I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the exact reaction the NYT was going for with this article.
(In marketing and propaganda, you first define what you want your reader to conclude. Then, you write a story that leads to that conclusion - though without actually mentioning it yourself. This makes the reader think it was their own thought.)
Maybe I’m overly paranoid. But y’all know the saying. Fool me once…
Having spent a while in South Africa, there seems a certain slant to the article in that the fail to mention that power was cheap and reliable under the white government and people are being forced to solar after Eskom semi collapsed under the corrupt ANC lot.
Is it your view that this set of ideas is mistaken? If so, kindly present some arguments.
Or perhaps you know they are correct but don't want to admit it, so you are trying to divert people's attention from the ideas to the question of the NYT'S intentions.
This is the part of the story that interests me the most:
> The rapid shift by so many businesses and people to install their own panels and batteries is causing headaches for Eskom, the already troubled utility.
> Every kilowatt generated by privately owned solar installations is a hit to its bottom line. Eskom’s coal-burning plants, which provide most of South Africa’s power, are old and in poor shape.
> even Ms. Graham-Maré, the deputy electricity minister, installed a solar system in her home. Her energy bill, she said, fell by two-thirds.
> Multiply her hack by the thousands and you have what South Africans call Eskom’s “death spiral.” Well-off customers lower their bills with solar, which causes Eskom to lose money, which in turn forces Eskom to raise prices and encourages more people to install solar.
> Now, unable to beat solar, Eskom is joining solar.
> The utility has removed onerous licensing requirements on private installations. It has allowed people to sell power to the grid. And it has tweaked its rates so that customers pay a fixed charge in addition to the cost of any power they consume. Essentially, people pay simply to be connected to the grid, a standard feature in other nations that’s new in South Africa.
It seems like they are trying to pivot to another stable equilibrium, which if it happens is really hopeful. Because imo such a pivot is long overdue.
A very similar thing is happening in Pakistan. Net electricity demand was actually going down in 2025. Which makes sense because electricity rates were brutal because of extreme mismanagement.
At least part of me feels this sort of primal joy you get when an ineffective drain on society is forced to get its shit together instead of sitting around digging its heels. Pakistan's utilities were definitely an example of not doing enough.
I'm certain there are problems but I'm sure to many it feels like declogging a long stuffed nose.
When global climate change first came to broad attention about three decades ago, the conservatives predicted it was absolutely certain that renewable energy would always remain so extremely expensive that no one would every adopt it unless the government forced them to.
Meanwhile back in the USA, renewable energy is being politically shunned.
The rest of the world advances, the USA regresses, China rapidly approaches dominance.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the exact reaction the NYT was going for with this article.
(In marketing and propaganda, you first define what you want your reader to conclude. Then, you write a story that leads to that conclusion - though without actually mentioning it yourself. This makes the reader think it was their own thought.)
Maybe I’m overly paranoid. But y’all know the saying. Fool me once…
Having spent a while in South Africa, there seems a certain slant to the article in that the fail to mention that power was cheap and reliable under the white government and people are being forced to solar after Eskom semi collapsed under the corrupt ANC lot.
Is it your view that this set of ideas is mistaken? If so, kindly present some arguments.
Or perhaps you know they are correct but don't want to admit it, so you are trying to divert people's attention from the ideas to the question of the NYT'S intentions.
This is the part of the story that interests me the most:
> The rapid shift by so many businesses and people to install their own panels and batteries is causing headaches for Eskom, the already troubled utility.
> Every kilowatt generated by privately owned solar installations is a hit to its bottom line. Eskom’s coal-burning plants, which provide most of South Africa’s power, are old and in poor shape.
> even Ms. Graham-Maré, the deputy electricity minister, installed a solar system in her home. Her energy bill, she said, fell by two-thirds.
> Multiply her hack by the thousands and you have what South Africans call Eskom’s “death spiral.” Well-off customers lower their bills with solar, which causes Eskom to lose money, which in turn forces Eskom to raise prices and encourages more people to install solar.
> Now, unable to beat solar, Eskom is joining solar.
> The utility has removed onerous licensing requirements on private installations. It has allowed people to sell power to the grid. And it has tweaked its rates so that customers pay a fixed charge in addition to the cost of any power they consume. Essentially, people pay simply to be connected to the grid, a standard feature in other nations that’s new in South Africa.
It seems like they are trying to pivot to another stable equilibrium, which if it happens is really hopeful. Because imo such a pivot is long overdue.
A very similar thing is happening in Pakistan. Net electricity demand was actually going down in 2025. Which makes sense because electricity rates were brutal because of extreme mismanagement.
At least part of me feels this sort of primal joy you get when an ineffective drain on society is forced to get its shit together instead of sitting around digging its heels. Pakistan's utilities were definitely an example of not doing enough.
I'm certain there are problems but I'm sure to many it feels like declogging a long stuffed nose.
Gist of the article. China is a hero for ushering in affordable renewable energy. USA is the tired backward proponent of fossil fuels.
This is an area ripe for change. Politics aside, how can we make the world a better place?
> Politics aside, how can we make the world a better place?
We can't put politics aside. It's a big reason the world is the way it is.
Aside from the obvious do what you can stuff, there's a big change coming with AI so we can maybe try to see that goes well?
Politics aside, the Trump admin killed the solar tax subsidy.
plus the huge tariffs on panels. Even taking VAT into account you can get like 4x more wattage per dollar in the EU than the US
Plus they gutted the EPA and routinely go to bat for hydrocarbon fuels
Again, the cost is in storage, not generation. But it looks like LiFePO4 batteries are the way forward these days.
I can’t read the article. What are the stats provided?
Found a gift article: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/30/climate/solar-south-afric...
When global climate change first came to broad attention about three decades ago, the conservatives predicted it was absolutely certain that renewable energy would always remain so extremely expensive that no one would every adopt it unless the government forced them to.