South Africa - science

In la-la land (aka MoM&E)

noreply@blogspirit.com (Someamongus) — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 07:05:00 +0100

Okay here we have another “I’m sorry what did you say?” moment concerning SA's electricity crises. This moment of madness comes to us compliments of our Minister of Minerals and Energy Lindiwe Hendricks, who, when asked by a reporter whether South Africa could meet its ever rising power demands replied that (wait for it) South Africa was not in fact running out of power. Really? Well that is news to me. I mean why would we be desperately trying to restore the Grootvlei and Komati powerstations or build two new gas turbine stations at Atlantis and Mossel Bay if this was the case? The Minister explained that the problem was in fact :

"What we experienced is a problem of a particular typeI...If there is a problem at Koeberg, the transmission of power from Mpumalanga and Gauteng is not sufficient to feed the large electricity demand in the Western Cape"

Surely if this was the case then all that would be required would be to upgrade the transmission lines to the Western Cape? No, I think the Minister is engaging in a game of spin with the local Press and knows full well that it’s not simply a case of “logistics”. Here’s a quote to guide the Minister in the right direction:

"Demand for electricity in Africa's largest economy is expected to outstrip supply in 2007."

The Electricity Crisis in SA~

noreply@blogspirit.com (Someamongus) — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:05:00 +0100

You know what I find stunning in SA's electricity crises? The way absolutely no-one is to blame for this problem. No-one. Apparently (according various government officials and Eskom talking heads) the problem a) just blew out of nowhere with virtually no warning or b) is the fault of a number of unlucky coincidences bringing on the current problems. I'm sorry but those excuses are just not good enough. I would like to point this discussion in the direction of an article written by Andrew Kenny on Fin24. Let's start with this quote shall we :

THE outstanding feature of the present electricity crisis is that it was so easy to avoid. South Africa has now run out of generating capacity and it was entirely predictable at least ten years ago that it would do so.

Yes that's right, no big conspiracies, no fancy coincidences just a lack of poor planning by the powers that be with regard to our electricity consumption. But first a bit of history from Kenny -

South Africa nearly ran out of power in the late 1960s when a rapidly growing economy demanded more electricity, and the existing power stations were barely able to supply it. To ensure future supply, Eskom built a series of gigantic coal stations in the Transvaal and Koeberg Nuclear Power Station in the Western Cape. However, because economic growth slowed down dramatically and the lead time for building power stations is so long, South Africa found itself with a large surplus by about 1985. Majuba, whose construction began in 1983, was the last power station to be built in South Africa.

So for over twenty years there has been zero construction of new power stations, zero. This was in spite of -

In the democratic era, the yearly increase in electricity consumption has averaged just over 3%. A projection in 1994 of this modest [my emphasis] increase would have shown us running out of capacity now, which is exactly what has happened. Our generating capacity is about 36 500 MWe (megawatts electrical). In 2004, peak demand was 34 200. This gives a reserve margin of 6%. A healthy electricity grid has a reserve margin of about 15% to allow for planned maintenance and for unplanned shut-downs, which happen all the time. Both the national generation and transmission systems are now chronically overloaded, so that if a generating unit shuts down it knocks the whole grid and can cause blackouts.

So we have known the problems we were faing for awhile and yet the talking heads in the Department of Trade and Industry and Eskom have basically just twiddled their thumbs and waited till the crises became so severe that they would have to do something! So why did this happen -

Why did we not build more power stations five years ago when it was perfectly obvious we needed them? The answer is that there was a void in responsibility. Under the new government, Eskom faced the probability of being deregulated, split up and competing with new electricity supply companies. Eskom did not know whether it was in the business of building power stations.

Moreover, it was undergoing radical change. Accountants replaced engineers in its leadership, and they wanted a good bottom line now rather than to spend huge sums of money on power stations for the future. Affirmative action and social directives, such as bringing electricity to poor households, diverted attention away from the job of ensuring future power supply. We were lucky to have a mild winter this year and to have some gold mining shafts shut down. This made peak demand for 2005 slightly less than 2004. Even so, we have seen blackouts. A more rapidly growing economy, new industrial projects, cold winters, more use of air-conditioning in summer, more households getting electricity - all of these will aggravate the problem. We need at least 1000 MWe extra capacity every year.

