More Eskom lies?

[Moederloos]

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2290232,00.html


He said Tuesday's expected power usage peak was 32 000 MW, when Eskom could only produce about 30 000 MW.

30 000? Thought it was 38000?

Anyways, let us assume the 30 000 is after taking into consideration the downed generators.
That is 8000 less than the maximum. We use 32 000 on a "big day". So, where is the crisis? If our stations were operating effectively, we would have plenty of power?

What is going on here?

It is pointless telling us to "save 10%" when the output constantly falls! What next? Output of 28000? 26000? 20000?

[timgaul]

NINE and I repeat, NINE, generators have failed today...

[Moederloos]

NINE and I repeat, NINE, generators have failed today...

Yeah - but even so - there is no capacity problem if we use only 32000 - the problem is in piss poor maintenance.

[diesel]

conspiracy!@@

[Frankie]

And this lie :


The causes for the trips varied and were not due to lack of maintenance, but to technical problems, he said.

Lets hear what these "technical problems" are - I bet they'll never attempt to explain these because it is in fact due to ****ty maintenance.

How can we find out if they are still supplying the neighbours while giving us the chop?

[timgaul]

Yeah - but even so - there is no capacity problem if we use only 32000 - the problem is in piss poor maintenance.

Well, generator failure is part of the maintenance issue... Thats why we appear to have lost 8000Mw.

[Alan]

Yeah - but even so - there is no capacity problem if we use only 32000 - the problem is in piss poor maintenance.

Exactly. Whats the point when the new power stations are built only to break down thanks to **** maintenance :o

[Moederloos]

Well, generator failure is part of the maintenance issue... Thats why we appear to have lost 8000Mw.

Let me try again. :D

Assuming we had no maintenance issues - then we would have 38 000?
We used 32 000 - and on a day when it is claimed usage increased due to weather.

Now, if we can produce 38000, and a "big" day uses 32000 - then where is the crisis? Why must we "save 10%" ?

Something does not add up.

[Frankie]

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2290232,00.html



30 000? Thought it was 38000?

Anyways, let us assume the 30 000 is after taking into consideration the downed generators.
That is 8000 less than the maximum. We use 32 000 on a "big day". So, where is the crisis? If our stations were operating effectively, we would have plenty of power?

What is going on here?

It is pointless telling us to "save 10%" when the output constantly falls! What next? Output of 28000? 26000? 20000?

When I left to work abroad early 1997 at the time Eiskom had the big white-out (now we have the big black-outs) the generating capacity was around 38 000 MW which was about the same as Korea. Korea since then has added 9 200 MW in coal fired units that I know of (they had many nuclear units built in that time as well)

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_South_Korea

Total power generation capacity was 57 gigawatts (GW) as of the beginning of 2003. The South Korean government estimates that its electricity demand will rise at an average annual rate of around 4 percent per year through 2015.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea

Eight more plants are planned to come on stream in the period 2010 to 2016, adding 9.4 GWe total. Some construction is underway as of 2007.

[vespax]

Let me try again. :D

Assuming we had no maintenance issues - then we would have 38 000?
We used 32 000 - and on a day when it is claimed usage increased due to weather.

Now, if we can produce 38000, and a "big" day uses 32000 - then where is the crisis? Why must we "save 10%" ?

Something does not add up.

10% = Zimbabwe power needs. Elections happening next week, must assure people the government is working for the people. :D

[Piepalook]

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2290232,00.html



30 000? Thought it was 38000?

Anyways, let us assume the 30 000 is after taking into consideration the downed generators.
That is 8000 less than the maximum. We use 32 000 on a "big day". So, where is the crisis? If our stations were operating effectively, we would have plenty of power?

What is going on here?

It is pointless telling us to "save 10%" when the output constantly falls! What next? Output of 28000? 26000? 20000?

We have 56 generators.
9 are down for maintenance.
9 tripped.
Leaves us with 38.

Each generator supplies 789 Mw on average to produce 30 000 MW.

If all the 56 generators are working,it would then generate 44 210 MW.

We still have lots to export!
And a nice reserve margin.

Somebody is lying. BIGTIME!

[Moederloos]

What I do not understand is why these numbers are not questioned?
I am certainly not claiming to be the brightest crayon in the box, but neither am I an idiot. There have got to be people that realize the same things do not add up.

[Piepalook]

NINE and I repeat, NINE, generators have failed today...

Wet coal.
Too much fines in the mix.
Won't burn.

[timgaul]

What I do not understand is why these numbers are not questioned?
I am certainly not claiming to be the brightest crayon in the box, but neither am I an idiot. There have got to be people that realize the same things do not add up.

Because it would make bugger all difference? Eskom would just find another way to blame the consumer? "Because you bought and paid for electricity, the generators couldn't handle and tripped."

[timgaul]

Wet coal.
Too much fines in the mix.
Won't burn.

