5 month planned outage for Koeberg Unit 2 to begin soon

[IdlePhaedrus]

This is an interesting read if you haven't seen it yet:

R20bn life extension of Koeberg power station poses significant risks for South Africa R20bn life extension of nuclear power station poses significant risks for South Africa

Preparations are under way for the replacement of the six steam generators at Eskom’s 1,840MW Koeberg nuclear power station, in what South Africa’s national electricity utility says is the most complex project undertaken at the nuclear facility since it was commissioned some 36 years ago in 1985.

www.dailymaverick.co.za

By 2024, it wouldn't be that difficult to add 2GW of renewable to the grid if Coal Mantashe would just allow it to be built, e.g. Germany is adding 5.2GW in 2022, South Africa could do it way more easily as higher capacity factors for solar and wind. This is without taking 2023/2024 into account, or that it seems quite a few storage mechanisms are coming into play now, with test projects like the concrete storage, key LFP patents expire this year (a lot already expired end of last year in the US, the rest in EU this year, these patents would allow dropping cobalt from LFP so should be a price drop and easier to produce), etc.

Once again, absolutely agree. But we are not in Germany where everyone actually pays for their electicity, and have Gweezy and the general ANC malaise and maladministration to deal with here. So things don't and won't move fast, even without being further actively sabotaged for short term political gain.

Further, we are short of about 5 gigs already over and above the two gigs we'd lose from Koeberg, hence load shedding and "load reduction".

I'd honestly prefer that Koeberg's life span was not extended (and I have also previously read both articles you responded with), but from what I can see there does not appear to be any way around it.

<edit> - I'd prefer another twenty years of Koeberg for R20bn than Karpower ships for R?

 

[Johnatan56]

LFP batteries do not contain cobalt , NMC on the other had does (or am I mistaken)?

You're right, sorry, meant moving to LFP (lithium iron phosphate) / away from a LCO (lithium cobalt oxide) battery, LFP generally does not use cobalt.

Once again, absolutely agree. But we are not in Germany where everyone actually pays for their electicity, and have Gweezy and the general ANC malaise and maladministration to deal with here. So things don't and won't move fast, even without being further actively sabotaged for short term political gain.

Further, we are short of about 5 gigs already over and above the two gigs we'd lose from Koeberg, hence load shedding and "load reduction".

I'd honestly prefer that Koeberg's life span was not extended (and I have also previously read both articles you responded with), but from what I can see there does not appear to be any way around it.

<edit> - I'd prefer another twenty years of Koeberg for R20bn than Karpower ships for R?

It would probably still be cheaper to go renewable, and rather not do karpowership at all, renewable would be same or less time probably. By end of 2024 doing 5GW of renewable is not an issue if government actually wanted to do it.

By 2026, global renewable electricity capacity is forecast to rise more than 60% from 2020 levels to over 4 800 GW – equivalent to the current total global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. Renewables are set to account for almost 95% of the increase in global power capacity through 2026, with solar PV alone providing more than half. The amount of renewable capacity added over the period of 2021 to 2026 is expected to be 50% higher than from 2015 to 2020. This is driven by stronger support from government policies and more ambitious clean energy goals announced before and during the COP26 Climate Change Conference.

Renewable electricity growth is accelerating faster than ever worldwide, supporting the emergence of the new global energy economy - News - IEA

Renewable electricity growth is accelerating faster than ever worldwide, supporting the emergence of the new global energy economy - News from the International Energy Agency

www.iea.org

South Africa is also extremely well positioned since great place for solar and wind installations, possibly could help the steel industry quite a bit (if corruption there wasn't an issue...).

 

[Gnome]

By 2024, it wouldn't be that difficult to add 2GW of renewable to the grid if Coal Mantashe would just allow it to be built, e.g. Germany is adding 5.2GW in 2022, South Africa could do it way more easily as higher capacity factors for solar and wind. This is without taking 2023/2024 into account, or that it seems quite a few storage mechanisms are coming into play now, with test projects like the concrete storage, key LFP patents expire this year (a lot already expired end of last year in the US, the rest in EU this year, these patents would allow dropping cobalt from LFP so should be a price drop and easier to produce), etc.

The grid using batteries is unrealistic. It can help to reduce instantaneous blips (which is was its use in Australia), not replace generation. That concrete storage article is talking about 20MW as if it is a lot, but more importantly they prices the provide are all estimates. They don't have any large scale deployments. So essentially they are hoping a provider will invest in them and take all the risks of over-budget and problems that will inevitable pop up. (assuming the 20MW version is already developed and not their theoretical estimate).

LFP batteries do not contain cobalt , NMC on the other had does (or am I mistaken)?

You are correct, LFP (short for Lithium Iron Phosphate) = LiFePO₄, Lithium, Iron, Phosphorus and Oxygen, so no cobalt. There is no such thing as a cobalt containing LFP chemistry given that LFP is the first letter of the elements.

 

[Johnatan56]

The grid using batteries is unrealistic. It can help to reduce instantaneous blips (which is was its use in Australia), not replace generation. That concrete storage article is talking about 20MW as if it is a lot, but more importantly the prices the provide are all estimates. They don't have any large scale deployments. So essentially they are hoping a provider will invest in them and take all the risks of over-budget and problems that will inevitable pop up. (assuming the 20MW version is already developed and not their theoretical estimate).

So you just said it can't use batteries but then contradict right after?

For longer term storage, that's iffy, the grid will become a lot more distributed, electric cars plugged into houses, make the flow two-way, then in peak times it can pull from the car, off-peak it charges.
Wind output picks up when lower solar, check their average generation curves.
Battery storage is becoming cheaper over time, and it's already at a price point where it's actually feasible to do a solar/wind and battery system together that ends up cheaper than most nuclear (not like that that is that difficult to beat if you actually properly factor the insurance and decommissioning costs). Would not say for most of the world it makes sense right now though, but just based on the trend for cost of batteries, it is definitely becoming likely it can be used for a few hours of storage. Even longer storage than that, molten salt and things like that seem like a good idea. Think Chile was it that repurposed some old coal plants for that, since grid connection and everything there, seems like a great idea for South Africa to imitate.

A good article in terms of changes the power grid needs to make, where it is currently and where it needs to go, this is US based, same will apply to South Africa:

Clean energy technologies threaten to overwhelm the grid. Here’s how it can adapt.

The centralized, top-down power grid is outdated. Time for a bottom-up redesign.

www.vox.com

Overall, renewable in the longer term will drop the cost of electricity, this is without taking into account that e.g. Europe is implementing trade tariffs based on carbon emissions for items if imported, South Africa will have problems being competitive.

 

[Gnome]

So you just said it can't use batteries but then contradict right after?

For longer term storage, that's iffy, the grid will become a lot more distributed, electric cars plugged into houses, make the flow two-way, then in peak times it can pull from the car, off-peak it charges.

My point is, when your renewables fall off the grid or under generate, those batteries can't replace them. They can help with very short duration blips, but you can't power 2 000MW at night from batteries. Not at any realistic cost and the footprint of that facility would be enormous. Not to mention serious fire hazard.

The point of a car is, when you need it, it is ready to go. Factoring in that the most expensive part of electric cars are the batteries and you want it charged when you want to go, that car battery being used is totally unrealistic. I would never allow my car to act as a storage medium for the grid. Unless they are willing to pay based on the degradation it causes, the cost to refill that battery + inefficiencies plus some profit margin for it to actually be worth it. Why else would you do that?

 

[Johnatan56]

My point is, when your renewables fall off the grid or under generate, those batteries can't replace them. They can help with very short duration blips, but you can't power 2 000MW at night from batteries. Not at any realistic cost and the footprint of that facility would be enormous. Not to mention serious fire hazard.

What? You know how cheap renewable is, the entire point is you can build multiple MW of solar/wind for every MW of possible coal. You're also not building these all at one point, you'd do it over a large area, wind and solar are pretty predictable then. Also, wind picks up at night, it would be very strange to have hours of no wind across the windiest areas in a place as big as South Africa. And no, you don't build wind turbines in non-windy areas.

