Two mothballed power stations.

[Jaycee Retief]

During the late 80's begin 90's two power stations, near the then Witbank, was mothballed by the new management team at Eskom.
The reason given was that Eskom was generating to much electricity. At the same time Eskom had to cut it's workforce because it was overstaffed.
Is this not where Eskom's problems started?
Just asking.
Ronnie.

 

[Lupus]

Why are you just asking, they also took a lot of those mothballed power plants and brought them back.
Camden, Grootvlei and Komati.

 

[Pegging]

They've always had problems. The current problem is a lack of problem solvers.

 

[etienne_marais]

The problem is Africa, it has a destructive rhythm

 

[Athos]

During the late 80's begin 90's two power stations, near the then Witbank, was mothballed by the new management team at Eskom.
The reason given was that Eskom was generating to much electricity. At the same time Eskom had to cut it's workforce because it was overstaffed.
Is this not where Eskom's problems started?
Just asking.
Ronnie.

I don't think this was the "start of the problem". They had too much capacity and keeping stations running costs money. The problem is that the new regime didn't build new capacity and when they finally woke up and started construction on Ingula, Medupi and Kusile in my opinion they chose the wrong technology. They should have built two nuclear power plants instead of coal and secondly the amount of corruption on these projects was just insane. Not only are Eskom managers to blame, the Contractors were happy to partake in the feeding frenzy.

 

[scudsucker]

The problem is Africa, it has a destructive rhythm

Interesting point of view, etienne.

 

[Johnatan56]

I don't think this was the "start of the problem". They had too much capacity and keeping stations running costs money. The problem is that the new regime didn't build new capacity and when they finally woke up and started construction on Ingula, Medupi and Kusile in my opinion they chose the wrong technology. They should have built two nuclear power plants instead of coal and secondly the amount of corruption on these projects was just insane. Not only are Eskom managers to blame, the Contractors were happy to partake in the feeding frenzy.

Just no, the "tech" chosen in terms of coal was fine, it was the multiple cases of going against the handbook in regards to building power stations, things like boiler design, redundant belt feeders, etc. Due to corruption that were the issue.

Nuclear would have been a lot more scary than this if they did the same level of corruption. Also, we still haven't paid the costs of Koeberg decommissioning, the cost price is not reflective, just look at France.

 

[etienne_marais]

Interesting point of view, etienne.

Yeah, well it is true. Not because of race or ethnicity but because of culture.

 

[Athos]

Just no, the "tech" chosen in terms of coal was fine, it was the multiple cases of going against the handbook in regards to building power stations, things like boiler design, redundant belt feeders, etc. Due to corruption that were the issue.

Nuclear would have been a lot more scary than this if they did the same level of corruption. Also, we still haven't paid the costs of Koeberg decommissioning, the cost price is not reflective, just look at France.

I fail to see how burning fossil fuel is ever the right choice.

I agree on the corruption though, the price tag at the time for a nuclear plant was around 250 - 300 billion so the scope for corruption would have been worse.

 

[Johnatan56]

I fail to see how burning fossil fuel is ever the right choice.

I agree on the corruption though, the price tag at the time for a nuclear plant was around 250 - 300 billion so the scope for corruption would have been worse.

At the time of the power stations starting to be built, 2008, coal was the cheapest option by a fair margin. Solar and wind has only been truly cost competitive around 2016/17, due to needing two farms in different locations for same output stability, and then adding a gas peaker or things like that. Back then your options were pretty much hydro, nuclear and coal, coal made the most sense.

 

[Athos]

At the time of the power stations starting to be built, 2008, coal was the cheapest option by a fair margin. Solar and wind has only been truly cost competitive around 2016/17, due to needing two farms in different locations for same output stability, and then adding a gas peaker or things like that. Back then your options were pretty much hydro, nuclear and coal, coal made the most sense.

You are right, I can't argue that. Coal was the cheapest option and in terms of base-load still is the cheapest option. Nuclear is a cleaner way to go and looking at what the cost over-runs were on the new builds we could've just gone with Nuclear (minus the corruption on the Nuclear builds that is).

 

[Vrotappel]

Interesting point of view, etienne.

Feudalism.

 

[Hamster]

During the late 80's begin 90's two power stations, near the then Witbank, was mothballed by the new management team at Eskom.
The reason given was that Eskom was generating to much electricity. At the same time Eskom had to cut it's workforce because it was overstaffed.
Is this not where Eskom's problems started?
Just asking.
Ronnie.

It takes a real grown up and well balanced person to register on the forum during peak loadshedding and then take 10 months to post a message.

...and then leave again.

 

[Johnatan56]

You are right, I can't argue that. Coal was the cheapest option and in terms of base-load still is the cheapest option.

That myth has been going on for so long, it's a bit insane. This is from 2010: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywis...ly-argument-shouldnt-hold-up-renewable-energy a blog post on the IEEE talking about a WREC paper. Would link to the original paper, but science direct changed their links, it's based on: https://donald.swift-hook.com/index.php/publications/ > "119. Swift-Hook, D. T., 2010 “Renewable Energy is the Last to be Stored” World Renewable Energy Congress XI, 25 – 30 Sep 2010(WREC: Abu Dhabi)." which definitely did happen: https://www.wrenuk.co.uk/wrec10/WREC_XI_Programme.pdf

Nuclear is a cleaner way to go and looking at what the cost over-runs were on the new builds we could've just gone with Nuclear (minus the corruption on the Nuclear builds that is).

