KC Erasmus: “CO2 is not your enemy”

KC Erasmus offers insight into the Karoo shale gas commentary in BizNews’ interview with Rob Hersov and replies to Ivo Vegter’s statements on renewable energy systems in South Africa. Erasmus speaks on the importance of energy independence and cheaper supply thereof in order to reduce our nation’s high poverty rate – stating that CO2 should not be seen as a red flag. Erasmus believes that Hersov and Vegter are correct, society should not take the “Greenies” word as gospel and that our nation needs to find solutions that are uniquely suited to our land – ensuring the best possible results all round. Further, the issue with power generation in South Africa is not in the actual generation mechanism but in its severe mismanagement. Find the opinion piece below. – Carmen Mileder.

A summary of the events surrounding The Karoo Gas Shale comments of Rob Hersov and response to Ivo Vegter’s comments in regard to renewable energy systems

By KC Erasmus

The Biznews interview with Rob Hersov, despite him not have all of his facts exactly 100% correct, led to a plethora of rights of reply, as well as comments from the rest of us in the peanut gallery, and follow up investigation by Biznews, which involved an interview with Dr. Masangane of PASA, which has enlightened us all as to what is actual happening vis-à-vis the purported Karoo Shale Gas reserves.

So, what actually happened ?

Well in my opinion, Rob Hersov succeeded in doing what I argued in my previous opinion piece, he is very good at, he succeeded in putting forward an idea, and getting us all to think, discuss and examine further.

This has hopefully brought us one step closer to a level of energy independence and cheaper energy within the next decade, that can help to uplift millions of South Africans out of poverty ( just in time to watch the rest of the Western world’s failed energy policies cause their countries demise by 2030 ) while the rest of us maintain a reasonably good standard of living, and having said this, I not only recognise the importance of cheaper energy and energy independence, I also recognise the importance of food security and water security and sustainability. 

While Dr. Masangane and PASA might have the best intentions in ensuring that if sufficient commercial volumes of Shale Gas are available for exploitation, and that the water resources and land are protected from potentially harmful “fracking” extraction processes, however, we all know that the final Exploration and Exploitation licenses have to be obtained from the Department of Mineral and Energy Resources ( DMRE ), where, in the past, a lot of oddities have occurred, which have not taken the necessary environmental and competence concerns into account, and for a “smallanyana” informal fee, the requirements set by PASA could quite easily be overlooked or overridden, placing the region and its farmers livelihoods, food security and water security and sustainability in danger of being negatively affected, which is their current concern, and should be a concern for all of us.

So I foresee Mr. Light and his team of attorneys having the work cut out for them in protecting the farmers of the region, to ensure that the protective measures and checks and balances are maintained should Exploitation proceed on this project.

This I would suggest this being done in a proactive manner through agreement of pre-set conditions by PASA, by Mr. Light’s team employing an Engineer or team who has specialised in “fracking” processes elsewhere in the world, including a geologist/s highly knowledgeable about the Karoo Supergroup to monitor the activities of those granted a license to Exploit the Shale Gas, as an early warning Mechanism.

The cost of the employment of these professionals should be borne by the company/ies exploiting the Shale Gas as part of their upfront fixed costs, by agreement with PASA as an essential requirement and should be paid to Mr. Light’s firm, for disbursement to the professionals, who would answer to Mr. Light’s firm, and his clients directly with frequent report back meetings to Mr. Lights’s clients.

Now on to my support of Ivo Vegter’s comments in regard to Renewable Energy Systems as a replacement for Coal or Nuclear options, ( Despite the fact that I have Not always agreed with statements or opinions voiced by Ivo Vegter, just as with Rob Hersov, but when they are in my firm belief and opinion correct, they are nothing other than correct, based on a multitude of justifications either provided, or which can be provided.

A matter that I alluded to in my previous opinion piece, being that South Africans seem, in my opinion to be largely ignorant in relation to the purported falsehoods in regard to supposed Anthropogenic Climate Change, and we take our cue from those who provide nothing more than what “the scientists supposedly said” or dismally failed modelling, or countries who have Absolutely failed in regard to their own energy policies, resulting in energy poverty and spiralling energy costs over much of Europe and to a degree the US, without any Actual Science to support the nonsense they purvey as “the science”, which can be compared to the absolute drivel motivating the determination South Africa’s Covid-19 own policies, which in retrospect have been proven to be nothing but Quackery, which caused more harm than they did good, the world over.

Many of these countries so desperately attempting to persuade South Africa to follow in their footsteps of energy policy failure, are now themselves returning to tried and trusted Coal energy production, with the UK and Germany being prime examples.

Furthermore, the countries who punt the idea for the use of renewables in South Africa as the Supreme “Be-All-That-Ends-All” solution to South Africa’s electricity woes, fail to practice what they preach, with none of them having an installed renewable energy capacity exceeding 15% of their needs, and in every one of those countries they have experienced skyrocketing energy prices, and/or energy poverty, none of which would serve South Africa’s best interests.

If the argument is, that South Africa’s conditions are better suited to renewables than theirs, we then have to look to Australia, whose conditions are very much on a parallel with ours, only to see that only approximately 8% of their installed electricity capacity is in the form of renewables, and currently their largest project in Northern Australia is about to go into liquidation, given that the developers could not agree on terms for raising operating capital for the second time since the original capital development, to save the project from bankruptcy, and failure.

Thus proving that these projects despite much higher costs to customer per kWh being charged, are by and large Not commercially viable, despite all of the nonsense we are told on a daily basis about receding costs of solar, and wind renewables, the total cost of ownership of these projects are never accounted for, nor the cost of the required installed capacity ( generally being approximately double that of demand ) and backup systems and/or storage batteries to meet peak demand or account for variable whether conditions.

So again Rob Hersov  and Ivo Vegter are correct, let’s stop being the Sheeple, and listening to the “Greenies” as Rob calls them, and the Deceivers who don’t lead by example, and start looking to solutions that uniquely suit our own country, which do least harm but deliver best all round results. 

Even if it means staying with coal to a greater extent, or moving to Nuclear or whatever generation mechanism is found to be Actually reliable and Cost Effective, first off by removing Eskom as an SOE from the equation, and upgrading our power stations to remove the Actually harmful solid particles and gases, or moving to the energy source found best to suit our unique South African situation, or by removing control of the supply chain from the hands of Eskom and placing it into private hands, like that of the South African Banks (to whom Eskom and/or the State is largely indebted ) in a Special Purpose Vehicle, created fit for purpose, while the Banks can refuse to roll over maturing loans unless this happens, or any better solution.

The problem with power generation in South Africa has nothing to do with the generation mechanism, or the age of our coal fired power plants, but has everything to do with our Government, Eskom and the people who work within it, and run it, and how financial management, the supply chain and maintenance is managed, planned and conducted and there is comparable verifiable data to confirm this from parallel studies of similar generation units in the US, showing their Energy Availability Factor VS that of South African sites.

By taking control of the Supply Chain, and removing it from the hands of Eskom, the major portion of corruption within Eskom can be arrested, and would be easier than attempting to track down the culprits who commit acts of corruption, fraud and sabotage, and take legal action against them.

South Africans also need to realise that CO2 is not your enemy, don’t fall for this false flag, and it’s time to lose your climate anxiety, given that CO2 is essential to life on this planet and the mere existence of us, carbon based life forms and the greening of our planet depends upon CO2, and a whole branch of Chemistry is dedicated to the study of Carbon compounds without which we cannot exist, namely that of Organic Chemistry.

CO2 ensures not only plant growth, but plant resilience to droughts and harsh conditions, without which, we cannot exist, and for which there are multiple verifiable studies and a lot of common sense. ( Studies by Dr. Craig Idso and his late father, of CO2 Science.org)

One of the Fundamental principle of Physics being, that “matter is neither created nor destroyed”, meaning that all of the carbon and all other elements on this earth have not changed in number or volume or nature, except for their dynamically changing bonding processes with each other which are determined by a multitude of factors.

There exists exactly Zero Factual and Verifiable measured Empirical data that supports the notion that extreme weather events are increasing either in number or intensity, ( Studies and data bases by Professor John Christy et al. prove this ) or that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 cause anything more than a negligible increase in temperature ( Experimental Study and Empirical data by the Late Professor Freeman Dysan and Professor William Happer et al. ), none of which have been Scientifically disproven.

At the same time there is Zero measured Empirical Evidence which proves that even an increase of 5 degrees C of the current average global earth surface temperature is harmful, and Natural Historical Evidence for this is provided in the form of the fact that trees once grew in the Arctic Circle, when there was way less Ice than there currently is, while the Vikings farmed Greenland and tilled the soil, and the Anglo Saxons planted Vines and made wine in the North of England, with all of the above being totally impossible under the current cold conditions in these regions.

The mere existence of Oil on the Siberian Peninsula, also proves that this region once teamed with plant and animal life.

We also seriously, statistically and scientifically need to examine the accuracy of the Benchmark average global surface temperature of the earth as provided by the IPCC and others for the period 1870 to 1900, given the type of equipment used at the time, as well as the locations of measurement, time of day of measurements, and number of actual measurement locations of the era, and the number of actual measurements per annum the same throughout, VS current technology and measurements.

Furthermore to this, according to what set of Criteria, was the period 1870 to 1900 determined to be the era of ideal average earth surface temperature, and how was this criteria determined?

Moreover, what was the criteria used to create the Fearporn temperature ceiling rise of 1.5 degrees C, above that of the period 1870 to 1900, as the point beyond which “all hell breaks loose”, so to speak, according to climate alarmists, and how was this criteria determined?

I trust that I am now acting as a catalyst to start people thinking, so as to, avoid following unproven narratives which are based on “the science” of inaccurate modelling, much like the modelling of excess deaths that would supposedly result from Covid-19, especially among the unvaccinated, while the opposite of which is currently being proven to be true.

South Africa can most definitely not afford another error of the magnitude of its Covid-19 event mismanagement, which mainly resulted due to the fact, that we followed “the science” narratives of others, like Sheeple.

Read more:

(Visited 801 times, 21 visits today)