Facebook   Twitter    YouTube    RSS Feed    Android App    iPhone and iPad App     BlackBerry App    
Subscribe to Newsletter



Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 12 34 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 57

Thread: S.A goes big on nuclear

  1. #16
    Super Grandmaster Nerfherder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    /\/ŻŻŻŻŻŻ\/\
    Posts
    14,545

    Default

    Nuclear = win
    "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." ~ Christopher Hitchens

    My idea of "Help from above" is a sniper on a roof.

  2. #17
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Centurion
    Posts
    1,138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SirSlothXCI View Post
    And you expect our lovely, competent government to take the proper precautions and prevent a catastrophe?
    Obviously not. They've already demonstrated their moronic incompetence by choosing Heavy Water reactors over newer, better, safer, more efficient technologies.

    As for PBMR - I was working there when the big mess hit. Westinghouse really did screw us over, leaving Eskom and a few other investors to foot the bill. They couldn't afford it, and work was shut down on the most promising nuclear technology of the last 4 decades. Sigh. If only everybody knew as much about the PBMR and how it operates in comparison with a conventional heavy water reactor...

    The world is having a knee-jerk reaction to Fukushima. There was a similar backlash after Chernobyl - mostly inspired by political pressure and fear-quelling posturing. In the end, people will realise that nuclear is still the best way to go. However, this whole trend of moving "away from nuclear" that the OP is referring to is probably because of the number of very old, outdated, starting-to-become-unsafe-to-continue-operating conventional nuclear reactors that have been shut down around the world as they reach their end-of-life (and some not quite there yet).

  3. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur View Post
    Governments can't prevent disaster - they create them. If we go with responsible suppliers (not Chinese or Russian) we'll be sure to get decent technology and safety. Eskom as operator will need to skill and scale up, of course.
    That's exactly the problem. I don't trust Eskom with something as dangerous and complex such as nuclear power.

  4. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SirSlothXCI View Post
    That's exactly the problem. I don't trust Eskom with something as dangerous and complex such as nuclear power.
    What exactly do you think the Koeberg station is?
    Solve two of the world's major problems: feed the homeless to the hungry

  5. #20

    Default

    What about wave power ?? Looks very interesting and we have rough seas around SA.

    http://www.pelamiswave.com/

  6. #21
    Super Grandmaster Nerfherder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    /\/ŻŻŻŻŻŻ\/\
    Posts
    14,545

    Default

    Plenty of other options but none f them are as viable as Nuclear.
    "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." ~ Christopher Hitchens

    My idea of "Help from above" is a sniper on a roof.

  7. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skywalker42 View Post
    What about wave power ?? Looks very interesting and we have rough seas around SA.

    http://www.pelamiswave.com/
    We gonna run aluminium smelters, mining and rejuvenated trains on wave power?

  8. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur View Post
    We gonna run aluminium smelters, mining and rejuvenated trains on wave power?
    Probably not. Not on one of those "worms" which supllies 0.75 MW per unit.
    In SA we currently consume about 34 000 MW ( 34 GW from about 13 coal fired stations. )

    It is equavilant to about 45000 worms, which is a lot. But those wave worms do not need energy input, they get it for free from the movements of the ocean. I do not know what a "worm" costs but I really think this is a very neat idea.

    Especially long term. Think about it. And watch some videos on you YT on how they work.

  9. #24
    Karmic Sangoma ghoti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hotel California
    Posts
    39,741
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default

    ... and the winner is already well known. Well done to China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group. I am sure you bought out all the right officials.

    The only upside is we really need this juice, so thank goodness they are doing, but I expect 35% to be corrupted away with the ANC in control of this.
    "To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist. That is all..." - Oscar Wilde

  10. #25

    Default

    And what? Coal is better?

    What happened to Fukushima being worse than Chernobyl? I mean, the place was hit by a bloody tsunami?
    Nuclear is safe. Don't believe the negative hype.
    If we were made from dirt, why is there still dirt?

  11. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boramk View Post
    And what? Coal is better?

    What happened to Fukushima being worse than Chernobyl? I mean, the place was hit by a bloody tsunami?
    Nuclear is safe. Don't believe the negative hype.
    I used to think like you. After Chernobyl and Fukushima I thought it is time to reconcider.
    I also know that the after effect of the incident in Japan is being downplayed.

    Try to be open minded..

  12. #27
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Centurion
    Posts
    1,138

    Default

    If Koeberg were to be hit by an earthquake AND a tsunami that devastates the majority of the surrounding areas and kills 20 000 people - would people respond with "Nuclear is so dangerous! Kill all the nuclear reactors!" or "Jeez people, it was hit by an earthquake and a tsunami! Remember how it's been operating totally safely for the past X years?"

    Especially when your nuclear power plant wasn't ever designed to withstand an earthquake and a tsunami. Nuclear is safe if it is properly done. It's even safer if you go PBMR over conventional heavy water.

  13. #28

    Default

    What i find stupid is that the developed countries used nuclear power to sustain their need for power for decades,aiding their economic growth, but now that they are developed and have the ability to try other means they frown upon the current developing countries that need that type of power output.

    i agree that the anc is probably going to pocket a large sum, but nuclear power ftw!

    Does anybody reckon whether we will get any problems about wanting to enrich our own uranium?its not like we want to attack the USA.or could there be problems because it looks like were siding with china?

  14. #29

    Default

    This is not a good thing, but a brilliant thing. South Africa is about as geographically stable as a country can be. We have a large Uranium exporter right next door in Namibia and our own Uranium deposits. We are low on power and nuclear is about the most efficient method of producing power in the world right now. It only gives off steam and not sulphur dioxide like the coal plants do. The sulphur dioxide is a huge contributor to acid rain, soil erosion, respiratory problems and other issues plaguing Mpumalanga where the majority of our coal plants are. Building these plants will allow us to scale back on the use of those plants and even possibly allowing us to shut them down. It will create jobs and a cleaner atmosphere. It will also allow us to export a greater % of our coal production, leading to more income for SA. To put nuclear energy efficiency into perspective a golf ball sized piece of enriched uranium can provide as much power as 15 train loads of coal*.


    *Figure probably not entirely accurate as it was something I read a long time ago while doing some research for a project.
    "The only things that are infinite are the universe and human stupidity, and im not sure about the former"
    Albert Einstein

  15. #30

    Default

    This is not a good thing, but a brilliant thing. South Africa is about as geographically stable as a country can be. We have a large Uranium exporter right next door in Namibia and our own Uranium deposits. We are low on power and nuclear is about the most efficient method of producing power in the world right now. It only gives off steam and not sulphur dioxide like the coal plants do. The sulphur dioxide is a huge contributor to acid rain, soil erosion, respiratory problems and other issues plaguing Mpumalanga where the majority of our coal plants are. Building these plants will allow us to scale back on the use of those plants and even possibly allowing us to shut them down. It will create jobs and a cleaner atmosphere. It will also allow us to export a greater % of our coal production, leading to more income for SA. To put nuclear energy efficiency into perspective a golf ball sized piece of enriched uranium can provide as much power as 15 train loads of coal*.


    *Figure probably not entirely accurate as it was something I read a long time ago while doing some research for a project.
    "The only things that are infinite are the universe and human stupidity, and im not sure about the former"
    Albert Einstein

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 12 34 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •