Eskom has shut down Koeberg's Unit 1 generator

Jet-Fighter7700 said:
so its totally safe then? people should go reclaim their homes, start farming again and the place should be buzzing with activity again,
both Chernobyl and the towns surrounding Fukushima?

there is a reason those places were evacuated, there is a reason nobody can live there again for the next couple centuries, its because of the half life that is measured in several generations, same why Nuke power isnt the end of our addiction to fossil fuelled power generation.

can it happen in Africa? absolutely, people simply dont want to go and crunch the numbers showing how much of CPT will have to be evacuated if Koeberg loses containment,
or something like Fukushima happens again.
Click to expand...
So...how would Koeberg "lose containment"?
 
Jet-Fighter7700 said:
so its totally safe then? people should go reclaim their homes, start farming again and the place should be buzzing with activity again,
both Chernobyl and the towns surrounding Fukushima?

there is a reason those places were evacuated, there is a reason nobody can live there again for the next couple centuries, its because of the half life that is measured in several generations, same why Nuke power isnt the end of our addiction to fossil fuelled power generation.

can it happen in Africa? absolutely, people simply dont want to go and crunch the numbers showing how much of CPT will have to be evacuated if Koeberg loses containment,
or something like Fukushima happens again.
Click to expand...
Answer is yes for Fukushima.

Chernobyl again, is more of a once off, as comparing that reactor with a modern one is akin to comparing a Citi Golf from 1980 with a Volvo.
Even then, people fleeing the war in Ukraine are going to live in the exclusion zone because it is cheap. And radiation levels in most places have subsided enough to be safe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/moving_to_Chernobyl

I mean if that is evidence of the worse nuclear disaster ever recorded, then you don't really have much argument against it do you.

Funnily enough I think with Chernobyl, there will be intentional efforts to keep it mostly unoccupied as a nature reserve. They accidently got a large area where people don't really want to live.
 
Last edited:
konfab said:
Answer is yes for Fukushima.

Chernobyl again, is more of a once off, as comparing that reactor with a modern one is akin to comparing a Citi Golf from 1980 with a Volvo.
Even then, people fleeing the war in Ukraine are going to live in the exclusion zone because it is cheap. And radiation levels in most places have subsided enough to be safe.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/moving_to_Chernobyl

I mean if that is evidence of the worse nuclear disaster ever recorded, then you don't really have much argument against it do you.

Funnily enough I think with Chernobyl, there will be intentional efforts to keep it mostly unoccupied as a nature reserve. They accidently got a large area where people don't really want to live.
Click to expand...
The wildlife recovered, there are wolves free roaming, no humans is a plus for wildlife.
 
TheMightyQuin said:
So...how would Koeberg "lose containment"?
Click to expand...
nobody thought containment could be lost with fukushima, and yet it happened,
nobody though a complete meltdown would happen, yet it did,

my point is there is a reason Nuclear power hasn't seen the widespread use people thought it would deliver. back in the 60-70's
and here in SA no Africa as a whole, there is only 1 station, anybody care to answer why?

hence my point, if it was so safe and clean and so much had to go wrong, for there to be an incident,
then why arent there more of them? surely the gains outweigh the risks.

didnt they even think to make tiny reactors for cars and trains and even aircraft at one stage.
good reason were now looking at Fusion power, as that might be the holy grail of energy generation we need.
 
konfab said:
I mean if that is evidence of the worse nuclear disaster ever recorded, then you don't really have much argument against it do you.
Click to expand...
so why is it still called an exclusion zone? why do you need permits and passes and all the rest of it,
and I actually think the New safe confinement is doing a better job than the containment building they slapped together after 1986,
 
Jet-Fighter7700 said:
so why is it still called an exclusion zone? why do you need permits and passes and all the rest of it,
and I actually think the New safe confinement is doing a better job than the containment building they slapped together after 1986,
Click to expand...
Because the state makes money from those permits? Same reason you need a permit to visit the Kruger Park.
 
