coal-power-station

Let’s understand what R100 billion buys us when it comes to energy.   We will compare a coal fired power station with alternative solutions. Most people have no idea what R100 billion is and what it can buy.
Two years ago, R100 Billion bought one 5GW power station.   This power station requires about 8,000 people to build and about 1,000 people to run and several hundred more to supply it.   It requires 35 tons of coal every 15 seconds to run, needs coal mines, trucks, fuel to dig the mines, run the trucks, it requires roads to be built and serviced, ongoing maintenance, etc.  It also requires a huge amount of concrete to be poured. [And concrete as most of you know is the biggest source of pollution after converting coal into oil.

Let’s look at an alternative that can be easily understood.
R100 Billion is equal to 6,666,667 * R15,000 solar water heaters.
[Ie 10,000,000 * R10,000 = R100,000,000,000]
Assuming that there are 200 working days per year, then over 8 years there are 1600 working days.
Assuming we wish to install 10 million solar water heaters in 1600 days, we need to install 4,167 solar water heaters per day. This would mean that the entire suburb of Milnerton for example would get solar water heaters in one day.
Assuming a team of three people to install one solar water heater per day, we need 12,500 installers. Together with manufacturing, support, supply chain, maintenance, sales people, electricians, inspectors, this industry might permanently support double that number to reach 25,000 people.

And best of all it would replace 13 GW of power stations, ie it would need 13 GW of electricity to power 6,666,667 electrical water heaters, so it can be said that our money is at almost 3 times more efficient when spent on solar water than on electricity to heat water.

Figures and original article adapted and adjusted from comment by David Lipschitz; Published from Yes the Blog

Green energy project george
George Municipality could be the first municipality in South Africa to buy privately generated electricity. The news was revealed at a site inspection on 25 October 2010 of the R200-million green energy to electricity project, between the state owned Central Energy Fund (CEF), Carbon & Environmental Options (C&EO) and other stakeholders.
In the Picture – Ms Busi Mabuza – CEF Group Chairperson, Karel Siegel, MBH Executive; Dr Phindile Masangane – Project Manager CEF and Mr Mputumi Damane – CEF Group CEO with some of the equipment for the proposed green energy to electricity project.
According to CEF project manager Dr Phindile Masangane, the plant will produce a maximum of 8.8 megawatts  electricity (MWe) and could export a maximum of 7.5 MWe into George’s electricity grid by 2012. This would provide George with about 10 percent of its electricity requirements.
George Municipality will not be making a capital investment in the plant as it will be funded by CEF and its partners.
George Executive Deputy Mayor Lionel Esau, councillors and the electro-technical department paid a visit to the site with Dr Masangane,  CEF chairman Busi Mabuza, chief executive Mputumi Damane and MBH Energy executive Karl Siegal to inspect equipment that has been imported from India.
MBH Energy will build the air-cooled power island that will convert the green waste to electricity.
The plant requires 110 000 tonnes of green waste, such as forest and sawmill waste, woodchips, bark and sawdust to generate the required electricity per annum.  Siegel said the waste would be burnt in a boiler which would generate 4 000 tons of steam that would then turn the turbine that powers the alternator to produce the  electricity.
Masangane said that 75% of the main equipment is already on site, which stands on the former Sonae Novabord property in George Industria.
Construction of the plant could start in August 2011 and if plans go according to schedule, the plant could be commissioned within nine months.
Source – George Municipality

coal fired power station

In the early morning smog and heat of Ahmedabad city, in the Indian state of Gujarat, the 400MW Torrent coal-fired power station looms over homes and businesses that huddle a stone’s throw away from the plant.

The scene is emblematic of a nation in thrall to its need for energy.

According to SM Krishna, the country’s minister for external affairs, India wants to achieve a double-digit growth rate by 2012, up from the 9% projected for the coming year.

Astronomical growth such as this is a basic necessity to provide for a population of more than a billion people, particularly if it aims to lift a further 185-million people out of poverty by 2015, Krishna said.

But a secure supply of electricity is crucial to meeting those targets and India’s appetite for energy is good news for South Africa, as the Asian tiger looks outwards for energy resources.

SA coal imports to increase
Coal imports from South Africa hit a reported 17-million tonnes last year and are likely to increase.

“We are planning substantial coal imports from other countries. Even though we have coal, it is not up to the mark,” said Krishna.

He noted that, with Australia and Indonesia, South Africa is a likely source for increased coal imports.

Moves are already afoot to increase coal procurement, with state-owned Coal India, which provides 80% of India’s coal demand, setting aside six billion rupees ($135-million) to buy coal mines in the United States, Australia, Indonesia and South Africa, local newspaper The Hindu reported.

While South Africa faces looming power shortages in the coming years, the odds seem surmountable when held up against the challenges that a country the size of India faces.

Challenges for India
The nation relies chiefly on thermal power generation — or electricity from oil, gas and coal-fired power stations.

The energy mix, according to the country’s ministry of power, is made up of 65% from thermal power, 24% from hydropower, 3% from nuclear power and 8% from renewable sources.

Unlike South Africa, where electricity generation and transmission falls mainly on to the state utility, Eskom, India began work to reform its electricity sector a decade ago.

It has split its generation, transmission and distribution networks.

Generation has been opened to independent power producers, distribution networks have remained with the state but have been corporatised to improve efficiency, while transmission has remained state run, according to Debajit Palit of The Energy and Resources Institute.

Improvements
Palit said the process had begun to bear fruit, particularly when it comes to curbing technical losses and improving non-payment.

He estimated that technical losses decreased from about 40% to about 20% while tariff collection in some regions is up 90%.

But the country faces huge challenges, particularly when it comes to providing electricity to the rural poor.

A report released by the International Energy Agency in March noted that 64.5% of India is electrified, with a 93.1% electrification rate in urban settings but only 52,5% in rural areas.

Demand for more
But when 850-million people, or around 70% of the population, live in the rural areas, a huge number of Indians still need access to power.

And, despite the room created for private sector players, only 13% of the country’s 164500MW of installed capacity is provided by independent power providers.

More than half the capacity is generated by the federal state sector (India has 28 states) with the rest, or 34%, coming from the central government.

This is compared with South Africa’s total installed capacity of just over 40000MW, almost entirely sourced from Eskom.

“Although India has considerably improved its generating capacity, it still has difficulty in meeting demand and there are persistent power shortages, which constrain India’s economic growth,” said the report.

“With the development of the industrial and commercial sectors, as well as the wider use of electrical equipment, electricity demand keeps increasing.”

It stated that in 20 years’ time India will need to increase its capacity to a massive 96 0000MW.

Implications for climate change
This has huge implications for climate change. But the country, and its fellow Asian powerhouse, China, is reluctant to subordinate its much-needed development in the name of going green — particularly in the light of Western nations, which have been free to pollute the planet to reach their current levels of wealth and economic development.

“We believe sustainable development is good for all. But we have millions of people who require access to commercial power and have none,” said Vivek Katju, a senior official in India’s ministry of external affairs.

“There can’t be a shift in the world’s fundamental approach to climate change. But countries with historical responsibilities must discharge those responsibilities.”

In a bid to address concerns about climate change India is planning to increase its nuclear power production extensively.

It hopes to take the share of nuclear power production from the current 5 000MW to about 20 000MW by 2020.

Meanwhile, the nation makes do. India’s businesses have worked around the problems of power shortages either by installing generators or by building their own captive power plants to ensure security of supply.
One such example is Hero Honda Motors in Delhi. It is the largest manufacturer of two-wheeled motor vehicles in the world, producing a bike every 18 seconds.

The company has a 20MW plant that runs on furnace oil and natural gas to keep it going 24/7.

“We need power all the time – we can’t rely on the grid,” a company manager said.

As for the millions of rural and urban poor, fire and lantern light is the only option until power reaches them.

Source – Mail and Guardian

Wind turbines china

The world’s top polluter, China, is a surprise leader in clean energy efforts, a study showed Tuesday, outstripping the United States and Japan and leaving Australia lagging far behind.


