost to that company,’ Whitaker said.