I know how to get rid of Load Shedding.

[ellyally]

Yes it seems I have come up with something that already exists (only on a per-household basis not by city)

Why wouldn't this work on a bigger scale though? it could be implemented by Eskom today, without needing to install millions of user devices.
I mean, surely if your town gets cut you will switch off some stuff at least? Especially when it cuts again and you have to sit for another 30 minutes without power. and then another hour. then two.

I really think there is no incentive with the current system. With this new load limiting system there is, even if it functions on a bigger scale.

It could work, just comes down to buy in from people, which is where the problem is, not everyone cares to 'save'. If power goes off, they have backups to last them days. There is no incentives for them, regardless of implemented system. Load shedding does not affect them.

Edit: The only big issue that was brought up by many in previous discussion with systems like load limiting and your concept here is the frequent 'on/off' of electronic goods. It need to be handled properly, sufficient warning etc. Something needs to be done to implement it properly. Electronics will be frying in no time

 

[durbandave]

I think individual monitoring is far better and more fair than the city by city option. Don't see why I should be punished while I am actually using very little electricity, while my neighbors next door have pretty much every light in their house burning most of the night. Doesn't seem fair to me. If individual they could shut my neighbors off and leave me.

 

[Johnatan56]

Might I also interject with size of the household?
A house where only one guy lives will most likely use less power than a house with 5 people living in it. What are your plans for that? Will you force the large household to curb enough so they are the average and let the man living alone use as much power as he wants (he has excess)?

I really don't like that system, we are also all paying for electricity by how much we use, it isn't an all-you-can-eat buffet.

 

[quovadis]

That's cool but requires everyone to have this device. Could take a very long time to be implemented in every house (...and a lot of money, too)

My solution could be implemented today.

I think you have too much faith in the masses. Hardly anyone knows what their instantaneous usage is nor how to cut it down besides switching off geysers and lights and it would be human nature to hope for everyone else to cutdown before doing so themselves. The majority of ESKOMs industry and large consumption users already are on a system of managing their loads based on ESKOMs requirements.

The easiest way to reduce demand is to increase the price albeit at a specific level depending on the household. This doesn't mean that electricity pricing should increase across the board but increase according to a scale at higher usage levels. ie. Some sort of penalty pricing on the average household should they exceed a predetermined usage level which is deemed to be excessive for a residential property of a specific size etc. This will incentivise consumers to at least check their meters and cutdown as much as possible.

Of course this is also dependant on collection of fees and enforcement.

 

[Foxhound5366]

The problem with any bottom-up system is that it's grossly inefficient. Yes you want to encourage people to save electricity at a household level, but you might easily end up saving too much electricity ... which is wasted, unless you have battery systems.

The most efficient solution is to dynamically distribute 100% of the current distribution capacity equitably to individual households - the challenge is, how do you identify how much to give which users?

I think that inventions like the Tesla power wall are the solution. Each household will have its own battery system, storing power whenever the national supplier can provide it, and each household can then control their own usage of whatever they received.

This allows all households to draw off the maximum of electricity available while its available - linked to how rapidly their batteries can recharge. Bigger families who want more electricity during 'off periods' will need to invest into more expensive battery systems.

There's a whole lucrative industry there for enterprising companies.

 

[bwana]

I think that inventions like the Tesla power wall are the solution. Each household will have its own battery system, storing power whenever the national supplier can provide it, and each household can then control their own usage of whatever they received.

I don't - at least not the way you're describing. Paying tens of thousands of rand that you will never recover seems like a waste to me. Maybe if they switch to a two tier system and you charge it off peak, or you charge it via a solar array, then one day, in the distant future you might have made it worth it.

The only thing that is going to prevent load shedding is added capacity. The country is using less power now than it did back in 2007 and in that time Eskom even added 5 000MW of capacity.

 

[Foxhound5366]

I don't - at least not the way you're describing. Paying tens of thousands of rand that you will never recover seems like a waste to me. Maybe if they switch to a two tier system and you charge it off peak, or you charge it via a solar array, then one day, in the distant future you might have made it worth it.

The only thing that is going to prevent load shedding is added capacity. The country is using less power now than it did back in 2007.

These things get dirt cheap with enough scale. It won't work on a household-by-household basis of course, but with serious commitment from national government and subsidised infrastructure linked to the number of tax payers in each household, I reckon we'll be on our way to a solution.

For how much longer are we going to keep on relying on ageing infrastructure than can get interrupted at any time? We'll have to build up buffers against that.

 

[Keeper]

I think individual monitoring is far better and more fair than the city by city option.

I agree, Of course it is. but do you understand that it means everyone must now have a device? That kind of rollout will take years.
My Sollution is not perfect, but it's better than forced power outs.

Don't see why I should be punished while I am actually using very little electricity, while my neighbors next door have pretty much every light in their house burning most of the night. Doesn't seem fair to me. If individual they could shut my neighbors off and leave me.

Again, yes it's not perfect like on a house by house basis, but at least it's better than EVERYONE getting punished every damn day.
At least you don't get punished if Durban users over-use, if your hometown, George, is trying to save power.


