The truth about load-shedding in South Africa

lsheed_cn

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
2,719
#61
At least part of the problem is that they tried - there was a moratorium on Eskom developing new power stations etc for nearly 10 years because the ANC tried VERY hard to get outside investors to come in and set up competitive telecommunications and power suppliers etc. but there were no takers. (Don't ask me to prove this, because it is damn near impossible to find old articles and so on these days on Google.) I'm open to correction but I think it was only around the time of the problems with Koeberg that they caught a wake up and realised how deep in the dooh dooh they were. Anyway this is partly why we now have such aging infrastructure with no development to replace it.

Actually they didn't try very hard.

They invited investors to come in under rather restrictive terms and conditions that were never going to work.
Guess what, money looked at it and went you're crazy. You want us to invest, but give ownership away?
No-one bit, unsurprisingly.

The idea was solid, but the implementation was the usual ANC cockup.
Eskom worked well till about 2002 when it was taken public, after that point it became a mess of BEE and corruption. You can blame Thulani Gcabashe, Jacob Maroga for most of that, then the ANC "Chancellor House / Hitachi" scandal which we're still paying for.

It went substantially downhill from there...
 

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
5,661
#62
https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/south-africa/cost-to-fix-medupi-kusile-balloons-to-r8bn/

Eskom general manager for group technical Titus Mathe disclosed to Moneyweb on Friday that the cost to fix “design defects” at Eskom’s new Medupi and Kusile power plants could be as high as R8 billion.
In a video interview with Moneyweb afterwards. he said the cost could amount to R8 billion. Eskom would try to recover this from the contractor through a claims process that Mathe acknowledged could be lengthy and complex.
Unit 6, which was the first to be completed, seems to be underperforming significantly. It was taken out of service for three months last year after unplanned outages on the unit exceeded 40% in August.
Since the beginning of the financial year on April 1, there have been a total of 66 unit trips at Medupi’s three commercially operating units.
Only one of Kusile’s six units is in commercial operation, and it is performing at an energy availability level of below 50%, Mathe said. It has had 18 trips so far this financial year.
 

eg2505

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
14,190
#63

Scooby_Doo

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
6,091
#64
There is a lot to be said for the likes of IPPs, the capital out lay is all private money and any and all "design flaws" don't come out of Eskom's budget. Imagine how much better the new coal stations would have been if it was built with private money.
 

Zoomzoom

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
3,237
#65
Actually they didn't try very hard.

They invited investors to come in under rather restrictive terms and conditions that were never going to work.
Guess what, money looked at it and went you're crazy. You want us to invest, but give ownership away?
No-one bit, unsurprisingly.

The idea was solid, but the implementation was the usual ANC cockup.
Eskom worked well till about 2002 when it was taken public, after that point it became a mess of BEE and corruption. You can blame Thulani Gcabashe, Jacob Maroga for most of that, then the ANC "Chancellor House / Hitachi" scandal which we're still paying for.

It went substantially downhill from there...
Don't blinking argue the same point with me because you want to be right or whatever possesses people to just argue for the sake of arguing!

The point remains that they TRIED and DIDN'T SUCCEED in getting private investors interested. Actually the main reason for the failure to attract investors was not the restrictive conditions but the fact that they had to a. build a million miles of new infrastructure and b. support indigent homes (this doesn't happen elsewhere in places where there are private power companies, you pay or go without). Whatever other roadblocks happened to exist were secondary to the issue of supplying power for free to masses of people.

And the impact on ESKOM today remains true - there was a moratorium on new construction, they didn't catch a wake up until Koeberg disaster when they ran around like headless chickens going HEYULP HEYULP THE SKY IS FALLING! And they STILL ARE!

Honestly!!!
 

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
5,661
#66
There is a lot to be said for the likes of IPPs, the capital out lay is all private money and any and all "design flaws" don't come out of Eskom's budget. Imagine how much better the new coal stations would have been if it was built with private money.
Unfortunately its not that simple. There is another thread explaining how environmental objections about coal-fired power stations, and withdrawal by major financial institutions, are likely to cripple those projects: https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...ation-bidders-announced.847216/#post-22850136

The latest news is that First Rand has pulled out of IPP coal financing: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/art...of-banks-funding-new-coal-fired-power-plants/
 

Scooby_Doo

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
6,091
#67
Unfortunately its not that simple. There is another thread explaining how environmental objections about coal-fired power stations, and withdrawal by major financial institutions, are likely to cripple those projects: https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/threads/south-africa’s-first-private-coal-power-station-bidders-announced.847216/#post-22850136

The latest news is that First Rand has pulled out of IPP coal financing: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/art...of-banks-funding-new-coal-fired-power-plants/

Sure, but take the coal part out of it, if the new stations were built by private money (coal or otherwise) you can be sure that there would have been far more controls in place. What I am getting at is that IPP cost per watt might seem a bit higher on paper but we cannot discount the reduced risk for the build out phase and up front capital outlay.
 

Gordon_R

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
5,661
#68
Sure, but take the coal part out of it, if the new stations were built by private money (coal or otherwise) you can be sure that there would have been far more controls in place. What I am getting at is that IPP cost per watt might seem a bit higher on paper but we cannot discount the reduced risk for the build out phase and up front capital outlay.
I mostly agree with you, but that's verging into a different discussion about wind and solar renewables, versus coal base-load.

There are all kinds of other obstacles, such as BEE requirements, unions, and the factors Zoomzoom mentions.
 
Top