No quick fix for Eskom crisis: expert

[Electron1]

Start by changing the law and allow independent producers to sell electricity. Make it viable for private people to supply electricity back to the grid.

 

[furpile]

One of Eskom's spokesmen highlighted one of the big reasons this week why we are in this situation. From 2010, regular maintenance has been postponed to "keep the lights on" as their favorite saying goes.

This postponed maintenance has now brought us to the point where Eskom can only generate 24 000 MW from an installed base of 43 000 MW (somewhere there). And because they still have to "keep the lights on" (thanks ANC), they run their peak demand plants (open cycle turbines and water storage) for more than 12 hours per day instead of 3. So not only is their equipment degrading each day, they are literally burning money to "keep the lights on" (last time, promise).

What they should have done after 2008, was to have a regular load shedding schedule to keep doing maintenance on their generators. Then they would be able to produce more than the current 50% of their available power, and load shedding will be kept to a minimum. Now, the backlog is so big that they might not catch up again. When half your fleet is more than 30 years old this is not an acceptable business practice. But unfortunately, Eskom must dance to the ANC's tune (at least until after the elections).

 

[grok]

They have had 6 years Plus for a "Quick" fix......

Exactly, also the problem was caused by systematic mismanagement & neglect over many years despite very pubic advice to the contrary. There is no quick fix, they should have slow-fixed the problem when they were able to but didn't else they would lose votes.

 

[me_]

One of Eskom's spokesmen highlighted one of the big reasons this week why we are in this situation. From 2010, regular maintenance has been postponed to "keep the lights on" as their favorite saying goes.

This postponed maintenance has now brought us to the point where Eskom can only generate 24 000 MW from an installed base of 43 000 MW (somewhere there). And because they still have to "keep the lights on" (thanks ANC), they run their peak demand plants (open cycle turbines and water storage) for more than 12 hours per day instead of 3. So not only is their equipment degrading each day, they are literally burning money to "keep the lights on" (last time, promise).

What they should have done after 2008, was to have a regular load shedding schedule to keep doing maintenance on their generators. Then they would be able to produce more than the current 50% of their available power, and load shedding will be kept to a minimum. Now, the backlog is so big that they might not catch up again. When half your fleet is more than 30 years old this is not an acceptable business practice. But unfortunately, Eskom must dance to the ANC's tune (at least until after the elections).

This is the thing that really bothers me... Eskom has an installed generation capacity of 45,000 MW (approximately 40,000 MW base load and 5,000 MW peak power - including OCGT and pumped storage).
There is some loss so actual output to the home will probably be 10% lower.
Peak demand during the year is around 37,000 MW.
December was the lowest demand at around 24,000 MW.
Current demand is around 30,000 MW.
* These figures are what I've seen on Eskom's website and various news articles. I'm not sure if they are all correct, but maybe someone else can fill in.

If we take this as a general trend across most years, it means that during absolute peak in winter, Eskom should have around 10% spare capacity and should be able to service it from base load. If we assume no maintenance is done over this period, the grid should be tight, but fine.
For the rest of the year, Eskom averages about 75% output. Why would they not have done maintenance if they aren't at full capacity?
At that rate, all the power stations could effectively be down for 3 months of the year (for planned and unplanned maintenance).

It just doesn't make sense.

In some ways, I can understand why government might not have thought that extra generating capacity was required because when you look at the numbers, there appears to be enough capacity and there doesn't appear to have been any reason for Eskom needing to skip maintenance.

 

[Electron1]

Will the maintenance that is being done improve capacity in the existing fleet? One of the threads in November mentioned how capacity had reduced in their Vaal Power station (IIRC) due to such poor maintenance. There were piles of ash that had built up in the plant and capacity had been significantly reduced.

 

[furpile]

This is the thing that really bothers me... Eskom has an installed generation capacity of 45,000 MW (approximately 40,000 MW base load and 5,000 MW peak power - including OCGT and pumped storage).
There is some loss so actual output to the home will probably be 10% lower.
Peak demand during the year is around 37,000 MW.
December was the lowest demand at around 24,000 MW.
Current demand is around 30,000 MW.
* These figures are what I've seen on Eskom's website and various news articles. I'm not sure if they are all correct, but maybe someone else can fill in.

If we take this as a general trend across most years, it means that during absolute peak in winter, Eskom should have around 10% spare capacity and should be able to service it from base load. If we assume no maintenance is done over this period, the grid should be tight, but fine.
For the rest of the year, Eskom averages about 75% output. Why would they not have done maintenance if they aren't at full capacity?
At that rate, all the power stations could effectively be down for 3 months of the year (for planned and unplanned maintenance).

It just doesn't make sense.

In some ways, I can understand why government might not have thought that extra generating capacity was required because when you look at the numbers, there appears to be enough capacity and there doesn't appear to have been any reason for Eskom needing to skip maintenance.

Your figures look to be close enough. Global standards dictate a minimum 15% reserve for maintenance and unplanned outages, which we haven't had for a few years now. If all the plants are working then Eskom has enough capacity. But due to their postponing of maintenance, the plants are experiencing more and more unplanned stoppages. That's why we had load shedding in December with a demand of 24 000 MW. That was all they could produce at the time, because there were so many plants offline for unplanned stoppages. The Majuba coal silo issue is another case in point. According to news reports the crack was found in January last year, but nothing was done because they cannot afford to stop the whole plant for maintenance. Eventually that catches up to you.

 

[furpile]

Will the maintenance that is being done improve capacity in the existing fleet? One of the threads in November mentioned how capacity had reduced in their Vaal Power station (IIRC) due to such poor maintenance. There were piles of ash that had built up in the plant and capacity had been significantly reduced.

That was the Lethabo power station. As I recall, there was a failure on part of the system that needs to take away the ash. That plant was designed to run on very low quality coal (that we cannot export because of the high ash content). When they have problems with the ash system they have to reduce power output. I don't know if that failure was maintenance related though.

 

[furpile]

Will the maintenance that is being done improve capacity in the existing fleet? One of the threads in November mentioned how capacity had reduced in their Vaal Power station (IIRC) due to such poor maintenance. There were piles of ash that had built up in the plant and capacity had been significantly reduced.

According to this article:

The Times can reveal that vital sections of Lethabo power station, in the Vaal Triangle, which contributes about 10% of the energy carried by the national grid, is buried beneath tons of ash.

The power station's near-collapse has been a month coming. Employees have repeatedly warned of impeding critical equipment failures.

But the warnings appear to have been ignored, resulting in conveyor belts used to transport ash failing.

The failure has led to two of six power-generating units being unable to function.

 

[me_]

Your figures look to be close enough. Global standards dictate a minimum 15% reserve for maintenance and unplanned outages, which we haven't had for a few years now. If all the plants are working then Eskom has enough capacity. But due to their postponing of maintenance, the plants are experiencing more and more unplanned stoppages. That's why we had load shedding in December with a demand of 24 000 MW. That was all they could produce at the time, because there were so many plants offline for unplanned stoppages. The Majuba coal silo issue is another case in point. According to news reports the crack was found in January last year, but nothing was done because they cannot afford to stop the whole plant for maintenance. Eventually that catches up to you.

But that's my point, from the figures, they have had this. If global standards says they need 15% reserve to perform maintenance and for unplanned stoppages, Eskom's has around 25% and still didn't do maintenance. There unplanned outages have been higher than this percent, but why?
If we look at the last few years (before the issues with Lethabo and Majuba), Eskom should have been running with a 25% reserve (much more than the 15% global standard) and still they didn't do maintenance.

With so many unplanned outages, I wonder if they use the downtime to perform maintenance as well rather than just patching and returning to service.

 

[MrGray]

But that's my point, from the figures, they have had this. If global standards says they need 15% reserve to perform maintenance and for unplanned stoppages, Eskom's has around 25% and still didn't do maintenance. There unplanned outages have been higher than this percent, but why?
If we look at the last few years (before the issues with Lethabo and Majuba), Eskom should have been running with a 25% reserve (much more than the 15% global standard) and still they didn't do maintenance.

With so many unplanned outages, I wonder if they use the downtime to perform maintenance as well rather than just patching and returning to service.

I agree. It all adds up to create a picture of gross incompetence. Despite the ongoing outcry since the 2008 load shedding, they don't seem to have done the maintenance that you would expect would have been a major priority during that period, instead pinning all their hopes on two new massively ambitious and costly power stations that are now hopelessly over schedule. And through all of this the AVERAGE Eskom salary has become R60k p.m. (from my interactions with them I'd say that at least 80% of those employees are "dead wood - they're all professional windows Freecell players, meeting attendees and conference delegates who never seem to actually do anything"). And now it's all coming to a head, but government is showing absolutely no urgency in dealing with the problem. This will not end well.

 

[Sinbad]

I agree. It all adds up to create a picture of gross incompetence. Despite the ongoing outcry since the 2008 load shedding, they don't seem to have done the maintenance that you would expect would have been a major priority during that period, instead pinning all their hopes on two new massively ambitious and costly power stations that are now hopelessly over schedule. And through all of this the AVERAGE Eskom salary has become R60k p.m. (from my interactions with them I'd say that at least 80% of those employees are "dead wood - they're all professional windows Freecell players, meeting attendees and conference delegates who never seem to actually do anything"). And now it's all coming to a head, but government is showing absolutely no urgency in dealing with the problem. This will not end well.