Does nobody understand that there is no incentive right now, and with my idea, even if it's by a city by city basis, there is at least SOME incentive?
That has got to count for something.

If your city doesn't follow the rules then sorry. at least the rest of us power savers will have power. That's just how it is.
Your stupid city and neighbors will sit without power until you get your act together. simple as that.

I honestly believe people will start shutting their own stuff down if they're sitting without any power after 3 hours.
Once people realise that if they all just follow the rules, there is power, people will start following the rules all by themselves. because they have the incentive to.

My system will force people to. because the longer people don't shut down stuff, the longer they just remain without power. people will get that picture pretty quickly.

 

[The_Traveller]

I like this idea Keeper. I would totally try and do some load balancing if need be.

 

[ellyally]

Does nobody understand that there is no incentive right now, and with my idea, even if it's by a city by city basis, there is at least SOME incentive?
That has got to count for something.

I think most agree there is no incentive currently, and I don't see there ever will be. When load shedding first came about, there was a desperate need by all to save. It was new. It was horrible. Most people did their best. Now though, years later, it just irritates people. Its infuriating. The anger is in the air. You can taste it. There is no incentive. There never was. People get that now. Regardless of how much you turn off, you still get load shed. Those who can afford it have made alternative arrangements, genies etc. The more people able to mitigate load shedding, the less people save, they have no need to, if it goes off, they're covered. I don't see any system, yours or anything anyone else comes up with will encourage people to save. Too many broken promises, wasted monies and corrupt officials. There can be no incentive when dealing with the powers that be. Current trend is the less we use, the more we pay, the less Eskom can deliver, the more they charge. We're screwed no matter which way we look at it.

That said though, I'm will to try anything to stay online.... send it off to the 'war room' and hopefully they'll try it

Edit: One thing I would change though is move it from city level to town/area level. That way, RA's and such can whip the residents into place, i.e., more foot soldiers on the ground implementing it vs a mayor in a city, just a thought

 

[Keeper]

I would totally try and do some load balancing if need be.

Yep.

As it is now, I really don't care about power usage.
With this system though, I would definitely start turning things off. Maybe not the first time it trips, but once we hit 30 minutes between checks or 1 hour, you can bet your ass I would start turning things off. quickly.


I'd prefer living with 80% power 24 hours a day..... than NO power for 2 or 5 hours of the day, and 100% the rest.

 

[Keeper]

I don't see any system, yours or anything anyone else comes up with will encourage people to save.

You telling me there is no incentive for you to switch off some appliances/etc when the power of your entire town has been cut, that won't get power again until everyone manages to switch off enough?

It's not about saving power... we can all use power and eskom wants us to use power. We just shouldn't go over their CAPACITY.
Everyone can use as much as they want, as long as it doesn't strain the system too much. if it does, it simply trips and you have 15 minutes to fix.

I believe power could be balanced much more effectively this way.

 

[ellyally]

You telling me there is no incentive for you to switch off some appliances/etc when the power of your entire town has been cut, that won't get power again until everyone manages to switch off enough?

It's not about saving power... we can all use power and eskom wants us to use power. We just shouldn't go over their CAPACITY.
Everyone can use as much as they want, as long as it doesn't strain the system too much. if it does, it simply trips and you have 15 minutes to fix.

I believe power could be balanced much more effectively this way.

What I'm saying is, here I sit with nothing on other than my pc and fridge. I look outside and see e.g. neighbours drive way. Enough lighting to watch a day/night match. I could go and catch a tan if I wanted. No amount of begging/pleading/threatening is ever going to change it. Those lights are on permanently. When power goes out, his backup comes on and they turn on again. He doesn't care that his contribution to load just cost us all stage one. He's not in the dark. No system will change that. See what I mean?

Just to add... your system, you thinking about everyone in the country, and trying to solve it for every one. When I and others like me save (and I honestly do my best), we think of every body. If every one does a little, no load shedding. But sadly, millions, like my neighbour, don't see the bigger picture.

 

[Keeper]

What I'm saying is, here I sit with nothing on other than my pc and fridge. I look outside and see e.g. neighbours drive way. Enough lighting to watch a day/night match. I could go and catch a tan if I wanted. No amount of begging/pleading/threatening is ever going to change it. Those lights are on permanently. When power goes out, his backup comes on and they turn on again. He doesn't care that his contribution to load just cost us all stage one. He's not in the dark. No system will change that. See what I mean?

Just to add... your system, you thinking about everyone in the country, and trying to solve it for every one. When I and others like me save (and I honestly do my best), we think of every body. If every one does a little, no load shedding. But sadly, millions, like my neighbour, don't see the bigger picture.

People will be rocking up at his house very quickly if all his stuff is on like that, after the 5th time the power trips and doesn't turn on.

Right now people can only blame the schedule if it goes off, nothing else. and then they must sit without power for hours.
In my system people can at least do something.

 

[ellyally]

People will be rocking up at his house very quickly if all his stuff is on like that, after the 5th time the power trips and doesn't turn on.

Right now people can only blame the schedule if it goes off, nothing else. and then they must sit without power for hours.
In my system people can at least do something.

 

[grok]

Or simply vote for the DA next year..