To much fines, yes. Wet coal, no. It has been said that wet coal is no more difficult to burn than dry coal. Secondly, was there some special Apartheid machine that kept the rain away from the Witbank area all year round? Apparently the National Party government never had wet coal. Its a relatively new problem, this rain thing.

Oh, and who is too blame for too much fines?

[Moederloos]

Because it would make bugger all difference?

I suppose.
Just annoys the carp out of me, is all.

Figures never add up - any two sentences uttered are factually different, and we are told to "cough up".

[Frankie]

Wet coal.
Too much fines in the mix.
Won't burn.

SA's power plants are designed to use very low grade coal and wet coal should not present a problem (it didn't 10 years ago).
The fines are also no problem because the coal is ground ground in the mills before admission to the boilers.

Just dumb ass lies from dimwits in Eiskom.

[Piepalook]

To much fines, yes. Wet coal, no. It has been said that wet coal is no more difficult to burn than dry coal. Secondly, was there some special Apartheid machine that kept the rain away from the Witbank area all year round? Apparently the National Party government never had wet coal. Its a relatively new problem, this rain thing.

Oh, and who is too blame for too much fines?

Wet coal gets blamed:
http://www.fin24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?ArticleId=1518-25_2290154

[timgaul]

Wet coal gets blamed:
http://www.fin24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?ArticleId=1518-25_2290154

Experts have stated that this is not a problem. In fact, wet coal burns just as well as dry coal.

Eskom loves it when it rains because they can place the blame on wet coal. And this was all good and well for a while, until they had the same problems during the sunny summer months. Then they blamed the lack of coal, conveyor belts, etc, etc. Always looking for an excuse.

And I'll ask this again: was there not wet coal 20/15/10 years ago, if so, why was it not a problem then?

[Moederloos]

Experts have stated that this is not a problem. In fact, wet coal burns just as well as dry coal.

Eskom loves it when it rains because they can place the blame on wet coal. And this was all good and well for a while, until they had the same problems during the sunny summer months. Then they blamed the lack of coal, conveyor belts, etc, etc. Always looking for an excuse.

And I'll ask this again: was there not wet coal 20/15/10 years ago, if so, why was it not a problem then?

It's this new coal that is being produced - not up to the same standards.
O - wait, coal is millions of years old.
Uhm..
:p

[Albereth]

As for lies - so Eishkom now want NERSA to approve a 24% increase. Well, only to be expected.

Simple maths - assuming current income was 100 eishkom rands. We all save so income drops to ER90. Add back the 14% increase and you get ER102.60. Don't think you can afford more hamsters and their wheels for that ER2.60.

Aesop wrote a fable about the grasshopper and the ants. Seems that that applies.

[timgaul]

It's this new coal that is being produced - not up to the same standards.
O - wait, coal is millions of years old.
Uhm..
:p

"I will state this again, this post-Apartheid, post-1994 coal and rain are deliberately trying to undermine the government of the ANC. It is obvious that they are not willing participants in the new South Africa. What I ask is this: if you are not willing to co-operate I ask you to please leave the country. I appeal to rain to go to sleep earlier, that the coal may be drierer."

[Albereth]

You must remember that the coal was previously disadvantaged.

[Rkootknir]

SA's power plants are designed to use very low grade coal and wet coal should not present a problem (it didn't 10 years ago).
The fines are also no problem because the coal is ground ground in the mills before admission to the boilers.

Just dumb ass lies from dimwits in Eiskom.The wet coal problem is actually to do with transporting it on conveyers and not with how well it burns. All the coal gets washed and pulverised before being blown into the boilers in any case.

Most of the coal used to produce electricity has a very high ash content. When it rains the ash in the coal forms a kind of sludge which just lies in one place while the conveyer runs on beneath it.

This wasn't a problem in the past because the power stations had massive stockpiles where at least some of the coal would be relatively dry and easily transportable. Nowadays the stockpiles are so small they get soaked through quite quickly when it rains.

[Moederloos]

The wet coal problem is actually to do with transporting it on conveyers and not with how well it burns. All the coal gets washed and pulverised before being blown into the boilers in any case.

Most of the coal used to produce electricity has a very high ash content. When it rains the ash in the coal forms a kind of sludge which just lies in one place while the conveyer runs on beneath it.

This wasn't a problem in the past because the power stations had massive stockpiles where at least some of the coal would be relatively dry and easily transportable. Nowadays the stockpiles are so small they get soaked through quite quickly when it rains.

So really, the "wet coal" excuse would be best termed "the no coal excuse".

[timgaul]

So really, the "wet coal" excuse would be best termed "the no coal excuse".

As would be the "fines coal" supplier(i.e. the dust left over when there is no coal). So all in all it comes down to the fact that Eskom appointed (after several "under the table" deals, I'm sure) to appoint an interior decorator as its BEEullschite coal supplier?

