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

TysonRoux

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
7,616
Renewable environmentally friendly energy is slowly gaining more ground and in time will form a larger portion of the market, but still has a long way to go to get past the developmental stage, ........ electric power generation and transport.

Later constructed coal fired plants are designed with emission control equipment that makes them a lot more environmentally friendly, so those plants will still be going for at least 30 to 50 years, their design life.

U.S. set to pass South Korea as world’s largest grid-connected battery energy-storage market this year
The energy to charge the batteries most likely comes from fossil fuels for now.
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
102,860
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

Batteries are great for quick frequency response.

You seem to be wearing that ignorance badge proudly.
Because we are trying to get rid of fossil fuels and pollutants.
What else do you think is going to carry us through the night?
If we are not using fossil fuels, and if the sun don't shine at night, then what carries the load, pray tell?
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
26,271
Because we are trying to get rid of fossil fuels and pollutants.
What else do you think is going to carry us through the night?
If we are not using fossil fuels, and if the sun don't shine at night, then what carries the load, pray tell?
That makes me sad, you're talking specifically about solar PV and judging all renewable by it.

CSP, wind, hdro etc. Don't all stop at night. Wind even usually picks up in the evening peak at sunset.

And no one said anything about going 100% renewable right now, what was said is that nuclear is not the answer.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
23,833
Because we are trying to get rid of fossil fuels and pollutants.
What else do you think is going to carry us through the night?
If we are not using fossil fuels, and if the sun don't shine at night, then what carries the load, pray tell?
The typical bogus critic response. Acting like the only options are sun or coal.
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
26,271
You know what base load is? One coal station can power base load.
I doubt that one, unless it's a very large base load.
With proper filters, a couple of coal stations are fine, and their electricity cost is "good enough".

This is from: https://www.mpoweruk.com/electricity_demand.htm
1563370174420.png
Which was a typical summer day back in 1999.
Sun graph for mid summer (yes, July is Summer in the northern hemisphere):
1563370239221.png
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/los-angeles?month=6
So technically you could use PV to manage over half the load in summer.
But of course you'd rather check winter as worst case, 6am->6pm, which would probably contract the graph a bit.

But the question was never Solar PV or nothing, this is 2018 Lazard report, it deals with the levelized cost of electricty by source, this includes these factors:
Source: Lazard estimates.
Note: Here and throughout this presentation, unless otherwise indicated, the analysis assumes 60% debt at 8% interest rate and 40% equity at 12% cost. Please see page titled “Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison—Sensitivity to Cost of Capital” for cost of capital sensitivities.

(1) Such observation does not take into account other factors that would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this analysis. These additional factors, among others, could include: import tariffs; capacity value vs. energy value; stranded costs related to distributed generation or otherwise; network upgrade, transmission, congestion or other integration-related costs; significant permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of complying with various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets or emissions control systems). This analysis also does not address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot afford distribution generation solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., nuclear waste disposal, airborne pollutants, greenhouse gases, etc.)

(2) Unless otherwise indicated herein, the low end represents a single-axis tracking system and the high end represents a fixed-tiltdesign.

(3) Represents the estimated implied midpoint of the LCOE of offshore wind, assuming a capital cost range of approximately $2.25 –$3.80 per watt.

(4) Unless otherwise indicated, the analysis herein does not reflect decommissioning costs or the potential economic impacts of federal loan guarantees or other subsidies.

(5) Represents the midpoint of the marginal cost of operating fully depreciated coal and nuclear facilities, inclusive of decommissioning costs for nuclear facilities. Analysis assumes that the salvage value for a decommissioned coal plant is equivalent to the decommissioning and site restoration costs. Inputs are derived from a benchmark of operating, fully depreciated coal and nuclear assets across the U.S. Capacity factors, fuel, variable and fixed operating expenses are based on upper and lower quartile estimates derived from Lazard’s research. Please see page titled “Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison—Alternative Energy versus Marginal Cost of Selected Existing Conventional Generation” for additional details.

(6) Unless otherwise indicated, the analysis herein reflects average of Northern Appalachian Upper Ohio River Barge and Pittsburgh Seam Rail coal. High end incorporates 90% carbon capture and compression. Does not include cost of transportation and storage.
So note that e.g. nuclear would have way more added to this, since nuclear disposal and add decommissioning costs, etc.

1563370632389.png
https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

Do you notice how CSP is cost competitive with nuclear? Do note (5) for nuclear, which is nuclear power that has already been built and paid off. As you might notice, it highly skews people into thinking nuclear is cost effective.


And this is all in a US context, for them nuclear would be cheaper than us as they still have quite a few of the technical skills and a bit less corruption than us.



And do take into account those figures are not subsidized, here are the actual figures if counting subsidies:
1563370946596.png


And this is the one where you should care the most:
1563370988075.png
How easy it is to fund it.
 

TysonRoux

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
7,616
I have no doubt that the ANC cadres are trying to keep their promise to Putin - scared that he'll demand the bribes be returned.

 

Ockie

Resident Lead Bender
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
50,587
I would say wait for this to technology to mature a bit. US is also working on one, but are behind the Russians. Once the cost has come down, buy a few and hook up our coastal cities. Hell, maybe by that time some of our well run cities might have the legal frame work in place to buy their own one, dock it in their harbor and supply their own nuke power.
 

Gaz{M}

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
6,054
Nuclear isn't in the IRP 2019. It is mentioned as a "policy position" to start procurement for a 10+ year possible future build.
 

lsheed_cn

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
2,900
Nah, we need to be going gung ho on Nuclear.

Starting with the big fücking ball of nuclear fusion that we rotate around. Maybe some sort of panel that could take some of that nuclear energy, and convert it into electricity.

I know we could call it a solar panel, as the sun is called sol.

Any takers?
 

grok

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
20,471
The ANC cannot even give us normal electricity that we can afford, how in thee hell are they going to give us nuclear we can afford?

I'm not against nuclear, the NP giving us Koeberg was great, I'm against the ANC and I'm especially VERY against the ANC & nuclear due to their corruption and anti-science stand.

For instance, why don't they use decolonized science to investigate lightning strikes as a source of electricity generation?
 
Top