Would you conserve electricity in this situation?

[Grant]

I live in South Africa. We have socialised electricity. i.e. a government-owned organization called Eskom who supply electricity to the whole country.

We are currently experiencing a bit of an electricity crisis whereby there isn't sufficient electricity for the country, so we experience scheduled load-shedding.

This means that 2 hours a week during the day, we have no electricity. Eskom are quite obviously terrible and the government could have remedied this situation well before it started by opening up the sector to competition (but you all already knew that ). There are planned price increases of 60% and to top it off, they're rewarding those in management positions with massive bonuses for their hard work during this time. So basically, make a massive screw up, and you'll get rewarded for working your ass off to fix it. Sounds logical no?

Anyway, Eskom have suggested that if everyone conserves 10% of their electricity, there will be enough power for everyone and things will return to normal.

So while some countries are celebrating Earth Day by turning off their lights, we experience an involuntary double Earth Day once a week, and trust me, NO ONE is celebrating!

There's nothing fun about not having electricity. It's stifling the economy.

I personally haven't changed my lifestyle at all during this phase where possible. I don't believe I have any responsibility to make things easier for them. To me, there is an obvious solution to this problem (which should have been implemented years ago) and it shouldn't have to involve restricting industry which is what they're doing by cutting off electricity.

So, my question is, what would you do in this situation? Conserve your share of electricity in the hope that it makes a real difference? Or would you take the F YOU ESKOM! approach?

[Inspector]

Actually, the state of California has this exact problem every few summers or so. The times without electricity are called "rolling blackouts" here.

I'd take the "FU" approach, myself. Especially since they need to be sent the message that they MUST start producing more electricity and the problem CANNOT be solved with "conservation" in anything but a short-term emergency.

The idea that "conservation" can be used long-term to "solve" supply problems is rooted in viciously false economic and philosophical premises.

So I would use as much as I need and be proud of it.

[DavidOdden]

Sounds logical no?

Yes, no, it doesn't.

I think it is probably important to not turn off the power. As I understand it, this is because of a whopping increase in demand (doubling the extent of electrification) without corresponding increase in production capacity, in large part because of the monopoly plus your usual central planning committee non-planning. This was forseeable. It'll suck, but it's important to get people to think in the long term. Yes, building new plants takes time and it will not bandage the present problem, but you need a solution, not a bandage, and I think that some nice Africa-style blackouts of the Dar-es-Salaam type might concretize the consequences of this meddling.

Save South Africa, turn on an extra light.

[LeoPTY]

Save South Africa, turn on an extra light.

Hear hear! If Eskom is calling for conservation then it is ignoring the wake-up call of progress. To put it in their terms: Eskom has a public duty to supply South Africa with electricity. As a member of the public, you have a right to as much electricity as it takes to meet your needs.

This was probably Eskom's original train of thought, despite being economically unsustainable.

[Capitalism Forever]

Especially since they need to be sent the message that they MUST start producing more electricity and the problem CANNOT be solved with "conservation" in anything but a short-term emergency.

Agreed. Trying to conserve would amount to appeasement.

[Sewdo]

What would I do?

I have lived over a year without electricity by choice (a Walden farm phase), yet I would conserve and also try to find a political solution to the problem.

To use electricity when they inform you that to not conserve will cut your own power off as well as others seems like the proverbial face without a nose.

[Inspector]

Somebody didn't read the thread before posting.

[Tom K.]

I personally haven't changed my lifestyle at all during this phase where possible. I don't believe I have any responsibility to make things easier for them. To me, there is an obvious solution to this problem (which should have been implemented years ago) and it shouldn't have to involve restricting industry which is what they're doing by cutting off electricity.

I applaud your decision .

So, my question is, what would you do in this situation? Conserve your share of electricity in the hope that it makes a real difference? Or would you take the F YOU ESKOM! approach?

Personally, I'd burn extra lights. I'd turn the oven on, take long hot showers, everything they're asking people not do. I see no reason to do without just so others can have instead.

[DarkWaters]

Eskom have suggested that if everyone conserves 10% of their electricity, there will be enough power for everyone and things will return to normal.

What happens to individuals who do not follow Eskom's suggestion? Are there any stated legal repercussions? Do you anticipate any unstated ones?

[DavidOdden]

I'd turn the oven on, take long hot showers, everything they're asking people not do.

I'd turn on the air conditioner.

[Sewdo]

Somebody didn't read the thread before posting.

Someone else is either a mind reader or making wags.

[Tom K.]

I'd turn on the air conditioner.

