South Africa to build 6 new nuclear power plants

LaraC

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
41,164
Mackay said the International Atomic Energy Agency found South Africa’s nuclear preparedness deficient in more than 40% of its assessment criteria, “strongly indicating that South Africa is simply not ready to expand its nuclear capability safely”.
Does this agency have any power to halt or stop the process?
 

jetlee

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
788
Really .. why not make 100 Billion available in green energy subsidies, and get the average household solve your power problem in a green, redundant responsible way ... no .. lets rather go with 6 highly dangerous power stations, that our children will hate us for in 50 years ..

Sounds good ...
 

whatnot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Messages
394
Really .. why not make 100 Billion available in green energy subsidies, and get the average household solve your power problem in a green, redundant responsible way ... no .. lets rather go with 6 highly dangerous power stations, that our children will hate us for in 50 years ..

Sounds good ...

Hippies --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->> That way
 

Gaz{M}

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
6,559
6 power plants? Tsk Tsk media. Do your research please!

Power plant does not equal reactor.

And it depends on what power output of each reactor is going to be depending on the vendor country.

Russian VVER is 1200MW per reactor (not per power plant - you can have 1 to 4 reactors inside 1 "power plant" building).
So we would need 2 power plants, each with 4 reactors to give 1200 x 4 x 2 = 9600MW

Chinese reactors are 1000MW or 1400MW per reactor - do the math

European reactors are 1600MW (Areva). So we only need 6. But then maybe 3 reactors in each power plant to give 2 x 3 x 1600 = 9600MW. Or maybe 3 power plants with 2 reactors each.

Getting to 9600MW depends on the reactors we buy.

I certainly don't see them building 6 separate power plants. That means 6 sites are needed and 6 roof and 6 roads and 6 transmission lines etc. It makes more sense to have multiple reactors at 1 site.
 

jetlee

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
788
Hippies --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->> That way

of course .. deflect with a sound argument ... go away seems sound ... go with that ...

The reality .. as much as people dont want to see it .. is that 100 years from now, the rest of the world will be knee deep in low cost responsible green energy solutions .. whether they are sun / wind / tidal .. whatever .. we will still be paying (insert random figure with inflation here) for electricity while we try to recoup our investment of 4 trillion rand in nuclear ...

So why all the hate for green ?
 

LaraC

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
41,164
So why all the hate for green ?
South Africa has vast mineral resources which must be utilized at huge cost. Why would you want to use something that is sustainable or free? :rolleyes:
 

The_Unbeliever

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
103,197
South Africa has vast mineral resources which must be utilized at huge cost. Why would you want to use something that is sustainable or free? :rolleyes:

Fatcat oinkers also need to have their nasty pocketses padded, hence the steep markup on coal, petrol, diesel etc....
 

grok

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
23,776
6 power plants? Tsk Tsk media. Do your research please!

Power plant does not equal reactor.

And it depends on what power output of each reactor is going to be depending on the vendor country.

Russian VVER is 1200MW per reactor (not per power plant - you can have 1 to 4 reactors inside 1 "power plant" building).
So we would need 2 power plants, each with 4 reactors to give 1200 x 4 x 2 = 9600MW

Chinese reactors are 1000MW or 1400MW per reactor - do the math

European reactors are 1600MW (Areva). So we only need 6. But then maybe 3 reactors in each power plant to give 2 x 3 x 1600 = 9600MW. Or maybe 3 power plants with 2 reactors each.

Getting to 9600MW depends on the reactors we buy.

I certainly don't see them building 6 separate power plants. That means 6 sites are needed and 6 roof and 6 roads and 6 transmission lines etc. It makes more sense to have multiple reactors at 1 site.

Where have you been this last 20 years?

Optimisation and efficiency simply isn't part of this governments vocabulary, and frankly neither is honesty. We're dealing with the Armsgate, Nkandla & R140mil for a WordPress website gang, remember?

Zuma didn't really maneuver himself into the nuclear commission for love of his country, now did he?

I'm convinced they'll build 12 sites with half a reactor each as long as it means bigger bribes and more tenders for family members. To them making sure tax money is spent responsibly is something that only silly white folks do. TIA!
 

Bonk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
150
6 power plants? Tsk Tsk media. Do your research please!

Power plant does not equal reactor.

And it depends on what power output of each reactor is going to be depending on the vendor country.

Russian VVER is 1200MW per reactor (not per power plant - you can have 1 to 4 reactors inside 1 "power plant" building).
So we would need 2 power plants, each with 4 reactors to give 1200 x 4 x 2 = 9600MW

Chinese reactors are 1000MW or 1400MW per reactor - do the math

European reactors are 1600MW (Areva). So we only need 6. But then maybe 3 reactors in each power plant to give 2 x 3 x 1600 = 9600MW. Or maybe 3 power plants with 2 reactors each.

Getting to 9600MW depends on the reactors we buy.

I certainly don't see them building 6 separate power plants. That means 6 sites are needed and 6 roof and 6 roads and 6 transmission lines etc. It makes more sense to have multiple reactors at 1 site.
To my knowledge they have five sites, two in the Western Cape, one in the Eastern Cape, and two in the Northern Cape. Koeberg, Bantamsklip, Thyspunt and the two Northern Cape Sites, the names I can't remember. The higher ups weren't keen on the two in the Northern Cape so these were eventually scoped out of the process. Thyspunt will definitely go up first, but I am guessing they will go for more than one reactor per site.

They will never make the target by 2030. It took them forever to do the nuclear 1 EIA process.
 

Gaz{M}

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
6,559
Correct, Thyspunt has the most potential for the first plant. I assume it will be 4 x 1200MW reactors.

Bantamsklip is probably the next one.

I doubt they will build another plant at Koeberg as it is too close to the existing power plant so you are not spreading your geographic risk.
 
Top