Six nuclear power stations planned

Ya I am a firm supporter of nuclear power, it is definately the only viable option, however it doesnt stop us from trying solar power out, I mean we have tons of space in the karoo and Northern cape.....why dont we exploit these areas.even if its just supplemental to the nukes
 
Ever give a though why solar and wind farms have failed elsewhere in the world. Have a look into those reasons and then try and make a case for us here in SA overcoming those problems.

An ambitious plan such as this would require many more nuclear energy experts than this country currently has. South Africa therefore needs to train more nuclear engineers.

With our current schooling systems, and by 2013 ? What they going to use, magic ?
 
Ever give a though why solar and wind farms have failed elsewhere in the world. Have a look into those reasons and then try and make a case for us here in SA overcoming those problems.



With our current schooling systems, and by 2013 ? What they going to use, magic ?

Private schools ?
 
Good luck with the nuclear experts, first you'll have to discount all the existing experts 'cos a couple of years we were told SA don't need ya if you're white. Then you have to trawl the (failed) OBE crop for your precious previously disadvantaged black nuclear scientist, probably only to find .. uhm .. how many? Remember 'liberation before education' .. and your current racist policies, well ya be prepared to import some Western Colonialist experts. Damn these things are funny when your own shortsightedness turns around and bites you in the bum.
 
Hooray for nuke power

Nuclear power for SA is the height of idiocy. Nuclear (I hope) is not a remote possibility in SA until we are an order of magnitude more jacked-up. This will **never** happen, so we must investigate other alternative energy options. You would not be apprehensive about a nuclear option for SA?? Does the example of SA’s ‘well-oiled-machine’ ethos give you confidence? Does our surfeit of skilled and nuclear-trained engineers make nuclear an obvious choice for energy? Of course, we always have our efficient health system which is ready to spring into action in the event of a nuclear accident with skilled practitioners of nuclear medicine. Nope. I think we have problems enough without compounding them with a nuclear specter.

I favour biofuels. As well as ‘green energy’, they solve employment problems and exploit current infrastructure. Bio-diesel is the answer. Stacks of rural employment because the farming need not be commercial – standards don’t apply (except for food). The plants (high-yield, purpose directed plants - not food plants) are suitable for small-scale farming on crappy land with no quality control. Just plant them and harvest them in time for pick-up.

Picture it. A railway spur (<ahem> implying a working rail network) is laid-down at major nodes. A bio-diesel locomotive sponsored by SASOL (your friendly alternative fuel giant – building a better nation <gag>) leaves trucks on the spur for about a week (a residential carriage as well for officials) to collect fuel plant matter from myriads of subsistence farmers. They also tow around trailers with bio-diesel powered tractors to collect the harvest of farmers who cannot get to the rail node. Payment is by cheque - no carrying of cash so that they or the farmers become targets for criminal attack. Cheque validation is by the farmer’s thumbprint (illiteracy is addressed). The banks in nearby centres have the biometric apparatus necessary to cash cheques and have been instructed to treat a severed thumb, dripping blood with deep suspicion. The banking industry also wins – all these farmers have bank accounts. Genetically engineered fuel crops (Monsanto?) should be looked into for greater yields.

With the bio-diesel option, all the existing power stations can be used with little or no modification (they are just boilers, you burn different stuff is all). As the vegetable matter for bio-diesel is low tech. agriculture, it will provide masses of employment. The bio-diesel growing plants are robust (so neglect is not a big issue) and do not require the same standards as foodstuff. Insecticides, gro-fast muti etc. are OK. No refrigeration or time-critical transport required. Just harvest the stuff (in your own time) and get it to the fuel-making centres at some stage – the sooner to be paid. There is also a massive infrastructure devoted to the internal combustion engine (cars). Little modification with bio-fuels is required. What modification that is required is cheap. There will not be a rush to buy expensive ‘green’ vehicles that require a non-existent infrastructure (wishful thinking). No money.
 
Nuclear power for SA is the height of idiocy. Nuclear (I hope) is not a remote possibility in SA until we are an order of magnitude more jacked-up. This will **never** happen, so we must investigate other alternative energy options. You would not be apprehensive about a nuclear option for SA?? Does the example of SA’s ‘well-oiled-machine’ ethos give you confidence? Does our surfeit of skilled and nuclear-trained engineers make nuclear an obvious choice for energy? Of course, we always have our efficient health system which is ready to spring into action in the event of a nuclear accident with skilled practitioners of nuclear medicine. Nope. I think we have problems enough without compounding them with a nuclear specter.

I favour biofuels. As well as ‘green energy’, they solve employment problems and exploit current infrastructure. Bio-diesel is the answer. Stacks of rural employment because the farming need not be commercial – standards don’t apply (except for food). The plants (high-yield, purpose directed plants - not food plants) are suitable for small-scale farming on crappy land with no quality control. Just plant them and harvest them in time for pick-up.

Picture it. A railway spur (<ahem> implying a working rail network) is laid-down at major nodes. A bio-diesel locomotive sponsored by SASOL (your friendly alternative fuel giant – building a better nation <gag>) leaves trucks on the spur for about a week (a residential carriage as well for officials) to collect fuel plant matter from myriads of subsistence farmers. They also tow around trailers with bio-diesel powered tractors to collect the harvest of farmers who cannot get to the rail node. Payment is by cheque - no carrying of cash so that they or the farmers become targets for criminal attack. Cheque validation is by the farmer’s thumbprint (illiteracy is addressed). The banks in nearby centres have the biometric apparatus necessary to cash cheques and have been instructed to treat a severed thumb, dripping blood with deep suspicion. The banking industry also wins – all these farmers have bank accounts. Genetically engineered fuel crops (Monsanto?) should be looked into for greater yields.

With the bio-diesel option, all the existing power stations can be used with little or no modification (they are just boilers, you burn different stuff is all). As the vegetable matter for bio-diesel is low tech. agriculture, it will provide masses of employment. The bio-diesel growing plants are robust (so neglect is not a big issue) and do not require the same standards as foodstuff. Insecticides, gro-fast muti etc. are OK. No refrigeration or time-critical transport required. Just harvest the stuff (in your own time) and get it to the fuel-making centres at some stage – the sooner to be paid. There is also a massive infrastructure devoted to the internal combustion engine (cars). Little modification with bio-fuels is required. What modification that is required is cheap. There will not be a rush to buy expensive ‘green’ vehicles that require a non-existent infrastructure (wishful thinking). No money.

Never is a big word. Learn to use it sparingly. Saying something will never happen is rather dumb. Moving on...

SA, just like any other country can get skills and expertise from other countries. There is also a world wide organisation that regulates nuclear power, so even if the country falls apart, they will decommission the plants. Not to mention the layers of safety built into these plants that would protect it should something go wrong. I would not worry about the safety of operating the plant too much. Yes, it must be considered, but given the numerous safety mechanisms in place its not a big concern for the average citizen.

As for biofuels... Well, they use more energy to grow than what they produce. So thats a no no. The end.

You also seem to lack the knowledge of how coal power plants work. Biofuel can only be used during the ignition process to replace normal fuel. It cant replace the coal.
 
Last edited:
I cant believe you guys support this. Nuclear energy is potentially dangerous look at what happened to Chernobyl.
 
Good luck with the nuclear experts, first you'll have to discount all the existing experts 'cos a couple of years we were told SA don't need ya if you're white. Then you have to trawl the (failed) OBE crop for your precious previously disadvantaged black nuclear scientist, probably only to find .. uhm .. how many? Remember 'liberation before education' .. and your current racist policies, well ya be prepared to import some Western Colonialist experts. Damn these things are funny when your own shortsightedness turns around and bites you in the bum.

Dude.. You have issues.

There's no racial discrimination at South Africa's two biggest nuclear facilities... Pellindaba and Keoberg. They need skilled labour and not colour. Go read the article again.
 
I cant believe you guys support this. Nuclear energy is potentially dangerous look at what happened to Chernobyl.

By that theory we should shut down each and every coal power station - during normal operation coal power stations release far more toxins into the air and water than what nuclear power does during normal operation. Coal power related deaths and disease are a several order of magnitudes greater than all nuclear power related incidents.
 
I cant believe you guys support this. Nuclear energy is potentially dangerous look at what happened to Chernobyl.

Please get educated.

Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy we have. You use Chernobyl as an example. Great, in the entire history of nuclear technology we have one accident that was caused by using the cheapest equipment that was not maintained and all warnings were ignored. 28 people died in that horrific accident. Do you know how many people die every year to get coal out the ground??? Try think a bit mate. You clearly have no clue about what you are talking about. So yeah, as long as we dont have Malema`s running nuke stations ... everything should be fine.

Getting nuke stations would decrease the amount of people who die every year for energy, decrease the pollution we cause and increase the amount of energy we produce. Its a no-brainer... no wait.. its a little bit of a brainer... but I hope you get it.
 
Please get educated.

Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy we have. You use Chernobyl as an example. Great, in the entire history of nuclear technology we have one accident that was caused by using the cheapest equipment that was not maintained and all warnings were ignored. 28 people died in that horrific accident. Do you know how many people die every year to get coal out the ground??? Try think a bit mate. You clearly have no clue about what you are talking about. So yeah, as long as we dont have Malema`s running nuke stations ... everything should be fine.

Getting nuke stations would decrease the amount of people who die every year for energy, decrease the pollution we cause and increase the amount of energy we produce. Its a no-brainer... no wait.. its a little bit of a brainer... but I hope you get it.

There was 3 mile island as well afaik.

Anyways, most people don't seem to grasp the fact that even manufacturing those solar panels etc leave a huge carbon footprint.
 
There was 3 mile island as well afaik.
No one died there. Which is why I didnt include it.

Anyways, most people don't seem to grasp the fact that even manufacturing those solar panels etc leave a huge carbon footprint.
Yeah, we need to completely harness the power of the atom.
 
By that theory we should shut down each and every coal power station - during normal operation coal power stations release far more toxins into the air and water than what nuclear power does during normal operation. Coal power related deaths and disease are a several order of magnitudes greater than all nuclear power related incidents.

[citation needed]
 
Where will the money for this come from?

The taxpayer.

:sick:

Expect higher electricity levies and the such.

No joy.
 
Please get educated.

Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy we have. You use Chernobyl as an example. Great, in the entire history of nuclear technology we have one accident that was caused by using the cheapest equipment that was not maintained and all warnings were ignored. 28 people died in that horrific accident. Do you know how many people die every year to get coal out the ground??? Try think a bit mate. You clearly have no clue about what you are talking about. So yeah, as long as we dont have Malema`s running nuke stations ... everything should be fine.

Getting nuke stations would decrease the amount of people who die every year for energy, decrease the pollution we cause and increase the amount of energy we produce. Its a no-brainer... no wait.. its a little bit of a brainer... but I hope you get it.

This is Africa
 
Where will the money for this come from?

The taxpayer.

:sick:

Expect higher electricity levies and the such.

No joy.

We need the juice man. No matter what we need the juice. Our society needs it. With 6 nuke stations we should have surplus energy would could be sold to our neighbors to pay back some of the money for the nuke stations.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X