Eskom heads deeper into financial crisis with record loss

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
13,943
#43
Actually we should've gone nuclear, it's far cleaner then any other resource out there in the short and long term. It's also safer, the only issue is thanks to the fact that everyone got afraid of it, it's become really expensive. If we'd kept up our research on PBMR we'd be having no power issues right now and we'd be one of the cleaner aired countries out there.
But nooooo nuclear bad, look at Chernobyl, three mile island and fukishima. Yet those three have killed less people then coal has but hey.
 

RedViking

Nord of the South
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
17,768
#44
Actually we should've gone nuclear, it's far cleaner then any other resource out there in the short and long term. It's also safer, the only issue is thanks to the fact that everyone got afraid of it, it's become really expensive. If we'd kept up our research on PBMR we'd be having no power issues right now and we'd be one of the cleaner aired countries out there.
But nooooo nuclear bad, look at Chernobyl, three mile island and fukishima. Yet those three have killed less people then coal has but hey.
It is not that nuclear is bad (which it probably is but that is not my argument) , it is that those who control it is super corrupt. If they can't maintains the system we have now and get into billions and billions of dept, imagine the trillions of corruption and maintenance disaster with a nuclear deal.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
19,252
#45
It is not that nuclear is bad (which it probably is but that is not my argument) , it is that those who control it is super corrupt. If they can't maintains the system we have now and get into billions and billions of dept, imagine the trillions of corruption and maintenance disaster with a nuclear deal.
Yeah nuclear is a non option ito money. Probably a good thing as it has major issues it can't solve. Everyone always comes up with the straw man argument of nuclear vs coal.
 

Zoomzoom

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
3,753
#46
coal dust might you give your lungs a good coating of tar and generally make them unhappy, but it won't kill untold future generations when the sea turns into nuclear soup when the drums of waste finally corrode through.
 

ambroseg1

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
9,321
#47
Actually we should've gone nuclear, it's far cleaner then any other resource out there in the short and long term. It's also safer, the only issue is thanks to the fact that everyone got afraid of it, it's become really expensive. If we'd kept up our research on PBMR we'd be having no power issues right now and we'd be one of the cleaner aired countries out there.
But nooooo nuclear bad, look at Chernobyl, three mile island and fukishima. Yet those three have killed less people then coal has but hey.
Solar? Wind?
 

lsheed_cn

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
2,761
#48
Actually we should've gone nuclear, it's far cleaner then any other resource out there in the short and long term. It's also safer, the only issue is thanks to the fact that everyone got afraid of it, it's become really expensive. If we'd kept up our research on PBMR we'd be having no power issues right now and we'd be one of the cleaner aired countries out there.
But nooooo nuclear bad, look at Chernobyl, three mile island and fukishima. Yet those three have killed less people then coal has but hey.
Nuclear isn't a short term, its a long term build.
Costs are also typically double to triple budgeted. Koeberg is likely the last Nuclear reactor on the continent, unless the China sponsor a build elsewhere - its just too expensive.

Assume at least 10 years from breaking ground to generating electricity.
Finance costs are the killer - those accrue from the time you take the payment loan.
Nuclear isn't cheap. Its cleaner than coal, but its not clean.
 

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
13,943
#49
Nuclear isn't a short term, its a long term build.
Costs are also typically double to triple budgeted. Koeberg is likely the last Nuclear reactor on the continent, unless the China sponsor a build elsewhere - its just too expensive.

Assume at least 10 years from breaking ground to generating electricity.
Finance costs are the killer - those accrue from the time you take the payment loan.
Nuclear isn't cheap. Its cleaner than coal, but its not clean.
Yes they are expensive due to the false fear of nuclear, if it went ahead like it did the 70s and 80s we would've been far ahead.
 

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
13,943
#51
coal dust might you give your lungs a good coating of tar and generally make them unhappy, but it won't kill untold future generations when the sea turns into nuclear soup when the drums of waste finally corrode through.
Coal kills tens of thousands every year, nuclear power has killed maybe 4000 over 40 years, also are you only basing your understanding of nuclear power stations on the Simpsons? Cause that's not how nuclear waste works.
If research had kept up on PBMR it would've been even better, but the responses I've gotten in this thread is why nuclear is villianised incorrectly, because people are basing their ideas on TV and movies instead of actuality.
Yes nuclear has it's problems, but it's actually less then coal, wind and solar. Solar power requires expensive batteries, requires a lot of surface area for small yield, the panels have a finite life span and the parts cost a fortune.
Wind also requires batteries, the big massive fans cost a fortune, they require a large area to supply sufficient power.
Hydro power and geo thermal actually could work out pretty decently, but they can't be built everywhere.
 

Zoomzoom

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
3,753
#52
Coal kills tens of thousands every year, nuclear power has killed maybe 4000 over 40 years, also are you only basing your understanding of nuclear power stations on the Simpsons? Cause that's not how nuclear waste works.
If research had kept up on PBMR it would've been even better, but the responses I've gotten in this thread is why nuclear is villianised incorrectly, because people are basing their ideas on TV and movies instead of actuality.
Yes nuclear has it's problems, but it's actually less then coal, wind and solar. Solar power requires expensive batteries, requires a lot of surface area for small yield, the panels have a finite life span and the parts cost a fortune.
Wind also requires batteries, the big massive fans cost a fortune, they require a large area to supply sufficient power.
Hydro power and geo thermal actually could work out pretty decently, but they can't be built everywhere.
I agree with you on the so-called 'alternatives', they are expensive and in their own ways hugely destructive. Wind farms create noise pollution that has been shown to have extremely negative impacts on wildlife and livestock in range. Not to mention how they decimate bird populations. Solar is ridiculously expensive, and the batteries use rare earth metals which are, by definition RARE and we will run out of them way before we run out of oil. And mining them is insanely polluting, making the batteries is insanely polluting, disposing of the batteries ... also bad. And so on and so forth.

Coal is detrimental but that is because there isn't worldwide regulation of particulates. Power plants can be fitted with filters even retroactively which largely solve that problem.

Nuclear waste however ... a whole other story. It won't pollute today or even tomorrow, but we are still just passing the buck down to future generations to deal with. And it is a MAJOR problem. There have been tons of it dumped in steel containers in the ocean. There are piles in every ocean in the world. Guess what happens to the barrels eventually?
 

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
13,943
#53
I agree with you on the so-called 'alternatives', they are expensive and in their own ways hugely destructive. Wind farms create noise pollution that has been shown to have extremely negative impacts on wildlife and livestock in range. Not to mention how they decimate bird populations. Solar is ridiculously expensive, and the batteries use rare earth metals which are, by definition RARE and we will run out of them way before we run out of oil. And mining them is insanely polluting, making the batteries is insanely polluting, disposing of the batteries ... also bad. And so on and so forth.

Coal is detrimental but that is because there isn't worldwide regulation of particulates. Power plants can be fitted with filters even retroactively which largely solve that problem.

Nuclear waste however ... a whole other story. It won't pollute today or even tomorrow, but we are still just passing the buck down to future generations to deal with. And it is a MAJOR problem. There have been tons of it dumped in steel containers in the ocean. There are piles in every ocean in the world. Guess what happens to the barrels eventually?
Thousands die every year, maybe even millions from coal power but hey.

Yup so basically thinking they've put the nuclear waste in little yellow barrels with nuclear signs on them and dumping them in the ocean... So the Simpsons.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...f-nuclear-waste-kill-the-planet/#2aff5236562e
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
19,252
#54
Yes they are expensive due to the false fear of nuclear, if it went ahead like it did the 70s and 80s we would've been far ahead.
It's not a false fear but a deeper understanding of the issues. Every time I ask this I get no response and you are likely to ignore it now as well. Please show me one nuclear plant that's been decommissioned to greenfield status. There isn't any. It's always something left for future generations to solve and budgets continually don't cater for it eventually requiring government bailouts. What's more is if the world actually went full scale nuclear from the 70's we would be looking at other options right about now. It's not a sustainable solution and comes with its own set of problems.

Coal kills tens of thousands every year, nuclear power has killed maybe 4000 over 40 years, also are you only basing your understanding of nuclear power stations on the Simpsons? Cause that's not how nuclear waste works.
If research had kept up on PBMR it would've been even better, but the responses I've gotten in this thread is why nuclear is villianised incorrectly, because people are basing their ideas on TV and movies instead of actuality.
Yes nuclear has it's problems, but it's actually less then coal, wind and solar. Solar power requires expensive batteries, requires a lot of surface area for small yield, the panels have a finite life span and the parts cost a fortune.
Wind also requires batteries, the big massive fans cost a fortune, they require a large area to supply sufficient power.
Hydro power and geo thermal actually could work out pretty decently, but they can't be built everywhere.
Nuclear has killed way more than that if we take into account its indirect socioeconomic impact. In fact it's not even something that can really be measured but that's not its biggest problem really. The issues of wind and solar generation can all be solved. Now before you say batteries and hydro storage are bad options, the countries who have implemented nuclear on a grand scale either have these options at their disposal or have supporting grids from other countries that make nuclear feasible. Power stations aren't something that you can just start up and shut down in a few minutes and nuclear is even worse at that. It requires its own storage to be effective. Now if you want it for base generation we can talk, we already have Koeberg for that. :p
 

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
13,943
#55
It's not a false fear but a deeper understanding of the issues. Every time I ask this I get no response and you are likely to ignore it now as well. Please show me one nuclear plant that's been decommissioned to greenfield status. There isn't any. It's always something left for future generations to solve and budgets continually don't cater for it eventually requiring government bailouts. What's more is if the world actually went full scale nuclear from the 70's we would be looking at other options right about now. It's not a sustainable solution and comes with its own set of problems.


Nuclear has killed way more than that if we take into account its indirect socioeconomic impact. In fact it's not even something that can really be measured but that's not its biggest problem really. The issues of wind and solar generation can all be solved. Now before you say batteries and hydro storage are bad options, the countries who have implemented nuclear on a grand scale either have these options at their disposal or have supporting grids from other countries that make nuclear feasible. Power stations aren't something that you can just start up and shut down in a few minutes and nuclear is even worse at that. It requires its own storage to be effective. Now if you want it for base generation we can talk, we already have Koeberg for that. :p
That's because you don't have to decom nuclear power stations as they don't age like coal ones do, in fact all you have to do is maintain it and replace a few aging parts here or there. Show me a nuclear power station that has been decommed? Not just a cooling tower and not Chernobyl as we know why that one was.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
19,252
#56
That's because you don't have to decom nuclear power stations as they don't age like coal ones do, in fact all you have to do is maintain it and replace a few aging parts here or there. Show me a nuclear power station that has been decommed? Not just a cooling tower and not Chernobyl as we know why that one was.
You don't? In 2016 150 nuclear reactors have already been decommissioned. They DO age and get decommissioned for other reasons as well. It's not a lack of need or will but rather that due to the impossibility of reducing them to greenfield status the plants often get reused or converted for waste storage.
 

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
13,943
#57
You don't? In 2016 150 nuclear reactors have already been decommissioned. They DO age and get decommissioned for other reasons as well. It's not a lack of need or will but rather that due to the impossibility of reducing them to greenfield status the plants often get reused or converted for waste storage.
Nuclear reactors, not power plants, you can still have a functioning power plant just with one or two reactors turned off. I didn't say they don't age, I said they don't age like coal ones do, a nuclear power station can run for 80 years but it's regulated to 40 years as that's the peak life span of a coal one.
Nuclear is the cleanest solution we have, but it's thanks to the nuclear fear that we don't have more of them. We'd have less carbon emissions, less deaths due to pollution and we'd probably have a cleaner environment, as the amount of toxic waste a nuclear power plant generates in 60 years is less then a basketball court. This isn't the Simpsons, there is no green goop that floats in rivers making three eyed fish. It's spent gray metal that is locked in concrete and is relatively safe.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,211
#58
Nuclear reactors, not power plants, you can still have a functioning power plant just with one or two reactors turned off. I didn't say they don't age, I said they don't age like coal ones do, a nuclear power station can run for 80 years but it's regulated to 40 years as that's the peak life span of a coal one.
Nuclear is the cleanest solution we have, but it's thanks to the nuclear fear that we don't have more of them. We'd have less carbon emissions, less deaths due to pollution and we'd probably have a cleaner environment, as the amount of toxic waste a nuclear power plant generates in 60 years is less then a basketball court. This isn't the Simpsons, there is no green goop that floats in rivers making three eyed fish. It's spent gray metal that is locked in concrete and is relatively safe.
Relatively safe compared to what exactly?

Here is the interesting part. The safest energy generation technology in the world is Nuclear power when you look at the number of deaths per kilowatt.
If you look at the global amount of deaths from nuclear power per unit of energy, including Chernobyl and Fukushima it is 90 deaths per trillion kWH.
If you only look at nuclear power in the US, it is 0.1

For wind, it is 150


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#f89eb8a709b7
 

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
13,943
#59
Relatively safe compared to what exactly?

Here is the interesting part. The safest energy generation technology in the world is Nuclear power when you look at the number of deaths per kilowatt.
If you look at the global amount of deaths from nuclear power per unit of energy, including Chernobyl and Fukushima it is 90 deaths per trillion kWH.
If you only look at nuclear power in the US, it is 0.1

For wind, it is 150


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#f89eb8a709b7
I'm confused here? You've kind of just pointed out my exact argument? According to you, it's had the least deaths, so therefore it's safer, it's also cleaner.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,211
#60
I'm confused here? You've kind of just pointed out my exact argument? According to you, it's had the least deaths, so therefore it's safer, it's also cleaner.
I agree with what you were intending about nuclear power, just not with the way you said that it is "relatively safe".
 
Top