SA can't do without nuclear power in the future - Molefe

Mach III said:
How many governmental operations are properly implemented? Why is the most corrupt minister in charge with the contract? Is Tina Joemat Peterson suddenly going to change her ways?

It is certainly not in any shape or form "THE ANSWER"... You know why, cause there is no f***ing question. That's why.
Click to expand...

If improper implementation is a dealbreaker, South Africa may as well give up on all technology, from broadband to road infrastructure, to banking, to energy.

The question is "Where should the electricity come from?", and you care about the answer as evidenced by the fact that you're on the internet.
 
Mach III said:
That is one of the most retarded articles I have ever read.

It is so selective on information.

**** humans, there are 7billion of these **** ups... Look at the damage done to the planet... Chernobyl... Fuukushima... Yes... No comeback whatsoever.

Furthermore on the retardedness - yes, it deserves a made up word, because it is made up bull**** to easily trick susceptible minds. It is completely irrational to multiply the electricity generation by the amount of people that died. Dying on a wind farm? We need these humans to die. It is nature, and it is called natural selection. It is the same reason why retarded cats will die when running to attack rottweilers. Those that are not fit to live, die. There's even a program on TV for minds seeking entertainment called 1000 ways to die; that is why 14 fools died in wind turbines.
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree with your general point about the article but not all people who die on Wind Turbines are at fault...:(

xHyOoc9.jpg

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1q0sca/last_week_two_engineers_died_when_the_windmill/
 
3WA said:
If improper implementation is a dealbreaker, South Africa may as well give up on all technology, from broadband to road infrastructure, to banking, to energy.

The question is "Where should the electricity come from?", and you care about the answer as evidenced by the fact that you're on the internet.
Click to expand...

No, all those sectors do not propose direct physiological risk to the livelihood of others. That is why private sectors strive in SA.
Police sector? Completely derelict. That is why private security companies are driving around in Ford Rangers where I live.
Schooling? Disaster. That is why private schools are immensely successful.
Even our court system; which is one of the best in the World on human rights is under threat by the current Government.

If the energy minister of one of the most successful countries of all time; a powerhouse; part of the G8/7 can envision renewable energy for SA http://www.biznews.com/energy/2015/...-tells-sa-build-your-renewables-dump-nuclear/ ... I'd say that is a POSSIBLE ANSWER; and not necessarily THE ANSWER. and in SA there are many renewable programs running which have been implemented; and are being successfully implemented. They do not produce the potential catastrophic risks that nuclear presents.

What about looking at the end-users; the consumers; and where they are using most of the electricity? Like our incessant need for hot water; why not have solar geysers; which could be constructed in SA: producing jobs; and issuing them to households? Complete replacement of lighting to run on LED? Manufacturing of better insulation of pipes offered in households to retain the heat from the geysers? Gas cookers replacing oven tops? Information on reduction of electrical usage are also POSSIBLE answers.
 
Cray said:
Not that I disagree with your general point about the article but not all people who die on Wind Turbines are at fault...:(

View attachment 364162

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1q0sca/last_week_two_engineers_died_when_the_windmill/
Click to expand...

Ja, ****, that's a freak accident... You right...

But at the same time, we are looking at the question of not constructing them based on the threat to life and human life. Now in that sense, would we stop the construction of cars and airplanes?
 
Mach III said:
Ja, ****, that's a freak accident... You right...

But at the same time, we are looking at the question of not constructing them based on the threat to life and human life. Now in that sense, would we stop the construction of cars and airplanes?
Click to expand...

True, true..
 
Mach III said:
No, all those sectors do not propose direct physiological risk to the livelihood of others. That is why private sectors strive in SA.
Police sector? Completely derelict. That is why private security companies are driving around in Ford Rangers where I live.
Schooling? Disaster. That is why private schools are immensely successful.
Even our court system; which is one of the best in the World on human rights is under threat by the current Government.

If the energy minister of one of the most successful countries of all time; a powerhouse; part of the G8/7 can envision renewable energy for SA http://www.biznews.com/energy/2015/...-tells-sa-build-your-renewables-dump-nuclear/ ... I'd say that is a POSSIBLE ANSWER; and not necessarily THE ANSWER. and in SA there are many renewable programs running which have been implemented; and are being successfully implemented. They do not produce the potential catastrophic risks that nuclear presents.

What about looking at the end-users; the consumers; and where they are using most of the electricity? Like our incessant need for hot water; why not have solar geysers; which could be constructed in SA: producing jobs; and issuing them to households? Complete replacement of lighting to run on LED? Manufacturing of better insulation of pipes offered in households to retain the heat from the geysers? Gas cookers replacing oven tops? Information on reduction of electrical usage are also POSSIBLE answers.
Click to expand...

Do you know why Germany can dump nuclear? Because they have France.

We need stability and certainty in the electricity supply in order to get the economy going again. People want to build a factory and not worry about backup generators.
 
Molefe says the United States has been using nuclear energy without any disasters.
Click to expand...

These sudden onset comparisons to 1st world countries only ever happens when they want more money, for everything else (including their president's corruption) there's.. 'It's not an African paradigm!'

He says Africa is bigger than the United States and currently only has two nuclear plants.
Click to expand...

Cue the usual hysterics about how Africa is not a country..

SA under the ANC cannot even crack 1% growth, how are they going to justify the money spent & extra electricity seeing as how rapidly they are de-industrialising us? Besides, everything else we've seen from dat president & his lackeys points to this being just another Zupta scam.
 
Mach III said:
Furthermore on the retardedness - yes, it deserves a made up word, because it is made up bull**** to easily trick susceptible minds. It is completely irrational to multiply the electricity generation by the amount of people that died.
Click to expand...

Much hilariousness in this post.

But let's focus. What is the primary function of a power plant? To generate electricity. So it is 100% rational to equate the amount of power it produces per life it takes when comparing the safety of one generation to another. Or is there some other magical way to determine what is better regarding safety? Perhaps we should determine the safety of a plant by the number of retarded cats killed? :rolleyes:

But let's rather make up words and go on tangents :rolleyes:

Actually, no wait.

Mach III said:
We need these humans to die.
Click to expand...

Therefore you are actually pro nuclear since you say it is so dangerous ;)

Like I said, hilarious
 
Archer said:
Much hilariousness in this post.

But let's focus. What is the primary function of a power plant? To generate electricity. So it is 100% rational to equate the amount of power it produces per life it takes when comparing the safety of one generation to another. Or is there some other magical way to determine what is better regarding safety? Perhaps we should determine the safety of a plant by the number of retarded cats killed? :rolleyes:

But let's rather make up words and go on tangents :rolleyes:

Actually, no wait.



Therefore you are actually pro nuclear since you say it is so dangerous ;)

Like I said, hilarious
Click to expand...

So you are of the belief that the risk to human life is more so from wind turbines than nuclear... My God, the education system in SA has failed us all.

Yes there is a better way of looking at it regarding safety, we can look to historical actualities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

http://www.ews-schoenau.de/fileadmin/content/documents/100GG/100_good_reasons.pdf (number 85, you swallowed hook-line-and-sinker)

And how my points went completely over your head... Smh....

And you deny the existence of natural selection, while rolling your eyes...

Keep them rolling, and stick to PC components.
 
Last edited:
There's a few points Molefe is missing:
1. No economist has completed a forecast by when we shall need more electricity. Thats to say when his failed very expensive powerplants will be up and running. This will have to take the diminishing electricity use into account due to our mines closing and exports shrinking.
2. He must explain how the 500 potential nuclear scientists are coming on. Those ones the ANC sent abroad.
3. He must explain how we can afford to take 30 years to complete a nuclear power station.
4. How will we fund or manage this next project.
Never trust any cadre or politician!!!!!!!!!!
 
I rest my case. Just heard Molefe on the radio defending the Guptas and going on about how unfair everyone has been to them. The Guptas are in all likelihood behind the sudden bid for nuclear generation, given their investment in uranium mining.

Whether or not nuclear is a good idea is a separate debate. What I am sure of is that anything that was setup by the Zuptas will just be a opportunity to rape the country more.
 
garp said:
I rest my case. Just heard Molefe on the radio defending the Guptas and going on about how unfair everyone has been to them. The Guptas are in all likelihood behind the sudden bid for nuclear generation, given their investment in uranium mining.

Whether or not nuclear is a good idea is a separate debate. What I am sure of is that anything that was setup by the Zuptas will just be a opportunity to rape the country more.
Click to expand...

With Zuma, Joemat Petersson, Guptas all involved; it fascinates me how people can think this is a good idea.
 
Mach III said:
With Zuma, Joemat Petersson, Guptas all involved; it fascinates me how people can think this is a good idea.
Click to expand...

Well exactly. Whether nuclear is right for us is a separate debate which we can have once the Zupta factor is extracted, otherwise we're going to spend a trillion rand and end up with some half arsed dysfunctional setup where nobody can account for half of the money.
 
And if we think our country cannot become a failed state we only need to look as far as Venezuela where a dead president opened the gates of hell for them. Fully supported by the sheeple at the time of course.
A previous government could have done the same to this country once the century turns 2030.
 
REAList_1 said:
And if we think our country cannot become a failed state we only need to look as far as Venezuela where a dead president opened the gates of hell for them. Fully supported by the sheeple at the time of course.
A previous government could have done the same to this country once the century turns 2030.
Click to expand...

No need to even look that far, just north of the Limpopo River sits a clear example, sadly #1 and his ex-child-prodigy both think that is an example to aspire to ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X