PeakOil is You
THE Africa Thread (merged)
Solar Power in Africa for Cellular Base Stations
by clv101 » Fri 27 May 2005, 07:02:39
Does anyone know about or can comment on the feasibility of running cellular base stations off the grid? I’m thinking about African and solar power. A base station needs about 2kW 24/7, how’s the best way to provide that kind of supply to rural Africa? Batteries will be required for night time… is micro wind feasible?
Last edited by Ferretlover on Wed 11 Mar 2009, 22:25:28, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE Africa Thread.
Reason: Merged with THE Africa Thread.
"Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen." The Emperor (Return of the Jedi)
The Oil Drum: Europe
The Oil Drum: Europe
-
clv101 - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1050
- Joined: Wed 02 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Bristol, UK
by Googolplex » Fri 27 May 2005, 08:03:01
The loads of solar powered cell towers in North American and Europe, speak well for feasability.
And seriously, is getting even more Africans hooked on our modern wasteful oil dependant technology just before the peak really a good idea?
And seriously, is getting even more Africans hooked on our modern wasteful oil dependant technology just before the peak really a good idea?
-
Googolplex - Peat
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Mon 11 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
by Wildwell » Fri 27 May 2005, 08:44:53
Yep, loads of communications technology is already based on solar/wind. Masts, satellites, base stations that sort of thing.
If you look around in the UK, a lot of weather measuring equipment and even flashing speed signs is based on renewable. Anything remote, because it makes more financial sense than laying cables.
If you look around in the UK, a lot of weather measuring equipment and even flashing speed signs is based on renewable. Anything remote, because it makes more financial sense than laying cables.
-
Wildwell - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1962
- Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: UK
by DriveElectric » Fri 27 May 2005, 10:46:14
The key for these remote applications is whether the solar panel can recharge the battery enough during the day for the remote application to maintain power through the night.
-
DriveElectric - Tar Sands
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
by aahala » Fri 27 May 2005, 11:45:52
I can't tell you the last time I got a cell phone call from Africa. But now I
know, they haven't built enough cell towers powered by wind.
Don't you get enough telemarketing calls now? Do we really need to
open up another continent?
know, they haven't built enough cell towers powered by wind.
Don't you get enough telemarketing calls now? Do we really need to
open up another continent?
-
aahala - Tar Sands
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
The South Africa Anomaly
by JohnDenver » Tue 12 Jul 2005, 11:26:59
I think we've all heard how South Africa survived the Apartheid-era oil embargo by producing synthetic fuels from coal.
So why didn't South Africa collapse? They went off a cliff from the "subsidy of cheap oil" as people like to say. They stepped back down from high EROEI oil, and reverted to crappy old low EROEI coal. Why didn't all the economic horrors of peak oil hit them? Apparently they did have economic problems, but the worst case scenario didn't pan out. This seems even more astounding considering that mining (a very energy intensive process) is a major part of the South African economy.
I don't know a lot about this embargo, but South Africa may be a case study of peak oil which is even more instructive than Cuba. We should pay more attention to it.
So why didn't South Africa collapse? They went off a cliff from the "subsidy of cheap oil" as people like to say. They stepped back down from high EROEI oil, and reverted to crappy old low EROEI coal. Why didn't all the economic horrors of peak oil hit them? Apparently they did have economic problems, but the worst case scenario didn't pan out. This seems even more astounding considering that mining (a very energy intensive process) is a major part of the South African economy.
I don't know a lot about this embargo, but South Africa may be a case study of peak oil which is even more instructive than Cuba. We should pay more attention to it.
Last edited by Ferretlover on Wed 11 Mar 2009, 22:32:33, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Merged with THE Africa Thread.
Reason: Merged with THE Africa Thread.
- JohnDenver
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Re: The South Africa Anomaly
by MacG » Tue 12 Jul 2005, 11:49:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'I') think we've all heard how South Africa survived the Apartheid-era oil embargo by producing synthetic fuels from coal.
So why didn't South Africa collapse? They went off a cliff from the "subsidy of cheap oil" as people like to say. They stepped back down from EROEI oil, and reverted to crappy old low EROEI coal. Why didn't all the economic horrors of peak oil hit them? Apparently they did have economic problems, but the worst case scenario didn't pan out. This seems even more astounding considering that mining (a very energy intensive process) is a major part of the South African economy.
I don't know a lot about this embargo, but South Africa may be a case study of peak oil which is even more instructive than Cuba. We should pay more attention to it.
