The South African town where electricity supply is privatised

The Trutherizer said:
View attachment 1479677
Notice the gaps? They use them way more than I would have thought for the morning bump, but they are still used the most during peak times. Which is the role they were meant to serve. As big honking energy batteries. And they still have to be filled up. One way or another. If you have energy storage. Be it chemical batteries or pumped hydro, then there has to be times when they are charged/filled again. Those are the gaps. Which oddly enough correspond by and large to night time (which is oddly enough what I was telling you. right?). In the sample you provided the days when they are not exclusively used to help serve peak demand they're capacity is used more gradually. It is still a finite capacity until the reservoirs are topped up again.

What. Don't. You. Get? What goes up must come down. In this case what comes down must go up again. And that take A LOT of energy. More than you scored in the first place, because the conversion is not 100% efficient.

If solar assisted with keeping the reservoirs topped up, as and when available. Which is most days in sunny SA, during the day... Then we would not have to use as much fueled power to do it. Which. Would. Be. A. Huge. Saving. Significantly less Load Shedding. An ideal use case for solar. Or if you have it then wind. And if the reservoirs are filled up and the turbines are not being used then just rather use the excess solar when it's available. Easy wins. Will it solve the entire problem of load shedding?..

...Sorry borrie. You're out of luck. That's not what I'm proposing. And it's caddish to insist that any solution that doesn't solve THE ENTIRE PROBLEM is useless. Especially when we're talking about an ideal use case for the cheapest form of power to serve as a clear way to make things better.

You know if all else fails then Eskom uses diesel. Which was MOST DEFINITELY meant to serve as peaker capacity. Emergency power at worse. And then you're REALLY burning the bucks. If what I'm proposing can only prevent that half the time, then we're still talking about tens of billions of Rands saved every year by Eskom.

Get it? Better... Is good.
Click to expand...
We don’t have a loadshitting problem, we have a lack of generation problem. If we could zoom out on that graph so the scale starts at 0 you will see how small and insignificant those blue lines are, you’ll probably need a microscope.

I’m talking about solving our problems, which is impossible at this point in time with our current government.

Each city installing 3 x CCGTs (750MW) would be a great start and big industry self generate. Incentivize anywhere with a roof to get PV. Deregulate the grid to allow competing market for leccy sales. Have peak and off peak rates so people can store cheap power and sell during peak for profit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zll
Strange how the cadres don't lose their heads about this town's electricity apartheid..

You cleva clacks come back here and join the rest of us miserable lot under the cANCer's ineptitude.
 
wingnut771 said:
We don’t have a loadshitting problem, we have a lack of generation problem. If we could zoom out on that graph so the scale starts at 0 you will see how small and insignificant those blue lines are, you’ll probably need a microscope.

I’m talking about solving our problems, which is impossible at this point in time with our current government.

Each city installing 3 x CCGTs (750MW) would be a great start and big industry self generate. Incentivize anywhere with a roof to get PV. Deregulate the grid to allow competing market for leccy sales. Have peak and off peak rates so people can store cheap power and sell during peak for profit.
Click to expand...
Well I can agree that it would be great to solve all the problems. But I'm telling you - The ideal solution will be a strategic mix of solution. And in SA most definitely significantly weighted for cost. We won't after all enjoy it very much if the solution is another Medupi and Kusile in every province. That would kill us. Even the gas generators you suggest would be a monumental effort. Getting gas production up sufficiently. Building and operating the pipeline infrastructure to serve them. They can't teleport the gas from where it's produced/imported to where it is used.
Every way in which you can conceivably generate electricity costs money for every KWh of electricity produced. And gas is not the cheapest.

In the current context I would myself suggest gas turbines as part of the solution. However having substantially more of it than we're producing gas won't do. And strategically locating them within easy (economical) range to gas production sites/import terminals would also be suggested. Importing most of the gas used will of course affect the economic viability even more.

Look here...
1676975471595.png
See what part of the problem might be for gas fuelled electricity? We're not a major gas producer. Not even close.

To be fair some gas resources have been developed since then or are in development. But it's not just about putting up gas turbines and viola - Problem solved. You have to actually have the gas and transport it.
 
Last edited:
The Trutherizer said:
Well I can agree that it would be great to solve all the problems. But I'm telling you - The ideal solution will be a strategic mix of solution. And in SA most definitely significantly weighted for cost. We won't after all enjoy it very much if the solution is another Medupi and Kusile in every province. That would kill us. Even the gas generators you suggest would be a monumental effort. Getting gas production up sufficiently. Building and operating the pipeline infrastructure to serve them. They can't teleport the gas from where it's produced/imported to where it is used.
Every way in which you can conceivably generate electricity costs money for every KWh of electricity produced. And gas is not the cheapest.

In the current context I would myself suggest gas turbines as part of the solution. However having substantially more of it than we're producing gas won't do. And strategically locating them within easy (economical) range to gas production sites/import terminals would also be suggested. Importing most of the gas used will of course affect the economic viability even more.

Look here...
View attachment 1479927
See what part of the problem might be for gas fuelled electricity? We're not a major gas producer. Not even close.

To be fair some gas resources have been developed since then or are in development. But it's not just about putting up gas turbines and viola - Problem solved. You have to actually have the gas and transport it.
Click to expand...
Sasol can make gas out of coal.
 
