If not Nuclear Power, then WHAT??

sox63

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
8,617
Just watching Carte Blanche and I'm really getting tired of this now. Everyone knows of the risks associated with nuclear power, and they can be managed. Coal fired powered stations are not cool in as far as emmisions are concerened.

And Windmills and solar panels just wont cut it.
 

ZA_medic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
455
We can always set Telkom Head office / Vans / Funiture on fire and use that???
 

Baron Hohenzollern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
186
And Windmills and solar panels just wont cut it.
Some one needs to inform Germany of this. It seems they mistakingly invested in the wrong sort of Power.

Germany's industrial scale is far superior to South Africa's their requirements for power sources far exceeds the needs of South Africa at present, it doesn't even have access to as much ocean as South Africa, and yet it seems to function well with Windmill power and similar sources other than Nuclear power.

The risks associated with Nuclear power can't be managed, since it's not a very predictable source of Power. And the damage can't be minimized, Look at Chernobyl as an example. Russia has far more knowledge in the Nuclear science than South Africa, it has the knowledge and yet still unpredictable events occured. It is not something you can "manage" 100% because it's not that transparent.
 
Last edited:

feo

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
13,423
I also don't get why we don't utilize more wind turbines in SA? Do we even use them at ALL in SA?
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,359
The risks associated with Nuclear power can't be managed, since it's not a very predictable source of Power. And the damage can't be minimized, Look at Chernobyl as an example. Russia has far more knowledge in the Nuclear science than South Africa, it has the knowledge and yet still unpredictable events occured. It is not something you can "manage" 100% because it's not that transparent.
It must be snowing - I am in agreement with the Baron!

Humans CANNOT handle nuclear power and materials safely. See the links in my post at:

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=845297&postcount=7

:eek:
 

Slooth

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,219
Just watching Carte Blanche and I'm really getting tired of this now. Everyone knows of the risks associated with nuclear power, and they can be managed. Coal fired powered stations are not cool in as far as emmisions are concerened.

And Windmills and solar panels just wont cut it.
Didn't they mention that the refinement process produces more emmisions then coal?
 

redarrow

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
2,371
I also don't get why we don't utilize more wind turbines in SA? Do we even use them at ALL in SA?
I saw three huge ones just the other side of Cape Town ("other side" from my perspective ;) )... Not sure if they're actively used or anything though.. - but definitely not the personal variety..
 

sox63

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
8,617
Some one needs to inform Germany of this. It seems they mistakingly invested in the wrong sort of Power.

Germany's industrial scale is far superior to South Africa's their requirements for power sources far exceeds the needs of South Africa at present, it doesn't even have access to as much ocean as South Africa, and yet it seems to function well with Windmill power and similar sources other than Nuclear power.

The risks associated with Nuclear power can't be managed, since it's not a very predictable source of Power. And the damage can't be minimized, Look at Chernobyl as an example. Russia has far more knowledge in the Nuclear science than South Africa, it has the knowledge and yet still unpredictable events occured. It is not something you can "manage" 100% because it's not that transparent.
First of all, Germany, claims to be phasing out Nuclear energy, but will probably end up importing energy from France, and what do they use? Nuclear power. And I think you are missing the fact the renewable energy sources you speak of only account for 12% at the most of the electricity produced in Germany, the rest is taken up by Nuclear and conventional power. Take nuclear away and Germany will largely rely on conventional power thus INCREASING greenhouse gasses. They say they can make the power stations more "efficient", but by how much really?

So lets see, they switch off their nuclear stations, to rely on another countries nuclear energy, and increase greenhouse gas emmisions, yay for the enviroment. :rolleyes:

As for safety, the French would most likely get the contracts to build the power stations and to the best of my knowladge their safety record is very good.
 

Baron Hohenzollern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
186
First of all, Germany, claims to be phasing out Nuclear energy, but will probably end up importing energy from France, and what do they use? Nuclear power.

And I think you are missing the fact the renewable energy sources you speak of only account for 12% at the most of the electricity produced in Germany, the rest is taken up by Nuclear and conventional power.
.

What's the point? It matters little how much energy is used by Nuclear power sources. The point here is that Germany is seriously tackling an alternative source of power. Implimentation of new power sources doesn't happen within a year through out a country the phase out plan is set till 2020, you have to discontinue the original power source systematically and impliment the new one gradually so as to not over load the new system, and not leave the people without a source of power.

It works the same with any other implimentation of technology you don't pull the plug on one and then slap the entire gridload onto the new version.

Currently the idea is to use coal which already provides over 50% of the energy in Germany and Gas powered plants as a bridging method in order to impliment it's renewable energy plan which consists of wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and biomass.

The reason for Germany's desire and need to shut down production is due to as Wolfgang Neumann says :

Physicist Wolfgang Neumann of Intac, a waste-management organization based in Hannover, argues that "the risk is too great for a terrible accident" on the scale of Chernobyl.
No one argues the fact that if any one is more efficient at making things work it's the Germans, if they consider it too much of a risky investment then you've to wonder about the "predictability" of this power source.

It is highly unlikely that Germany would turn to France to provide it's Energy source. Nor rely on it for it's industry. The EU might be an economic co-operation, but with the historical trend in European relations, you've got to be a complete imbecile to rely on any European nation for Industry.

Take nuclear away and Germany will largely rely on conventional power
So? Do you honestly think one nation would cause earth to melt in hot molted lava?:rolleyes:

It's temporary.

So lets see, they switch off their nuclear stations, to rely on another countries nuclear energy, and increase greenhouse gas emmisions, yay for the enviroment. :rolleyes:
I've had this discussion before, I'll refrain from commenting on this "man made phenomena".

As for safety, the French would most likely get the contracts to build the power stations and to the best of my knowladge their safety record is very good.
1981: Accident at La Hague reprocessing plant (France)

1993: Technical failure at Paluel causes subcooling accident (France)

1990: Pump failure during a shut-down at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)

1989: Control rod failure at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)

1988: Release of 5000 Curies of tritium gas from the Bruyere le Chatel military nuclear complex (France)

1990: During refuelling, five cubic meters of radioactive water spilled at the Fessenheim nuclear power plant (France)

1991: Failure of core cooling system at Belleville nuclear power plant (France)

1992: Two workers contaminated at Dampierre nuclear power plant (France)

1992: Temperature rise in storage pool at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)

1986: Flooding at the Cattenom nuclear power plant (France)

There's too many to list.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html

Enjoy the read.
 

Sapphiron

Centadel
Company Rep
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
2,124
Nuclear is still the way to go.

i'ts cheaper than all the alternatives. There is a great safety system protecting modern reactors (unlike Chernobyl). out of the hundreds of reactors running worldwide for over a decade now only 2 disasters (3-mile island was one of the first reactors and it resulted in no deaths or even radiation exposure)

it produces MASSIVE amounts of power. and does not produce significant amount of emissions to build (unlike solar), nor is the power produced unpredictable (like wind)

There is only one reason why Germany invested a lot in wind power. VOTES. Some pansy-ass politician put it though to win green votes.

The best forms of power is still hydro-electric dams, but they are expensive and subject to the right conditions.
 

Sapphiron

Centadel
Company Rep
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
2,124
.

What's the point? It matters little how much energy is used by Nuclear power sources. The point here is that Germany is seriously tackling an alternative source of power. Implimentation of new power sources doesn't happen within a year through out a country the phase out plan is set till 2020, you have to discontinue the original power source systematically and impliment the new one gradually so as to not over load the new system, and not leave the people without a source of power.

It works the same with any other implimentation of technology you don't pull the plug on one and then slap the entire gridload onto the new version.

Currently the idea is to use coal which already provides over 50% of the energy in Germany and Gas powered plants as a bridging method in order to impliment it's renewable energy plan which consists of wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and biomass.

The reason for Germany's desire and need to shut down production is due to as Wolfgang Neumann says :



No one argues the fact that if any one is more efficient at making things work it's the Germans, if they consider it too much of a risky investment then you've to wonder about the "predictability" of this power source.

It is highly unlikely that Germany would turn to France to provide it's Energy source. Nor rely on it for it's industry. The EU might be an economic co-operation, but with the historical trend in European relations, you've got to be a complete imbecile to rely on any European nation for Industry.



So? Do you honestly think one nation would cause earth to melt in hot molted lava?:rolleyes:

It's temporary.



I've had this discussion before, I'll refrain from commenting on this "man made phenomena".



1981: Accident at La Hague reprocessing plant (France)

1993: Technical failure at Paluel causes subcooling accident (France)

1990: Pump failure during a shut-down at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)

1989: Control rod failure at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)

1988: Release of 5000 Curies of tritium gas from the Bruyere le Chatel military nuclear complex (France)

1990: During refuelling, five cubic meters of radioactive water spilled at the Fessenheim nuclear power plant (France)

1991: Failure of core cooling system at Belleville nuclear power plant (France)

1992: Two workers contaminated at Dampierre nuclear power plant (France)

1992: Temperature rise in storage pool at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)

1986: Flooding at the Cattenom nuclear power plant (France)

There's too many to list.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html

Enjoy the read.
If those are the type of accidents, then we can go ahead with nuclear for sure. This is another classic case of greenpeace's selective highlighting of information. 90% of those incidents weren't even "nuclear" accidents and about half aren't even accidents so much as incidents.

How many death or injuries at those plants? Compare that to the amount of coal miners who die daily around the world. or people who die in power plant disasters in general. I would bet a months salary that percentage wise, it is safer to work in a nuclear power plant than an coal power plant.
 

Toko

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
490
I believe that nuclear is the way to go for western nations because of the power to pollution/cost ratio and their ability to properly maintian their stations but I don't think we should go nuclear till we have our priorities straightend out.

I don't trust that a govt that cares more about the maintenance techinician's skin color than his ability to do his job to properly maintain something as dangerous as a nuclear power station.
 

Baron Hohenzollern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
186
I don't trust that a govt that cares more about the maintenance techinician's skin color than his ability to do his job to properly maintain something as dangerous as a nuclear power station.
I commend you for pointing out the very obvious, Toko. Thank you kindly.
 

sox63

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
8,617
I believe that nuclear is the way to go for western nations because of the power to pollution/cost ratio and their ability to properly maintian their stations but I don't think we should go nuclear till we have our priorities straightend out.

I don't trust that a govt that cares more about the maintenance techinician's skin color than his ability to do his job to properly maintain something as dangerous as a nuclear power station.
You must not have been watching the Carte Blanche tonight becuase ALL the nuclear engineers there were white, and old. And I personally know that Eskom is sourcing skills globally for nuclear engineers. ie, they are getting the skills regardless of colour.
 

Highflyer_GP

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
10,123
It must be snowing - I am in agreement with the Baron!

Humans CANNOT handle nuclear power and materials safely. See the links in my post at:

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=845297&postcount=7

:eek:
Most of those disasters linked to refer to nuclear weapons. Nuclear power on the other hand works on a different principle. They are linked by the use of uranium and that's where the similarities end. Nuclear stations don't explode as a nuclear weapon would, it's impossible.

Power reactors use low enriched uranium, typically about 4% 235U. The weapons grade uranium used in atomic bombs is highly enriched, typically greater than 80%. Nuclear weapons rely on a chain reaction of highly enriched (>80% 235U) uranium to produce it's destructive power, nuclear reactors experience a meltdown in the event of failure.

In the event of a meltdown of a reactor, the reactor literally melts, which is caused by a temperature rise in the core. If the core continues heating, the temperature of the reactor causes the steel walls of the core to melt. The main problem in the event of a meltdown is not an explosion, it's the molten uranium rods that melt through the bottom of the reactor and sink into the earth, where it reacts with ground water. This produces bursts of radioactive steam and debris.

Everyone keeps pointing to Chernobyl as an example of failure, but the Chernobyl reactor was poorly designed from the offset. It's common knowledge that the reactors were susceptible to large power surges. The operators also removed too many control rods to boost power output. There was also no containment building.

The main engineering challenge when designing a nuclear plant is to design one that is idiot-proof. Chernobyl was the result of idiots (in both the engineering and operation of the plant), it wasn't because of nuclear technology itself. All the other benefits of nuclear power have already been mentioned - emissions (or lack thereof), power output, sustainability etc
 
Last edited:

lsuacner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,659
Some one needs to inform Germany of this. It seems they mistakingly invested in the wrong sort of Power.

Germany's industrial scale is far superior to South Africa's their requirements for power sources far exceeds the needs of South Africa at present, it doesn't even have access to as much ocean as South Africa, and yet it seems to function well with Windmill power and similar sources other than Nuclear power.

The risks associated with Nuclear power can't be managed, since it's not a very predictable source of Power. And the damage can't be minimized, Look at Chernobyl as an example. Russia has far more knowledge in the Nuclear science than South Africa, it has the knowledge and yet still unpredictable events occured. It is not something you can "manage" 100% because it's not that transparent.
Coal has heavy metals in it. When it is burned it releases radiation, which is not shielded. When coal is burned, the gasses are released in to the atmosphere. Coal power directly affects the health of everyone and everything around it.

Chernobyl had a bad design, safety precautions were switched off and the thing blew up. It can not happen in modern nuclear plants anymore.
South-Africa was one of the first country to develop nuclear arms. We have the world's leading nuclear scientist, working on the Pebble Bed reactor in Potchefstroom. The Pebble Bed design is the most advanced in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Nuclear waste is easily manageable. The amount of research which went in to is far more than that done for coal power.

Nuclear is one of the cleanest energy sources there is. Solar panels provide as much energy as it takes to produce the panels. The resulting unbiodegradable panels pollute the environment.

Now there has been nuclear accidents, but coal power released more radiation than nuclear power plant accidents.
 
Top