The point of a car is, when you need it, it is ready to go. Factoring in that the most expensive part of electric cars are the batteries and you want it charged when you want to go, that car battery being used is totally unrealistic. I would never allow my car to act as a storage medium for the grid. Unless they are willing to pay based on the degradation it causes, the cost to refill that battery + inefficiencies plus some profit margin for it to actually be worth it. Why else would you do that?

Car batteries are set to average 300km+ range already, will keep going up. If you park your car in the evening, change of you doing a long-distance trip is minimal, drawing from your car battery instead of paying for peak electricity price, then charging again when drops in off-peak seems like a pretty easy thing to implement, since solar/wind burst is pretty cheap and storage is the expensive bit. Saying something like 10% of the battery is reserved for helping power the house during peak doesn't seem like an issue, not grid, your own house.

With batteries set to be cheaper, upping the amount of storage in a car doesn't seem like an issue.

You're arguing while batteries are still quite expensive, I'm saying based on trend.

Inefficiency would be low enough, <5% since it's <2% loss from house to car, and you're already in house system, so entire grid cost has already been paid when energy was cheap, this should still be cheaper than peak time if cost of generation/electricity form storage is high.

There's no point in arguing this, there are multiple academic papers on this already, how government implement it is discussed there, you can check up on it, whatever argument you have is probably already answered there better than I could.

 

[F1 Fan]

What? You know how cheap renewable is, the entire point is you can build multiple MW of solar/wind for every MW of possible coal. You're also not building these all at one point, you'd do it over a large area, wind and solar are pretty predictable then. Also, wind picks up at night, it would be very strange to have hours of no wind across the windiest areas in a place as big as South Africa. And no, you don't build wind turbines in non-windy areas.

Car batteries are set to average 300km+ range already, will keep going up. If you park your car in the evening, change of you doing a long-distance trip is minimal, drawing from your car battery instead of paying for peak electricity price, then charging again when drops in off-peak seems like a pretty easy thing to implement, since solar/wind burst is pretty cheap and storage is the expensive bit. Saying something like 10% of the battery is reserved for helping power the house during peak doesn't seem like an issue, not grid, your own house.

With batteries set to be cheaper, upping the amount of storage in a car doesn't seem like an issue.

You're arguing while batteries are still quite expensive, I'm saying based on trend.

Inefficiency would be low enough, <5% since it's <2% loss from house to car, and you're already in house system, so entire grid cost has already been paid when energy was cheap, this should still be cheaper than peak time if cost of generation/electricity form storage is high.

There's no point in arguing this, there are multiple academic papers on this already, how government implement it is discussed there, you can check up on it, whatever argument you have is probably already answered there better than I could.

Do you pay different electricity rates for peak VS off peak hours?

 

[IdlePhaedrus]

What? You know how cheap renewable is, the entire point is you can build multiple MW of solar/wind for every MW of possible coal. You're also not building these all at one point, you'd do it over a large area, wind and solar are pretty predictable then. Also, wind picks up at night, it would be very strange to have hours of no wind across the windiest areas in a place as big as South Africa. And no, you don't build wind turbines in non-windy areas.

Car batteries are set to average 300km+ range already, will keep going up. If you park your car in the evening, change of you doing a long-distance trip is minimal, drawing from your car battery instead of paying for peak electricity price, then charging again when drops in off-peak seems like a pretty easy thing to implement, since solar/wind burst is pretty cheap and storage is the expensive bit. Saying something like 10% of the battery is reserved for helping power the house during peak doesn't seem like an issue, not grid, your own house.

With batteries set to be cheaper, upping the amount of storage in a car doesn't seem like an issue.

You're arguing while batteries are still quite expensive, I'm saying based on trend.

Inefficiency would be low enough, <5% since it's <2% loss from house to car, and you're already in house system, so entire grid cost has already been paid when energy was cheap, this should still be cheaper than peak time if cost of generation/electricity form storage is high.

There's no point in arguing this, there are multiple academic papers on this already, how government implement it is discussed there, you can check up on it, whatever argument you have is probably already answered there better than I could.

I just had a couple of beers with a mate of mine in the kitchen. He builds wind turbines, which is by the by. What we talked about specifically was batteries.

His take is that every battery that is manufactured (regardless of chemistry) requires minerals (most of which are pretty nasty) that need to be dug up, and when they are done recycling is extremely difficult and expensive, and in some cases not possible. To him this is unconscionable, and just repeating the same unsustainable mistake we have made with fossil fuels in the first place.

He suggests that it is a dead end and we should be looking at and investing in Hydrogen more seriously as all that is required for its production is electricity (albeit quite a bit of it given current processes). But it is not extractive, doesn't produce any polluting by-products and so is sustainable.

He makes a compelling point. Thoughts?

 

[IdlePhaedrus]

Do you pay different electricity rates for peak VS off peak hours?

In ZA at consumer level no, but Eskom does charge the munis different rates at different times of the day and different times of the year.

In some parts of the world consumers are also charged different rates for off and on peak, which can be leveraged to their own advantage (and ultimately everyone else's).

 

[Johnatan56]

I just had a couple of beers with a mate of mine in the kitchen. He builds wind turbines, which is by the by. What we talked about specifically was batteries.

His take is that every battery that is manufactured (regardless of chemistry) requires minerals (most of which are pretty nasty) that need to be dug up, and when they are done recycling is extremely difficult and expensive, and in some cases not possible. To him this is unconscionable, and just repeating the same unsustainable mistake we have made with fossil fuels in the first place.

He suggests that it is a dead end and we should be looking at and investing in Hydrogen more seriously as all that is required for its production is electricity (albeit quite a bit of it given current processes). But it is not extractive, doesn't produce any polluting by-products and so is sustainable.

He makes a compelling point. Thoughts?

That's current battery tech, part of it is moving to being able to fully recycle it, there is a lot of research going into it and feasible solutions, issue is more bringing down cost/scaling it up to make it worthwhile.

A facile recycling and regeneration process for spent LiFePO4 batteries - Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics

In response to the potential environment pollution and energy waste caused by the increasing spent lithium iron phosphate batteries (LFPs), many recycling methods have been developed. Among previous studies, the physical recycling method has attracted numerous attention due to its uncomplicated...

link.springer.com

This is the current state of LFP for early 2020.

(PDF) Lithium iron phosphate batteries recycling: An assessment of current status

PDF | In this paper the most recent advances in lithium iron phosphate batteries recycling are presented. After discharging operations and safe... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

 

[neoprema]

Yes, almost certainly. Removing nearly a gig of power from the grid for five months is going to be painful. It will probably run over five months as well. And then it has to be done again one for unit one.

Live in Melkbos, and I have no big problem with the life extension plans. In all honesty we don't really have much of a choice.

I also know a few engineers who have been brought back from "retirement" to work on the project so am not overly concerned about the safety side of things, so expect it to be done reasonably safely.

You can have very experienced sailors on a ship, but if the Captain is blind, dumb and stupid, it's going nowhere fast.

 

[Ferog]

And some people here think we should be building more nuclear power plants

Nuclear is great for 24x7 power. Renewables can't replace nuclear and it's green.

 

[richjdavies]

In ZA at consumer level no, but Eskom does charge the munis different rates at different times of the day and different times of the year.

In some parts of the world consumers are also charged different rates for off and on peak, which can be leveraged to their own advantage (and ultimately everyone else's).

Single "Residential" consumer largely true... But even just a block of flats can opt to be on a time of use tariffs in most municipalities.

Any farm, mall or block on a fixed simple tariff should seriously look at their options as I've seen in savings of R10-50k (20-30% of bill) per month from just changing to the right tariff...

 

[Kloofvreter]

Racist much?

You gonna cry?

 

[IdlePhaedrus]

That's current battery tech, part of it is moving to being able to fully recycle it, there is a lot of research going into it and feasible solutions, issue is more bringing down cost/scaling it up to make it worthwhile.

A facile recycling and regeneration process for spent LiFePO4 batteries - Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics

In response to the potential environment pollution and energy waste caused by the increasing spent lithium iron phosphate batteries (LFPs), many recycling methods have been developed. Among previous studies, the physical recycling method has attracted numerous attention due to its uncomplicated...

link.springer.com

This is the current state of LFP for early 2020.

(PDF) Lithium iron phosphate batteries recycling: An assessment of current status

PDF | In this paper the most recent advances in lithium iron phosphate batteries recycling are presented. After discharging operations and safe... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Thanks. I will give those articles you cited a read during the week.

My personal take, which is a bit more fundamental than my mates (and I have continued with the beer), is that there are just too many people on the planet to be sustainable, and it continues to grow (regardless of shrinking populations in some jurisdictions).

Sir David Attenborough has similar views. But I like what he likes, so am a bit biased.

There is a view that we cannot simply continue to apply science to try solve problems because science often just kicks the can down the road to solve a short term problem, or is beholden to big business or the latest trend.

When I was a kid I used to see fireflies and chameleons in the garden at home. When we went to the sea the rock pools were alive and colourful.

Now I have to get in a 4x4 and go into the bush to see fireflies and chameleons. Finding a living rock pool on the coast of South Africa is rather more challenging.

I am only 52.

I don't think of myself as a tree-hugger, just crunching the numbers and personal experience.

When your kids are 52 probably the only place they will be able to see a chameleon is on screen. That is a scary thought.

 

[itareanlnotani]

Nuclear is great for 24x7 power. Renewables can't replace nuclear and it's green.

Problem is that we don't need power 24x7
We need power when we need it, and half the day we generally don't, as most people are sleeping.

A little nuclear is ok - I wouldn't build more, keeping ours going another 20 years does make sense (barely).
Nuclear is priced to run 24x7 thats why its run 24x7. It's really uneconomical to run it any other way.

Base load Nuclear is really another name for inflexible generation. It has to run, as financially its uneconomical otherwise. You can't have too much of it as it doesn't make financial sense, and any nuclear you have you need to backup with other generation on standby to kick in if it fails.

The industry is moving away from large monolithic generation to geographically spread out mixes of generation.
Sure, there will be a lot of Solar and Wind, both because they're cheap cheap, and secondly as we have some of the best Solar and Wind sites on the planet.

Existing nuclear doesn't play well with other generation - as it isn't suitable for load following - which is really what power providers are looking for, vs "base load", and new Nuclear is so expensive its not worth building.

Bit of a dead end really. At least keeping Koeberg alive another 20 years will push the eventual cleanup costs down the line, and those costs will be staggeringly expensive.

 

[Herr der Verboten]

Problem is that we don't need power 24x7
We need power when we need it, and half the day we generally don't, as most people are sleeping.

A little nuclear is ok - I wouldn't build more, keeping ours going another 20 years does make sense (barely).
Nuclear is priced to run 24x7 thats why its run 24x7. It's really uneconomical to run it any other way.

Base load Nuclear is really another name for inflexible generation. It has to run, as financially its uneconomical otherwise. You can't have too much of it as it doesn't make financial sense, and any nuclear you have you need to backup with other generation on standby to kick in if it fails.

The industry is moving away from large monolithic generation to geographically spread out mixes of generation.
Sure, there will be a lot of Solar and Wind, both because they're cheap cheap, and secondly as we have some of the best Solar and Wind sites on the planet.

Existing nuclear doesn't play well with other generation - as it isn't suitable for load following - which is really what power providers are looking for, vs "base load", and new Nuclear is so expensive its not worth building.

Bit of a dead end really. At least keeping Koeberg alive another 20 years will push the eventual cleanup costs down the line, and those costs will be staggeringly expensive.

640k Is Enough.

 

[Herr der Verboten]

Racist much?

You need tips?

 

[Progenix Oj101]

 

[C4Cat]

Nuclear is great for 24x7 power. Renewables can't replace nuclear and it's green.

Sure, maybe you're right, if you have qualified and experienced people running them for the long term and keeping them properly maintained. Consider the consequences of allowing a nuclear power plant to become run down, or of an error being made in running it, compared to the same thing happening to a wind farm or solar plant. Consider also the cost of not only building a nuclear power plant, but also the cost of maintaining it and the huge cost of decommissioning it when it reaches end of life, something which cannot be avoided safely. Finally, consider that radioactive waste can remain dangerous to humans and the environment for thousands of years and tell me again how green it is.