Neuk_ said:
I didn't realise they made gas there was well, I thought it was only liquid products from coal.
Click to expand...
I'm using the word gas like an american. :p Peakers can still use it. Better yet, convert the coal power stations to CCGT and use lpg, much cleaner emissions wise imho.
 
wingnut771 said:
en.wikipedia.org

Secunda CTL - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
(I had to do some conversions here)

So Secunda has a production capacity of 882 866.67 cubic ft of gas a day. i.e. 322 246 334.55 cubic foot a year. (322mil)

A megawatt hour gas turbine uses 7600 cubic foot of natural gas per hour.
So producing the 20GW of power you propose is needed just to get on track again would require:
7600 x 24h x 365days x 20 1GW stations = 1 331 520 000 cubic foot a year. (1.3bil)
Now to be fair not the entire 20GW would be needed at all times. Though even if only half of it is used on average, then that's still a bit more than twice Secunda's output.

And you didn't touch on how all that gas will be transported from Secunda to each of the city plants. Gas pipeline build costs range from $1-2mil a mile. In the US where that industry is significantly scaled and was showered in federal, state and private money. Secunda is about 1500km from Cape town. So $1bil just for sufficient pipeline to supply CT. Let alone the other provinces. And that's just the pipe. Such a system is not just pipe by a long shot.


So A: The process isn't free either. It's more expensive than just drilling for the stuff.
B: Secunda's gas is not just used for power. Though some of it is already. All SA's home produced gas, including Secunda is already used. And we still import about twice as much just to meet domestic supply as it stands now.
C: You still have to transport it to where needed.
 
Last edited:
The Trutherizer said:
(I had to do some conversions here)

So Secunda has a production capacity of 882 866.67 cubic ft of gas a day. i.e. 322 246 334.55 cubic foot a year. (322mil)

A megawatt hour gas turbine uses 7600 cubic foot of natural gas per hour.
So producing the 20GW of power you propose is needed just to get on track again would require:
7600 x 24h x 365days x 20 1GW stations = 1 331 520 000 cubic foot a year. (1.3bil)
Now to be fair not the entire 20GW would be needed at all times. Though even if only half of it is used on average, then that's still a bit more than twice Secunda's output.

And you didn't touch on how all that gas will be transported from Secunda to each of the city plants. Gas pipeline build costs range from $1-2mil a mile. In the US where that industry is significantly scaled and was showered in federal, state and private money. Secunda is about 1500km from Cape town. So $1bil just for sufficient pipeline to supply CT. Let alone the other provinces. And that's just the pipe. Such a system is not just pipe by a long shot.


So A: The process isn't free either. It's more expensive than just drilling for the stuff.
B: Secunda's gas is not just used for power. Though some of it is already. All SA's home produced gas, including Secunda is already used. And we still import about twice as much just to meet domestic supply as it stands now.
C: You still have to transport it to where needed.
Click to expand...
Yes, they better get cracking doubling sasol output and building pipelines.
 
wingnut771 said:
I'm using the word gas like an american. :p Peakers can still use it. Better yet, convert the coal power stations to CCGT and use lpg, much cleaner emissions wise imho.
Click to expand...

Hold up here, gas as in petrol or LPG? Damn 'Mericans! Anyway, Sasol Secunda does produce gas, as in a liquid from what I have learnt today.
 
wingnut771 said:
I'm using the word gas like an american. :p Peakers can still use it. Better yet, convert the coal power stations to CCGT and use lpg, much cleaner emissions wise imho.
Click to expand...
There is something else to consider when we're talking about "clean" though. For gas to be cleaner than coal you can afford only something like 3-5% leakage loss factor (since methane is about 20x worse than CO2 for it's warming effect).
The leakage loss factor in the US for example is about 9%. So at least in the US natural gas is worse for the environment than coal in other words. Much, much worse. I doubt we'll do better. Least of all with Secunda, which is the single largest CO2 emitting facility... In the world. Including all power stations and refineries, smelters and any other significant emitting factory or business in consideration.

I don't know if this is a concern for you personally or not. It is for me. But, you did mention the words "cleaner" and "emissions".
 
The Trutherizer said:
There is something else to consider when we're talking about "clean" though. For gas to be cleaner than coal you can afford only something like 3-5% leakage loss factor (since methane is about 20x worse than CO2 for it's warming effect).
The leakage loss factor in the US for example is about 9%. So at least in the US natural gas is worse for the environment than coal in other words. Much, much worse. I doubt we'll do better. Least of all with Secunda, which is the single largest CO2 emitting facility... In the world. Including all power stations and refineries, smelters and any other significant emitting factory or business in consideration.

I don't know if this is a concern for you personally or not. It is for me. But, you did mention the words "cleaner" and "emissions".
Click to expand...
CO2 is not dirty, just saying.
 
Lupus said:
I don't think you know what base load is, but anyway.
Firstly great they can run during the day and offset some load shedding (seems you didn't read the article). But their peak is 6.5MW, they have solar of 3.7MW which more then likely is only getting that from around 9am to 4pm if they are lucky. The rest of the time they are relying on uhmm what would we call it... There's a word for it oh yeah baseload, cause you know solar doesn't quite get you there.
www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of BASELOAD

the amount of power made available by an energy producer (such as a power plant) to meet fundamental demands by consumers —often used before another noun… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com
Click to expand...
Also they have implemented their own load shedding schedule based on prioritised needs of the town. Make sense protect the golden egg.
 
The South African town where electricity supply is privatised OVERRATED.

Hey guys I know you're all tired - just thought we should get this thread back on track and buttoned up.

They use about 6.5 MW at peak
They have a 3.8 MW solar PV (peak?)
They have a 1 MWh battery pack... wait what?

Scale it 3 orders of magnitude... does this sound reasonable for a home?

6.5 kW peak consumption - seems close enough.
3.8 kW solar - ~10 panels, sounds good.
1 kWh battery - wait what?

It's batteries or gtfo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X