Powership contract will cost South Africa R218 billion - CSIR

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
34,558
I would rather have solar powering pumped storage during the daytime, than burning OCGTs at night to achieve the same thing, as we have had recently.
Unfortunately with solar OCTG would still be needed.
 

Iwojima

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
3,417
Unfortunately with solar OCTG would still be needed.
Undoubtedly, yes.

In the context of hydro generation however the norm has always been to use it when required and then to pump water back up to the high point using excess generation from other sources when available (generally late in the eve).

It begs the question as to whether solar powered pumps could be used to keep the high point constantly fed with water while the sun is shining, building up enough storage for peak. Obviously this depends on when hydro is being used and how viable large scale, powerful solar powered pumps are for that sort of application.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
28,692
Sure, we don't have a shortage in installed capacity, but we do have is a lot of aging plant that was allowed to be "sweated" while Medupi/Kusile was built with the idea that these would take over and old plant would be either decommissioned or renewed.

Realistically we have far less dispatchable capacity available due to breakdowns and maintenance and this will not and cannot change any time soon. You simply do not rectify several+ years worth of delayed maintenance overnight while you are still faced with a generation shortage. This is a simple fact that people need to understand and accept.

This is why this powership idea, even with it's downsides (pollution and dodgy tender opportunities), represents the best opportunity for dispatchable power to be added to the grid in a short time frame to buy time for new generation and maintenance to be completed.

On the point of batteries to be used to store renewable energy. Considering the size of the deficit, costs involved and lifespan of current battery tech I'm not convinced (yet) that it's a viable solution. It's been done in smaller scale (eg above with Australia), but nothing on the scale that we need as far as I'm aware. For personal use...sure it works.
That's why I'm of the opinion that more storage capacity is exactly what we need. Dams are not a realistic option. This will provide some leeway for maintenance and repairs. Sure powerships are good to fill in the gap when it comes to generation but where I have a problem is with a 20 year contract at that cost. They will eventually become another albatross while other options become cheaper.
 

grok

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
23,837
That's why I'm of the opinion that more storage capacity is exactly what we need. Dams are not a realistic option. This will provide some leeway for maintenance and repairs. Sure powerships are good to fill in the gap when it comes to generation but where I have a problem is with a 20 year contract at that cost. They will eventually become another albatross while other options become cheaper.

First the corrupt ANC gave us e-tolls, now they're piling Eskom-tolls on us..
 

Quintrix

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
857
I most likely missed this info but can someone please help me out. Is this a "pay-as-u-go", "pay-as-we-generate" or a fixed contract?

If it's not pay as you go then we have issues. Soweto and co(more and more mismanaged and bankrupt municipalities) are not suddenly going to start paying. Western Cape is moving towards IPPs. Eskom still have the loan repayments that they cannot avoid and if they now add another fixed cost with no gaurenteed income then this sounds more and more like e-toll season 2.

Will this be enough to convince larger paying industries to return and start setting up shop?
 

Iwojima

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
3,417
I most likely missed this info but can someone please help me out. Is this a "pay-as-u-go", "pay-as-we-generate" or a fixed contract?

If it's not pay as you go then we have issues. Soweto and co(more and more mismanaged and bankrupt municipalities) are not suddenly going to start paying. Western Cape is moving towards IPPs. Eskom still have the loan repayments that they cannot avoid and if they now add another fixed cost with no gaurenteed income then this sounds more and more like e-toll season 2.

Will this be enough to convince larger paying industries to return and start setting up shop?
Pretty sure SA will be contractually obliged to receive and pay for whatever the ships can output. It's only 1200MW though, which is unlikely to be "unneeded" any time soon.

Also as far as I'm aware this will not be Eskom's burden to carry with this being a government initiative and the near future dismantling of Eskom into separate generation, transmission and distribution entities (ETA end of next year).
 

mypetcow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
235
I most likely missed this info but can someone please help me out. Is this a "pay-as-u-go", "pay-as-we-generate" or a fixed contract?

If it's not pay as you go then we have issues. Soweto and co(more and more mismanaged and bankrupt municipalities) are not suddenly going to start paying. Western Cape is moving towards IPPs. Eskom still have the loan repayments that they cannot avoid and if they now add another fixed cost with no gaurenteed income then this sounds more and more like e-toll season 2.

Will this be enough to convince larger paying industries to return and start setting up shop?

As it states in the article they are planning to charge Eskom $0.11/kWh (1.65/kWh). Multiply that by what is projected per year and then for 20 years you're lookin at R218b for the contract duration.

Let me explain:

The ship's generator runs continuously (imagine your car's engine) and because it is running is adds capacity to the grid. It's essentially another power station.

Now when Eskom is load shedding an area they obvioulsy cannot sell electricity to that place. As such the meters don't turn and they can't bill anyone. With the power ship they can avoid load shedding and thus bill the people. Business as usual. Nothing will change in any way whatsoever from the perspective of Eskom's customers be it municipalities or direct customers. The only thing that will change is the frequency of load shedding which will be reduced.

The issue of non-paying municipalities etc. is another issue that has nothing to do with the power ship.

The point you raised with the fixed income due to the ship and no revenue is not quite right. By increasing the grid's generating capacity load shedding will be reduced and Eskom will get its money from the people who would have otherwise been load shedded and thus not consumed in that time
 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
17,359
Pretty sure SA will be contractually obliged to receive and pay for whatever the ships can output. It's only 1200MW though, which is unlikely to be "unneeded" any time soon.

