Right back to Eskom woes ... 

Eskom reported that they had ample coal, 50+ days, or did I read that wrong ... a week or more ago?

 

Load-shedding on the cards as shortage of coal persists at Eskom

Sep 20, 2019

 

JOHANNESBURG – The Democratic Alliance says it has received reliable information there’ll be rolling blackouts in September and October.

DA MP Natasha Mazzone, says on the party’s website, that Eskom apparently issued warnings of the impending blackouts to municipalities.

The DA has written to Eskom chairperson Jabu Mabuza to clarify the matter.

Energy expert Ted Blom said the primary reason for load-shedding is a shortage of coal.

“There is still a severe shortage of coal at Eskom. They put out a tender about two weeks ago for another 400 odd million tonnes of coal and in total, they need more than 900 million tonnes of coal and that’s equal to one power station’s consumption over 40-years,” said Blom.

Eskom has declined to comment.

The utility has reiterated its commitment to ensuring power stability whilst urging consumers to use electricity sparingly.

Article by ENCA

On 2019/09/20 at 7:15 PM, The Terrible Triplett said:

Eskom reported that they had ample coal, 50+ days, or did I read that wrong ... a week or more ago?

Anyone who's worked for a startup knows you're always between 3 and 6 months away from being unemployed. With Eskom we're always about 2 weeks away from load shedding... give or take a week.

Edited September 21, 20196 yr by plonkster

 

New Eskom pricing can crush solar in South Africa

 

Quote

Eskom is now proposing a change to this pricing structure – it wants to significantly increase the fixed connection charge and reduce electricity usage charges.

 What else from an inept incumbent.

1 hour ago, Dean Lennox said:

What else from an inept incumbent

Things would eventually settle to a new equilibrium, but perhaps not the long-term equilibrium that ESKOM thinks. 

"Eskom is now proposing a change to this pricing structure – it wants to significantly increase the fixed connection charge and reduce electricity usage charges."

My fixed network costs made up about a third of my pre-solar bill. I have no idea how this effects prepaid metering, but I'll discuss my own circumstance.

Let's say that fixed cost got increased to 2/3rds, that would mean my fix costs would've doubled and my variable per unit costs would've halved.

Therefore the value of each unit of solar production would also halve.

As the price of solar is largely an upfront cost, that affects two sets of punters differently, those who are already invested in solar and those aren't.

So what would the average punter do?

Well if he didn't already have solar, he wouldn't get it and he would have a lesser incentive to use conserve electricity, as it's just halved in price /unit. This will annoy the tree-huggers no end.

If the punter already had solar, well he's still going to keep it, the money's spent. So no change there.

However, the price of batteries are the direct offset to fixed grid cost price. 

Batteries  can't compete with grid at present prices, but if the fixed ESKOM costs were to double  that calculation changes. Going off-grid also allows you sizing and legal freedoms that don't exist with grid-tied installations, that also have to be factored in. Perhaps the golden handcuffs will come off.

I would argue that the law of unintended consequences would give people who already were 'gatvol' with ESKOM to go solar already, that final push to go offgrid, and people who had no intention to go solar,  they would have even less reason to use less electricity.

And as for illegal connections in townships, ESKOM would be actively trying to stimulate this practice, with this proposed pricing structure.

 

 

Edited October 7, 20196 yr by phil.g00

18 minutes ago, phil.g00 said:

However, the price of batteries are the direct offset to fixed grid cost price. 

Well, the price of a generator +running costs instead of huge batteries might also be an option.

1 hour ago, phil.g00 said:

"Eskom is now proposing a change to this pricing structure – it wants to significantly increase the fixed connection charge and reduce electricity usage charges."

Municipalities will go the same route. Currently pre-paid electricity users in Johannesburg pay no fixed fees at all, though they do pay a higher per kw/h price (but the saving on flat fees is so great that you have to burn a lot of electricity to not save by going pre-paid). 

This year they tried to sneak in a R200 adjustment on rates for properties with pre-paid electricity. There was a hue and cry, and the levy was dropped. But I can see the problem. It costs them just as much money to deliver electricity to my house as it does to another property that has post-paid electricity. So why should I not pay for the connection? It's going to come. Next year they will do it again but they will get the procedures right and no appeal will be countenanced.