It's "cleaner" but not really safer. The issue with nuclear is the enormous capital expenditure, South Africa would have issues raising enough funding for it, and private will not invest in nuclear as there have been very few, if any nuclear stations in the last few decades that have not had major delays or cost overruns in the Western world.

CSP is quite a threat to nuclear as it's slightly cheaper, less issues in regards to safety, and you can do smaller, less capital intensive projects. Lots of molten salt projects now have 20-24 hours of storage possible, anything above 14 hours or so has a better CPF than coal.

 

[PhireSide]

I'm surprised they haven't un-mothballed the Swartkops Power Station yet.

Some history on the plant: https://www.eskom.co.za/sites/heritage/Pages/Swartkops.aspx

 

[kolaval]

Just asking.

Ronnie.

This reeks of some bloody chain whatsapp message.

 

[Bonywasawarrioraway]

I don't think this was the "start of the problem". They had too much capacity and keeping stations running costs money. The problem is that the new regime didn't build new capacity and when they finally woke up and started construction on Ingula, Medupi and Kusile in my opinion they chose the wrong technology. They should have built two nuclear power plants instead of coal and secondly the amount of corruption on these projects was just insane. Not only are Eskom managers to blame, the Contractors were happy to partake in the feeding frenzy.

Particularly since the anc, via chancellor house was itself one of the contractors

 

[Athos]

That myth has been going on for so long, it's a bit insane. This is from 2010: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywis...ly-argument-shouldnt-hold-up-renewable-energy a blog post on the IEEE talking about a WREC paper. Would link to the original paper, but science direct changed their links, it's based on: https://donald.swift-hook.com/index.php/publications/ > "119. Swift-Hook, D. T., 2010 “Renewable Energy is the Last to be Stored” World Renewable Energy Congress XI, 25 – 30 Sep 2010(WREC: Abu Dhabi)." which definitely did happen: https://www.wrenuk.co.uk/wrec10/WREC_XI_Programme.pdf

It's "cleaner" but not really safer. The issue with nuclear is the enormous capital expenditure, South Africa would have issues raising enough funding for it, and private will not invest in nuclear as there have been very few, if any nuclear stations in the last few decades that have not had major delays or cost overruns in the Western world.

CSP is quite a threat to nuclear as it's slightly cheaper, less issues in regards to safety, and you can do smaller, less capital intensive projects. Lots of molten salt projects now have 20-24 hours of storage possible, anything above 14 hours or so has a better CPF than coal.

The largest CSP plant in the world is 377 MW. That is less than half of one Unit at Medupi, and almost a third of a Unit at Koeberg. Not to mention space vs MW output is crazy when comparing the two. CSP isn't the answer either I'm afraid. Perhaps battery technology will reach a point where we can store mass amounts of energy over night but until then, regardless of how many journal articles are written, renewables just can't carry the load requirements to get us through the night. We have a CSP plant in Upington already (private) Eskom pulled the plug on it's CSP aspirations a few years ago.

Edit: Wanted to add that the CSP plant we have is 50 MW, which is half of one Unit at Camden.

 

[Supervan II]

I'm surprised they haven't un-mothballed the Swartkops Power Station yet.

Some history on the plant: https://www.eskom.co.za/sites/heritage/Pages/Swartkops.aspx

View attachment 1101481

Alas, t'is but an empty shell thanks to the ANC selling it off lock, stock & barrel for cheap-cheap (<R4million according to the books) - only for the generators to be sold for at least R3.5million EACH (there were 9 of them!) realising a profit of >R30million "within weeks" for the generators alone!!!!

To re-equip it would cost an exorbitant amount as it has been all but gutted - the only functioning parts that remain are (and I speak under correction):
the wagon tippler (doubtful if still functional);
main bunker (underneath said tippler);
1st conveyor belt (from bunker to overhead feed conveyor);
2nd conveyor belt (feed conveyor to boiler bunkers).

AFAIK, even the boilers have been removed and sold, although the electricity distribution system & control room remains.

Sad indeed. 'Twas my first place of employment when I was but 16 years old.

Swartkops Power Station

Edited for some inaccuracies.

 

[Johnatan56]

The largest CSP plant in the world is 377 MW. That is less than half of one Unit at Medupi, and almost a third of a Unit at Koeberg. Not to mention space vs MW output is crazy when comparing the two. CSP isn't the answer either I'm afraid. Perhaps battery technology will reach a point where we can store mass amounts of energy over night but until then, regardless of how many journal articles are written, renewables just can't carry the load requirements to get us through the night. We have a CSP plant in Upington already (private) Eskom pulled the plug on it's CSP aspirations a few years ago.

Edit: Wanted to add that the CSP plant we have is 50 MW, which is half of one Unit at Camden.

If you're looking at US CSP, do not, those are pretty much all early prototypes where placement wasn't very important.

If you're looking at "modern" (one generation old, new one is still being built now, should be quite a bit better/less costly due to changes in terms of mirror design etc.), a recent one is the "Cerro Dominador" solar thermal plant, 210MW with 17.5h of storage. That's 210MW in 7.5km^2, that's not that much space, especially considering desert where there's nothing. Based on that, 38km^2 in the middle of a desert for a GW, who cares? E.g. the kalahari is 930'000km, building a few GW of power is not going to make a noticeable impact.

And wind carries on over night, also load during the night is substantially lower than when people are awake, you're sounding like a Nic.