They have done LESS maintenance over that period due to political pressure to keep the lights on.

 

[MrGray]

They have done LESS maintenance over that period due to political pressure to keep the lights on.

They should be forced to publish a daily update of all generators and their status, including precise information about what is wrong with them, what is being done to fix them, who the contractors are, what the eta is on repair, when the next scheduled maintenance is due. Publish it for public scrutiny and let's all see exactly what's going on.

 

[Sinbad]

They should be forced to publish a daily update of all generators and their status, including precise information about what is wrong with them, what is being done to fix them, who the contractors are, what the eta is on repair, when the next scheduled maintenance is due. Publish it for public scrutiny and let's all see exactly what's going on.

Shareholder says no.

 

[MrGray]

Shareholder says no.

Which makes you wonder whose interest the "shareholder" really has at heart. If you're feeling whimsical, it might be worth pointing out that we, the public, are the shareholder, although in practice that doesn't seem to be the way things work at all.

 

[Sinbad]

Which makes you wonder whose interest the "shareholder" really has at heart. If you're feeling whimsical, it might be worth pointing out that we, the public, are the shareholder, although in practice that doesn't seem to be the way things work at all.

The government is the shareholder. They don't want anything bad reflecting on them.

 

[MrGray]

The government is the shareholder. They don't want anything bad reflecting on them.

We appoint the government by consensus. Of course, the average voter doesn't seem to make the connection.

 

[Sinbad]

We appoint the government by consensus. Of course, the average voter doesn't seem to make the connection.

Indeed. And that is why the government said keep the lights on. To stay in government...

 

[Hectic]

What happened to the War Room that was announced during December 2014 by the cabinet and the so called "5 point plan"?

Cabinet has devised a five-point plan to deal with the electricity crisis and set up a "war room" to implement it, Minister in the Presidency Jeff Radebe announced on Thursday.

All attempts were being made to ensure the tight energy situation was overcome, he told journalists in Pretoria following Cabinet's regular Wednesday fortnightly meeting.

"A technical team war room for the implementation of the five-point plan is constituted with immediate effect".

Radebe was accompanied by Public Enterprises Minister Lynne Brown and Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Petterson.

Joemat-Pettersson later explained the "war room" would be set up at Eskom and would house technical officials from various government departments and possibly even private sector players.

"The technical team war room will be immediately established comprising of the departments of energy, co-operative governance and traditional affairs, public enterprises, the dti [department of trade and industry], economic development, water and sanitation, and Eskom," said Joemat-Pettersson.

"This forum will include technical officials, relevant experts, including international experts, and the private sector, where necessary".

The technical team would monitor the implementation of a five-point plan to deal with the power crisis.

The plan includes short-term interventions over the next 30 days, extending power purchase agreements with the private sector, speeding up government's programme to substitute diesel with gas to fire up diesel power plants, launching a "coal independent power producer programme", and electricity demand-side management.

"The core focus of the war room will be to monitor the implementation of intervention strategies, assess the costs of various options and implement those, contract management capacity so as to ensure that South Africa does not enter into possibly long-term contracts", said Joemat-Pettersson.

Government would extend its power purchase agreements with the private sector.

"There is currently 1390 megawatts supplied to the grid for cogeneration," said Joemat-Petterson.

"The power purchase agreements will be extended by another three years by the end of January 2015".

Government was also looking at other co-generation options.

"It's estimated that an additional 1000MW are still available in South Africa which could be brought on-line in the next 18 months," Joemat-Pettersson said.

This would include 800MW of electricity which would be harnessed from waste in the sugar and paper industries.

http://www.thenewage.co.za/145867-1008-53-Cabinets_fivepoint_plan_to_deal_with_Eskom_crisis

 

[ToxicBunny]

That was just a press release. .. The war room was setup.. they had catering and stopped there.

 

[MrGray]

This week, Eskom has just under 4 000MW offline for planned maintenance, which is low compared to recent weeks. But the utility also has 7 374MW offline for unplanned maintenance. Although this is high, it is slightly better than in recent weeks.

Source: http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-afr...2015-as-blackouts-loom-1.1804483#.VLU-tNKUfh4

So if 15% is the global norm for a reserve margin and our installed capacity is 43000MW, this means that:

4000MW is offline for planned maintenance: 9%
7374MW is offline for "unplanned maintenance": 17%

In total 26% of capacity is offline.

We know that the silo collapse at Majuba is the biggest slice of this, but that's only about 3000MW of the 7374MW offline, in fact possibly less if they've found a way to manually load coal to some of the boilers without the conveyor. So what's the rest of the shortfall?