More Eskom lies?

M

Moederloos

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
12,476
Reaction score
5
Location
1984
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2290232,00.html

He said Tuesday's expected power usage peak was 32 000 MW, when Eskom could only produce about 30 000 MW.
Click to expand...

30 000? Thought it was 38000?

Anyways, let us assume the 30 000 is after taking into consideration the downed generators.
That is 8000 less than the maximum. We use 32 000 on a "big day". So, where is the crisis? If our stations were operating effectively, we would have plenty of power?

What is going on here?

It is pointless telling us to "save 10%" when the output constantly falls! What next? Output of 28000? 26000? 20000?
 
And this lie :

The causes for the trips varied and were not due to lack of maintenance, but to technical problems, he said.
Click to expand...

Lets hear what these "technical problems" are - I bet they'll never attempt to explain these because it is in fact due to sh1tty maintenance.

How can we find out if they are still supplying the neighbours while giving us the chop?
 
Moederloos said:
Yeah - but even so - there is no capacity problem if we use only 32000 - the problem is in piss poor maintenance.
Click to expand...

Well, generator failure is part of the maintenance issue... Thats why we appear to have lost 8000Mw.
 
Moederloos said:
Yeah - but even so - there is no capacity problem if we use only 32000 - the problem is in piss poor maintenance.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Whats the point when the new power stations are built only to break down thanks to **** maintenance :o
 
timgaul said:
Well, generator failure is part of the maintenance issue... Thats why we appear to have lost 8000Mw.
Click to expand...

Let me try again. :D

Assuming we had no maintenance issues - then we would have 38 000?
We used 32 000 - and on a day when it is claimed usage increased due to weather.

Now, if we can produce 38000, and a "big" day uses 32000 - then where is the crisis? Why must we "save 10%" ?

Something does not add up.
 
Moederloos said:
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2290232,00.html



30 000? Thought it was 38000?

Anyways, let us assume the 30 000 is after taking into consideration the downed generators.
That is 8000 less than the maximum. We use 32 000 on a "big day". So, where is the crisis? If our stations were operating effectively, we would have plenty of power?

What is going on here?

It is pointless telling us to "save 10%" when the output constantly falls! What next? Output of 28000? 26000? 20000?
Click to expand...

When I left to work abroad early 1997 at the time Eiskom had the big white-out (now we have the big black-outs) the generating capacity was around 38 000 MW which was about the same as Korea. Korea since then has added 9 200 MW in coal fired units that I know of (they had many nuclear units built in that time as well)

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_South_Korea
Total power generation capacity was 57 gigawatts (GW) as of the beginning of 2003. The South Korean government estimates that its electricity demand will rise at an average annual rate of around 4 percent per year through 2015.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea
Eight more plants are planned to come on stream in the period 2010 to 2016, adding 9.4 GWe total. Some construction is underway as of 2007.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Moederloos said:
Let me try again. :D

Assuming we had no maintenance issues - then we would have 38 000?
We used 32 000 - and on a day when it is claimed usage increased due to weather.

Now, if we can produce 38000, and a "big" day uses 32000 - then where is the crisis? Why must we "save 10%" ?

Something does not add up.
Click to expand...

10% = Zimbabwe power needs. Elections happening next week, must assure people the government is working for the people. :D
 
Moederloos said:
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2290232,00.html



30 000? Thought it was 38000?

Anyways, let us assume the 30 000 is after taking into consideration the downed generators.
That is 8000 less than the maximum. We use 32 000 on a "big day". So, where is the crisis? If our stations were operating effectively, we would have plenty of power?

What is going on here?

It is pointless telling us to "save 10%" when the output constantly falls! What next? Output of 28000? 26000? 20000?
Click to expand...

We have 56 generators.
9 are down for maintenance.
9 tripped.
Leaves us with 38.

Each generator supplies 789 Mw on average to produce 30 000 MW.

If all the 56 generators are working,it would then generate 44 210 MW.

We still have lots to export!
And a nice reserve margin.

Somebody is lying. BIGTIME!
 
What I do not understand is why these numbers are not questioned?
I am certainly not claiming to be the brightest crayon in the box, but neither am I an idiot. There have got to be people that realize the same things do not add up.
 
Moederloos said:
What I do not understand is why these numbers are not questioned?
I am certainly not claiming to be the brightest crayon in the box, but neither am I an idiot. There have got to be people that realize the same things do not add up.
Click to expand...

Because it would make bugger all difference? Eskom would just find another way to blame the consumer? "Because you bought and paid for electricity, the generators couldn't handle and tripped."
 
Piepalook said:
Wet coal.
Too much fines in the mix.
Won't burn.
Click to expand...

To much fines, yes. Wet coal, no. It has been said that wet coal is no more difficult to burn than dry coal. Secondly, was there some special Apartheid machine that kept the rain away from the Witbank area all year round? Apparently the National Party government never had wet coal. Its a relatively new problem, this rain thing.

Oh, and who is too blame for too much fines?
 
timgaul said:
Because it would make bugger all difference?
Click to expand...

I suppose.
Just annoys the carp out of me, is all.

Figures never add up - any two sentences uttered are factually different, and we are told to "cough up".
 
Piepalook said:
Wet coal.
Too much fines in the mix.
Won't burn.
Click to expand...

SA's power plants are designed to use very low grade coal and wet coal should not present a problem (it didn't 10 years ago).
The fines are also no problem because the coal is ground ground in the mills before admission to the boilers.

Just dumb ass lies from dimwits in Eiskom.
 
timgaul said:
To much fines, yes. Wet coal, no. It has been said that wet coal is no more difficult to burn than dry coal. Secondly, was there some special Apartheid machine that kept the rain away from the Witbank area all year round? Apparently the National Party government never had wet coal. Its a relatively new problem, this rain thing.

Oh, and who is too blame for too much fines?
Click to expand...

Wet coal gets blamed:
http://www.fin24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?ArticleId=1518-25_2290154
 
Piepalook said:
Wet coal gets blamed:
http://www.fin24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?ArticleId=1518-25_2290154
Click to expand...

Experts have stated that this is not a problem. In fact, wet coal burns just as well as dry coal.

Eskom loves it when it rains because they can place the blame on wet coal. And this was all good and well for a while, until they had the same problems during the sunny summer months. Then they blamed the lack of coal, conveyor belts, etc, etc. Always looking for an excuse.

And I'll ask this again: was there not wet coal 20/15/10 years ago, if so, why was it not a problem then?
 
timgaul said:
Experts have stated that this is not a problem. In fact, wet coal burns just as well as dry coal.

Eskom loves it when it rains because they can place the blame on wet coal. And this was all good and well for a while, until they had the same problems during the sunny summer months. Then they blamed the lack of coal, conveyor belts, etc, etc. Always looking for an excuse.

And I'll ask this again: was there not wet coal 20/15/10 years ago, if so, why was it not a problem then?
Click to expand...

It's this new coal that is being produced - not up to the same standards.
O - wait, coal is millions of years old.
Uhm..
:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X