By Thabiso Thakali
In the wake of Eskom's decision to suspend load shedding indefinitely, experts have questioned whether the practice may have not been counter-productive in the first place.
There were strong suggestions that load shedding had damaged on Eskom's infrastructure and that this was the reason it was reviewed.
Experts said the country's ageing substations were not coping with load shedding.
Several engineers suggested the recent substation explosions were signs of the greater difficulties Eskom could face if it continued with load shedding.
"Switching on and off poses a serious risk and threatens the lifespan of any piece of electrical equipment. This can add to the likelihood of failure," said Rob Melaia, a rotating machine engineer.
Continues Below ↓
He said he didn't understand why Eskom had gone ahead with load shedding, as it had contributed to only a small reduction in the consumption of electricity.
Dennis van Es, a mechanical engineer, said a report by the National Energy Regulator of SA had indicated that transformers and distribution equipment had been neglected in several municipalities. Load shedding could have exacerbated the problem.
The equipment could now be in a poorer state because of the frequent on and off switching.
This could mean that the equipment would require a major overhaul, he said.
Thys Botha, an electrical engineer, said: "Oil-based circuit-breakers can get contaminated with carbon dioxide during load shedding and this can lead to an explosion when the power comes back on.
"You can't use circuit-breakers like operating switches because they weren't designed to do that."
He said load shedding was never an effective and efficient relief system for the crisis facing South Africa.
Technicians also said that, instead of saving the required 10% of electricity, load shedding was achieving the opposite; businesses and residents increased their electricity usage when electricity was available, thereby adding to the pressure on the power grid.
Continues...
|