[Rkootknir]

So really, the "wet coal" excuse would be best termed "the no coal excuse".Yep, eg. Sasol has to deal with the rain as well, but their coal stockpiles make Table Mountain look like a hill. That's why they keep running.

There may be other issues but I'm pretty sure that the small stockpiles is the biggest one...

[timgaul]

Yep, eg. Sasol has to deal with the rain as well, but their coal stockpiles make Table Mountain look like a hill. That's why they keep running.

There may be other issues but I'm pretty sure that the small stockpiles is the biggest one...

Can you say private versus parastatal?

[Ady]

The best part about all of this is that the CEO of Eskom and his board get millions in bonus's for a job well done????? This makes me mad with rage. I used to work for Eskom and i was proud of it, thankfully i left when i did. It was still a respectable company and had a good name back then.

[Paulr]

"I will state this again, this post-Apartheid, post-1994 coal and rain are deliberately trying to undermine the government of the ANC. It is obvious that they are not willing participants in the new South Africa. What I ask is this: if you are not willing to co-operate I ask you to please leave the country. I appeal to rain to go to sleep earlier, that the coal may be drierer."

:D :D :D

[Frankie]

The wet coal problem is actually to do with transporting it on conveyers and not with how well it burns. All the coal gets washed and pulverised before being blown into the boilers in any case.

Most of the coal used to produce electricity has a very high ash content. When it rains the ash in the coal forms a kind of sludge which just lies in one place while the conveyer runs on beneath it.

This wasn't a problem in the past because the power stations had massive stockpiles where at least some of the coal would be relatively dry and easily transportable. Nowadays the stockpiles are so small they get soaked through quite quickly when it rains.

The conveyors are enclosed hence shielded from the weather, but yes if the stockpile is non existent then you'll have problems with the dregs on the ground in the mud.

There is no washing of coal at any of Esikom's power stations, and washing is done by a few mines for certain buyers.

The ash in coal is "inherent" and cannot separately become sludge - coal with lots of fines getting very wet will make a sludge.

The low stockpiles are a result of Eiskom's severing contracts with the adjoining mines electing road transport from coal sources in the spot market as they could do better underhanded deals this way.

[-toady-]

I believe Trevor Manuel has ALL the answers to ALL your questions posted here ;)

[Ozymandias]

It will be interesting to see which ANC loyalists will benefit from the new R700bn international tender for six nuclear power stations, that has just been put out. This tender is set to make the arms deal look like a mere drop in the ocean.

[BT6LW]

http://www.eskom.co.za/annreport06/tables2.htm

So according to eskom they are not capable of producing nearly what they did in 2006 and yet we are drawing MUCH less than we did then - and theres a problem.....

the truth is quite simple - they are lying about it all so they can increase the prices of electricity.

[Ady]

http://www.eskom.co.za/annreport06/tables2.htm

So according to eskom they are not capable of producing nearly what they did in 2006 and yet we are drawing MUCH less than we did then - and theres a problem.....

the truth is quite simple - they are lying about it all so they can increase the prices of electricity.

Don't forget about increasing their bonus's at the end of the year for another outstanding job done.

[timgaul]

OH FFS!


Total power station nominal capacity, MW 42 011
Total power station net maximum capacity, MW 39 810
Peak demand on integrated Eskom system, MW 33 461

So how in the hell are we running at 30 000 MW???

[Albereth]

"I will state this again, this post-Apartheid, post-1994 coal and rain are deliberately trying to undermine the government of the ANC. It is obvious that they are not willing participants in the new South Africa. What I ask is this: if you are not willing to co-operate I ask you to please leave the country. I appeal to rain to go to sleep earlier, that the coal may be drierer."

Can you have a rainbow nation without the rain?

[timgaul]

It gets better:

Total employees:
1996 - 39 857
2006 - 29 697

But we cut back and made a profit. THATS BECAUSE YOU STOPPED BUYING COAL FOR YOU COAL STATIONS YOU IJOTS! :mad:

[timgaul]

Can you have a rainbow nation without the rain?

Only if Thabo thinks the sun shines from his a$$.

[timgaul]

Oh hell, no!

Peak demand on integrated Eskom system, MW
2006 - 33 461
2005 - 34 195
2004 - 34 195

So power consumption has decreased and capacity has remained stable.

w..

T..

F..?

[Moederloos]

We are saving that magical 10%, yet still have outages. Why? Because the stations are breaking down at a rate greater than 10%

See - I went to sleep early last night!

I can barely contain my excitement - when will someone come along and tell me how positive this is?

[Ozymandias]

Positively a cock-up of monumental preportions.

[Paulr]

We are saving that magical 10%, yet still have outages. Why? Because the stations are breaking down at a rate greater than 10%

See - I went to sleep early last night!

I can barely contain my excitement - when will someone come along and tell me how positive this is?

Yep, we can all see that you are cleverer now! :p