Wind turbines china

A wind turbine complex on the Zhemo Mountain on the outskirts of Dali in China's southwestern province of Yunnan. AFP PHOTO / FILES / LIU Jin

The Vivid Economics report, commissioned by Australia’s Climate Institute thinktank, showed China was second only to Britain in the value of its incentives to cut pollution from electricity generation.

Britain’s efforts were estimated at 29.30 US dollars per tonne of carbon to China’s 14.20 US dollars, with the United States clocking 5.10, Japan 3.10, Australia 1.70 and just 70 US cents for South Korea.

The six countries account for just under half of all global emissions.

“The Chinese leadership have made a strategic decision that they missed out on the last two industrial revolutions and they don’t want to miss out on the third one,” said Erwin Jackson, director of the Climate Institute, of China’s “surprising” dominance.

“They are now commanding the largest market share of clean energy investment at a global level as a result,” Jackson told AFP.

China’s investment in clean energy topped 35 billion US dollars in 2009 compared with 11 billion in Britain and 18 billion in the United States, and Jackson said it was set to increase tenfold over the next decade.

The main driver of China’s performance was its commitment to shutting down more than 100 small coal-fired power plants for cleaner coal stations by 2011, which the report said would reduce emissions by 15 percent.

It also offered subsidies worth billions of yuan for green energy projects, aiming to generate 15 percent of the nation’s total energy from renewable sources by 2020.

In Japan, 10 major power producers had joined a voluntary scheme aiming to cut emissions by 20 percent of 1990 levels by 2012, a major initiative which accounted for more than half of its clean energy rating.

Variations of an emissions cap-and-trade system were in place in South Korea, Britain, Tokyo, and parts of the United States, the report said.

The study said there were few policies which applied directly to coal, despite the fact it was the major source of fuel and carbon pollution for the six countries.

It also warned that none of the countries was on track to meet reduction targets agreed after last year’s global climate summit at Copenhagen, with Japan lagging worst in relative terms.

Jackson said the report showed that Europe and China were ahead of the game on pollution reduction investment, far outpacing countries such as Australia — the world’s worst per capita polluter due to its heavy dependence on coal.

Without action to price carbon, he said Australia risked falling foul of anti-pollution taxes, with countries such as Japan and India already taxing imports of coal and similar moves foreshadowed in the United States and Europe.

Australian Climate Change Minister Greg Combet welcomed the report, saying a carbon price “will not only provide an incentive to reduce pollution but also … drive this country’s long-term competitiveness”.

The ruling Labor party in Australia, the world’s largest coal exporter, has shelved emissions trading laws after failing to pass them and nearly lost power at August polls, with the eco-minded Greens party winning a record vote share.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, now at the head of a Greens-backed coalition government, has urged penalties for carbon pollution and formed a cross-party committee to investigate the best way to slash emissions.

Source – The Times

solar park

The department quoted Energy Minister Dipuo Peters as saying: “A woefully wrong impression is being created that presupposes that, in view of the fact that the current draft IRP2010 only makes provision for the target of 600 megawatts by 2017, then it follows that the Northern Cape Solar Park will not happen as it falls outside of the IRP. This is not the case.

“Realistic targets for electricity generation can only be included in the IRP once we have completed the feasibility studies which will provide certainty with regard to, amongst others, the necessary core data with regard to the time frames for the implementation of the envisaged solar park, the scale of its operations, the mix of solar technologies that will be used to generate electricity using the sun rays as well as mechanisms that are needed to secure integration into the national grid,” she said.

The department was committed to initiating large-scale solar projects in order to contribute to the security of energy supply.

It was in this respect that the prefeasibility study that was conducted by the Clinton Climate Initiative confirmed that 5 GW of cost effective electricity generation was achievable through the deployment of solar projects.

The draft IRP was written with enough flexibility to accommodate the Solar Park concept, the statement continued.

The Solar Park provided “the real arsenal” to deploy technology that could replace the fossil-fired power generation.

Peters reiterated government’s commitment that 30 percent of new generation capacity would be produced by independent power producers.

