Eskom stops nuclear plans

[Alan]

lol @ melamine

Interesting how people worry about the power plants but most of the accidents and radioactive pollution comes from processing plants and weapon plants

 

[risingtide]

It is only a temporary halt to the nuclear plant. They think that with th eworld economy in trouble they have a 2 year window of I don't know quite what.
If they can't afford to build the reactor now, how will they be able to build it in a few years time. It is unlikely to become cheaper.

IMO, this is a short-sighted and stupid decision.

 

[antowan]

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard!!!!!

But yes, maybe safety first. Nuclear in Africa is risky business with the poor maintenance levels...

 

[angelblaze]

So Eskom really hates the environment and people? Coal power, our only other alternative for base-load is a filthy pig in terms of pollution. Nuclear FTW. And if the damn greenies didn't protest we would have been further along with the pebble bed reactor. The only way this decision makes sense is if we are waiting for gen4 reactors (lower capital costs, less nuclear waste) to come on stream. Well we have lots of extra capacity here in the year 1998 so we have the luxury of waiting and seeing.

 

[LazyLion]

It is only a temporary halt to the nuclear plant. They think that with th eworld economy in trouble they have a 2 year window of I don't know quite what.
If they can't afford to build the reactor now, how will they be able to build it in a few years time. It is unlikely to become cheaper.

IMO, this is a short-sighted and stupid decision.

I agree, sooner or later we are going to need Nuclear Power. ... and renewable energy.... and more coal fired plants... and whatever else is available. If we want to grow as an economy we need lots of power.

If the skills are not there then go get them and bring them here.

 

[rwenzori]

If the skills are not there then go get them and bring them here.

Think this concept: Harare Pebble Bed Reactor

 

[Alan]

Problem is if anything were to happen to Koeberg or any new nuclear plant Joe public would never hear about it until far too late. You just have to look at that moron Erwin who got away with the blatant lie about supposed "sabotage" at Koeberg

 

[Sapphiron]

What people don't seem to understand is that nuclear reactor design is inherently safe with modern reactor design. If people highlight Chernobyl, I would highlight Three mile Island.

For those who know little to nothing about nuclear power (but still comment on how dangerous nuclear is), Three mile Island was a nuclear power plant that underwent a even more serious failure than in Chernobyl (America always has to do it bigger). Since the reactor was of proper design (similar to Koeberg). The number of casualties were 0.

Far, far more people has been killed by respiratory disease due to coal, oil or gas power plants.

Rather than investing in a new power plant, they could have just added the 3rd and 4th reactor units to Koeberg. The distribution is already in place, and the increase in operational costs minimal.

I think the decision was very simple, it has nothing to do with the merits of nuclear power and everything to do with management bonuses.

 

[krycor]

i am curious to see what they propose.. if nothing somebody has to ask where all these loads are going

 

[rwenzori]

What people don't seem to understand is that nuclear reactor design is inherently safe with modern reactor design. If people highlight Chernobyl, I would highlight Three mile Island.

For those who know little to nothing about nuclear power (but still comment on how dangerous nuclear is), Three mile Island was a nuclear power plant that underwent a even more serious failure than in Chernobyl (America always has to do it bigger). Since the reactor was of proper design (similar to Koeberg). The number of casualties were 0.

From your comment, I assume you are an expert in the field! Some quotes on that disaster from Wikipedia.

Over the next week, steam and hydrogen were removed from the reactor using a recombiner and, more controversially, by venting straight to the atmosphere. It is estimated that a maximum of 13 million curies (480 petabecquerels) of radioactive noble gases were released by the event, though very little of the hazardous iodine-131 was released.

However, the contaminated cooling water that leaked into the containment building had seeped into the building's concrete, leaving the radioactive residue impossible to remove. TMI-2 had been online only three months, but now had a ruined reactor vessel and a containment building that was unsafe to walk in — it has since been permanently closed.

There are numerous lists available on the net that clearly demonstrate man's inability to deal safely with nuclear reactors and materials. Civilian Nuclear Accidents, Military Nuclear "Accidents", Radiological Incidents, etc.

Also remember that Pelindaba had its reactor control room invaded by criminals not long ago, with one murder IIRC.

 

[bekdik]

I think they should stock up on AAA batteries which can be connected together to replace powerstations.

 

[.Froot.]

Here is a question ... I presume most on here to be of higher intelligence than most ...



If Kouburg (sp?) is the only nucular power plant, then what is Pelendaba Nuclear Facility? If they are not making power (which I believe that are not - but when ever I have asked this question, I have been told that it does supply power) then what exactly are they making?

War heads? Only 40kays from Joburg ... Nice!

Pelindaba is a research facility where both commercial and military research took and is taking place.


edit: A security review article was in the Star a few years ago. Should Pelindaba turn into a mushroom cloud, Jozi is safe. Pretoria on the other hand, will end up similar to Hiroshima.... with the radioactive poisoning, that is.

 

[.Froot.]

What happened with the pebble bed? Is that still in development? I've heard (from an inside source) they are spending millions on the project, while everyone knows it's going to be a failure.

I know one of the guys on the PB board and they are busy shutting down all plans here...

