Archive

CIVIL SOCIETY STRATEGIES ON INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN (IRP) 2

Hosted by Idasa at the Cape Town Democracy Centre

Venue: 6 Spin Street, Cape Town

Date: 7 May 2010

Time: 9h30 – 2h00

The Department of Energy is developing an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2) to meet long term electricity needs in South Africa. Work on the plan is underway, and to be completed by late 2010.  Idasa, WWF-SA, SAFCEI, and ERC are collaborating to organise a series of meetings of civil society and labour to discuss the process by which IRP 2 will be developed, to share information, and exchange perspectives on the key issues at hand. IRP 2 will determine whether South Africa:

  • has adequate electricity to meet demand
  • can extend access to electricity for the poor
  • can reduce its GHG emissions
  • continues on an energy intensive economic path, or charts a new path to green growth

Civil society has a critical role to play in informing these crucial decisions. Workshops will be held in Cape Town, Durban (10 May) and Johannesburg (12 May) in the advance of the Energy Caucus (13 – 14 May). The workshops will also include a technical introduction to utility planning methods and approaches using the Sustainable National Accessible Power Planning (SNAPP) tool developed by WWF and the Energy Research Centre at the University of Cape Town.

Please confirm your participation in the Cape Town workshop with Ms. Abigail Knox of Idasa (abigail.knox@gmail.com) by 2 pm on Thursday 6 May 2010.

Tags

2 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • Congratulation for this very good initiative of Idasa, WWF-SA, SAFCEI, and ERC “to host a series of meetings of civil society and labour to discuss the process by which IRP 2 will be developed, to share information, and exchange perspectives on the key issues at hand.” will unfold and feed in the IRP2 process ?

    – If really DoE goal is“ sustainable development” or even “sustainable economic growth” It would be quite irresponsible to continue linking a large part of our development with fossil fuel (coal, uranium, oil) because; being finite they are, unlike solar and other renewables intrinsically unsustainable energy source. It is believed that this term of “sustainable” is very badly misused by the Gov and many. It should therefore be banned and redefined by consensus, prior the IRP2 start up process.

    – How is it that the Gov wants to force into our throat another huge coal power and many nuclear plants outside of any consultation process what so ever ? It may be, considering the latter and the FF commission representation that their IRP2 is almost a done deal ? … for the sake of the very short term “GDP growth” with little vision for the long term well being of the majority ? This reminds me of the huge Petrosa refinery, which is planned for the IDZ in Coega (PE), for which millions have already been spent, “just waiting the Gov last OK” ……………….but no EIA has been made. Is it another FF undertaking being pushed with no public participations ?

    – “Should the IRP2 not be determining the policy direction of technology development and deployment if it is a long-term plan and not the other way around? Indeed it should be. But for that, we do need to define a “vision” of the type of future we want, honestly taking CC and peak oil into account.

    – It is a concern that our Gov., for various reasons, such as probably infighting, lack of capacity, commitment, leadership ……has difficulties to plan for a long term and set a common vision for the sake of all. “The way the process is currently set up creates the impression that once again elite lobbying interests desire to drive central policy choices by disaggregating them”.

    – I am afraid that, if we do not agree. at this IRP2 start up process that “our IRP2 should transition us towards a low carbon development”, we shall continue to be taken for a ride, bypass critical issues and remain stuck in the present deep FF groove and related vested interested for another 20 years.

    Well. in short I am not especially very optimistic about the outcome of this “consultation” process. Best regards PL Lemercier Renewable Energy Centre (PE)

  • Congratulation for this very good initiative of Idasa, WWF-SA, SAFCEI, and ERC “to host a series of meetings of civil society and labour to discuss the process by which IRP 2 will be developed, to share information, and exchange perspectives on the key issues at hand.” will unfold and feed in the IRP2 process ?

    – If really DoE goal is“ sustainable development” or even “sustainable economic growth” It would be quite irresponsible to continue linking a large part of our development with fossil fuel (coal, uranium, oil) because; being finite they are, unlike solar and other renewables intrinsically unsustainable energy source. It is believed that this term of “sustainable” is very badly misused by the Gov and many. It should therefore be banned and redefined by consensus, prior the IRP2 start up process.

    – How is it that the Gov wants to force into our throat another huge coal power and many nuclear plants outside of any consultation process what so ever ? It may be, considering the latter and the FF commission representation that their IRP2 is almost a done deal ? … for the sake of the very short term “GDP growth” with little vision for the long term well being of the majority ? This reminds me of the huge Petrosa refinery, which is planned for the IDZ in Coega (PE), for which millions have already been spent, “just waiting the Gov last OK” ……………….but no EIA has been made. Is it another FF undertaking being pushed with no public participations ?

    – “Should the IRP2 not be determining the policy direction of technology development and deployment if it is a long-term plan and not the other way around? Indeed it should be. But for that, we do need to define a “vision” of the type of future we want, honestly taking CC and peak oil into account.

    – It is a concern that our Gov., for various reasons, such as probably infighting, lack of capacity, commitment, leadership ……has difficulties to plan for a long term and set a common vision for the sake of all. “The way the process is currently set up creates the impression that once again elite lobbying interests desire to drive central policy choices by disaggregating them”.

    – I am afraid that, if we do not agree. at this IRP2 start up process that “our IRP2 should transition us towards a low carbon development”, we shall continue to be taken for a ride, bypass critical issues and remain stuck in the present deep FF groove and related vested interested for another 20 years.

    Well. in short I am not especially very optimistic about the outcome of this “consultation” process. Best regards PL Lemercier Renewable Energy Centre (PE)

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com