One commentator said this: “The renewable-energy purchase programme, launched in 2011, has been celebrated as a spectacular success, directing private capital into public infrastructure and a model for attempts to lure private investment into other projects.”

I am sure this is how wind farm investors see themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. The so-called ‘private investment’ is nothing more than borrowing money from sources such as financial services group Old Mutual and paying the money back using revenue from power utility Eskom. Even better, if Eskom cannot pay, the money will be sourced from the National Treasury. What a fantastic financial model.

All you have to do is create a company with suitably employed black-empowerment credentials, submit a bid for the construction of a wind farm, get farmers to sign an intention to lease land, get costs for wind turbines and a cost from Eskom for the grid connection . . . and then you go into millionaire happy land.

The problem with this whole thing is that Eskom is paying. If you short-circuit the path from the borrowed money to Eskom, it is a simple equation: Eskom is paying for the loan and giving money to the wind people. It is a fact that the Eskom tariffs for standard and off-peak power are up to 20c less than the payments that Eskom is making for renewable energy.

If wind blows during standard power time (more or less 09:00 to 17:00), then Eskom, selling the generated wind power to a municipality, will be losing 10c for every kilowatt hour sold. Thus, for Eskom to recover its losses from wind power costs, it will have to put tariffs up, which effectively means that consumers will be subsidising the wind power generators.

I am quite sure that all those in favour of wind power will say that we will have to pay for renewable energy anyway and, “Why not?” This argument places some moral imperative on the nation for us all to chip in and help the renewable-energy industry. Because it is green. This may well be the case, but we have to consider what would happen to the money if Eskom did not put its tariffs up. Electrical energy will become cheaper and result in reduced costs for all businesses, which would certainly assist them to grow. Less fortunate people could be subsidised to a greater degree than they are now, with an electrical power supply which is reliable and safe. And so on.

Not a week goes by without reference by some self-appointed energy expert to “Eskom’s ageing fleet of coal-fired power stations, which will require replacement”. The fact of the matter is that, unlike motor cars, power stations can last forever. With a reasonable maintenance plan, the lifetime of a coal-fired power station is forever. South Africa has estimated coal reserves of 90-billion tons. Eskom uses 90-million tons a year. Thus, conservatively, there is enough coal for at least 200 years’ use.

There is this question of pollution. Comparatively few people have ever been to a coal-fired power station. These days, coal-fired power stations have been fitted with pollution-reducing devices and scrubbers and, from the outside, it is difficult to know whether the power station is, in fact, operating or not. A few wisps of steam. This is steam, which is not a pollutant.

I have mentioned elsewhere that all wind farms have to be backed up with a firm power source, such as a gas-turbine or coal-fired power station. In this context, a 100 MW wind farm will produce peak energy for 25% of the time and, for the rest of the time, the energy has to come from another source. This is hardly a desirable situation.

Now Energy Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi has said that no more renewables projects will be commissioned until 2021. For the green movement, this is regarded as a disaster similar to the election of Donald Trump as US President. For power system engineers (of which I was one), this is the first step in a very sensible direction. Minister, I cannot pronounce your first name, but well done.