You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to visit our Mobile web app instead?
 Registered users can save articles to their personal articles list. Login here or sign up here

How did Eskom land up in this week’s mess?

The latest load shedding chaos was foreseeable….

Just before the Easter long weekend, Eskom ramped up the amount of generation capacity taken offline for planned maintenance by 40%. This was a substantial move (and a very belated positive one). In practical terms, planned maintenance had been hovering around the 4000MW-4500MW mark and this was increased to over 6000MW on the Thursday before Easter.

This was absolutely the right thing to do, given that electricity demand would drop significantly over the long weekend as large industrial users shut down. (Bear in mind that there’s still the 900MW from Koeberg offline till the end of May, meaning that even with an increase to 6000MW, the real maintenance happening on Eskom’s legacy coal fleet is closer to 5000MW – or at 5500MW, closer to 4500MW.)

More planned maintenance, more load shedding

The problem, however, is that since Easter, Eskom has battled to get planned maintenance back down to what had become ‘normal’ levels (in the 4000MW range). Planned maintenance was at 5459MW on last Thursday (April 9), at 5364MW this Monday (April 13) and 5471MW as at today. Eskom does not have the headroom to do this amount of maintenance, without load shedding or without unplanned outages dropping significantly (and remaining )

Now this could mean a number of things. One – Eskom has realised that it hasn’t been doing enough maintenance during summer, and that maintenance would have to be kept at these elevated levels for the foreseeable future. Two – Eskom hasn’t been able to restore generation capacity that has been undergoing planned maintenance as quickly as it had planned. In other words, whatever it has been fixing has taken longer to fix than it originally thought. Three – Eskom misread the reliability and performance of the rest of its fleet and took the chance to ramp up maintenance.

In all honesty, the most likely answer is a combination of all three.

The quandary for Eskom all along is that it has to do proper maintenance when it takes any plant out of commission. There are (more than) some hints that it has continued to rush maintenance and force plant back online to make up for a shortfall due to unplanned outages.

Unusually high capacity forecasts

Then there’s the curious situation over Easter, where Eskom originally forecast it would have over 34000MW of capacity on April 2, 3, 4 and 5 – this despite the elevated levels of planned maintenance. Days later, it was revised lower these to anywhere from 31500MW to 33500MW. In the original forecast, it expected to have 34943MW and 34884MW available on the Thursday and Friday! (We don’t know what capacity it actually had, because Eskom didn’t publish a status bulletin on Monday (given that it was a public holiday) – but this is entirely academic given the far lower than average demand.)

But the last (and only other) time that Eskom forecast it would have anything close to 35000MW of capacity was on February 21 and 22. The original forecast was revised lower to ±27500MW for that weekend, and demand was forced lower (it did not use open cycle gas turbines). It’s difficult to figure out what happened in both these cases. How did Eskom arrive at the over-generous supply forecasts in the first place? Based on that, did Eskom look at these and decide to use the window to do additional planned maintenance?

Predicting this week’s near-constant load shedding

What happened this week, where load shedding was in place from 6am on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (and from 4pm on Monday and 10am on Sunday), was downright predictable. Planned maintenance is still at stubbornly high levels. (This is good news, especially for winter). The fact that Eskom was able to make the call and announce load shedding from 6am on the night before each of these days is telling. But, if it was forced into Stage 2 from as early as 6am, the supply situation was bad. (Thankfully, it ran Stage 1 from 6am on Thursday, meaning it had found another 1000MW (or some diesel).)

However, the situation on Wednesday was downright bizarre. In the morning, it had managed to restore 1200MW of capacity (2 x 600MW) from the 9500MW unplanned outages. It confirmed then that planned maintenance stood at around 5000MW. Yet, by the afternoon it was forced into Stage 3 load shedding (where it removes up to 4000MW of demand).

Do the maths…. There was 9500MW of unplanned outages + 5000MW of planned maintenance as of Wednesday morning. Stage 2 load shedding meant a foreseeable shortfall (at peak) of 2000MW.

But, 1200MW of the unplanned outages were restored during the course of the morning. This left a new theoretical shortfall of 800MW (call it 1000MW), but load shedding wasn’t downgraded to Stage 1. Instead, load shedding was escalated to Stage 3 by 4pm.

This meant Eskom lost the equivalent of all of the capacity it had managed to restore (1200MW) plus another thousand megawatts (or two).

In its status bulletin published yesterday, Eskom says it there was peak demand (“reduced down”) of 27451MW with available capacity of 29301MW on Wednesday.

Something, somewhere does not quite add up.

So how did capacity disappear on Wednesday?

Business Day says it was able to “build a picture of what transpired” and that Eskom reached the “tail-end of… [the] diesel supplies” for its open cycle gas turbines. Compounding this was the depletion of “pumped storage capacity” earlier in the week. This is (somewhat) good news. It means that Eskom didn’t lose any more capacity from its coal fleet.

In fact, Thursday’s system status bulletin further corroborates this, except its not evident Eskom even had the luxury of the “tail-end of diesel supplies”. In the bulletin, Eskom says available capacity on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday this week was met “considering primary energy constraints”. This is code for ‘we did not run the open cycle gas turbines’. Curiously, it now references a demand picture “excluding load shedding” which is not really a demand picture at all – more on this next week.

Referring to the investigation underway while four executives are suspended, Public Enterprises Minister Lynne Brown said in her press briefing on Wednesday that she is ”digging deep into Eskom for three months to find factual information about what is happening at Eskom”.

“I want a deep dive into Eskom. Don’t you? Don’t you want to know what’s inside Eskom. It’s one of the third largest utilities of its kind in the world. That’s why I am only giving them three months. At least I want to know its liquidity. I want to know how the maintenance is going.”

So the minister and department doesn’t know “how the maintenance is going”?! And the war room? Do they know? Does Eskom itself know? This is the hauntingly worrying part of the minister’s pronouncements.

Brown also said on Wednesday: “I think we need to stick to maintenance – even in winter.”

Hallelujah! Back in February, I called for Eskom to load shed daily until May. This was poo-pooed (indirectly, of course). Seems the reality of the situation is finally obvious to government.

I’ll repeat what I said on Monday: “Get the ramp up of Medupi Unit 6 right, and get some of that planned maintenance done (properly!), and we’ll be alright for winter. Don’t, and watch the unplanned outages and general unpredictability rocket upwards because Eskom simply hasn’t had the headroom to get plant fixed. The vicious circle it’s been battling against all summer will continue.”

At this point, the sane path is to continue doing maintenance during winter. Eskom did so last year. Let’s see which route is chosen…

* Hilton Tarrant works at immedia.

Get access to Moneyweb's financial intelligence and support quality journalism for only
R63/month or R630/year.
Sign up here, cancel at any time.

AUTHOR PROFILE

COMMENTS   7

To comment, you must be registered and logged in.

LOGIN HERE

Don't have an account?
Sign up for FREE

Why should it take 3 months for the minister to find out what is going on at Eskom? Any private business of that size will be able to tell the minister within 3 hours exactly how they operate and what their liquidity is! The problem dear minister, is the fact that Luthuli House manages Eskom without accountability. You should “dive into” Luthuli House to sort out this mess.

Because Eskom is a technical company with technical problems.
To explain this to government employees who have no technical knowledge is a mission: 3 months at least.
Molefe is also part of the talk shop, no technical knowledge. He has been set up for failure.

Did we really expect anything else??? Come on you do not ask a motor mechanic to fly a A380 and vice versa!

Hilton – a lot of your stats and assumption are based on poor data being supplied by Eskom themselves out of the “war room” (this in itself is a misnomer). The reality is that Eskom is run by a group of incompetents who know absolutely nothing about their business, have no clue on running projects (whether it be build or maintenance) can’t forecast time usage, let alone apply time management. Eskom is on record that they have been attending to proper and appropriate maintenance schedules ever since the great black out in Cape Town when wingnut Erwin was involved and brought a new meaning to sabotage. This think called Eskom is a national resource and yet they don’t adhere to their own mandate, they really are a useless crowd. Every single bonus paid to any staff member at Eskom should be recovered going back as far as Nov 2007 and any golden handshakes should be recovered, even Valli Moosa should payback all his grandiose payments as he was ineffective. Eskom should be compelled to trot out (daily) consumption over the last 24 hours, what capacity was available, what was under scheduled maintenance and what was production just dropped (reasons for this unscheduled drop is mandatory). All maintenance undertaken should be subject to inspection and sign off as to completeness and competency measurements of technicians recorded. If the section that was “fixed” after undergoing scheduled maintenance fails within 12 months the technicians need to be fired or are sent back to complete the job and should not be paid for this period of rework. Also Eskom don’t seem to have a clue on time management whatsoever, how can they undertake schedule maintenance without knowing a start and finish date – it merely shows that the organisation accepts mediocrity as a standard hence the 4 and a half year delay on Medupi. Surely they can invoke a “no strike action” at this facility to get it up and running
They really are an incompetent bunch of buffoons
That’s my rant for the day

Evkom managers: more than one person said this and prefers it so that their business can operate efficient under cicumstances:
(1) announce phase 1 loadshedding immediately untill the end of the year AND STICK TO IT
(2) use it to do your maintenance to get up to date with the maintenance program, by the end of the year you should be ahead i.e. have spare capacity even if so-called “unplanned maintenance” happens
(3) this way the consumer can plan ahead (example the baker put the dough in the oven only when there will be electricity, or a plant which takes 2 hours to start-up can be planned, there’s more examples…)
(4) you will get some respect back
(5) unless you don’t want respect………..

I guess what I’m saying is : act your age and not your shoe size!
NOW GO AND DO IT!!!

Ps. if you want names to help with knowledge about the maintenance, just ask

Anyone who wants to know all about Eskom please read this very excellent article by Andrew Kenny called “The rise and fall of Eskom…”PDF in @Liberty of the South African Institute of Race Relations. It is issue 18 of 18 March 2015.
http://tinyurl.com/l5klp7b and click the red square.

Load All 7 Comments
End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR

Podcasts

SHOP NEWSLETTERS TRENDING CPD HUB

Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: