" The cost of the renewable energy in SA is lower than the cost...

" The cost of the renewable energy in SA is lower than the cost of the fossil fuel power that supplements it."

That is absolute poppycock and spin as usual .

You are attempting to compare an intermittent power supply with a 24/7 one . The cost of backup needs to be added to renewables and then you can say that renewables will give you a 24/7 power supply the same as fossil fueled power . Then you need to make sure you can physically install enough renewables that will give you the supply capacity that fossil fuel does . So no interconnectors . SA all on it's own 24/7 renewable power .

Then it would be a fair comparison to fossil fuel .

My pushbike is a form of transport . My car is a form of transport . My pushbike is very cheap to operate . It is much , much cheaper to operate than my car . My pushbike also doesn't pollute like my car does .

Therefore we should be moving to pushbike travel . Same logic without the details .

The proof of this argument is that the green disciples who claim that renewables are cheaper are still relying on fossil fueled electricity . Still driving petrol powered cars . Still flying in fossil fueled aircraft . Still posting on interent forums powered by fossil fuel . On computers that are built from plastic and mined products all powered by fossil fuel .

So , based on their arguments , they are spending more than they should on all forms of power .

Why would they do that if renewables were cheaper ?