Renewable energy projects worth R58bn to rolled out in next few months - govt

Currantly

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
1,124
CAPE TOWN - The Presidency's Investment and Infrastructure Office said that renewable energy projects to the tune of R58 billion were set to get off the ground in the coming months.

This forms part of 276 projects from all over the country now being handled by the Public Works and Infrastructure Department's Sustainable Infrastructure Development System Methodology.

A single entity will from now on handle all infrastructure development projects undertaken by government.

Investment and Infrastructure Office head, Dr Kgosientso Ramokgopa, said that these renewable energy projects had the potential to create about 6,000 new jobs.

Linky
 

rustypup

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Messages
1,461
With what money?

Transient jobs are not job creation. They create debt.
 

Currantly

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
1,124
With what money?

Transient jobs are not job creation. They create debt.

I assume that most/all of the investments is from IPPs?

edit: apparently not, after reading the article
 
Last edited:

Mosgi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
247
Would be great if they used IMF money since then it will go to generating a more stable grid
 

Gaz{M}

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
6,264
Ramakgopa?! As in the ex-Tshwane mayor who oversaw the biggest theft of rate payers money in recent memory.
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
27,623
Nuclear would still be the better option, renewable isn't the answers.
And that is BS. This argument has been posted so many times, and nuclear has been disproven to be a viable option for South Africa.
EDIT:
2:54 "Unlike nuclear energy, the toxicity never degrades". That is one good joke right there, and you actually watch this stuff? (also the lead leakage is utter BS, there is a lot of regulatory stuff around lead, that video is utter garbage).
Also would love to know where he gets all the info from, his 5 years is the panel guarantee on film panels, not on how long they actually last. Normal degradation for most modern panels is a max of 0.5%/year, so 10-15 years can be quite a normal expectation, with silicon based ones usually having a 20-25 year guarantee, and most are expected to last even longer than that. Not bothering with the rest of the video.

EDIT2: Note thin film will probably be on its way out within the next ~5 years, since we'll move away from Silicon since it's nearly reached its theoretical limit. There have been multiple breakthroughs in Perovskite based solar panels, they will probably cost the same as silicon based solar, while being more efficent, having ~38% efficiency now vs Silicon ~25% max theoretical (think mass produced panels should be around 23% that you can buy right now). First Perovskite panels are expected ~2022/23.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/01/31/imec-perovskite-cells-can-pass-the-iec-tests-in-2020/ << Note the 30% possible was already broken, it's at 38%: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/02/04/new-perovskite-promises-38-7-efficient-tandem-cells/

What are the production cost projections of silicon perovskite modules? Will they be able to compete with the ever-falling costs for low cost silicon PV, as we have experienced again during the last two years (22 €ct/Watt)?
Because of the extra process steps and material in silicon perovskite modules, they are indeed more costly than pure silicon modules. However, the gain in conversion efficiency outperforms this extra cost. Moreover, manufacturing costs of perovskite PV modules have the potential to be very low. Final costs will depend on materials, stack design and process-selection, as well as on the aimed application and its subsequent market size. Taking all this into account, it is believed that perovskite PV modules can be produced within a cost range of 20 euro-cent/Wp in the coming five to 10 years, and could go down further towards 10 and maybe even to 4 euro-cents/Wp, depending on the learning curve and actual efficiency values on the scaled perovskite PV modules. We can conclude that silicon perovskite modules will definitely be able to compete with current low-cost Si PV technology.
 
Last edited:

wingnut771

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
9,778
And that is BS. This argument has been posted so many times, and nuclear has been disproven to be a viable option for South Africa.
what do you suggest should replace the 45000MW of coal base load power stations?
 

Nqindi

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,109
And that is BS. This argument has been posted so many times, and nuclear has been disproven to be a viable option for South Africa.
In the media to long term, nuclear is the only option for SA. Renewables are a "nice to have" in the short term.
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
27,623
what do you suggest should replace the 45000MW of coal base load power stations?
A mix of energies, I never said no coal, I said no to nuclear. You're going an all or nothing approach, that's a completely wrong way of looking at it.
Coal is not going away any time soon, just that its role in the energy sector is reducing, it's always best to have a mix of energies.

I keep repeating this link: https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf
Lazard is the world's largest independent investment bank, and they publish the average cost etc. every year, around November, so we should get an update in ~3/4 months.