 

[Chris14]

I know a lot of places waste a hell lot of unnecessary electricity. Shopping Malls once all the shops are closed etc
We should start complaining about them leaving the lights on! In fact take pics as proof and post them on so someone will take action.

 

[Swa]

Won't work.

First of all load shedding isn't about people using more than their capacity. Eskom has enough capacity for everybody. The problem comes in when Eskom can't manage their generation capacity. Are you then still going to load shed people even though they are are within their allotted capacity but Eskom just can't manage it? What if they are over their capacity but Eskom has the spare generation capacity to accommodate them?

You'll have to implement it when load shedding is needed. Meaning you'll have to target the areas using the most power. People just aren't going to know when it's them. Sure you can notify them but are people going to necessary comply or just wait for the other guy to do it? What if people aren't home but their geysers are on? If you get shed while you only have a tv and a few lights on the system isn't any fairer than it currently is and I suspect some areas will just get shed even more than currently because of usage patterns.

The only way something like this could work is on an individual basis. When load shedding is needed the top electricity users get notified to reduce usage as much as possible. If they don't do it within x minutes they get cut for an hour. If they do it they fall down the ladder and those that were below them get notified. That way it becomes a competition and if usage is reduced enough nobody gets cut.

 

[Keeper]

Won't work. First of all load shedding isn't about people using more than their capacity. Eskom has enough capacity for everybody. The problem comes in when Eskom can't manage their generation capacity.

Splitting by city and giving them an allowed MW value is easier to manage than trying to manage the whole country at once and switching off different places at different times.
I just have to know my own schedule and even that is too difficult because it changes every day. It also varies depending whether we are on stage 1, 2 or 3.

Are you then still going to load shed people even though they are are within their allotted capacity but Eskom just can't manage it?

If Eskom did something wrong and the power gets cut, yeah. Sure Eskom could mismanage and people could get cut wrongly - doesn't mean my whole idea is flawed.

What if they are over their capacity but Eskom has the spare generation capacity to accommodate them?

If they have spare capacity it could be split between the cities that need it, perhaps.

You'll have to implement it when load shedding is needed. Meaning you'll have to target the areas using the most power. People just aren't going to know when it's them. Sure you can notify them but are people going to necessary comply or just wait for the other guy to do it? What if people aren't home but their geysers are on?

Um, they will know it's them because their power just went out?
I think most will comply. They will be forced to. And if they don't, I don't give a rats ass - not my problem it's theirs.

If you get shed while you only have a tv and a few lights on the system isn't any fairer than it currently is and I suspect some areas will just get shed even more than currently because of usage patterns.

It's fairer for the rest of the country. We don't need to sit without power cause Sandton thinks they can leave everything on.

The only way something like this could work is on an individual basis. When load shedding is needed the top electricity users get notified to reduce usage as much as possible. If they don't do it within x minutes they get cut for an hour. If they do it they fall down the ladder and those that were below them get notified. That way it becomes a competition and if usage is reduced enough nobody gets cut.

As I've said before: Agreed. this is a pipe dream however, and will take years and a lot of money. my Idea could be implemented relatively soon.




It's really simple.
You have a party with 10 people showing up. You have R800. Do you hire 8 seats for R100 each and play musical chairs with your friends, with 2 sitting on the floor every two hours.....
....or do you hire 10 slightly smaller but cheaper chairs at R80 each and have everyone sitting all the time, just slightly less comfortable?

 

[Swa]

Splitting by city and giving them an allowed MW value is easier to manage than trying to manage the whole country at once and switching off different places at different times.
I just have to know my own schedule and even that is too difficult because it changes every day. It also varies depending whether we are on stage 1, 2 or 3.

There's a reason for stage 1,2,3 and now 4. It's dependent on how much the shortage of generation capacity is and not on giving each area an arbitrary allotment even when not necessary.

If Eskom did something wrong and the power gets cut, yeah. Sure Eskom could mismanage and people could get cut wrongly - doesn't mean my whole idea is flawed.

It relies on people not using too much. That is not what load shedding is. People are saving more now than they did in 2007 when electricity was abundant and cheap but generation capacity is less. So Eskom IS doing something wrong which results in power being cut.

Um, they will know it's them because their power just went out?
I think most will comply. They will be forced to. And if they don't, I don't give a rats ass - not my problem it's theirs.

Their power will go out exactly because they didn't know. So inadvertently it actually becomes your problem.

It's fairer for the rest of the country. We don't need to sit without power cause Sandton thinks they can leave everything on.

It's not going to be fair on an individual level. Sandton is also on a schedule unless there's some critical infrastructure. Your usage affects them just as much as theirs affects yours. The whole problem with the current system is it relies on luck of the draw in a stacked deck so it's not equitable. You know you're not on a schedule for likely load shedding today so no need to save while piet pompies is on a schedule to get cut no matter what so no need to save.

Like I said a lot of times already there needs to be a load shedding debt so areas that didn't get cut now get cut next time. That way everyone gets a turn and the more power is used the more frequent it becomes. Gives people a reason to save and the more you save the less frequent it becomes therefor giving you something for your trouble.