SA urged to use uranium more

I'd rather we not... just another target for terrorists and before anyone says anything... ANYTHING is possible!
 
Nuclear, such a scary word, which people like gdiza would get so scared of it they would die of their idiocy. As he said, anything is possible.
 
In principle it's the best option but I'd rather we not until we can prove we're capable of running complex electrical generation systems ... if someone has already proven themselves incapable of running a basic coal plant, do you put a nuclear power station in their hands? I don't think so. Maybe a pebble-bed or other "safe" design, sure, but I suspect that's not what we're talking about.
 
I read it as an encouragement to use uranium, which is one of our natural resources, just like coal. Not exactly a newsflash but I guess it doesn't help that it comes from one of the bidders to build our future nuclear power plants. :p
 
We actually really do need these nuke stations, theyre also cleaner, safer and produce more energy than coal stations.
 
Can one guarantee proper monitoring and maintenance of these stations?
The way ESKOM has mananged the whole infrastructure, they could become
rundown within a few years and possibly start to leak causing China Syndromes or
worse.
 
lsuacner said:
Nuclear, such a scary word, which people like gdiza would get so scared of it they would die of their idiocy. As he said, anything is possible.
Click to expand...

You might remember that recently the Pelindaba control room was broken into by robbers, and one person killed, while another break-in was happening elsewhere in the facility. So I would not accuse gdiza of idiocy in an unwarranted personal attack.

The real idiots are those running our power generating ie: Eskom. Trusting such people with more nukes is a bit like letting grade 3 kids loose to play on the local unexploded military ordnance dump. Great fun I suppose.

:cool:
 
Regardless of whether ur a bunny hugger or nuke lover: this is going to be the solution that will produce the most electricity, so 10 years from now the coal plants will supply enough capacity to allow us to load shed for another 10 years, whereas nuclear power stations once completed in 10 years will see us with a massive surplus.
 
jabulani said:
You might remember that recently the Pelindaba control room was broken into by robbers, and one person killed, while another break-in was happening elsewhere in the facility. So I would not accuse gdiza of idiocy in an unwarranted personal attack.
Click to expand...

a) that was motivated by theft, not terrorism.
b) Pelindaba is a research facility not a power station.
c) Nuclear power is still safe. You cannot take into account the amount of deaths due to coal mining ("I got the black lung, Pa...") and overall air pollution and compare it to a single nuclear disaster 20 years ago. Koeberg has been extremely safe to date, modern reactors are designed to be failsafe.
 
timgaul said:
a) that was motivated by theft, not terrorism.
b) Pelindaba is a research facility not a power station.
c) Nuclear power is still safe. You cannot take into account the amount of deaths due to coal mining ("I got the black lung, Pa...") and overall air pollution and compare it to a single nuclear disaster 20 years ago. Koeberg has been extremely safe to date, modern reactors are designed to be failsafe.
Click to expand...

a) The motivation is irrelevant. The point is that the security at one of our nuclear facilities was typically incompetent and easily compromised.
b) So? There is a reactor there.
c) No it's not. Secondly, deaths from mining coal do not make vast areas uninhabitable. Thirdly, so were Chernobyl, Windscale and Three Mile Island. Fourthly, do you really think this bunch of goofs running our power are in any way competent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X