S.A goes big on nuclear

Slootvreter said:
Oh no. More anti-nuclear fearmongering. Nuclear is the best way to generate electricity. What else would you prefer?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised.

You can't argue facts with these sorts of people. Their anti-nuclear position is a priori, so no subsequent data can change their minds. The only way is for them to have a conversion experience and see the folly of their ways.

Anyone have any idea where these new plants will be located? Pure speculation on my part:

* Possibly two other reactors near Koeberg
* Southern Cape (near Mossgas?)
* Upcoast from PE
* North Coast (just south of Richard's Bay)
* ... mabe one or perhaps two inland for Gauteng...?
 
Update:
Potential sites:
1) More at Koeberg
2) Thyspunt, near Jeffrey's Bay (18 km SSW of Humansdorp)
3) Bantamsklip, Southern Cape
4) Brazil, near Kleinzee in the Namakwa district, Northern Cape. Approx 85km west of Springbok
5) Schulpfontein, N Cape Atlantic coast, near Hondeklipbaai
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
Update:
Potential sites:
1) More at Koeberg
2) Thyspunt, near Jeffrey's Bay (18 km SSW of Humansdorp)
3) Bantamsklip, Southern Cape
4) Brazil, near Kleinzee in the Namakwa district, Northern Cape. Approx 85km west of Springbok
5) Schulpfontein, N Cape Atlantic coast, near Hondeklipbaai
Click to expand...

we've got plenty of coastline with very little surrounding population.
finding a location should be a cakewalk compared to the ultra high density issues of locations in japan.
personally, i'm against old-school nuclear. organic nuclear ftw.
http://jimunro.blogspot.com/2008/06/organic-nuclear-energy.html
 
carstensdj said:
How so?
Click to expand...

japan is on the pacific rim.
we aren't near any significant tectonic activity and haven't experienced any significant activity in recorded history. there was a minor earthquake or tremor in cape town once.
thus the most likely cause of a tsunami would come from an asteroid splashdown.
the most likely cause of this would be the possible collision with apophis in 2030 odd, but that would only affect the west coast of the usa.
even then you need to bear in mind that of all the reactors in japan, given a direct tsunami and an earthquake and old technology, there were no deaths afaik.

if we were to be blindsided by and earthquake and tsunami big enough to take out a nuclear reactor, the nuclear fallout over the namib desert or mozambican channel would be the last thing to worry about.
 
Last edited:
One swallow does not a summer make, and one earthquake shows you where not a nuclear reactor to place. Plus it probably gets its power from Koeberg anyway. One reactor in each province could probably power most of the country pretty efficiently. It just depends on distances (N.Cape would be tough for eg but Gauteng would be easy if you stick a station in the NW or Mpumalanga close to Gautengs borders)
 
Arthur said:
I'd also be nervous releasing radiation info. The media and assorted greenie-fanatics get hysterical about radiation levels that are harmless. There are ordinary cities on earth where the natural background radiation is higher than 100m from the Fukushima meltdown. I can just imagine the panic headlines for every minor vent...
Click to expand...

And what everyone conveniently doesnt know, is that during normal day to day operation, coal power plants release far more radioactive materials into the atmosphere than a nuclear power plant.

But nookleeur, eet iz 2 dainjerus!! Everyone panic!!
 
Tokyo - An earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 6.1 hit east of Tokyo on Wednesday but no tsunami warning was issued and there were no initial reports of damage or troubles at area nuclear plants, the Japan Meteorological Agency and local media said.

The earthquake, which caused substantial shaking in Ibaragi and Chiba prefectures east of Tokyo, followed just a few hours after a magnitude 6.8 quake jolted northern Japan.

A tsunami warning was issued but later lifted after the northern Japan earthquake.

Just over one year ago, the northeast coast was struck by a magnitude-9 earthquake, Japan's strongest on record, and a massive tsunami, triggering the world's worst nuclear crisis in 25 years.
Click to expand...
Source

Funny how nobody notices when natural disasters don't affect nuclear plants :rolleyes:
 
One thing. I do hope that our current guavamint has the foresight to make sure that the new nuclear plants are designed to desalinate sea water. Lets face it....it wont be long before we gonna need it.
 
Slootvreter said:
Oh no. More anti-nuclear fearmongering. Nuclear is the best way to generate electricity. What else would you prefer?
Click to expand...

Get all the unemployed yoof, and a vast array of treadmills...
 
@Sinbad :-))))))))))


I just wonder if it is such a great idea for SA to go nuclear, when a 1st world country with proven technical abilities, Germany, is moving away from it.....
 
Bundu said:
@Sinbad :-))))))))))


I just wonder if it is such a great idea for SA to go nuclear, when a 1st world country with proven technical abilities, Germany, is moving away from it.....
Click to expand...

The Germans are moving away from it because the post-War deNazification and attendant war-guilt, relentlessly but silently exploited by 50 years of lefty and centre-lefty governments, and relentless anti-war-cum-anti-nuclear propaganda has slowly but inexorably morphed into a general anti-nuclear animus, driven by loopy green-enviro-loons.

One day they'll rue this crazy auto-aborting decision.

The French are quite happy with it.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
The Germans are moving away from it because the post-War deNazification and attendant war-guilt, relentlessly but silently exploited by 50 years of lefty and centre-lefty governments, and relentless anti-war-cum-anti-nuclear propaganda has slowly but inexorably morphed into a general anti-nuclear animus, driven by loopy green-enviro-loons.

One day they'll rue this crazy auto-aborting decision.

The French are quite happy with it.
Click to expand...

yeah, I suppose time will tell - if you're wrong though, the results can be interesting though, with employment criteria not always competence in SA
 
We have been producing nuclear power for around 60 years and there have been maybe 4 large incidents (Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, Fukushima and I am sure someone will find one more) and a few small incidences. Of course these have unfortunately claimed human lives, but so have coal power station which have actually claimed more. So obviously there is a risk, however when it is running smoothly it produces no harmful emissions, which effects no one. Where as coal power constantly produces highly harmful gasses and soot which cause many issues to public health and safety, and that is when the plant is running smoothly.

Nuclear is the way to go. Pebble Bed would have been great if we didn't quit on it but normal types of nuclear power plants are still better than any coal plant.
 
Arthur said:
The Germans are moving away from it because the post-War deNazification and attendant war-guilt, relentlessly but silently exploited by 50 years of lefty and centre-lefty governments, and relentless anti-war-cum-anti-nuclear propaganda has slowly but inexorably morphed into a general anti-nuclear animus, driven by loopy green-enviro-loons.

One day they'll rue this crazy auto-aborting decision.

The French are quite happy with it.
Click to expand...

Funny how none of the media mentions WHY the Germans are able to move away from nuclear - guess what, they're gonna be importing electricity from France to make up the shortfall that their stupid "alternative" methods can't cover. Guess what type of energy France uses - yes, Nuclear.
So the Germans are NOT moving away from nuclear, they're just outsourcing it.
It's all a political publicity stunt, basically. (The announcement was made in the middle of a difficult election period, you may recall).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X