Tesla Mega Energy storage BESS systems…
Groetnis van Nikola Tesla 
I vaguely remember there being something like this for the UK (or still is). Pretty sure the UK was mentioned in the Victron ESS Webinar Matthijs Vader presented a couple of years ago.
You go onto a time of use (TOU) tariff and get rewarded more for feeding in during evening peak times than normal times. Most likely also a help in the duck curve as you Capetonians can’t expect to be Eskom free during the day and then need their help overnight again 
In this case I’m guessing that won’t be the case and that there’s some grid scale battery backup from our friend Elon on the horizon so you’ll have pumped storage + batteries for evening peak without upsetting Eskom too much for demanding a lot more at night.
Steenbras Dam goes : Brrrrrrrr
1 Like
The US hasn’t renewed the fuel deal for Koeberg, and ZA is playing footsie with the Russians.
Meanwhile, this fella announced R1 a kWh this week; he hasn’t bought a single watthour yet.
He is talking like 200MW of production is already in the bag.
Now, a further 500MW at the flick of a switch.
This mayor has lost the run of himself.
Edit: From another article:
"The City has a budget of R15 million to pay small-scale embedded generators for the remainder of this financial year which ends in June. "
He’d better revisit the budget then because even at 4 hours a day, at R1 a kWh, that won’t pay for 200MW of IPP solar for three weeks.
I don’t really understand that bit of news. The reactors at Koeberg are French (Framatome). Normally you have to buy the fuel from the guy that made your reactor. I am not sure what the US has to do with it. Sure, the news is probably accurate that the license for such imports did indeed expire, but I just wonder if it is the disaster it sounds like, or if the media just used it to sell ad space.
1 Like
It is a bit of media hype and headlines with a bit of truth mixed in.
Koeberg is a French design yes, but it is based of the Westinghouse reactor. So I am sure there is some royalties (which the french would pay anyway).
The reality is that as with any good business it is bad to have just one supplier. In Koeberg’s case for the fuel there were 2 suppliers. One is the French which is still in place and the other was Westinghouse which is currently blocked because the agreement expired.
Not everyone makes nuclear fuel and not all nuclear fuel is the same. You have to get the compatible version for you reactor. We will just need to order everything from the French from now and might need to pay a bit more.
Interestingly off the 2 reactors that Koeberg have, the fuel for the current reactor that is in maintenance comes from Westinghouse, while the other reactor which will be down the second part of this year was bought from the french.
2 Likes
Ooookay… if you put some effort into it, the information is there. Thanks for motivating me to do it.
So back in august 1995, South Africa and the US signed a deal whereby SA gave up its weapons, and then the US would supply it with nuclear material. That deal came to an end in December 2022.
Because that deal came to an end, Westinghouse can no longer export to South Africa.
But it also seems the Biden administration has already approved extension of the original deal (for 4 more years).
So unless I am deeply misunderstanding something, I don’t see why a new license cannot be extended in the near future.
Also, it seems we have enough fuel to refuel it for a while to come, the most recent order was already delivered.
I am somewhat confused…Biden’s letter was dated Sept 2022 and was for the House and the Senate…wonder if it was ratified?
The use of the adjective ‘insensate’ isn’t appropriate but what do you expect from mybb?
1 Like
That’s the real question. The one the media isn’t reporting on, as @mariusm said once before… too many of them report only from the “court steps”. There is no investigative journalism being practiced here.
Daily Friend is “liberal”, but sometimes there is a good comparison:
I don’t actually find them all that liberal. They definitely have more of a libertarian bent, or at least that is how I would define them. Libertarians generally advocate for less government involvement (eg, free market principles) while liberals often rely very heavily on government involvement. Which sounds a bit weird, since liberal is supposed to be from the same place we get liberty.
Some of it is also due to some shifts in what the term means. Classical liberalism is quite a different beast to the modern one.
1 Like
Replying on myself here, but I find it interesting how the naming of something influences perception.
Over on the American side, we have publications like The Daily Wire. That’s Ben Shapiro’s paper. Now that man does have a habit of calling a spade a spade, but I think he goes too far sometimes. It is definitely conservative, and somewhat right leaning.
Now look at the logo of that publication… and then look at the logo of the Daily Friend. See it?
So immediately the idea that the Daily Friend is “liberal” is out the window. Some South African conservatives may think so, but only in the sense that a short man thinks everyone around him to be tall.
Also to keep in mind, TDF is the publication of the IRR, institute for race relations.
With all that said… I read the article, and it is a good summary. The EFF is particularly interesting, they want more renewable, but they want the private sector out of it.
1 Like
Was waiting for someone to comment on that. I read that and thought, so, Eskom = ANC, Renewables = EFF … no.
Also, the DA, seems to be quite ok in their approach. Maybe because of experiences gained in CoCT?
Summary:
Energy control = Citizen control
When the Citizens become disillusioned, and you cannot logically convince them of your points, you need absolute control of violence, and energy…
Groetnis
1 Like
The EFF wants Eskom to do the renewable. It’s your basic socialist construct where the state controls everything, because big brother knows best. This includes nationalising all the mines as well as the steel companies as well, if you look at the article. Because, you know, that previous captains of the SS-communism steered the ship wrong, but this time we have it all figured out.
Interestingly the EFF is also the only one really talking about nuclear. A socialist/communist state with nuclear, now where have we seen that before!?
Technically they already have that… the current struggle is going to be to keep it
Well kinda not hey… They have no bakkies to transport SAPS, nor do the Army, most are in a state of disrepair or stolen. Likely 2/3 of Military staff is not capable, nor is SAPS. Just private security have more small arms that all state enterprises put together and private ownership also exceeds that by a healthy margin…
So there is that
GeweldadigeGroetnis
I mean on a strictly academic political level. The definition of “a state” is when a group of people come together, generally a group with shared ideals, and they decide that these borders here is our country, and these are our rules. Part of the forming of a state is the ceding of violence to the state. I relinquish my right to violence, and instead I call the police. More or less, of course there are rules regarding the legal use of violence, but for the most part, I cannot go out, find the guy who stole my bakkie, and give him a good hiding. So in that sense, the state already has control over violence.
Similarly, the state controls energy. Even if they unbundle Eskom, and allow private generation, the distribution part will remain under state control. They already have this control.
What is happening now is that despite having the control, in the legally codified way, they are losing the ability apply it. The result is, on the one hand, a grab for more control (that is what I understand you as saying), and on the other hand, a slow descent into a failed state as these ceded responsibilities return to the ordinary citizen.