The development of a large scale solar park would be a significant part of this once government had the benefit of reviewing the current draft that is out for public comment.

Source – The Times

Johannesburg – An alternative source of energy from Sasol will provide thousands of homeowners with a significantly smaller monthly energy account, as well as a smaller carbon footprint.

On Tuesday the petrochemical giant introduced its new Sasol Homegas product at the Waterfall Country Estate in Midrand, currently the largest property development in the country and the first to use the gas.

The product is liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which is stored in large 6 200-litre to 22 500-litre gas tanks on the premises of the development for use as an alternative energy source.

It is the first such project and Sasol plans to roll it out on a large scale countrywide in new developments.

It’s a step in the direction of a greener future, said Pieter Claassen, Sasol Oil’s manager for new business development.

It is especially targeted at developers of new housing and at the low-income housing market.

He said the gas would be used to heat water, for indoor heating and for cooking.

At the same time the houses will be supplied with solar panels.

This would reduce the average household’s dependence on electricity by about 60%. The saving on the total electricity account would be 18% to 20% and households’ carbon footprint would come down 40% to 50%.

It would considerably reduce the pressure on South Africa’s electricity network and ensure that buildings had a reliable alternative source of energy at all times, lightening the household burden of rising electricity tariffs.

This gas is already being used in millions of homes globally, but its use in South Africa has always been limited because the country until recently had cheap electricity.

The infrastructure to install the product will add to developer’s costs.

Claassen said a R1.5m house would cost an average of 1% more to build and low-income houses about 2% more.

Mark Corbett, chief executive of Century Property Developments which is developing Waterfall, said the gas will be stored on the premises and distributed to each house.

Each house will have its own gas meter and households will be able to pay for the gas in advance.

Waterfall is currently the biggest residential development in the country and 3 000 houses will be built there over the next five years.

Corbett said the stands sell for between R600 000 and R6.5m for units from 600m² to one hectare. The first three stages, a total of 700 erven, have already been sold.

Sasol Homegas will be installed by qualified staff in compliance with all international and domestic safety standards.

The gas has a distinct smell, so that any leaks can be picked up and traced immediately.

The age of cheap electricity in South Africa is at an end. It may pay to consider alternative and renewable energy sources – or to invest in methods of increasing energy efficiency.

Unfortunately, there are several factors working against an easy transition from the Eskom grid to your own little energy island.

Sustainable and renewable energy engineer Frank Spencer, CEO of Emergent Energy, said the immediate problem is that we are in a transition period from cheap to more expensive electricity.

“Our electricity is still too inexpensive to drive behaviour change, but that will change. In addition, our houses are built so poorly that we use a lot of energy to run them, such as poor insulation on geysers, pipes and ceilings, and energy-inefficient appliances,” Spencer said.

“Houses are optimised for upfront costs, not running costs. As with almost every industry, life-cycle costs are seldom considered.”

Getting the best advice on investments in alternative energy sources is not easy, said Spencer. “Most companies are looking to sell some product, which makes it very difficult to get independent advice. Further, there is no reputable accreditation body that I am aware of.”

Nevertheless, Spencer said there is plenty that homeowners can do to reduce their electricity bills immediately.

“Renewables in a sense give you a hedge against long-term electricity prices because you spend most of the money upfront, so you know precisely what your electricity is going to cost you for the next 10 to 20 years – especially with solar water heaters (turning sunlight into hot water) and photovoltaics (turning sunlight into electricity).”

When it comes to installing renewable energy sources for your home, Spencer said the country’s abundant sunlight means wind just cannot easily compete with solar’s life-cycle costs.

“Solar is cheaper upfront for the same amount of energy (kWh) produced, with much less maintenance. Solar water heaters are the cheapest way of producing energy from the sun, but heat pumps (especially solar heat pumps) are also a good alternative. However, energy-efficiency investments will beat all of these.”

“Energy-efficiency investments can have zero payback time – like taking out superfluous light bulbs – to just a few years, for CFL bulbs.

“Solar water heaters and heat pumps have a payback of about five years (with the Eskom subsidy), but this depends on the volume of hot water consumed.

“By combining energy efficiency gas and solar it is possible to get off the grid with a combined payback of less than 10 years,” said Spencer.

By: Brendan Peacock
Source:  Times Live

solar panels white house

President Jimmy Carter's solar panels were removed in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan

US President Barack Obama is to install solar panels on the White House roof, a move lauded by climate activists as symbolic of the nation’s energy future.

The panels will heat the Obamas’ water and provide some electric power.

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter installed solar panels later removed by Ronald Reagan. George W Bush put panels elsewhere on the White House grounds.

Mr Obama is a supporter of renewable energy but legislation aimed at cutting carbon emissions died in the Senate.

The solar panels are to be installed by the spring.

“Solar panels on one house, even this house, won’t save the climate, of course,” global warming activists 350.org wrote on their website. “But they’re a powerful symbol to the whole nation about where the future lies.”

The move was announced by US Energy Secretary Steven Chu at a conference in Washington on ways for the federal government to improve its environmental performance.

Source – BBC news

We at www.waterandsolar.co.za want South Africa to start seriously looking now at renewable energy and reduce its need for coal fired power stations.  As individuals we can start in our homes by introducing a greener way of living with greywater systemsrainwater harvesting and solar water heaters.  Together we can start reducing our homes carbon footprint and our need for coal hungry Eskom and municipal water.

artifical leaves solar cellsA team led by a North Carolina State University researcher has shown that water-gel-based solar devices – “artificial leaves” – can act like solar cells to produce electricity. The findings prove the concept for making solar cells that more closely mimic nature. They also have the potential to be less expensive and more environmentally friendly than the current standard-bearer: silicon-based solar cells.

The bendable devices are composed of water-based gel infused with light-sensitive molecules – the researchers used plant chlorophyll in one of the experiments – coupled with electrodes coated by carbon materials, such as carbon nanotubes or graphite.

The light-sensitive molecules get “excited” by the sun’s rays to produce electricity, similar to plant molecules that get excited to synthesize sugars in order to grow, says NC State’s Dr. Orlin Velev, Invista Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and the lead author of a paper published online in the Journal of Materials Chemistry describing this new generation of solar cells.

Velev says that the research team hopes to “learn how to mimic the materials by which nature harnesses solar energy.” Although synthetic light-sensitive molecules can be used, Velev says naturally derived products – like chlorophyll – are also easily integrated in these devices because of their water-gel matrix.

Now that they’ve proven the concept, Velev says the researchers will work to fine-tune the water-based photovoltaic devices, making them even more like real leaves.

“The next step is to mimic the self-regenerating mechanisms found in plants,” Velev says. “The other challenge is to change the water-based gel and light-sensitive molecules to improve the efficiency of the solar cells.”

Velev even imagines a future where roofs could be covered with soft sheets of similar electricity-generating artificial-leaf solar cells.

“We do not want to overpromise at this stage, as the devices are still of relatively low efficiency and there is a long way to go before this can become a practical technology,” Velev says. “However, we believe that the concept of biologically inspired ‘soft’ devices for generating electricity may in the future provide an alternative for the present-day solid-state technologies.”

Researchers from the Air Force Research Laboratory and Chung-Ang University in Korea co-authored the study. The study was funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy. The work is part of NC State’s universitywide nanotechnology program, Nano@NC State.

NC State’s Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering is part of the university’s College of Engineering.

Source – Solar News

piece of coalSouth Africa has more coal than it can ever burn, right? If you think this, as many of us do, think again.

Research by international and local scientists has shown that coal, like other resources, is finite and can be expected to comply with peak resources theory.

The theory shows that production in commodities such as oil grows until a peak is reached, whereafter production declines.

In the case of South African coal, the studies show production has already reached its peak, or soon will.

“It is commonly believed that South Africa has abundant coal reserves which will last 200 years or more,” says Jeremy Wakeford, chair of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (Aspo) in South Africa, in the organisation’s latest newsletter.

“But recent research [from] three scientific journals suggests that usable reserves are much smaller than previously thought, and that annual production could reach a peak and begin to decline within a decade — or might even have peaked already.”

Wakeford says that “given the country’s overwhelming dependence on coal, this issue has huge ramifications for our future development path”.

Coal provides 70% of the country’s energy supply, supports 90% of electricity generation, is used to make a quarter of the country’s liquid fuels using the Sasol process and is a big earner of foreign exchange through exports to foreign users.

Geologist Chris Hartnady, in a paper to be published in the SA Journal of Science, has forecast peak production in 2020 at about 285-million tonnes a year.

This compares with total production last year of 242-million tons. This was mostly used by Eskom (123-million tonnes), Sasol (40-million tonnes) and export (66-million tonnes).

Eskom’s current expansion programme could use an additional 50-million tonnes, and if the Sasol Mafutha project goes ahead it will need another 20-million tonnes annually, says Wakeford.

David Rutledge, a professor at the California Institute of Technology, has meanwhile forecast South African production to peak in 2011 at about 253-million tonnes a year.

This is supported by research by two American professors, says Wakeford, Tadeusz Patzek and Gregory Croft, published this year in the journal Energy.

“They estimate that South Africa’s coal production from existing coal fields, when measured in energy units, peaked in 2007.

“They further contend that future mines are unlikely to reverse the trend since the economics of mining dictates that most accessible reserves are mined earlier on, so that the net energy return from the coal mining declines while the production costs rise over time,” says Wakeford.

Eskom chief executive Brian Dames bemoaned the poor quality of coal Eskom is receiving in a briefing to parliamentarians earlier this month. Dames said that Eskom was losing 1 000 megawatts of power each day because of the low quality of coal it was being supplied.

He warned that the utility may have to start paying higher prices to improve the quality of its coal supplies and that these costs would be passed on to consumers.

Hartnady said that between 2003 and 2004 the then department of minerals and energy downsized substantially South Africa’s coal reserves from about 50-billion tonnes to 30-billion tonnes.

Reserve data is so open to interpretation and, you could say, manipulation, that peak resource theorists typically base their analyses on actual production data rather than on claims of what is mineable.

Patzek and Croft in their article, which was published in May this year, said that world energy from coal production could peak as early as next year, leading to a spike in coal prices as demand continues to outstrip supply.

They predicted that production rates of coal internationally will decline after 2011, reaching 1990 levels by the year 2037.

They noted that Transnet has had difficulty in achieving the 70-million tonnes nameplate value for the Richard’s Bay Coal Terminal.

They quote acting chief executive Chris Wells, who said that undersupply problems from the mines had led to rail volumes falling over a three-year period.

“Rail volumes last year fell to a very disappointing 61.9-million tonnes, capping a three-year trend in underperformance.”

Wakeford said that the implications of peak coal are stark. “The cost of coal is almost certainly going to maintain a rising trend — albeit with greater volatility — resulting in increasingly expensive electricity and steel.”

“Domestic demand for coal could increasingly compete with exports, raising questions around how the country’s natural resources should best be utilised and the role and rights of privately owned mining companies. This is nothing new in the global energy context.”

Wakeford said that leaving aside social and environmental concerns around carbon dioxide emissions, water scarcity, pollution and health impacts, entrenching dependence on a depleting fossil fuel is taking the country down a cul-de-sac.

He said that the solution is to embark on an aggressive drive for energy conservation and efficiency while diversifying our energy mix away from coal as an imperative. “We should not wait until coal becomes too expensive or scarce, but invest now in renewable energy infrastructure and industries.

“Renewables have proven environmental benefits, are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels, generate more jobs per rand invested and are essential for South Africa’s long-term sustainable development.

Source – Mail and Guardian – Kevin Davie
We at www.waterandsolar.co.za want South Africa to start seriously looking now at renewable energy and reduce its need for coal fired power stations.  As individuals we can start in our homes by switching to solar water heaters, introducing a greener way of living with greywater systems and rainwater harvesting.  Together we can start reducing our homes carbon footprint and our need for coal hungry Eskom.

© 2013 The Water and Solar Company Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha