More power blackouts coming

[Unhappy1]

If it is possible to do the abovementioned you can generate maximum power with minimal input.

Thermodynamics, research that and you will see why it cant be done.

 

[LaraC]

Thermodynamics, research that and you will see why it cant be done.

Thanks for the advice but I don’t see how thermodynamics can play a role here.
A motor will drive the generators and there isn’t gas or heat involved.
I shall research thermodynamics though.

 

[Johnatan56]

Thanks for the advice but I don’t see how thermodynamics can play a role here.
A motor will drive the generators and there isn’t gas or heat involved.
I shall research thermodynamics though.

There will always be loss to heat, therefore the energy you put into the system will be less than what comes out.
This makes your idea defunct.

 

[Unhappy1]

Thanks for the advice but I don’t see how thermodynamics can play a role here.
A motor will drive the generators and there isn’t gas or heat involved.
I shall research thermodynamics though.

Its the same principle, you cant expect more energy out than what you put in. In fact it will work the other way around, you will get less because of energy lost through heat and friction etc.

 

[LaraC]

There will always be loss to heat, therefore the energy you put into the system will be less than what comes out.
This makes your idea defunct.

Its the same principle, you cant expect more energy out than what you put in. In fact it will work the other way around, you will get less because of energy lost through heat and friction etc.

Thanks, I didn’t know that but now I do.

 

[jetlee]

The only way out of this mess is to use the peer to peer model for power, ie allowing households / micro producers to feed into the grid. This will allow micro generators of electricity to relieve grid pressure, allowing more time for maintenance etc. The model needs to be changed.. we need to encourage people to fork out for solar panels / wind generators etc, because building a 10KW power generation setup at my home or having a farmer trying to boost his income, by creating small wind farms on spare land, is faster and less complicated than the "build new power stations" conundrum, and translates into a small profit for people willing to fork out for greener power.

Multiply this by a few 100 thousand people, and your 4000MW shortfall, looks a lot more managable, and we might be able to keep the wolves at bay, long enough to get the big power stations built / maintained and back online.

 

[znh]

You just said it will take 20 years and now you're saying 40, make up your mind.

Let me clariyfy: In theory it should take 20 years to build a nuclear reactor in a developed country where corruption is frowned upon.
With Eskom's track record I will give them 40 years... (but I might be optimistic here). Even coal is estimated by Eskom to take 10 years (which they are already a couple of years behind).

The speed of development depends on the cost of energy and the ability to derive profit.
With oil costing $100 as a base cost for energy, there was a lot of reasearch into optimising/lessen waste (and developing alternative energy sources like natural gas).
With the current cost of oil about $55 you can expect that a lot of research will be stopped, there is simply no money to be made.
Even extracting gas is not profitable at current prices.
If oil where to cost $200-$250 then you can expect that someone like Elon Musk will develop the technology, and if not him them someone else... but you need someone that is ambitious enough to do the unthinkable.

I think building nuclear is a waste of money and time because it takes so long. By the time it is finished it will already be made obsolete by better technology. For now we need a short term plan... the only one I can think of is allowing private households to generate from renewables and feeding excess into the grid (net metering) like someone already mentioned, then there is disconnecting the illegal connections (also mentioned), and becoming more energy efficient (solar geysers/heartpumps/CFL lighting)

I predict energy prices will sky rocket again in the next 5 years, which will speed up the research and development. People are addicted to energy and that will be exploited. Information and energy is the currency of the future.

 

[Compton_effect]

To do that we'd need to get rid of NERSA. And Eskom. Do you really think they are going to tolerate any competition?

But on that note:
Elon Musk is actually doing a AMA on Reddit tonight and I've already asked if there are plans to expand Solar City's operations to other countries, including SA.

 

[znh]

The only way out of this mess is to use the peer to peer model for power, ie allowing households / micro producers to feed into the grid. This will allow micro generators of electricity to relieve grid pressure, allowing more time for maintenance etc. The model needs to be changed.. we need to encourage people to fork out for solar panels / wind generators etc, because building a 10KW power generation setup at my home or having a farmer trying to boost his income, by creating small wind farms on spare land, is faster and less complicated than the "build new power stations" conundrum, and translates into a small profit for people willing to fork out for greener power.