So why didn't South Africa collapse? They went off a cliff from the "subsidy of cheap oil" as people like to say. They stepped back down from EROEI oil, and reverted to crappy old low EROEI coal. Why didn't all the economic horrors of peak oil hit them? Apparently they did have economic problems, but the worst case scenario didn't pan out. This seems even more astounding considering that mining (a very energy intensive process) is a major part of the South African economy.
I don't know a lot about this embargo, but South Africa may be a case study of peak oil which is even more instructive than Cuba. We should pay more attention to it.
1) Much of their economy was agriculture. And for reasons we all know they had access to cheap labour. And significant portions of the population lived (and still live) under pretty harsh conditions.
2) Gold mines. They have been one of the worlds largest gold extractors, which leads to:
3) Smuggling of oil. Although they did a lot of Fisher-Tropsch from coal, they bought oil beside the embargo.
Gold is gold. "There is no wall which is so high that a donkey carrying a load of gold cant get over it"
-
MacG - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
by Leanan » Tue 12 Jul 2005, 12:39:18
The oil embargo had little effect on South Africa, because the large oil companies easily went around it.
What did bring South Africa to its knees was the rest of the world calling in their loans and refusing to lend them more money.
Not exactly a happy thought for the largest debtor nation in the world...
What did bring South Africa to its knees was the rest of the world calling in their loans and refusing to lend them more money.
Not exactly a happy thought for the largest debtor nation in the world...
-
Leanan - News Editor
- Posts: 4582
- Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
by Tyler_JC » Tue 12 Jul 2005, 12:48:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'T')he oil embargo had little effect on South Africa, because the large oil companies easily went around it.
What did bring South Africa to its knees was the rest of the world calling in their loans and refusing to lend them more money.
Not exactly a happy thought for the largest debtor nation in the world...
What did bring South Africa to its knees was the rest of the world calling in their loans and refusing to lend them more money.
Not exactly a happy thought for the largest debtor nation in the world...
Well, we can just return those Hello-Kitty dolls to Japan, right? RIGHT??
South Africa's economy was less oil dependent than that of say, Canada or Italy.
South Africa was able to go around the embargo. Look at Iraq's oil for food program. When a nation wants to do trade with other nations, it can, if it bribes the correct UN official.
South Africa's economy suffered when the price of smuggled oil went up, but oil didn't go up to $100 a barrel.
Coal-To-Oil is an expensive process and if South Africa had to rely on that as their only source of oil...well, things would have happened differently.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
- Tyler_JC
- Expert
- Posts: 5438
- Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Boston, MA
by pea-jay » Tue 12 Jul 2005, 17:51:34
Let's not forget their other source of energy that made coal extration possible: muscle power.
South Africa was helped by the combination of plentiful labor, accessible coal deposits and lower oil demand levels. That and as other posters have noted, smuggling made the embargo less problematic than it could have been.
A better example of an oil curtailment would be North Korea.
South Africa was helped by the combination of plentiful labor, accessible coal deposits and lower oil demand levels. That and as other posters have noted, smuggling made the embargo less problematic than it could have been.
A better example of an oil curtailment would be North Korea.
UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
-
pea-jay - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1547
- Joined: Sat 17 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: NorCal
Re: The South Africa Anomaly
by MonteQuest » Tue 12 Jul 2005, 23:53:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'S')o why didn't South Africa collapse? They went off a cliff from the "subsidy of cheap oil" as people like to say. They stepped back down from high EROEI oil, and reverted to crappy old low EROEI coal. Why didn't all the economic horrors of peak oil hit them?
Because trade did not stop. The rest of the world continued to supply them with goods and services courtesy of good ol' cheap oil. It's called Globalization. We have no current or past model of an economy or society dealing with peak oil. We will have to wait to see how it turns out.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
by rockdoc123 » Wed 13 Jul 2005, 00:25:46
ever heard the term "conflict diamonds".....generally applied to other culprits much later on in Sierra Leone but you have to bet this was a big deal for S.A.
-
rockdoc123 - Expert
- Posts: 7685
- Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Re: The South Africa Anomaly
by JohnDenver » Wed 13 Jul 2005, 03:11:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '3')) Smuggling of oil. Although they did a lot of Fisher-Tropsch from coal, they bought oil beside the embargo.
If oil smuggling was enough to meet demand, why did they bother with the FT?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler', 'S')outh Africa's economy suffered when the price of smuggled oil went up, but oil didn't go up to $100 a barrel.
How high would it have gone without the FT? The point you guys are missing is that South Africa is an almost exact analog of peak oil. Peak oil does not mean a complete closing of the taps. At least in its initial stages, it means higher oil prices, and an embargo-like degradation of imports -- very similar to what happened in SA. SA coped with it to some degree by liquefying coal, and we know that is part of the U.S. "Plan B":
1. Fuel efficient transportation
2. Heavy oil/Oil sands
3. Coal liquefaction
4. Enhanced oil recovery
5. Gas-to-liquids.
http://www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.pdf
=============
MORE DATA
Apparently, the infrastructure needed to dig coal was so expensive that SA later switched to GTL (Gas-to-Liquid) to save money:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nder the belief that partially replacing coal with natural gas as the synthetic-fuel feedstock would reduce investment expenditures in coal mining operations, Sasol began importing gas from Mozambique in 2004.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/safrica.html
The following are some interesting tidbits from a SA court case:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '2')88. Oil was the one major raw material not produced (except synthetically from coal) in South Africa. The Apartheid regime established a high degree of control over the industry in its attempt to ensure a constant supply of oil.
289. Without oil, the police and military could not have functioned and the economy of South Africa would have come to a standstill. The South African regime took a number of steps to ensure an adequate supply of oil.
290. In November 1978, in response to the fall of the Shah and the decision by Iran to join the oil embargo, then-Minister of Economic Affairs Chris Heunis, called a meeting with the managing directors of the oil companies. He met with them in alphabetical order: BP, Caltex, Mobil, Sasol, Shell, then Total and told them each "Our petrol pumps must stay wet."
300. Mobil received from its South African attorneys the following legal advice: "[a]s oil is absolutely vital to enable the army to move, the navy to sail and the air force to fly, it is likely that a South African court would hold that it falls within the definition of munitions of war."
349. In order to reduce its vulnerability to oil sanctions, South Africa began a coal to oil conversion program. The Apartheid regime expected to be able to meet up to 50% of its oil needs from this program. SASOL - the South African Coal, Oil and Gas Corporation, was a state controlled company formed to oversee the oil from coal program. Three plants were to be built. SASOL II and III constituted the largest and most expensive project undertaken by the South African government.
357. The Natref refinery had been regarded a National Key Point of the South African economy even before the adoption of the Act. A South African army journal explained the role of the ‘SASOL Commando,' a unit comprised of SASOL employees: "When the men of the SASOL Commando change their white coats for the uniform of the South African Defense Force they become members of a specialized unit, which in times of war will defend two key points of the South African nation. The SASOL factory ... and the Natref Refinery are two of the most important installations in the country. The importance of the task which the SASOL Commandos have in defending these two key points cannot be overemphasized."
http://khulumani.net/content/view/56/66/
From a study of the impact of sanctions:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n late 1970s, early 1980s, South Africa depends on oil for less than 20 percent of its total energy needs, but 80 percent of energy needs of transport sector. Moreover, South Africa has stockpiled at least one to two years' supply and is completing two nuclear power plants, a third Sasol coal-conversion plant. By one estimate, the stockpile would entail "tying up $1-$4 billion or more in capital, depending on acquisition price." In 1990 it is estimated that Sasol plants provide one-third of South Africa's oil consumption. Some estimates of total cost of oil embargo, including price premium on imports, costs of stockpiling, costs of construction and operation of Sasol plants, fall in range of $1 billion to $2 billion. Others question magnitude of these estimates, noting that some South Africans (e.g., dealers and shippers) have gained from embargo, and that South Africa might have pursued coal-conversion technology in any case after 1973-74 oil shock. (Chettle 82; Spandau 153-55; Lewis 60, 103; Lipton 1988, 86-87)
"Direct costs [of the oil embargo] have more than doubled South Africa's oil import bill… Direct costs of the oil embargo in the 1980's equaled South Africa's gross foreign debt, which by the end of the decade was estimated at between $15 to 20 billion. Indeed, had the oil embargo not been imposed, the 1985 South African debt crisis would probably not have emerged… In addition to these direct costs, economic activity in South Africa suffered from spillover effects to other markets and opportunity costs, while the country's long-term development was hurt… Economic activity in South Africa has also been hampered by the fact that fewer new technologies became available to the country during the implementation of sanctions."(Van Bergejik 343-344)
Economist Stephen Lewis estimates that oil embargo, other trade sanctions impose cost on South Africa of $2 billion a year, primarily in terms-of-trade effects.
On the oil embargo: "The oil embargo has probably been the costliest international action against South Africa to date.... However, the decisions forced on South Africa by the oil boycott have resulted not only in higher costs. The SASOL projects, for example, have pushed South Africa into international leadership in coal conversion technology.... Policy actions by the government effectively mitigated both the economic costs and the disruption of the oil embargo, and South Africa is in a better position today to meet short-term cutoffs in oil than it was a decade or two ago." (Lewis 103-04)