I forgot about that. Also the television, the radio, and anything else I can turn on.

[JMeganSnow]

I always conserve electricity regardless. Why? Because it's cheaper. How about you do whatever is best for *you* instead of worrying about trying to screw the man?

[Capitalism Forever]

I always conserve electricity regardless. Why? Because it's cheaper. How about you do whatever is best for *you* instead of worrying about trying to screw the man?

Think of it this way: The amount of electricity you use this year is the amount of electricity you will ever be able to use within a year, no matter how much you are willing to pay for, no matter how much you want to use, no matter how much you need in order to maintain your life. In this situation, would it be wise to use only 50 kilowatt-hours if that is all you need this year?

[Inspector]

Someone else is either a mind reader or making wags.

Indeed, and now that you've read the thread, how do you respond to the cojent points made about the impossibility of solving the problem with conservation, the irrationality of attempting it, and the need of those attempting it to learn that it is not possible?

[John McVey]

I forgot about that. Also the television, the radio, and anything else I can turn on.

If you love long hot showers, ditch the insulated tank for the hot water and replace it with instant-heat. While you're at the reno bit, get in-floor heating and a four-globe ceiling heater unit with built in extractor fan. Get a heated towel-rack as well to finish the job. Wicked!

I'd do a Steve Wright thing, too: turn on both a humidifier and a dehumidifier and then let them fight it out for a while.

Anyway, seriously, get a top loading washing machine. I have a front loader and it's a PITA if you've missed something because you can't get the sucker open easily once its running. Also, if you get the wrong powder for a front loader then supposedly you mess up its pipes, while top loaders are made of sterner stuff. The water saving isn't worth the trouble. If the usage bothers you then you can always retain the "grey" water from the rinse cycles and stick it on your lawn. Heck, if you want to be flash then get a water purifying system - electric, of course.

I don't have one because we Sahfozzies generally don't need one out here, but in the context of this thread I'd be tempted to get my own tumble-drier just for the principle of the thing.

JJM

[JMeganSnow]

Think of it this way: The amount of electricity you use this year is the amount of electricity you will ever be able to use within a year, no matter how much you are willing to pay for, no matter how much you want to use, no matter how much you need in order to maintain your life. In this situation, would it be wise to use only 50 kilowatt-hours if that is all you need this year?

There's no "wise" choice in that situation. I'd be more worried about making inroads on the ideological situation that leads to this problem rather than fussing over how many KwH I'm using.

[Capitalism Forever]

I'd be more worried about making inroads on the ideological situation that leads to this problem rather than fussing over how many KwH I'm using.

There is nothing that keeps you from doing both at the same time (and the latter may actually aid you in the former!).

BTW, the spelling is kWh.

[gags]

Would the responses here be any different if the situation were one where there was a drought and water was in short supply due to temporary natural conditions as opposed to statism? In that situation would conservation be warranted, at least in the short run?

Under Capitalism price movements would regulate demand so that shortages could not exist in the long run. As prices increased, new supplies would come on line. I suppose I've answered my own question, at least in part.

This thread reminded me of a news story about a man who was using 60 times as much water as the average household during the Atlanta drought: http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3848139

[putofftoolong]

did't he say that prices were going up 60%. I don't think going on a energy consumption spree makes much sense or will accomplish anything. Just because an ingnorant and stupid govt tells you to do something for a stupid reason, doesn't mean you can't do it anyway as long as you have another reason that is rational. Why not conserve just to save money? Why give incompetant people 60% more as a reward for their incompetance. Just let it be known that your conservation is not based on the corrupt ideology preached by the enviro's, that you oppose conservation as a long term solution, but you are conserving just to save money. Or leave the country. If prices are going up 60% at a time, things must be pretty bad otherwise as well.

[DavidOdden]

did't he say that prices were going up 60%. I don't think going on a energy consumption spree makes much sense or will accomplish anything.

It might not. The question is whether you can personally afford the increased cost, and whether anything would be gained by increased consumption. The long-term goal should be to free the electric market, and to make it clear that there has to be a substantial increase in production. What then can one do to make it clear that living in the dark is not an option, and that there has to be an expansion of the supply? One approach is to cooperate with the government's request, save money in the short run and delay the inevitable; the other is to resist, spend money in the short run in hopes of a viable long-term nelectrical system and precipitate the moment of moral clarity that is coming. It's hard to tell whether it's better to endure a prolonged death by a thousand paper cuts, or take a risk with a knife wound.

[putofftoolong]

Will using excess electricity work to free up the market. Not likely. Although it will probably force the govt to accept the fact it needs to increase production.