Multiply this by a few 100 thousand people, and your 4000MW shortfall, looks a lot more managable, and we might be able to keep the wolves at bay, long enough to get the big power stations built / maintained and back online.

+1

Someone that gets it.

 

[Unhappy1]

Let me clariyfy: In theory it should take 20 years to build a nuclear reactor in a developed country where corruption is frowned upon.
With Eskom's track record I will give them 40 years... (but I might be optimistic here). Even coal is estimated by Eskom to take 10 years (which they are already a couple of years behind).

Thats not true, construction time is generally around 8 years for nuclear whilst coal is about 4 years. I think having nuclear by 2035 in South Africa is realistic.

 

[Sinbad]

Thats not true, construction time is generally around 8 years for nuclear whilst coal is about 4 years. I think having nuclear by 2035 in South Africa is realistic.

No. Coal is usually 10 years for a 6 pack station.

 

[Bern]

The only way out of this mess is to use the peer to peer model for power, ie allowing households / micro producers to feed into the grid. This will allow micro generators of electricity to relieve grid pressure, allowing more time for maintenance etc. The model needs to be changed.. we need to encourage people to fork out for solar panels / wind generators etc, because building a 10KW power generation setup at my home or having a farmer trying to boost his income, by creating small wind farms on spare land, is faster and less complicated than the "build new power stations" conundrum, and translates into a small profit for people willing to fork out for greener power.

Multiply this by a few 100 thousand people, and your 4000MW shortfall, looks a lot more managable, and we might be able to keep the wolves at bay, long enough to get the big power stations built / maintained and back online.

That would be awesome, I can imagine a lot of farmers doing intensive animal farming such as a piggery being able to substitute their income quite handsomely with this - provided NERSA allow for a decent buy rate that is.

I know there were some small gov projects where they were supposed to use anaerobic digesters to provide electricity for small communities - I haven't seen any info on how those projects went though.

Our sewerage plants could very easily be retrofitted to capture methane as a simple option and would offset the costs they have at the same time not to mention contain the "perfume" from the surrounding environment.

 

[Unhappy1]

No. Coal is usually 10 years for a 6 pack station.

I was talking about building and commissioning the first boiler.

 

[Electron1]

Bern I wonder what the progress is on Joburg's lanfill gas to electricity project is (this was from a year ago)?
http://www.infrastructurene.ws/2014/01/24/joburg-turns-landfill-gas-into-electricity/

The City of Johannesburg has successfully implemented two landfill gas-to-energy projects.
A total 19 042 Certified Emission Reductions (CER) have amassed and 3 157 656Nm3 of landfill gas has been destructed since May 2012. Eventually, 19MW of electricity will be generated at five landfill sites. This could supply approximately 12 500 middle-income households.
Landfill gas is currently extracted from two sites: the Robinson Deep landfill and the Marie Louise project.
At the Robinson Deep landfill site and the Marie Louise project, landfill gas is extracted, combusted and flared as carbon dioxide, to generate electricity. The landfill gas-to-energy projects minimise environmental damaged by reducing methane emissions.
The Robinson Deep landfill saw the installation of 68 gas wells. This number will be increased during the second phase of the project. The project has produced 137888 CER’s and prevented 18 288 457Nm3 of landfill gas from being released into the atmosphere.
Construction for the three remaining sites at Goudkoppies, Ennerdale and Linbro Park will commence shortly.

 

[jetlee]

That would be awesome, I can imagine a lot of farmers doing intensive animal farming such as a piggery being able to substitute their income quite handsomely with this - provided NERSA allow for a decent buy rate that is.

I know there were some small gov projects where they were supposed to use anaerobic digesters to provide electricity for small communities - I haven't seen any info on how those projects went though.

Our sewerage plants could very easily be retrofitted to capture methane as a simple option and would offset the costs they have at the same time not to mention contain the "perfume" from the surrounding environment.

Exactly this, time to throw the box away and start from scratch, government needs to catch a wake up, and start fixing the legislation to get the ball rolling ..