So basically we are deep trouble. The government and Eskom's response has been -

Eskom plans to build two simple gas turbine plants, one in Mossel Bay, the other in Atlantis, with a combined capacity of 1000 MWe, by the winter of 2007. These are quick to build but very expensive to run, and will only be used at peak times (07:00 to 10:00 and 18:00 to 20:00 on weekdays). Again too little. Programmes to improve energy efficiency and for "Demand Side Management" (shifting load from peak times) will only help to a limited extent.

Many of Eskom's industrial customers, such as BHP Billiton, are on interruptible contracts. They can be, and have been, shut down without notice to relieve pressure on the grid. This helps Eskom but does not help South Africa's reputation among potential investors for having reliable electricity. What we really need is to strengthen the transmission system and build more large, baseload stations. The only two local contenders are coal and nuclear. (Wind and solar are good for small applications but hopelessly expensive and unreliable for bulk electricity). We need more of both but such stations take about eight years to build. The nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) will be quicker but must first be proven. In the meantime we are in trouble.

Well we can see that the "Demand Side Management" has not worked as has been ably illustrated in the Western Cape in the past week (checkout the happy headline there!). As to PBMR - I think we can safely say that this is a massive gamble by the government after they were caught with their pants down. They need a solution and quick and are hedging their bets in following both PBMR and a more conventional solution.

Not good enough gentleman, report to the principal's office for a stern lecture on the importance of planning for the future. You've let us all down.

PBMR - Its on!

noreply@blogspirit.com (Someamongus) — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:00:00 +0100

Despite the concerns of many critics the PBMR project is slowly moving forward. Yesterday, Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries was awarded two contracts worth $15 million to help build a demonstration advanced nuclear reactor :

The company developing the reactor said in a statement on Tuesday MHI would supply parts for the core barrel assembly, an integral component within the reactor pressure vessel of the new reactor design. It will also provide professional services for the assembly's design that will form part of the reactor's demonstration plant to be built at Koeberg, South Africa's existing nuclear facility near Cape Town.

South Africa plans to build a multi-billion-rand pebble bed reactor as it scrambles to find new energy sources to meet growing demand for electricity, with demand already almost outstripping supply. "In signing the core barrel design and long lead items for the core, PBMR (pebble bed modular reactor) has entered a new phase in the development of the PBMR technology," the PBMR company said.

The reactor is an advanced design that claims to dramatically improve safety and efficiency, but which environmentalists say is unsafe and creates radioactive waste. The government sees nuclear power as central to meet future energy demands and aims to produce a commercial pebble bed reactor within 10 years. The PBMR company said a third contract with HCI is expected to be signed in 2006 to manufacture the core barrel assembly, the value of which has not yet been finalised. The reactor is being developed by South African electricity utility Eskom, the Industrial Development Corporation and British Nuclear Fuels Limited, although Eskom is looking to dilute its majority stake.

The M&G takes a more negative view of the project but also allows an interesting rebuttal by Tom Ferreira the PR manager of PBMR. IOL also predicts the plan will run billions over-budget.

What's going on at Koeberg?

noreply@blogspirit.com (Someamongus) — Sat, 26 Nov 2005 04:25:00 +0100

Koeberg, South Africa's sole nuclear power plant was shut down for a third time in two-weeks on Wednesday. The result was rolling blackouts that blanketed the Western and Eastern Cape as Eskom tried to juggle power by redirecting it around the local power grid. A timeline of the last two weeks :

11 November - Koeberg's Unit One was out for repairs and its Unit Two tripped, "Their reactor shut down, the turbines shut down, which is all in accordance with normal safety procedure."

16 November - a veld fire under the transmission lines from Koeberg causes the plant to shutdown automatically.

23 November - a "controlled shutdown" by the plant "initiated due to the chemical concentration in the safety injection system being slightly below specification,"

There was also a shutdown in October that was apparently caused by "ageing equipment" at the plant.

Officials at Koeberg have dismissed concerns about safety saying nothing "abnormal" has occurred, although a few additional "tests" will take place. Environmentalist are not convinced and are pressing for an independent probe into safety at the plant.

What I have noticed recently in the news in SA is a rise in the number of stories concerning power cuts and blackouts. There also seems to be a number of stories doing the rounds about the "imminent" power crunch that SA will be facing in the not to distant future. Definitely a developing story here...

Bird-Flu, HIV and South Africa

noreply@blogspirit.com (Someamongus) — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:10:00 +0200

In this post I would really appreciate feedback for reasons that will become obvious as you read on.

If the increasing number of Press Conferences at WHO is anything to go by, all things health related are not looking too great thesedays. The main reason for the spike in health related stories in the news is the "Bird Flu" Virus (H5N1). The CDC in the US provides a good summary about this virus and why it is such a concern :

The H5N1 virus does not usually infect humans. In 1997. However, the first case of spread from a bird to a human was seen during an outbreak of bird flu in poultry in Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region. The virus caused severe respiratory illness in 18 people, 6 of whom died. Since that time, there have been other cases of H5N1 infection among humans. Recent human cases of H5N1 infection that have occurred in Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam have coincided with large H5N1 outbreaks in poultry. The World Health Organisation also has reported human cases in Indonesia. Most of these cases have occurred from contact with infected poultry or contaminated surfaces; however, it is thought that a few cases of human-to-human spread of H5N1 have occurred.

So far, spread of H5N1 virus from person to person has been rare and has not continued beyond one person. However, because all influenza viruses have the ability to change, scientists are concerned that the H5N1 virus one day could be able to infect humans and spread easily from one person to another. Because these viruses do not commonly infect humans, there is little or no immune protection against them in the human population. If the H5N1 virus were able to infect people and spread easily from person to person, an influenza pandemic (worldwide outbreak of disease) could begin. No one can predict when a pandemic might occur. However, experts from around the world are watching the H5N1 situation in Asia very closely and are preparing for the possibility that the virus may begin to spread more easily and widely from person to person.

Yeah okay, but why should this worry us? Well :

An influenza pandemic is a global outbreak of disease that occurs when a new influenza A virus appears or “emerges” in the human population, causes serious illness, and then spreads easily from person to person worldwide. Pandemics are different from seasonal outbreaks or “epidemics” of influenza. Seasonal outbreaks are caused by subtypes of influenza viruses that already circulate among people, whereas pandemic outbreaks are caused by new subtypes, by subtypes that have never circulated among people, or by subtypes that have not circulated among people for a long time. Past influenza pandemics have led to high levels of illness, death, social disruption, and economic loss.

Some recent historical comparisons :

The "Spanish flu", 1918-1919. Began in August 1918 in three disparate locations: Brest, Boston, and Freetown. An unusually severe and deadly strain of influenza spread worldwide. The disease spread across the world, killing 25 million in the course of six months; some estimates put the total of those killed worldwide at over twice that number.
The "Asian flu", 1957-58. Estimates of the worldwide casualty level vary widely, from one to four million people
The "Hong Kong flu", 1968-69. Casualty estimates vary: between 750,000 and two million people died of the virus worldwide.

Currently the H5N1 strain has a mortality rate of over 50%. However, what makes it so deadly for Southern Africa is our high rate of HIV/Aids infection :

"Many of the problems faced by people infected with HIV results from the failure of the immune system to protect them from certain opportunistic infections"

If this virus did evolve into an easily transmittable virus it could prove to be the "Grand Slam" of opportunistic infections. The majority of the people who have succumbed to the virus so far have been healthy - imagine the effect on a person with an already weakened immune system?

So what do you all think, do we in SA need to worry more than other countries this thing makes its final evolutionary step?