Given the current power challenges South Africans face, it makes sense for many to make use of rooftop solar panels. However, the uptake has been really slow due to the installation price, ROI and problems linking the panels into the current electricity grid, writes KEVIN NORRIS and DAVE SMITH of the Jasco Group.
Given the current power challenges in South Africa, as well as a growing trend toward solutions for sustainable electricity, solar technology as a source of energy supply has become a hot topic, particularly for organisations wishing to reduce their reliance on utility power sources. Rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) plants can help organisations generate their own power, and using grid tie inverter systems enables them to feed excess generated power back to the utility for use elsewhere. However, despite the benefits of such systems, there are two common challenges that have emerged. Firstly, PV plants are a costly investment, and the Return On Investment (ROI) has in the past taken many years to realise, although this is changing as the cost of installation reduces and electricity tariffs continue to increase. This makes obtaining funding for such systems difficult. Secondly, there remain several issues with the connection of solar plants to the main grid, which has slowed the uptake of these solutions. Addressing these challenges is key to harnessing the power of the sun as an alternate, sustainable energy source.
Grid tie solar systems are the simplest and most cost effective method for utilising solar energy as a replacement for day-to-day power requirements. On a very basic level, the grid tie invertor converts the direct current (DC) power generated by solar panels, into the alternating current (AC), and injects this AC current into the existing load. Any excess energy is then fed into the power distribution network. The inverter is also able to ensure that energy requirements are drawn from available solar power first, and only utilise utility supply should there be a solar shortfall. This system does not necessarily require a battery for energy storage, although this will extend functionality, so the installation is very simple and efficient, and maintenance is low. However, while the cost of manufacturing solar PV panels and grid tie inverters has reduced over the past few years, as a result of increased demand, greater economies of scale and technological advancements, solar remains a costly solution to implement. The high cost of raw materials and the high-tech conditions required for the manufacture of components keep these solutions out of reach of the average homeowner or business.
Justifying this investment is often one of the biggest challenges to the implementation of solar power solutions, and obtaining loans and funding is typically a difficult sell. ROI takes a few years to realise, and the investment will only typically pay for itself within six to 10 years. The rate of return is dependent on a number of factors, including the type of installation and the existing tariff with the utility. However, what needs to be kept in mind is that solar PV systems have a predictable performance curve of 25 years and a usable life of 35 years. In addition, using a grid tie inverter system, homeowners and businesses will one day be able to feed excess power back to the grid, either offsetting this against utilisation costs or selling this power to the utility provider. PV systems therefore should not be seen as a depreciating asset. They are in fact an asset that not only reduces current costs, but in the long run could be a significant income generator for the owner.
To quantify this value is a relatively simple mathematical exercise with the assistance of financial models. In 2015 the average cost of electricity per kilowatt-hour (kWh) is similar to the Lifecycle Levelised Cost of Energy (LLCE) of a typical grid tie system at around R1.00 per kWh. This means that, calculated over the complete guaranteed performance lifespan of the panels (approximately 25 years), the cost per kWh from a solar PV system will be similar to the municipal cost in 2015. Going forward the cost of electricity from the utility is very likely to increase significantly year on year, while the cost of the installed PV system will remain at its installed price plus the minimal cost of maintenance. If you look at this over the next 10 years, your cost of solar generation would be around R1.00 per kWh, while the utility cost is forecast to be as high as R3.50 per kWh.
This same trend is likely to continue over the lifespan of the solar PV system. If you project these increases over the 25-year period, the cost difference between now and then would be significant. Effectively, within this period, the solar PV solution could still be generating electricity at R1.00 per kWh, whereas by that stage the cost of utility power will doubtless have increased many times. It is these future differences in the cost of energy between the utility costs and the fixed solar PV cost that should be recognised as part of the long-term sustainability of owning such an asset. Additionally, in most cases the asset is attached to a building and would result in improved valuation of the building. Not only does this have a positive financial implication, it also has an environmental implication, especially when one considers the Carbon Tax that will be levied as of 2016. The only way to negate the carbon tax is to either recycle or produce “Green kWh” from a renewable source like solar PV.
In order to drive adoption of solar PV solutions, it is necessary for financial institutions to recognise their value and assist businesses and homeowners with funding these systems. Forward-thinking financial institutions should look to leverage the security of a loan for solar PV power against the asset itself, as it will pay for itself many times over in years to come. The asset could also be recognised as part of the building itself and be financed utilising an extension of the building bond. In addition, government needs to come on board by assisting financial institutions with tax rebates for their efforts in financing Solar PV systems. This is sound strategy, as by funding these systems, financial institutions are contributing to the overall reduction in carbon output and, more importantly, helping to resolving the country’s current energy shortages.
In addition to funding, connecting to the utility remains a challenge. One of the most pressing issues is the nature of pure solar solutions (without energy storage capability), in that they are only able to produce energy during daylight hours, and the energy must be used or dumped. For the majority of residential applications where nobody is at home during the day, this generated power will be wasted if a solution to feed this power back into the grid cannot be resolved. Connection codes therefore need to be finalised, and metering for two-way energy flow needs to be implemented. It is also important to find a solution to the problem of optimising the use of all renewable energy generated to the advantage of both the end-user and the utility providers.
The concept of net metering, whereby users sell their excess renewable energy back to the utility for credit and utilise these credits when the renewable source experiences shortfall (such as at night when there is no sun to power solar PV systems) is one that has great potential to benefit all parties concerned. For most residential applications, this form of energy trading works well. Some utilities may limit the amount of energy you can sell back for credits to the amount of utility energy used (i.e. if you use 2,000 kWh per month, than you may only sell back a maximum of 2,000 kWh per month). Another system would be to annualise this amount, enabling owners to make better use of the credits throughout the year, such as in winter where generation may not match overall consumption.
Theoretically, users could manage consumption and generation of energy to a zero balance and not have to spend a cent on energy from the utility for the year. This idea in principle is appealing, particularly for consumers and business, however for utilities this could cause problems. If renewable energy customers are not paying what they used to pay for electricity, but rather supplementing their own power generation with utility power, how does the utility find revenue to pay for the maintenance of the generation, transmission and distribution network the entire system uses? Feed in tariffs have been suggested as one solution to this problem, whereby the utility purchases the excess energy from providers, while users still purchase utility power, and there is no obligation to consume at the same rate as you sell energy.
Regardless of the challenges involved, solar PV remains the most viable and cost effective alternate energy source for South Africa, a country that experiences significant hours of sunshine for much of the year in the majority of its regions. If these problems can be satisfactorily resolved and solar becomes a mainstream power generation source, not just for the utility but for business and homeowners too, the currently bleak power prospects of South Africa may have a brighter future after all.
* Kevin Norris, Consulting Solutions Architect, Renewable Energy, and Dave Smith, Managing Director, Renewable Energy, The Jasco Group
IoT at starting gate
South Africa is already past the Internet of Things (IoT) hype cycle and well into the mainstream, writes MARK WALKER, associate vice president of Sub-Saharan Africa at International Data Corporation (IDC).
Projects and pilots are already becoming a commercial reality, tying neatly into the 2017 IDC prediction that 2018 would be the year when the local market took IoT mainstream. Over the next 12-18 months, it is anticipated that IoT implementations will continue to rise in both scope and popularity. Already 23% are in full deployment with 39% in the pilot phase. The value of IoT has been systematically proven and yet its reputation remains tenuous – more than 5% of companies are reluctant to put their money where the trend is – thanks to the shifting sands of IoT perception and success rate.
There are several reasons behind why IoT implementations are failing. The biggest is that organisations don’t know where to start. They know that IoT is something they can harness today and that it can be used to shift outdated modalities and operations. They are aware of the benefits and the case studies. What they don’t know is how to apply this knowledge to their own journey so their IoT story isn’t one of overbearing complexity and rising costs.
Another stumbling block is perception. Yes, there is the futuristic potential with the talking fridge and intelligent desk, but this is not where the real value lies. Organisations are overlooking the challenges that can be solved by realistic IoT, the banal and the boring solutions that leverage systems to deliver on business priorities. IoT’s potential sits within its ability to get the best out of assets and production efficiencies, solving problems in automation, security, and environment.
In addition to this, there is a lack of clarity around return on investment, uncertainty around the benefits, a lack of executive leadership, and concerns around security and the complexities of regulation. Because IoT is an emerging technology there remains a limited awareness of the true extent of its value proposition and yet 66% of organisations are confident that this value exists.
This percentage poses both a problem and opportunity. On one hand, it showcases the local shift in thinking towards IoT as a technology worth investing into. On the other hand, many companies are seeing the competition invest and leaping blindly in the wrong direction. Stop. IoT is not the same for every business.
It is essential that every company makes its own case for IoT based on its needs and outcomes. Does agriculture have the same challenges as mining? Does one mining company have the same challenges as another? The answer is no. Organisations that want their IoT investment to succeed must reject the idea that they can pick up where another has left off. IoT must be relevant to the business outcome that it needs to achieve. While some use cases may apply to most industries based on specific circumstances, there are different realities and priorities that will demand a different approach and starting point.
Ask – what is the business problem right now and how can technology be leveraged to resolve it?
In the agriculture space, there is a need to improve crop yields and livestock management, improve farm productivity and implement environmental monitoring. In the construction and mining industry, safety and emergency response are a priority alongside workforce and production management. Education shifts the lens towards improving delivery and quality of education, access to advanced learning methods and reducing the costs of learning. Smart cities want to improve traffic and efficiently deliver public services and healthcare is focusing on wellness, reducing hospital admissions and the security of assets and inventory management.
The technology and solutions selected must speak to these specific challenges.
If there are no insights used to create an IoT solution, it’s the equivalent of having the fastest Ferrari on Rivonia Road in peak traffic. It makes a fantastic noise, but it isn’t going to move any faster than the broken-down sedan in the next lane. Everyone will be impressed with the Ferrari, but the amount of power and the size of the investment mean nothing. It’s in the wrong place.
What differentiates the IoT successes is how a company leverages data to deliver meaningful value-added predictions and actions for personalised efficiencies, convenience, and improved industry processes. To move forward the organisation needs to focus on the business outcomes and not just the technology. They need to localise and adapt by applying context to the problem that’s being solved and explore innovation through partnerships and experimentation.
ERP underpins food tracking
The food traceability market is expected to reach almost $20 billion by 2022 as increased consumer awareness, strict governance requirements, and advances in technology are resulting in growing standardisation of the segment, says STUART SCANLON, managing director of epic ERP
Just like any data-driven environment, one of the biggest enablers of this is integrated enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions.
As the name suggests, traceability is the ability to track something through all stages of production, processing, and distribution. When it comes to the food industry, traceability must also enable stakeholders to identify the source of all food inputs that can include anything from raw materials, additives, ingredients, and packaging.
Considering the wealth of data that all these facets generate, it is hardly surprising that systems and processes need to be put in place to manage, analyse, and provide actionable insights. With traceability enabling corrective measures to be taken (think product recalls), having an efficient system is often the difference between life or death when it comes to public health risks.
Sceptics argue that traceability simply requires an extensive data warehouse to be done correctly, the reality is quite different. Yes, there are standard data records to be managed, but the real value lies in how all these components are tied together.
ERP provides the digital glue to enable this. With each stakeholder audience requiring different aspects of traceability (and compliance), it is essential for the producer, distributor, and every other organisation in the supply chain, to manage this effectively in a standardised manner.
With so many different companies involved in the food cycle, many using their own, proprietary systems, just consider the complexity of trying to manage traceability. Organisations must not only contend with local challenges, but global ones as well as the import and export of food are big business drivers.
So, even though traceability is vital to keep track of everything in this complex cycle, it is also imperative to monitor the ingredients and factories where items are produced. Having expansive solutions that must track the entire process from ‘cradle to grave’ is an imperative. Not only is this vital from a safety perspective, but from cost and reputational management aspects as well. Just think of the recent listeriosis issue in South Africa and the impact it has had on all parties in that supply chain.
Thanks to the increasing digital transformation efforts by companies in the food industry, traceability becomes a more effective process. It is no longer a case of using on-premise solutions that can be compromised but having hosted ones that provide more effective fail-safes.
In a market segment that requires strict compliance and regulatory requirements to be met, cloud-based solutions can provide everyone in the supply chain with a more secure (and tamper-resistant) solution than many of the legacy approaches of old.
This is not to say ERP requires the one or the other. Instead, there needs to be a transition provided between the two scenarios that empowers those in the food supply chain to maximise the insights (and benefits) derived from traceability.
Now, more than ever, traceability is a business priority. Having the correct foundation through effective ERP is essential if a business can manage its growth and meet legislative requirements into the future.