Jet-Fighter7700 said:
nobody thought containment could be lost with fukushima, and yet it happened,
nobody though a complete meltdown would happen, yet it did,

my point is there is a reason Nuclear power hasn't seen the widespread use people thought it would deliver. back in the 60-70's
and here in SA no Africa as a whole, there is only 1 station, anybody care to answer why?

hence my point, if it was so safe and clean and so much had to go wrong, for there to be an incident,
then why arent there more of them? surely the gains outweigh the risks.

didnt they even think to make tiny reactors for cars and trains and even aircraft at one stage.
good reason were now looking at Fusion power, as that might be the holy grail of energy generation we need.
Click to expand...
You're dodging my question re. Koeberg and containment.

Today there are about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 32 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 390 GWe. In 2023 these provided 2602 TWh, about 9% of the world's electricity. Many countries with existing nuclear power programmes either have plans to, or are building, new power reactors.
As of February 2023, China has 55 plants with 57GW in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88GW.

The reason there is only one in Africa has nothing to do with safety concerns...although you are obviously implying that.

Early work in estimating the probability of large-scale accidents [4,6] summarized in WASH-1250, has indicated that the probability of a catastrophic accident in a nuclear power plant is very small — in the order of 10'9 to 10*10 per year. (10-9/year means 1 chance in 1,000,000,000 per year of operation).

Inform yourself.
 
TheMightyQuin said:
The reason there is only one in Africa has nothing to do with safety concerns...although you are obviously implying that.
Click to expand...
I am, and you didn't answer my question, if its so safe, why arent there Mini reactors everywhere, especially in Africa.

koeberg is the ONLY one in africa, rest of the world has hundreds, is it becuase were too backward and primitive,

or do people still keep nuclear power as a sort of dangerous tech, that plenty we dont understand about it.
 
Jet-Fighter7700 said:
I am, and you didn't answer my question, if its so safe, why arent there Mini reactors everywhere, especially in Africa.

koeberg is the ONLY one in africa, rest of the world has hundreds, is it becuase were too backward and primitive,

or do people still keep nuclear power as a sort of dangerous tech, that plenty we dont understand about it.
Click to expand...
Not going to waste my time responding to this obvious bullshit.
 
NP in control, Koeberg works flawlessly (besides the terrorists attacks)

ANC takes over, Koeberg breaks, reason: loose bolt.
Koeberg breaks again, reason: jelly fish.
Koeberg breaks without warning again, reason: a valve.

One can add this to the other list of Eskom excuses like mist, wet coal, power stations too old. Any others I'm forgetting about?

Anyone remember the complaint that the damns were built too big and that's why they take so long to get full, and smaller dams are better because they get full quicker?

Also, remember our minister of someone, I think maybe science or education or something wanted to investigate this thing called lightening because it was racist as it was always killing black people., we also saw some more of this thinking during student decolonise science protests, where they brought in witchcraft or something, like it can control the lightning and tell it where to go I think during a media briefing.

Very similar to Zim where Mugabe was let to believe that it was possible for unlimited amounts of diesel to come out of this one particular rock. The guy went into hiding before the demonstration, but all the cabinet was there ready for the demo, already counting their millions.
 
Jet-Fighter7700 said:
I am, and you didn't answer my question, if its so safe, why arent there Mini reactors everywhere, especially in Africa.

koeberg is the ONLY one in africa, rest of the world has hundreds, is it becuase were too backward and primitive,

or do people still keep nuclear power as a sort of dangerous tech, that plenty we dont understand about it.
Click to expand...

l2Je7a6s6zNKXPD1e.webp
 
Jet-Fighter7700 said:
I am, and you didn't answer my question, if its so safe, why arent there Mini reactors everywhere, especially in Africa.

koeberg is the ONLY one in africa, rest of the world has hundreds, is it becuase were too backward and primitive,

or do people still keep nuclear power as a sort of dangerous tech, that plenty we dont understand about it.
Click to expand...
By Mini reactors, if you mean SMRs, this is still not widely available. Only China and Russia have actually built them so far (first one was built in 2020). Other countries are planning to build them, but funding has been hampered over the years.