1596294710995.png
Do you notice how Solar CSP is actually competitive with nuclear? So is wind. There is no need to build more nuclear.
But that's not the main argument against nuclear in South Africa, the main argument is the capital cost:
1596294942942.png
And that difference is magnified when you bring in cost of borrowing, you cannot build a couple of MW production as and when capital allows with nuclear, you need to go all or nothing and you'll know what the actual cost is in 5-10 years. Hinkley point C in Britain started in 2018 (well, actually got its license in 2012, board and government approval at the end of 2016, construction in 2018), with earliest completion dates being in 2023. I doubt they'll finish by then.

Do note the cost for Hinkley point C:
Under EDF Energy’s contract with the government, the French state-backed energy giant will earn at least £92.50 for every megawatt-hour produced at Hinkley Point for 35 years by charging households an extra levy on top of the market price for power.

The average electricity price on the UK’s wholesale electricity market was between £55 and £65 per megawatt-hour last year.

And Britain has a lot less corruption issues than South Africa, RSA price will definitely be way higher than that.

If you're trying to argue IPP, note the costs will be even higher, since you cannot get as good a loan interest rate as the government can secure.

What would my ideal grid be?
This is Germany going for 100%:
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/site...n/378/publikationen/energieziel_2050_kurz.pdf << This entire paper is based on no improvements in technology since July 2010 when it was written.
1596295978480.png
Another publication:

I don't expect SA to achieve that, Germany is doing it by having an additional levy on electricity to help pay for improving the energy grid as the biggest cost is trying to connect the north and south, that's why energy in Germany has increased so much, it's peaked at this years price and the levy will decrease till/end in 2030.

1596296079383.png
That's the 23/21%, and grid fees are set as of 2019 for 5 years, they'll probably decrease in 2024 again. Don't worry, we'll get to the same costs as Germany soon, but we won't get a major increase in renewable or an improvement in the power grid out of it.

For South Africa, I don't think they will be able to pull it off, though both solar and wind would be cheaper to produce than in Germany, since RSA has cheaper labor and better conditions (in terms of sun and wind).
So I'd expect South Africa to be more along the lines of:
~ 15 GW modern coal (by modern I mean filtered etc.)
~ 20 GW solar PV
~ 5 GW solar CSP
~ 20 GW wind
~ 4 GW hydro
Same MWh in both solar and wind, RSA

And in terms of storage, remove taxes from electric cars and make everyone go in that direction. With a smart grid system, you can use cars to help store excess capacity, then have them feed back into the grid during peak.

If you try to argue base capacity to me, that's utter BS. If you're trying to argue "the sun is gone in the evening", that's when wind picks up the most and will have its highest output. Currently our max peak in winter this year was 33GW. 15GW of coal, 20GW of wind, 4GW of hydro, 5GW of CSP = 40GW. Would increase wind if needed.

And base load myths: https://www.digitalistmag.com/digit...myth-of-baseload-power-in-australia-06194175/
South Africa should be following Australia's example, since South Africa's entire energy fleet is very similar. Do read the above, even if you don't believe in the minimum, it's well-written and simple enough that even Nqindi can understand it.
If you want a more in-depth explanation: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-three-myths-about-baseload
Myth:
1596297292718.png
Nowadays:
1596297300948.png
"For example, wind energy in Texas often provides more than 30 percent or even 40 percent of the state’s daily power needs throughout the entire day. "
UK right now/yesterday:
1596297411608.png
(Nuclear is obscured at the bottom there, it's 5.29-5.30, above is with me having end of day selected, below is peak)
1596297515890.png

*Note Solar CSP = Solar Thermal Tower, Concentrated Solar Power, usually a tower in the middle with some crystal that you heat up using a bunch of mirrors around it, works overnight.
 
Last edited:

wingnut771

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
9,778
A mix of energies, I never said no coal, I said no to nuclear. You're going an all or nothing approach, that's a completely wrong way of looking at it.
Coal is not going away any time soon, just that its role in the energy sector is reducing, it's always best to have a mix of energies.

I keep repeating this link: https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf
Lazard is the world's largest independent investment bank, and they publish the average cost etc. every year, around November, so we should get an update in ~3/4 months.

View attachment 885140
Do you notice how Solar CSP is actually competitive with nuclear? So is wind. There is no need to build more nuclear.
But that's not the main argument against nuclear in South Africa, the main argument is the capital cost:
View attachment 885142
And that difference is magnified when you bring in cost of borrowing, you cannot build a couple of MW production as and when capital allows with nuclear, you need to go all or nothing and you'll know what the actual cost is in 5-10 years. Hinkley point C in Britain started in 2018 (well, actually got its license in 2012, board and government approval at the end of 2016, construction in 2018), with earliest completion dates being in 2023. I doubt they'll finish by then.

Do note the cost for Hinkley point C:


And Britain has a lot less corruption issues than South Africa, RSA price will definitely be way higher than that.

If you're trying to argue IPP, note the costs will be even higher, since you cannot get as good a loan interest rate as the government can secure.

What would my ideal grid be?
This is Germany going for 100%:
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/site...n/378/publikationen/energieziel_2050_kurz.pdf << This entire paper is based on no improvements in technology since July 2010 when it was written.
View attachment 885146
Another publication:

I don't expect SA to achieve that, Germany is doing it by having an additional levy on electricity to help pay for improving the energy grid as the biggest cost is trying to connect the north and south, that's why energy in Germany has increased so much, it's peaked at this years price and the levy will decrease till/end in 2030.

View attachment 885148
That's the 23/21%, and grid fees are set as of 2019 for 5 years, they'll probably decrease in 2024 again. Don't worry, we'll get to the same costs as Germany soon, but we won't get a major increase in renewable or an improvement in the power grid out of it.

For South Africa, I don't think they will be able to pull it off, though both solar and wind would be cheaper to produce than in Germany, since RSA has cheaper labor and better conditions (in terms of sun and wind).
So I'd expect South Africa to be more along the lines of:
~ 15 GW modern coal (by modern I mean filtered etc.)
~ 20 GW solar PV
~ 5 GW solar CSP
~ 20 GW wind
~ 4 GW hydro
Same MWh in both solar and wind, RSA

And in terms of storage, remove taxes from electric cars and make everyone go in that direction. With a smart grid system, you can use cars to help store excess capacity, then have them feed back into the grid during peak.

If you try to argue base capacity to me, that's utter BS. If you're trying to argue "the sun is gone in the evening", that's when wind picks up the most and will have its highest output. Currently our max peak in winter this year was 33GW. 15GW of coal, 20GW of wind, 4GW of hydro, 5GW of CSP = 40GW. Would increase wind if needed.

And base load myths: https://www.digitalistmag.com/digit...myth-of-baseload-power-in-australia-06194175/
South Africa should be following Australia's example, since South Africa's entire energy fleet is very similar. Do read the above, even if you don't believe in the minimum, it's well-written and simple enough that even Nqindi can understand it.
If you want a more in-depth explanation: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-three-myths-about-baseload
Myth:
View attachment 885158
Nowadays:
View attachment 885160
"For example, wind energy in Texas often provides more than 30 percent or even 40 percent of the state’s daily power needs throughout the entire day. "
UK right now/yesterday:
View attachment 885162
(Nuclear is obscured at the bottom there, it's 5.29-5.30, above is with me having end of day selected, below is peak)
View attachment 885168

*Note Solar CSP = Solar Thermal Tower, Concentrated Solar Power, usually a tower in the middle with some crystal that you heat up using a bunch of mirrors around it, works overnight.
thanks for the comprehensive reply. in our context, i don't see our coal power stations lasting much longer due to bad maintenance and end of life, nevermind fitting filters to them, they just don't have the money. we don't have gas supply and run on expensive diesel. what happens when we have cloud cover and no wind for 7 days? i agree that nuclear should only happen if done ipp style with other peoples money, because if government were involved it will go nowhere fast.

i really want renewables to work but am skeptical for example, the life span on a solar panel is 20 years, what happens after that when you have a few million panels that need to be scrapped, wind turbines that need replacing after 20 years etc? batteries only last 10 years then need replacing. have these costs been factored in? what happens to all the waste? a power station lasts about 60 years?

maybe i'm answering my own question here but even replacing renewables every 20 years is still cheaper (no fuel, no/low staff) than the running costs of a power station (fuel and staff)? or is it?
 

nivek

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
9,272
thanks for the comprehensive reply. in our context, i don't see our coal power stations lasting much longer due to bad maintenance and end of life, nevermind fitting filters to them, they just don't have the money. we don't have gas supply and run on expensive diesel. what happens when we have cloud cover and no wind for 7 days? i agree that nuclear should only happen if done ipp style with other peoples money, because if government were involved it will go nowhere fast.

i really want renewables to work but am skeptical for example, the life span on a solar panel is 20 years, what happens after that when you have a few million panels that need to be scrapped, wind turbines that need replacing after 20 years etc? batteries only last 10 years then need replacing. have these costs been factored in? what happens to all the waste? a power station lasts about 60 years?

maybe i'm answering my own question here but even replacing renewables every 20 years is still cheaper (no fuel, no/low staff) than the running costs of a power station (fuel and staff)? or is it?
You're forgetting who runs this country, the ANC and Eskom will find a way to stretch those panels to 40 years
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
27,623
thanks for the comprehensive reply. in our context, i don't see our coal power stations lasting much longer due to bad maintenance and end of life, nevermind fitting filters to them, they just don't have the money. we don't have gas supply and run on expensive diesel.
Has the dates. Notice how they all have a between date and towards the end of this decade. Most of those plants can be refitted and fixed up, it's not really an issue and there's more than enough time to get alternatives completed until then. Kusile and Medupi are supposed to replace all the coal plants that are set to start retiring in 2025. That's 15GW capacity until 2046, there's no real need to build more coal, though Majuba and Kendal seems to keep having problems, but that's more on Eskom.
what happens when we have cloud cover and no wind for 7 days?
Where exactly? You're not going to build wind turbines in areas that can have doldrums for 7 days, and you're not going to build solar panels all in one cloudy place. Both wind turbines and solar panels would be spread out over large areas, South Africa is huge.
https://www.safaribookings.com/kalahari/climate btw, Kalahari rain season is in the summer, it's super dry in the winter, when South Africa uses the most power.
The other things is, if it's cloudy, there's wind, so how do you have no wind and no sun at the same time? Did you look at how stable the wind output is on gridwatch.co.uk? Do note that 2019 was the worst year ever for wind energy in the UK.
i agree that nuclear should only happen if done ipp style with other peoples money, because if government were involved it will go nowhere fast.
No one will invest in nuclear privately if it's not government backed, you saw the costings.
i really want renewables to work but am skeptical for example, the life span on a solar panel is 20 years, what happens after that when you have a few million panels that need to be scrapped,

How are they recycled?

So can solar panels be recycled? The short answer is yes. Silicon solar modules are primarily composed of glass, plastic, and aluminum: three materials that are recycled in mass quantities.


Despite the recyclability of the modules, the process in which materials are separated can be tedious and requires advanced machinery. Here are the main steps involved in successfully recycling a silicon module:


  1. Removing the aluminum frame (100% reusable)
  2. Separating the glass along a conveyor belt (95% reusable)
  3. Thermal processing at 500 degrees Celsius
    • This allows for the evaporation of small plastic components and allows the cells to be easier separated.
  4. Etching away silicon wafers and smelting them into reusable slabs (85% reusable)
Because many European nations installed greater PV capacities in the 1990s, a solar PV module recycling market is steadily maturing. The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) of the European Union helped found a member-based organization called PV Cycle to build out a robust recycling infrastructure. Here’s a look inside one of their plants:
Hope that answers that one, could have been a quick Google.
wind turbines that need replacing after 20 years etc?
Wind turbines are a bit more iffy, "85% can be recycled", just not the actual blades: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills but that also states that there are companies that are starting to recycle the blades as well, and there will be a market that will spring up to use them.
85-90% from here: https://www.evwind.es/2020/05/26/strategies-for-the-recycling-of-wind-turbine-blades/74876
Note that the reason there's no solution for wind turbine recycling is that the first wind turbines are only starting to come to their end of life now, 2019-2025 will be decommissioning for first generation ones.
batteries only last 10 years then need replacing.
Yes? Most batteries are recycled as well.
have these costs been factored in?
You do know you're not going to store the entire output of the wind turbines/solar panels, right? You'll only store enough to: 1. deal with short spikes of peak demand (like a few minutes), and to even out e.g. power/voltage spikes. Everyone is doing that everywhere anyways, as it's cheaper to use batteries for a couple of MW for ten minutes than it is to try and predict it and up the output of a coal plant (which can take hours).
what happens to all the waste? a power station lasts about 60 years?
Answered it above
maybe i'm answering my own question here but even replacing renewables every 20 years is still cheaper (no fuel, no/low staff) than the running costs of a power station (fuel and staff)? or is it?
Definitely is cheaper. And by the time most of the current generation of renewables retires, we'll probably have substantially better versions of it. E.g. that first generation ending now are the 0.5-1.2W turbines:
1596306839749.png
We're already at 15MW reference designs: https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/ar...celerates-development-larger-cost-competitive
14MW in production here: https://www.powermag.com/big-lift-for-newly-launched-siemens-gamesa-14-mw-offshore-wind-turbine/
 
Top