Mantashe: SA will get nuclear at a cost it can afford

Blue Shirt

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
633
Nuclear reactors are awesome! Building and operating one in SA of all places? LOL!!!!
Are you aware that we already have three nuclear reactors in SA? A twin power reactor of 1940 MW at Koeberg and a 10MW research reactor at Pelindaba, in case you forgot.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,735
We've had nuclear power here since 1976 without any incident due to natural disaster or any other cause.
The amount of natural disasters in positions of power have sadly increased. You can say the same thing about the White House.
 

Blue Shirt

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
633
I am also of the opinion that the only way for additional nuclear energy to be brought online is for goverment and specifically the ANC to leave it to the private sector through a PPP partnership and to keep their greedy little hands out of it.
 

TooFastTim

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
1,486
Are you aware that we already have three nuclear reactors in SA? A twin power reactor of 1940 MW at Koeberg and a 10MW research reactor at Pelindaba, in case you forgot.

Ah, sigh, your ignorance.

You also have an accelerator facility that at one time scared the crap of everybody because it was doing stuff that nobody else had even thought about.
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
26,565
Lol you've proven nothing. Some very wishful thinking and retrofitting there. Science is not on your side. Just desperate straw grabbing.
Really? Is that why at no point did you manage to actually bring evidence that stated nuclear over a mix of other renewable sources? I don't remember you doing so.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
24,190
Delusional. The cost we can afford is zero. Also probably doesn't understand there are different kinds of nuclear medical treatments and that it's not just the garden variety nuclear waste being used.

The world is going to need a lot more Nuclear Power going forward.
It's actually the key to solving the climate crisis problem.
Nuclear is the ultimate green energy, and the energy intensive solution with the smallest footprint.
Yes, it's expensive, but that's because it can't cut corners.
4th Generation Nuclear generation is incredibly safe and has very little waste (if any at all).

The MAIN problem in South Africa is building it without government corruption.
I say they should leave it to third party private industry with the necessary Nuclear oversight.
We already have a very good nuclear regulatory agency.
The irony is that if the world went nuclear it will be depleted in 20 years time and future generations would be robbed of having it as a contingency. Nuclear is the least sustainable source of energy. Also where are these 4th gen reactors? Oh yes, still in testing phase with only partial completion. Our nuclear regulatory agency also didn't fare so good lately with a number of breaches at Koeberg and they're heading the same way as our railway and aviation regulators.
 

TysonRoux

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
8,249
South Africa needs to plan for new nuclear after 2045 – Mantashe

South Africa needs to start planning now for new nuclear power capacity to come online after 2045, Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe said on Thursday, reopening a heated debate about whether the country should build more nuclear reactors.

President Cyril Ramaphosa put nuclear expansion on the back burner after taking office in February 2018, saying a project championed by his predecessor Jacob Zuma was unaffordable.

---------------
Mantashe's comments will be welcomed by major nuclear reactor vendors like Russian state firm Rosatom, which was one of the frontrunners for Zuma's nuclear project.

Russian President Vladimir Putin raised the subject of a nuclear deal at a meeting with Ramaphosa last year, a sign that Russia was still interested in the project.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
18,672
Let me guess... From the Russians. Even if they are not the lowest bidder.
Just the lowest cost isn't a good thing. It should be the best value for money, but that makes it quite complicated and too subjective for our government. I just hope if we get something that it is something that works.
 

krycor

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
16,170
We've had nuclear power here since 1976 without any incident due to natural disaster or any other cause.
We also use to build coal power stations and run them very efficiently.. but the reality is that Eskom of the past and Eskom of present are very different entities.

Climate conditions are also changing and while coal power stations screw ups in planning and building can be costly as seen in SA.. it’s at least lesser permanent than a nuclear build going wrong. Ask the USSR about Chernobyl design failures and testing.

I remember when I was at UCT and they were handing out research grants like crazy for PBMR.. but they failed with that. That was what R9 Bn lost? And coal is easier project to build but guess what.. we failed. So no.. allowing SA to build a nuclear plant is risky especially given that gov will force Eskom to PM it as a turnkey project.
 

Flanders

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 20, 2003
Messages
11,287
Mantashe: SA will get nuclear at a cost it can afford

Is this oke trying to tell us we're going to be nuked?
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
102,904
Why? You keep posting nonsense like this, and never back it up.
Why would batteries not be allowed in the mix if they're cost effective?
Because they are not powerful enough (at least under current technology) to carry a national grid under peak or heavy load through the entire night. The national grid is not a small transistor radio, it needs more than batteries. The fact that you think it can shows that you are naively ignorant about the science involved here.
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
26,565
Because they are not powerful enough (at least under current technology) to carry a national grid under peak or heavy load through the entire night. The national grid is not a small transistor radio, it needs more than batteries. The fact that you think it can shows that you are naively ignorant about the science involved here.
Are you joking? At what point did I say battery should be the full grid for the entire night? I said, why can't it be part of the grid if cost-effective, e.g. if you need an extra 20MW load for a short spike or to control voltage.
Such things are already being deployed,
3.8MW in New York as a trial run: https://www.3blmedia.com/News/National-Grid-Launches-First-Its-Kind-Battery-Storage-System
This report talks about it for the UK: https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/96456/download
Furthermore, in order to integrate more wind energy into an island system in Alaska, the electricityutility installed a 3MW battery storage system instead of connecting more diesel generation asspinning reserve. In addition to mitigating the curtailment of energy from wind farms, the lead-acidbattery system is capable of providing frequency response within 0.5s if required.

The Zhangbei National Wind and Solar Energy Storage and Transmission Demonstration Projectincludes a total of 17MW/70MWh of energy storage through a combination of lithium-ion andvanadium redox flow battery technologies. The use of batteries supports the integration of wind, solarand other renewable energy providing frequency regulation and voltage support to the grid
Batteries are great for quick frequency response.

You seem to be wearing that ignorance badge proudly.
 
Top