Cabinet officially approves nuclear plan

Chris.Geerdts said:
If you go on the Eskom tour of Koeberg they tell you that Eskom is officially end of life (30 years). That does not mean it will be decommissioned any time soon. There are some cracks in the concrete they plan to repair and I think they'll keep generating at least until the waste fuel area is full.
Click to expand...

No it is not a issue, concrete cracking is a natural phenomenon, leak-tightness is not insured by the concrete in the nuclear reaction, but by the metalic liner that is installed between the prestressing walls. The design does not use concrete to insure leak-tightness and neither does the Japanese or Korean models, the Russian one does, but it uses differential pressure to mitigate the leaks. In the case of the liner system failing there is also a differential pressure system for the French reactors.
 
The power will probably come on line in about 25 years time.
That will be a little late I think.
Why not go solar for the days and coal for the nights.
Clean energy means no corruption as far as building goes.
Solar would be a lot quicker.
 
Still haven't heard who is going to fund this...

SA debt is already climbing fast.
 
And the cracks are staring to show....

WHO SIGNED OFF THE APPROVAL AND WHEN????


Why did Ben Martins sign the Cabinet approval of nuclear procurement?

The 21 December 2015 gazetting of Cabinet’s decision to approve the procurement in the nuclear deal raises a remarkably important question: Why did Ben Martins sign off the gazetted decision, as the former Energy Minister, and why was the Cabinet decision dated 11 November 2013?

For two years government and subsequent Energy Minister Joemat-Pettersson have consistently peddled the line that Cabinet had not approved the nuclear procurement process which will cost South Africa unaffordable billions of rands.

Clearly government has been committing a grand deception.

For all of Minister Joemat-Pettersson’s term in Energy she must have known full well that Cabinet had agreed already to the nuclear build, yet she has led South Africa to believe that her frequent visits to Russia were merely market research. The truth that has now been outed is far more insidious.

It is clear that the decision to spend upto R1 trillion on nuclear builds was taken in 2013, and therefore engagements with foreign nuclear suppliers have been more serious than Tina Joemat-Pettersson would disclose.

The fact is that any promises to considering the affordability or economic impact before approval are also exposed as deceptions, and when Minister Joemat-Pettersson promised to do a “cost-benefit analysis” before approval, she was also deceiving us.

The South Africa public has been grossly misled.
Click to expand...

More here: https://www.da.org.za/2015/12/why-did-ben-martins-sign-the-cabinet-approval-of-nuclear-procurement/
 
Only in a banana republic can deception and BS on that scale not have consequences ........... sadly fascinating.
 
We can't afford it.

It will take a probable 30 years to build (15-20 years if we're lucky).
It will be so far over budget, that it will make Medupi look like a bargain.

In 30 years, we'll have a white elephant that the poor can't pay for, and they will be the only ones left on the grid, as everyone with a brain will have gone offgrid to save money.

Factories and large industrial sites excepted. Although they probably would be good targets for alternate solutions like flow batteries + solar.
 
Wasabee! said:
You understand that nuclear is safe and cleaner than coal? There are far more pros than cons for nuclear, especially with SA being so coal dependent.
Click to expand...

Yes, but at what cost to the economy?

Or put another way : what if big industry exits SA due to high electricity and tax tariffs? What if we cannot compete financially with the world anymore due to more expensive products?
 
Last edited:
have Treasury assured that this is 'affordable' - funded from where?

Can opposition parties takes this to court?

At what point is 'joe-average' gonna say enough is enough, or are we too apathetic?
 
air said:
have Treasury assured that this is 'affordable' - funded from where?
Click to expand...
Nope. As for funding - it'll have to be vendor funded, which pretty much narrows it down to just Russia. Even then it'll impact SA debt profile massively. Not sure how they think that's going to work @ rating downgrade.
 
air said:
have Treasury assured that this is 'affordable' - funded from where?

Can opposition parties takes this to court?

At what point is 'joe-average' gonna say enough is enough, or are we too apathetic?
Click to expand...

We're not paying for it whoever builds will pay for it,we just have to buy the power
 
I'm way more in support of deals that get us more electricity (especially non-coal power), than anything that involves getting aircraft. The handling of the process may well be terrible and corrupt, but at least the end product is useful and addresses a pressing need unlike aircraft and arms.
 
km2 said:
I'm way more in support of deals that get us more electricity (especially non-coal power), than anything that involves getting aircraft. The handling of the process may well be terrible and corrupt, but at least the end product is useful and addresses a pressing need unlike aircraft and arms.
Click to expand...

You might not still be happy with it when it comes on line in 15-20 years and costs 2-3 times more than any other generation method, but the government has signed a deal forcing it to be a priority supplier to the grid.

You just might be working just to pay your electricity bill. What's the good of an additional 9600MW that no one can afford to pay for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X