Electricity crisis isn't going anywhere: expert

Shayd said:
Using photovoltaic's to power a geyser is wildly inefficient. Consider a solar geyser.
Click to expand...
Solar geysers suffer from the same problem as the PV cells... no sun = cold water. In winter they can barely make it.
I work with renewable energy for a living, so I am in a position to know.

In terms of solar water heaters, a lot of them are all smoke and mirrors. Ones that work are imported (because as usual, locals are too useless to come up with this tech on their own) but they battle in winter, and if it rains for a week you're screwed.
Gas water heaters are the best solution.
 
But as long as the people blame Eskom and not the government, the chances of getting a better Caesar are even worse, because the current one escapes blame.
Click to expand...

That, and stupid people who vote them into power perpetually because they fall for the same promises every 5 years.
 
I don't want to deflect this into an alternative energy discussion, but one last comment about water heating and PV. My combination of solar PV and (air) heatpump means I can generate hot water with about a third of the electrical energy required by a normal kettle-element geyser. Decent insulation on the 300-litre copper geyser adds to heat retention.
 
In order to achieve competition, Eskom needs to be split into 2 companies - Generation and Transmission. If this is done, independant operators / international companies can come contriubute to the generation.

I also think the entire Eskom executive should be fired. To try and build the largest ever dy-cooled coal plant when you haven't built a power plant in 25 years is just stupid...
Surely it would be better to build smaller plants first that use readily available technology and parts so that they could ease the grid and get experience with building power plants before trying to tackle such major projects.
 
Arthur said:
Totally agree.

Eskom did a brilliant job for decades whilst it operated as a self-owned (not state-owned) independent utility since 1923.

There's a history. The Electricity Act was amended after the ANC came to power, and Eskom was effectively nationalised. Most people do not realise that Eskom was NOT state-owned since 1923. My uncle, an electrical engineer, was head of both Generation and Transmission at the time, and he and others on the Eskom management board strenuously opposed the nationalisation, but of course lost.

It's all been downhill since then.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Not only wrong, but backwards. Eskom was established in 1923 as the Electricity Supply Commission (ESCOM) by the government of South Africa in terms of the Electricity Act (1922). It was state owned and state funded.
The South African government attempted privatisation of Eskom in the late 1990s - because of this, Eskom's requests for a government budget to build new stations were denied. Which started us on the slippery slopedownhill.
 
Koosi said:
Solar geysers suffer from the same problem as the PV cells... no sun = cold water. In winter they can barely make it.
I work with renewable energy for a living, so I am in a position to know.

In terms of solar water heaters, a lot of them are all smoke and mirrors. Ones that work are imported (because as usual, locals are too useless to come up with this tech on their own) but they battle in winter, and if it rains for a week you're screwed.
Gas water heaters are the best solution.
Click to expand...

Do you live in Cape Town (or WC), as this is the only place where you won't get efficient sun in the winter in my opinion.

I have a solar geyser, and the only problem I have is my water getting too hot. Here in Jhb we get a lot of sun in winter, more than in summer, but less intense I guess. It has been raining non stop since end of Feb, but my water gets heated up to atleast 45 degrees every day and there were almost no sun out. We had more than twice the amount of rain in the first week of March than we normally get in the whole of March.

No sun != cold water. It means warm, just not hot enough for more than 2 people in my household. And most of the solar geysers I looked at had the option to heat with the element.
 
these lazy clowns don't see the need for maintenance so why spend money on something thats not broken, cANCer mentallity
 
joelus said:
This is not true. Not only wrong, but backwards. Eskom was established in 1923 as the Electricity Supply Commission (ESCOM) by the government of South Africa in terms of the Electricity Act (1922). It was state owned and state funded.
The South African government attempted privatisation of Eskom in the late 1990s - because of this, Eskom's requests for a government budget to build new stations were denied. Which started us on the slippery slopedownhill.
Click to expand...
No, the 1922 Act never established Escom/Evkom (as it them was) as state-owned. It was a independent utility erected by statute. It had no shares, and it was NOT state-owned because there was no equity to be owned. Its assets were its own and not on any state resgister. The view that Escom (later Eskom) was state-owned is an almost universal myth.

The ANC government effectively brought Eskom under State control with legislation that created equity and then deemed the state as the sole owner - this was in preparation for a planned "privatisation". Until the equity was created in 1996, there was no equity to privatise.

Much the same thing happened to universities in SA. Kadar Asmal ruined tertiary education by 'nationalising' universities. Each university, too, was established by an individual statute, creating the legal persona as independent of the state.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
No, the 1922 Act never established Escom/Evkom (as it them was) as state-owned. It was a independent utility erected by statute. It had no shares, and it was NOT state-owned because there was no equity to be owned. Its assets were its own and not on any state resgister. The view that Escom (later Eskom) was state-owned is an almost universal myth.

The ANC government effectively brought Eskom under State control with legislation that created equity and then deemed the state as the sole owner - this was in preparation for a planned "privatisation". Until the equity was created in 1996, there was no equity to privatise.
Click to expand...

Who paid for setting up the infrastructure? Who paid the salaries of Eskom employees?
 
joelus said:
Who paid for setting up the infrastructure? Who paid the salaries of Eskom employees?
Click to expand...
It went to the market and raised bonds privately. Like any other private venture with a similar non-equity structure. Not one cent of taxpayers money went into Escom/Evkom.

There was a time when market reports regularly quoted Escom bonds. Remember that?
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
It went to the market and raised bonds privately. Like any other private venture with a similar non-equity structure. Not one cent of taxpayers money went into Escom/Evkom.

There was a time when market reports regularly quoted Escom bonds. Remember that?
Click to expand...

Yes, they were bonds which were guaranteed by the Government of South Africa. They still exist

You get government bonds too. I guess that means the government is a private company too?
 
Last edited:
No govt is not a private company. Bonds don't make things private, they're just an instrument agnostic about public/private. But in our Keynesian world governments often provide guarantees for private companies they deem to be strategic/pals. Things eased off after the Reagan/Thatcher semi-revolution, but it still happens these days.
 
Last edited:
me_ said:
... To try and build the largest ever dy-cooled coal plant when you haven't built a power plant in 25 years is just stupid...
Surely it would be better to build smaller plants first that use readily available technology and parts so that they could ease the grid and get experience with building power plants before trying to tackle such major projects.
Click to expand...

Or just appoint a competent and experienced team and consultants. All mega projects are implemented that way. Very few clients build infrastructure of this scale more than once in 25 years. Eskom's mistake was to try and project manage the whole thing by themselves.
 
Skerminkel said:
Or just appoint a competent and experienced team and consultants. All mega projects are implemented that way. Very few clients build infrastructure of this scale more than once in 25 years. Eskom's mistake was to try and project manage the whole thing by themselves.
Click to expand...

The point is that there was no need for it to be mega. Whenevr you have someone pushing for the largest anything in the world, it's going to come with unforseen complications. If you follow what those before have done, you can learn from their mistakes.
 
me_ said:
In order to achieve competition, Eskom needs to be split into 2 companies - Generation and Transmission. If this is done, independant operators / international companies can come contriubute to the generation.

I also think the entire Eskom executive should be fired. To try and build the largest ever dy-cooled coal plant when you haven't built a power plant in 25 years is just stupid...
Surely it would be better to build smaller plants first that use readily available technology and parts so that they could ease the grid and get experience with building power plants before trying to tackle such major projects.
Click to expand...

Privatising any part of our electricity supply would drive prices up.
 
me_ said:
The point is that there was no need for it to be mega. Whenevr you have someone pushing for the largest anything in the world, it's going to come with unforseen complications. If you follow what those before have done, you can learn from their mistakes.
Click to expand...

No, the scale factor makes a large power station much more effective. You don't pay school fees by building small power plants. That would be a spectacular waste of money. You appoint a team of good managers and then bring in people from all over the world who builds power plants for a living. Eskom never tried to form its own construction team construct the plant or manufacture turbines. Why do they do it with engineers and construction managers? You get the best people to implement the project for you, pay them and send them on their way when it is all done. Eskom is an electricity generation and distribution company. Not a plant builder.
 
Skerminkel said:
No, the scale factor makes a large power station much more effective. You don't pay school fees by building small power plants. That would be a spectacular waste of money. You appoint a team of good managers and then bring in people from all over the world who builds power plants for a living. Eskom never tried to form its own construction team construct the plant or manufacture turbines. Why do they do it with engineers and construction managers? You get the best people to implement the project for you, pay them and send them on their way when it is all done. Eskom is an electricity generation and distribution company. Not a plant builder.
Click to expand...

Economies of scale has limits. There is a point at which it ends up being more expensive to go larger. Generally when you start with "World's Largest...", you are at that point.
 
me_ said:
I didn't say privatisation. I said 2 independant companies...
Click to expand...
I don't understand. Do you mean two independent state owned companies? That makes no sense, so I assume that's not what you mean! What's the difference between privatisation and having two independent companies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X