I wonder if Eskom's thinking includes the way they charge municipalities (some of whom owe Eskom large amounts of money): So many million per month for connections to the grid, and a lower per unit cost for consumption. Makes it much easier for them to deal with delinquents. And makes it easier for municipalities to build the flat fee into some other part of your account which you can't as easily by pass by bypassing or tampering with the meter.

In reality, I reckon domestic solar (apart from being very vocal and a PR issue), doesn't really make a dent in ESKOM's finances in the overall scheme of things.

All prices must pass the regulator's scrutiny and the regulator has demonstrated it stands it's ground.

This is monopolistic exploitation in its purest form, there isn't a hope it'll get past the regulator.

I think this is just a kite flying exercise by some journalist who gets off on trolling. 

 

It makes perfect sense to align the cost base with the billing method. Solar owners with grid backup currently benefit unfairly from grid availability without shouldering the costs for the network evenly. I can admit freely that I am having my cake and eating it too. But I reckon the main motivation is to prepare the ground for splitting Eskom into separate generation and distribution entities.

4 hours ago, phil.g00 said:

 

In reality, I reckon domestic solar (apart from being very vocal and a PR issue), doesn't really make a dent in ESKOM's finances in the overall scheme of things.

 

Domestic solar PV maybe not yet. But I'll wager there is far more impact from solar water heaters that have reduced overall power consumption, but in cloudy weather everyone still wants grid backup for hot water.

29 minutes ago, GreenFields said:

Solar owners with grid backup currently benefit unfairly from grid availability without shouldering the costs for the network evenly

Ah now I understand, it's actually us ripping ESKOM off.

 

Edited October 7, 20196 yr by phil.g00

9 hours ago, Dean Lennox said:

 

New Eskom pricing can crush solar in South Africa

 

The high fixed cost on a farm line is what made it financially viable for me to go off grid. With a high fixed cost, the less you use, the higher the effective rate per kWh. 

I don't think they have thought this through properly, the law of unintended consequences is a harsh schoolmaster.

*edit*

I just read the article again, and Eskom has this completely ass backwards. They need to cheaper than solar whichever way you structure the pricing. This won't work. They are trying to punish solar users somehow, but actually they are incentivising people to go off grid, and punishing the grid tie users. What's that expression, Slim vang sy baas?

Edited October 7, 20196 yr by DeepBass9

 

6 hours ago, phil.g00 said:

 

I think this is just a kite flying exercise by some journalist who gets off on trolling. 

 

I also think so and from other articles they have published, they are normally very half baked.

14 minutes ago, DeepBass9 said:

What's that expression, Slim vang sy baas?

Net so

Edited October 7, 20196 yr by PaBz0r

3 hours ago, DeepBass9 said:

They are trying to punish solar users somehow, but actually they are incentivising people to go off grid

I agree, if this article is the view of Eskom and not just some journalist writing a half baked story. It will encourage more customers to go completely off-grid.

It also seems that Eskom realized they can’t make more money, because they don’t have more power to sell. The only way for them now to make more money is to force their load-shedded power with high grid fees on customers that don’t have any other choice, and to try and profit out of customers who already took the solar route.

 

7 hours ago, Gerrie said:

I agree, if this article is the view of Eskom and not just some journalist writing a half baked story. It will encourage more customers to go completely off-grid.

It also seems that Eskom realized they can’t make more money, because they don’t have more power to sell. The only way for them now to make more money is to force their load-shedded power with high grid fees on customers that don’t have any other choice, and to try and profit out of customers who already took the solar route.

 

Especially people who are currently grid tie. You are only missing some batteries and then you can go off grid.

for me it's 3 more panels and 1 additional battery and I can go off grid, 

but for Eskom, the ultimate better solution is actually going the total opposite way... go cheaper, cheaper will end with more people using,= more income = more cash flow.

but then they have to collect from all the municipalities thats not paying,

they must pay right amount for good coal and not over pay for XXX down the road delivering 1/3 rocks and some shitty low quality coal.

They pretty much have a admin/operational failure across their entire management chain, fix that and they will have more than enough to go around come bonus time.