Also as far as I'm aware this will not be Eskom's burden to carry with this being a government initiative and the near future dismantling of Eskom into separate generation, transmission and distribution entities (ETA end of next year).

Nobody has mentioned inflation. I can't believe the costs will remain the same for the 20 year contract. It could end up being a lot more...
 
  • Like
Reactions: air

Quintrix

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
857
Nobody has mentioned inflation. I can't believe the costs will remain the same for the 20 year contract. It could end up being a lot more...
It won't

The local dairy (KSA) will alter/adjust pricing.

The final cost for the electricity could change due to the makeup of the tariff. “Karpowership South Africa charges a single price covering the fixed costs for the Powerships and variable charges for fuel and operations,” the company said
 

rustypup

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Messages
2,491
The power ship will provide Eskom with power at the cost of $0.11/kWh which is pretty much R1.65/kWh (total cost, i.e. including maintenance, etc.)
Over and above.

Over and above the current costs.

Take that cost and add it to your bill because if you imagine tax is magically harvested from unicorn trees with zero impact on you - personally - you're showing yourself to be a typical ANC voter.
 

Oldfut

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
702
Over and above.

Over and above the current costs.

Take that cost and add it to your bill because if you imagine tax is magically harvested from unicorn trees with zero impact on you - personally - you're showing yourself to be a typical ANC voter.
This is worth a thought because the less electricity Eskom produces the higher the cost per unit. Eskom's real production cost is their annual budget total divided by the kWh produced. Whether Eskom can mark up the external power provided, find the cash to pay for it and get it back without it costing them (Eskom) money will be interesting. Imagine they buy 1 000MW from the ship, pay then "sell" to the Willywonka Municipality or ZimWakanda and they don't pay for it, 100% loss. Eish; bigger hole than ever.

At least the em power ment partner will be happy. The gravy train shall run.
 

mypetcow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
235
Over and above.

Over and above the current costs.

Take that cost and add it to your bill because if you imagine tax is magically harvested from unicorn trees with zero impact on you - personally - you're showing yourself to be a typical ANC voter.
Mate, really? When you run out of meaningful arguments do you really need to pull that card? Does it make you feel warm and validated on the inside?
What does anybody’s voting preference have to do with power ships?

Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t justify you making nonsensical accusations.

If you are interested in how the grid works this is a good starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_grid

I’m afraid that even if you were right that somehow the unicorn tree you mentioned caused Eskom to increase the overall tariff by R1.65/kWh I’d have to ask you to seek professional help. An over 100% tariff increase in a year....come on. Even you must see the ridiculousness of your statement.

If however you don’t see it let me show you what the power ships would mean for the grid.

Eskom currently installed capacity: 34 000 MW (https://www.eskom.co.za/AboutElectricity/ElectricityTechnologies/Pages/Generating_Electricity.aspx)
Power Ships: 1 220 MW

So the three power ships would only add an additional 3.6% capacity to the grid...hardly a reason to justify more than doubling the entire electricity price
 

mypetcow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
235
Imagine they buy 1 000MW from the ship, pay then "sell" to the Willywonka Municipality or ZimWakanda and they don't pay for it, 100% loss. Eish; bigger hole than ever.
That’s unfortunately not how any of this works. Just because a power ship can produce electricity doesn’t mean it will even if it connected to the grid.

Demand must always match supply. If it doesn’t we have load shedding.

A power station, a power ship, Koeberg, etc. cannot ever just produce as much as they feel like it. The combined output from absolutely all power stations must always match the demand from all industry etc.

So there never is any producing electricity to sell to someone specific. You can only meter both ends and infer that electricity flowed through. It can flow to someone else entirely. Your light switch at home is by means of Eskom connected to mine and to that non paying municipality you mentioned.
 

rustypup

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Messages
2,491
What does anybody’s voting preference have to do with power ships?
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:
Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t justify you making nonsensical accusations.
:ROFL:
So the three power ships would only add an additional 3.6% capacity to the grid
"For free" in your book which is pretty much where you started your little campaign if disinformation. Did we add sugar to the cool-aid recently?
 

mypetcow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
235
"For free" in your book which is pretty much where you started your little campaign if disinformation. Did we add sugar to the cool-aid recently?
If ‘for free’ in your book means for $0.11/kWh or R1.65/kWh then yes the capacity is being added for ‘free’ and I’m enjoying that kool-aid.

But in all seriousness have a look at the Wikipedia article that I posted earlier and perhaps read the news article again to see where the real costs will be.
 

Oldfut

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
702
That’s unfortunately not how any of this works. Just because a power ship can produce electricity doesn’t mean it will even if it connected to the grid.

Demand must always match supply. If it doesn’t we have load shedding.

A power station, a power ship, Koeberg, etc. cannot ever just produce as much as they feel like it. The combined output from absolutely all power stations must always match the demand from all industry etc.

So there never is any producing electricity to sell to someone specific. You can only meter both ends and infer that electricity flowed through. It can flow to someone else entirely. Your light switch at home is by means of Eskom connected to mine and to that non paying municipality you mentioned.

True, but snag I see is that you can't easily switch these things on and off; re-starting is a pain with having to purge gas etc. If they are piston engines they need to run at constant speed to generate at 50Hz. You can reduce power to some extent with clever control (on boost I think; fuel is always wide open) but then the engine becomes less efficient. Gas turbines methinks will have similar problems.

Much easier than steam turbines though. Interesting too is to how much of the grid will have to be upgraded where they plug the ships in in order to distribute the power effectively.
 
Top