Eskom heads deeper into financial crisis with record loss

[Lupus]

I agree with what you were intending about nuclear power, just not with the way you said that it is "relatively safe".

Against the others it is, I mean even wind has killed more people by your own statement? Also wind isn't clean really.

 

[konfab]

Against the others it is, I mean even wind has killed more people by your own statement? Also wind isn't clean really.

Relatively safe could mean relatively safe as compared to a patch of open ground, or it could mean relatively safe as compared to wind power.

The former is correct, the latter is not. Nuclear power is very safe compared to wind power when people bother to look at the data.

 

[Swa]

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.

You miss the point. No power plant really has to shut down permanently. But nuclear does age. The issue is if you don't continue with nuclear (not always feasible) there is no reusing a nuclear plant for anything else ever.

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/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#f89eb8a709b7

As I said that is not the issue. Rather the socioeconomic impact can't be measured. Chernobyl caused countless deformities of people as well as livestock. Pieces of land are lying arid. A huge burden was placed on the healthcare system due to secondary diseases. Fukushima will take another $100bn just to contain the fallout from the 3 affected reactors. I can find at least 4 incidents of core meltdown including one in the US.

 

[Solarion]

The issue is not the debt nor the lack of funding. Those are the symptoms. The issue is the deep rooted corruption. Until they fix that Eskom is just stagnant flotsam.

 

[konfab]

You miss the point. No power plant really has to shut down permanently. But nuclear does age. The issue is if you don't continue with nuclear (not always feasible) there is no reusing a nuclear plant for anything else ever.


As I said that is not the issue. Rather the socioeconomic impact can't be measured. Chernobyl caused countless deformities of people as well as livestock. Pieces of land are lying arid. A huge burden was placed on the healthcare system due to secondary diseases. Fukushima will take another $100bn just to contain the fallout from the 3 affected reactors. I can find at least 4 incidents of core meltdown including one in the US.

Arid land? You do Chernobyl is a wildlife paradise because of the lack of people?

Imagine comparing the safety of cars from the 1950s to cars nowadays. That is exactly what you are doing when you compare the nuclear plants of the 1950s to the nuclear plants of today.

If you want socio-economic impact, then look at the impact that load shedding had here.

 

[Swa]

Arid land? You do Chernobyl is a wildlife paradise because of the lack of people?

Imagine comparing the safety of cars from the 1950s to cars nowadays. That is exactly what you are doing when you compare the nuclear plants of the 1950s to the nuclear plants of today.

If you want socio-economic impact, then look at the impact that load shedding had here.

So you can farm anywhere? Fukushima didn't happen in the 50's. And what does load shedding have to do with it? Would nuclear have provided us with cheap uninterrupted power?

 

[konfab]

So you can farm anywhere? Fukushima didn't happen in the 50's. And what does load shedding have to do with it? Would nuclear have provided us with cheap uninterrupted power?

The biggest "threat" to to farmland is urbanisation, not a couple of nuclear reactors.

The Fukushima reactor was built before the one at Chernobyl.

As for load shedding, it shows why we need dependable power. Renewable energy doesn't have that.

 

[Lupus]

So you can farm anywhere? Fukushima didn't happen in the 50's. And what does load shedding have to do with it? Would nuclear have provided us with cheap uninterrupted power?

Are you forgetting the massive amount of water that caused the issue at Fukushima? A freaking tsunami washed over it and even then it was less devastating then Chernobyl.

 

[Swa]

The biggest "threat" to to farmland is urbanisation, not a couple of nuclear reactors.

Luckily we solved both problems then.

The Fukushima reactor was built before the one at Chernobyl.

Plenty of them still around.

As for load shedding, it shows why we need dependable power. Renewable energy doesn't have that.

We need dependable management and competent staff. Not some pie in ideas that can never be realised. Then we can choose.

Are you forgetting the massive amount of water that caused the issue at Fukushima? A freaking tsunami washed over it and even then it was less devastating then Chernobyl.

So it should have been a problem then? Chernobyl and Fukushima are also not the only incidents.