This plan, is going hurt more, for them and Joe soap in the street, the number of people on Solar is not large enough to make a difference at the moment.

and as for splitting Eskom up, well Transmission will love this idea, they will get the lion share of the monthly bill, btw as it stands Transmission is the more stable, most profitable division in Eskom already so they will justt look better, Generation on the other hand, is already in the ditch, got no value for anyone to invest in if they are split and when they are split, will get even less, and they need it more.

looks interesting.

G

Just for interest sake, the shitty low quality coal is full of sulphur which is causing a lot of the SO2 pollution. There is a reason why some coal was left in the ground previously. 

Edited October 8, 20196 yr by DeepBass9

It was painful to observe the Eskom (mis)information talk on tv this week.

Jabu, being ceo and chairman, came across like an appointed cadre.

Why he was appointed by his political masters remains a mystery to me.

He could not even describe a conveyor belt! Really!! Or answer the important question on their diesel price. He admitted he knows nothing about this business! On what grounds does the Anseee really appoints their cadre? It is an embarrassment in front of the world.

And the nuisance investigative reporters had to spotlight the real truth on why the Medupe conveyor belt broke. Along with the news that three contractors have been fired. 

They employ contractors along with their 50% too many staff? Huh?

Then their was the revelation that the contractors who did boiler maintenance was replace (or fired?) and replaced by an Eskom company. I am gobsmacked on the why for this. Fact is they neglected to replace their boilers after 25 years service and we are paying the price. Another hidden piece of information they have never replaced the two broken (or blown up) boilers.

And they were quite vocal on the reasons for load shedding. But nothing was mentioned of what they would do if the economy starts growing with a bigger resultant electricity consumption.

And nothing was mentioned of their criminal employees committing fraud, as just exposed by the auditors again.

What a sorry bunch of misplaced cadres. Thank goodness they are not in charge of the sun rising. Lol

I really don’t see the light in the tunnel (hopefully it’s a Transnet train that will break down) for this criminal empire.

and Jan had to say they cannot afford laying off their excess workforce as the golden handshakes will be unaffordable. He also admitted their world record ineffiency.

Solar is here to stay in my life.

Edited October 27, 20196 yr by Johandup

Having been in industrial control for much of my life I found this article by Cris Yelland to spell out the issues as 100% plausible.

This could have been titled: How not to run a plant.. 

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-10-23-medupi-magic-fails-eskom-and-south-africa/

Edited October 27, 20196 yr by Richard Mackay

Question. Would it not be cheaper to burn money directly in Eskom's boilers, rather than bothering with that messy coal?

On 2019/10/30 at 7:07 PM, DeepBass9 said:

 

Question. Would it not be cheaper to burn money directly in Eskom's boilers, rather than bothering with that messy coal?

 

Just think of all the paperwork, These politicians are already struggling to control it, that might make things worse.

Load shedding is back!!! Report just came out. Go check you inverter and see how the Hz on the network going up and down, like bad. 

1 hour ago, Gerlach said:

Load shedding is back!!! Report just came out. Go check you inverter and see how the Hz on the network going up and down, like bad. 

Juuuust missed the slot tonight, clear until tomorrow. Batteries are 92% full so we should be good in any case.

19 minutes ago, plonkster said:

Juuuust missed the slot tonight, clear until tomorrow. Batteries are 92% full so we should be good in any case.

We missed it to but looks like we have maybe one from 12:00 - 2:30.

11 minutes ago, plonkster said:

Batteries are 92% full so we should be good in any case

Mine don't look so lekker after the HA-02 burned out, Looks like one of the batteries is on iets way out. Standing on 80%

Eskom workers picketing today. Does this mean higher risk of load-shedding? 

The purpose of the picket is to highlight the fact that Numsa rejects the unbundling that’s taking place at Eskom and they reject the privatisation of the utility.

 

1 hour ago, Gerrie said:

The purpose of the picket is to highlight the fact that Numsa rejects the unbundling that’s taking place at Eskom and they reject the privatisation of the utility.

I don't recall that privatisation is on the cards at all. Yes, unbundling, but the new entities remain SOEs, under the overall blanket of Eskom. Right?

I'm not outright dismissing it. Just the other day we had a discussion here about the taxing of solar panels, where I argued that the text of the law doesn't say any such thing, and others said that we should resist this step because taxation will follow afterwards. Perhaps the same is going on here: They (the union people) know that privatisation is not on the table... but they worry that it might follow!