 

[.Froot.]

If this means no more nuclear in any form then it's a very short-sighted move, in my view. The day will doubtless come when Eskom will rue this decision, making it even more expensive for a future Board to get us on the right track again.

Not quite. Eskom doesn't have the money to build a nuclear reactor. A nuclear reactor costs several times more than a coal station (not mentioning numbers because not a lot of people have that info )

 

[DavidJ]

They should even shut down Koeburg before the capre flats become a shiny piece of glass north of capetown...

You DO realise that nuclear power plants cannot explode like nuclear bombs, right? Nuclear power stations of the Koeberg design can't even fail in the way Chernobyl did ... approximately the worst case scenario there if Koeberg dies is that most of the WC's power supply will be out for some years.

It's actually terrible news that this project has been canned, and it will be even worse news if PBMR goes too. And then there's the negative "side effects", e.g. I don't even want to think how many of our best engineers that are/were on these projects would emigrate now instead (some will leave for good even if the project is started again ... this "now we're doing it, now we aren't" vascillating behaviour we do is damaging in and of itself). Anyone who thinks this is good news is just plain nuts. To tackle unemployment and poverty we need to grow the economy, and if we can't increase our energy supply, we can't do that.

According to one of the articles I read, the reason Eskom doesn't have the money for this project is that they dramatically overspent on Medupi. I can buy that, though I'm sure there's more to it than that - probably politics.

 

[rwenzori]

Nuclear power stations of the Koeberg design can't even fail in the way Chernobyl did .

Sure! NOTHING can go wrong.

A survey of official records since the Three Mile Island reactor meltdown in 1979 shows there have been more that 23,000 mishaps at U.S. reactors -- and the number is increasing. In 1986, there were more than 3,000 reported incidents -- up 24 percent since 1984. DER SPIEGEL's chilling conclusion: "Humanity has been sitting on a powderkeg as a result of reliance on the 'peaceful' use of the atom."

That's just up to 1987 as quoted at:

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/green_planet/nukacdnt.html

Humans are perfect.

Here's a fun one from 2005:

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=132&storyCode=2029958

 

[DavidJ]

Sure! NOTHING can go wrong.

*Sigh* ... physics is physics but try convincing all the "nuclear-terrified" people of that. It doesn't matter how many "incidents" there were at TMI or how imperfect people are --- Koeberg must obey the laws of physics according to how it was built and no, short of a terrorist deliberately doing something like detonating a nuclear bomb in it, it CANNOT do anything like a "Chernobyl". Your above strawman argument is to absurdly suggest I was claiming nothing can go wrong ... but your logic amounts "something can go wrong, therefore something absolutely horrible can go wrong". Your second strawman is "humans are perfect". If you're going to argue with strawman after strawman after strawman you aren't going to convince anyone.

 

[rwenzori]

*Sigh* ... physics is physics but try convincing all the "nuclear-terrified" people of that. It doesn't matter how many "incidents" there were at TMI or how imperfect people are --- Koeberg must obey the laws of physics according to how it was built and no, short of a terrorist deliberately doing something like detonating a nuclear bomb in it, it CANNOT do anything like a "Chernobyl". Your above strawman argument is to absurdly suggest I was claiming nothing can go wrong ... but your logic amounts "something can go wrong, therefore something absolutely horrible can go wrong". Your second strawman is "humans are perfect". If you're going to argue with strawman after strawman after strawman you aren't going to convince anyone.

No straw men, old boy - pure sarcasm!

To put it in very simple terms - to be a "nuclear" reactor nuclear/radioactive materials are used as fuel, and nuclear/radioactive materials result as waste. So apart from any human cockup that can occur to make the reactor itself go critical, there are hordes and hordes of opportunities for humans to cock up the handling and disposal of such materials, as humans do, incredibly frequently, if you'd bother to read.

Here's a fun criticality one for you ( amongst THOUSANDS of "incidents" ):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accident

Regarding your "terrorist" claim - I refer you to the Pelindaba incident. You don't have to have a meltdown to release masses of radioactivity near Cape Town.

Admittedly a bit extreme, but read how the Russians used to process plutonium ( sadly the Way-Back machine had to be used ):

http://web.archive.org/web/20040903115456/http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1999/so99/so99larin.html

Read up on Windscale and see what happens when the govt. puts pressure on the scientists, too.

Here's another one about Sellafield:

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=132&storyCode=2029958

Operation culture at the Thorp’s head end was complacent with regard to detecting losses which were simply not considered credible. The board of enquiry report says that all the staff interviewed as part of the investigation believed that losses on this scale could not conceivably be due to a leak – there had to be an error in the paperwork.

 

[Tanarri]

I also love it when people who know nothing about nuclear are happy when such plans gets shut down. Do any of the people promoting these 'green practices' know the efficiency at which power is generated by the wind and sun? Nuclear is the way to go until these technologies become viable, if at all.

 

[rwenzori]

I also love it when people who know nothing about nuclear are happy when such plans gets shut down. Do any of the people promoting these 'green practices' know the efficiency at which power is generated by the wind and sun? Nuclear is the way to go until these technologies become viable, if at all.

So what do you know about "nuclear"?