• You are losing out on amazing benefits because you are not a member. Join for free. Register now.
  • Big Two-Day Giveaway - Win an Amazon Kindle, a Mystery Gadget and Branded Gear. Enter Here.
  • Test your broadband speed and win prizes worth R5,000. Enter here.

The rise and fall of Eskom - and how to fix it now

HavocXphere

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
31,487
#2
oh nice.

I like how the report is posted as is & linked to from the relevant article.

Hoping this is the start of a mybb trend :)
 

richjdavies

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
482
#3
Seems like a report written by politicians trying to solve a mainly engineering and economist problem.

Clearly they are pro nuclear -- forgetting that it will take 5-10 year to even start thinking about building anything... no mention of time scales despite the immediate problems.

Gas -- main opposition seems to be that it will likely be imported. "She will want the best price possible, and is likely to have lots of international customers to which she could sell it instead" -- yes but there's a world market? Every other country imports fuels... whats the problem? Also, you have the SAME problem with Uranium... but handily missed out

It's clearly against renewables:
"But, with one exception, solar and wind are useless for grid electricity. They are very expensive, hopelessly unreliable, usually unpredictable, and environmentally blighting. They require huge resources per kWh and cause trouble to electricity quality and stability"
I'd say pretty much none of that is factual!?

It goes on to be completely and deliberately misleading:
"The capacity factor of wind power in Germany in 2013 was 16.6%. (This means that, on average, the wind turbines produced a mere 16.6% of their rated capacity.) German wind, with a capacity of 32,500 MW, produced a miserable 47 TWh in 2013. By comparison, South Africa, with a total capacity of 44 000 MW produced 240 TWh. On 4 September 2013, there was a period where total power from German wind was only 120 MW – 0.4% of its rated power"
Capacity factor only matters in journalists heads because they see the 'rated' capacity and think it matters... it doesn't. And why compare it to ALL of South Africa's power... I'm lost on that one.

"Value for money in the REIPP is poor. For R100 billion, we could have bought far more electricity supply from more reliable nuclear
power plants."

Another complete lie... You find me someone who will put up a nuclear power plant for R100bn, within 2 years?

How does one get lies and propaganda published on the front of MyBB, I'd honestly like to know!
 

richjdavies

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
482
#4
PS:
"Eskom’s purpose is to provide a service and not to make a profit. They must also accept that it is happy with a low rate of return (3% real or less)"
That's lovely. It would be great if you could get money for free; but the people willing to give you the money want MORE than 3%... much more. Eskom needs cash to fix generators, buy diesel etc... Where's it going to get it from? If it gets it from politicians, then it won't be depoliticised...

FYI - Eskom just sold a big Bond at around 15%* (yes 15%) in Rand terms...
*(it was 7% in US dollar terms, but you need to add on the difference in the base rate USA = 0-1%, SA = 7-8%...)
 

donn_edwards

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
172
#5
Clearly they are pro nuclear -- forgetting that it will take 5-10 year to even start thinking about building anything... no mention of time scales despite the immediate problems.
They are insane: anyone wanting to trust their safety to a bunch of morons in charge of a Nuclear reactor needs to think again. It takes a special kind of stupidity to blow up a coal-fired power station (Duvha). That stupidity applied to nuclear power stations is suicidal.
 
Top