Historically, the main reason why there haven't been more nuclear reactors is because of the fearmongering and lobbying by environmental groups, usually on weak scientific grounds. This doesn't only affect the political decision to build nuclear power plants, but they also put pressure on organisations that fund them meaning that funding is hard to come by (and therefore expensive).

I wouldn't say there's anything the scientists don't understand about it. Perhaps many in the public don't fully understand it and that's why the fearmongering has been so successful.

The biggest problem facing nuclear today is the economics. A nuclear plant takes an average of 11 - 12 years to produce with the first unit being online only after 8 years or more (although this is what SMRs aim to solve). That means for at least 8 years, there is no money coming in. If you invest in a renewables plant, you start receiving money as soon as you've connected the first turbine or panel which can be months into the build. Also, funding is cheaper and more widely available for renewables.

New reactor designs are a lot safer than older ones, there is a bigger focus on passive controls:
 
Last edited:
TheMightyQuin said:
You're dodging my question re. Koeberg and containment.

Today there are about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 32 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 390 GWe. In 2023 these provided 2602 TWh, about 9% of the world's electricity. Many countries with existing nuclear power programmes either have plans to, or are building, new power reactors.
As of February 2023, China has 55 plants with 57GW in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88GW.

The reason there is only one in Africa has nothing to do with safety concerns...although you are obviously implying that.

Early work in estimating the probability of large-scale accidents [4,6] summarized in WASH-1250, has indicated that the probability of a catastrophic accident in a nuclear power plant is very small — in the order of 10'9 to 10*10 per year. (10-9/year means 1 chance in 1,000,000,000 per year of operation).

Inform yourself.
Click to expand...
So just to correct you and add in pertinent info

As pf May 2024

You missed out the 94 reactors in the USA
RSA has 2 reactors, not 1
China is 56 reactors, not plants

Your forecast figures are also somewhat understated
1726623327315.png

Then the most important , showing Nuclear is not actually on the rise

1726623441734.png
 
Major Boredom said:
So just to correct you and add in pertinent info

As pf May 2024

You missed out the 94 reactors in the USA
RSA has 2 reactors, not 1
China is 56 reactors, not plants

Your forecast figures are also somewhat understated
View attachment 1758082

Then the most important , showing Nuclear is not actually on the rise

View attachment 1758083
Click to expand...
The 107 retired reactors? Are they just big elephants now until the end of time?
 
me_ said:
By Mini reactors, if you mean SMRs, this is still not widely available. Only China and Russia have actually built them so far (first one was built in 2020). Other countries are planning to build them, but funding has been hampered over the years.

Historically, the main reason why there haven't been more nuclear reactors is because of the fearmongering and lobbying by environmental groups, usually on weak scientific grounds. This doesn't only affect the political decision to build nuclear power plants, but they also put pressure on organisations that fund them meaning that funding is hard to come by (and therefore expensive).

I wouldn't say there's anything the scientists don't understand about it. Perhaps many in the public don't fully understand it and that's why the fearmongering has been so successful.

The biggest problem facing nuclear today is the economics. A nuclear plant takes an average of 11 - 12 years to produce with the first unit being online only after 8 years or more (although this is what SMRs aim to solve). That means for at least 8 years, there is no money coming in. If you invest in a renewables plant, you start receiving money as soon as you've connected the first turbine or panel which can be months into the build. Also, funding is cheaper and more widely available for renewables.

New reactor designs are a lot safer than older ones, there is a bigger focus on passive controls:
Click to expand...
Actually the mean time for nuclear is 7 years, the 80s and 90s saw nuclear power plants taking ages, plus it's only thanks to western countries that the mean time is high as well, cause they can run into long delays thanks to greenies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter