SA must go nuclear - Minister

This is also worth a read - http://sessa.org.za/about-sessa/cha...m-regarding-consumer-renewables-in-the-future

My thoughts are
1) Nuclear is far too expensive.
2) Unnecessary - by the time it comes online, the end user that can afford it will have dumped Eskom anyway due to their crazy pricing.
That will leave the indigent to pay top dollar for Eskom Nuclear. Or not, as they don't pay currently...

Taxpayer base by then will also be laughable, so it will just be a huge fiasco.
I'll see you in NZ or Oz or UK at that point...

1: Cheap is coal and oil - we don't need more of that. Nuclear is cleaner and cheaper, so good compromise.
2: Its not unnecessary at all, we need the power and our needs will be more once we are online. Also we can sell this energy on to other countries.


Having (some) Nuclear at least is still a really good option
 
Because you haven't done the math?[/auote]no doubt
Assume a 300W panel. Size is around 2mx1m. That single panel should generate roughly 1KW in summer or 400W in winter (rather low ball numbers, actual will be higher). In say an average small house, you'll have about 10 x 6 roof space usable - so say 60sqm up top.

30 panels would be more than sufficient (giving you 30KW+ in summer minimum, and say 12KW+ in winter), and still leave room to spare.

This doesn't take into account evenings and storage, but reducing daytime use drastically allows Eskom to power down a couple of coal stations, or run more at lower capacity, increasing existing life spans. If Eskom / muni's put some motivation into play for consumers to do this - i.e buy not actively penalizing you like they do now, you'd probably see more uptake. This would also make more excess available for the non paying consumers, as its likely it would be generated by solar.

If Eskom and Muni's don't come to the table, people will just go offgrid (eventually), as their pricing will make it too attractive not to.
That will just leave the non-payers on the table for Eskom, and really really expensive Nuclear being unaffordable for the country.
That assumes a north facing flat roof.
 
1: Cheap is coal and oil - we don't need more of that. Nuclear is cleaner and cheaper, so good compromise.
2: Its not unnecessary at all, we need the power and our needs will be more once we are online. Also we can sell this energy on to other countries.


Having (some) Nuclear at least is still a really good option


Cheap is Wind.
Next expensive is Solar
Then Gas
Then Coal
Nuclear is incredibly expensive. Its also quite unaffordable.

90% of our generation is coal already, adding Solar and Wind backed with the existing coal is the best option.
We categorically do not need (more) Nuclear.

Look at my other thread where I go over this in much more detail.
 
1: Cheap is coal and oil - we don't need more of that. Nuclear is cleaner and cheaper, so good compromise.
2: Its not unnecessary at all, we need the power and our needs will be more once we are online. Also we can sell this energy on to other countries.


Having (some) Nuclear at least is still a really good option
Even before factoring in the decommission nuclear works out much more expensive. They haven't done that yet because they don't know how to decommission a nuclear plant. The tons of waste will just lay there somewhere. Meanwhile our grid energy demands are decreasing as well as the user base.
 
Absolutely - we've already signed a contract, we have no choice *whistle*

I think this - although you say this tongue in cheek - is pretty close to the truth. :(

I am not a nuclear scientist and cant debate the merits or de-merits of nuclear over other forms of energy generation, but I dont believe enough homework has been done and do believe that someone undeserving will get rich out of this deal, which I do believe has already been struck.
 
Whatever is assumed, your roof can provide way more than what your average user can use.

Producing isn't the hardest part, storage is... and the cost associated with it.
How does the math go for storage requirements?
 
Producing isn't the hardest part, storage is... and the cost associated with it.
How does the math go for storage requirements?
You only store it if you're off grid. Otherwise you feed back into the grid relieving the peak demand.
 
:D People have already spent their tender monies
Ha ha, it does seem like it when you see how hard they are pushing.

I was talking more large scale operations similar to wind farms. Installing one in every home in the country would hardly be efficient and could take very long. Just my opinion though.

Its a matter of perspective, would you really be bothered by a few hectares of solar panels near your town? Then in the Northern Cape there is a lot of space no one ever sees that is perfect, a good example would be using the valleys where the nuclear waste sites are... No one is allowed there as it is.

While nuclear may be a viable option on a purely technical level we have the worst possible group of politicians assessing thins information, if you can't manage forestry and fisheries you really should not be allowed to make any decisions on something as potentially catastrophic as nuclear power.

One major issue with nuclear in the form our government is looking is that it is still going for the outdated design of a few very larger power plants that then need to transmit power over very long links to get to consumers. Our transmission infrastructure is weak as hell and desperately needs an upgrade. Surely the plan should involve trying to decentralise the power production to create a more stable and reliable grid?
 
You only store it if you're off grid. Otherwise you feed back into the grid relieving the peak demand.

And do I have to go to the office at night to make sure I get to use my peak production hours of "free" electricity?
 
AmaBhungane calculates that Zuma Jr owns between 29% and 30% of Tegeta based on his 45% ownership of Mabengela Investments, which holds about 65% of Tegeta.

Brothers Atul and Rajesh “Tony” Gupta hold about 20% and 14% respectively.

Their wives, Chetali and Arti, respectively own about 3% and 14% further, bringing the family’s stake in the business to 51%. The figures are based in part on share information that may have changed.

The Optimum transaction has a corollary that puts Zuma Jr in a position potentially to benefit much more from the nuclear power stations that his father wants to build.

Oakbay Resources and Energy, the Gupta-controlled listed holding company of Shiva Uranium, has proposed to its shareholders that it should acquire all of Tegeta’s existing business – in other words, all but the Optimum group that Tegeta is purchasing from Glencore.

For that, according to a circular from Oakbay last month, it will pay Tegeta’s shareholders by giving them new Shiva shares equating to almost 20% of the uranium miner.

Zuma Jr already owned 4.7% of Shiva through Mabengela, which is named after the hills behind his father’s Nkandla residence.

AmaBhungane calculates that the Oakbay transaction will double Zuma Jr’s stake in Shiva to about 9.5%.

Shiva, and by extension Zuma Jr, could profit from the nuclear build programme through uranium supply contracts and because bidders for the power station contracts may want to buy into Shiva.

It has large uranium resources and a processing plant, making it attractive to bidders who want to score points for “localisation” and “security of supply”.


Oakbay Investments, the Gupta family’s company, declined comment on questions sent to Zuma Jr and a family spokesperson. Zuma Jr did not respond. – Additional reporting by James Wood

http://amabhungane.co.za/article/20...er-of-the-optimum-deal-if-officials-play-ball

We must go nuclear
 
Go nuclear, especially Bantamsklip! My house in Hermanus should increase in value nicely. :)
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X