Frankfort energy producer's battle with Eskom

This is just so wrong on so many levels

How our government can essentially mandate a town to suffer the losses incurred by shedding

When They literally have the means not to is just criminal
 
We generate about 3.7kVA every day
Click to expand...

What does this even mean? How can you generate a rate??? Learn your units especially if you talk to the press!

Do they mean 3.7kWh? That can’t be for a town.
Maybe 3.7k kWh…as in 3,700kWh. Can’t be right either.

What the genius is actually trying to said that they have installed capacity of 3.7MWp (peak) but they need about 10MW peak at times.

But then again who knows.

Also Eskom is right to have won the judgement. Municipalities can’t just ignore NERSA regulations at will. If they want to ignore them they can simply disconnect from Eskom’s supply and do what they want (which they can’t as they don’t have enough generation capacity) but if they want to remain connected (as they must) they need to adhere to NERSA regulations just like everyone else.

Don’t know what they were trying to achieve with this. There was no legal way for Frankfort to win this judgement as what they were doing is illegal according to NERSA regulation…literally against the law.

Remember the law is the law. It doesn’t care if overall they are reducing the impact of load shedding. On paper it’s illegal.
 
leon.davibe said:
This is just so wrong on so many levels

How our government can essentially mandate a town to suffer the losses incurred by shedding

When They literally have the means not to is just criminal
Click to expand...
It's quite simple and I have to, begrudgingly, side with Eskom on this one

As per the article: “It is the fact that they are not adhering to the Code of Practice because they are not reducing their use of Eskom-supplied electricity when a system emergency is declared. The integrity of the grid remains a priority.”

You cannot dictate your own loadshedding schedule inside of peak demand when your ability to meet that demand yourself (through solar) is variable, i.e. your need to use Eskom power can vary wildly simply based on the weather. If every munic did so the safety capacity Eskom needs to maintain (currently around 2GW above peak projected demand) would need to increase = higher levels of load-shedding country wide OR the grid would be in further jeopardy of collapse.

RFS would need to invest further capital in storage solutions and can then ultimately give Eskom the finger by being totally self-reliant during load shedding periods (in which case Eskom would do the switching on their side of the entire area)
 
Last edited:
mypetcow said:
What does this even mean? How can you generate a rate??? Learn your units especially if you talk to the press!

Do they mean 3.7kWh? That can’t be for a town.
Maybe 3.7k kWh…as in 3,700kWh. Can’t be right either.

What the genius is actually trying to said that they have installed capacity of 3.7MWp (peak) but they need about 10MW peak at times.

But then again who knows.

Also Eskom is right to have won the judgement. Municipalities can’t just ignore NERSA regulations at will. If they want to ignore them they can simply disconnect from Eskom’s supply and do what they want (which they can’t as they don’t have enough generation capacity) but if they want to remain connected (as they must) they need to adhere to NERSA regulations just like everyone else.

Don’t know what they were trying to achieve with this. There was no legal way for Frankfort to win this judgement as what they were doing is illegal according to NERSA regulation…literally against the law.

Remember the law is the law. It doesn’t care if overall they are reducing the impact of load shedding. On paper it’s illegal.
Click to expand...
Yea that clarification makes sense.

It could be that they are meeting their daytime demand , and thus not shedding

ie of their daytime demand falls within their 3.7mw capacity

Peak is called peak for a reason we tend to have 2 of those morning and evening


Sure if they disconnected from eskom and instituted their own form of shedding to fit their capacity then it would be perfect

But then there probably would not have been a court case

But i assume they aren't doing that as they might still from time to time dip under that and want to have eskom present to pick up the slack, and that is why they are not separating from eskom in shedding

But then they are just intellectually dishonest , and knew that they can't really meet their need

Cause why leave the eskom connection up opening the hole for this litigation
 
leon.davibe said:
Peak is called peak for a reason we tend to have 2 of those morning and evening
Click to expand...
The thing is the two daytime demand peaks early in the morning and late afternoon when most people cook/have lights on/geysers heat/etc. most certainly don’t fall within the solar peak production which is at noon when the sun is highest in the sky.

Depending on weather that solar peak may be much much lower so that they need to import from Eskom or nobody will have power.

Remember that production==demand at all times.

IMG_1742.png
 
mypetcow said:
The thing is the two daytime demand peaks early in the morning and late afternoon when most people cook/have lights on/geysers heat/etc. most certainly don’t fall within the solar peak production which is at noon when the sun is highest in the sky.

Depending on weather that solar peak may be much much lower so that they need to import from Eskom or nobody will have power.

Remember that production==demand at all times.

View attachment 1516367
Click to expand...
yea and if they were not shedding when their production exceeded demand 9:30 am to almost 4pm
then it wont be a problem, but then they should have separated from eskom , but because they don't have battery , they didn't cause they wanted that safety shield

so like someone said begrudgingly we have to admit they are in the wrong
 
Switch off the solar panels, lol.

It doesn't work that way, my belief in anything Rural now says is shot.

No load, no generation, there is no "off".
 
They've explained why they can't exempt the town, mainly cause renewables don't always perform and when it doesn't it needs to come from somewhere
 
Lupus said:
Nope they don't generate enough to be cut off from Eskom, therefore they can't be exempt.
Click to expand...
Don't let common sense and understanding get in the way of a good story/Eskom rant

Username: said:
Please please Jan fix your article the numbers are all wrong. You don't even understand the difference between power (kVA) and energy ( kWh)

7kVA as mentioned in the article is what a home generator can do
Click to expand...
Have you considered that its a direct quote and the person being quoted or the source (Sunday Times) may be completely clueless?
 
deweyzeph said:
If the people ranting against Eskom actually bothered to read the article properly they would see that Eskom is actually in the right over this.
Click to expand...
Nope rather rant
 
deweyzeph said:
If the people ranting against Eskom actually bothered to read the article properly they would see that Eskom is actually in the right over this.
Click to expand...
In typical modern journalistic fashion the title and first paragraph or two are designed to paint a certain narrative guaranteed to get people clicking/enraged enough to comment.

In typical modern reader fashion few get past the title, fewer get past the first paragraph and a small minority actually read and can comprehend the entire article.

Now take a subject as complex as power and as emotional as the Eskom situation and you have perfect storm for mindless ranting.
 
Eskom's view actually makes sense when you look deeper into it. To avoid load shedding they need some sort of dispatchable energy storage that can meet the shortfall when Eskom calls for load shedding. Cape Town does this with Steenbras
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter