South Africa's Solution To Global Warming - Go Nuclear!

[Wikkelspies]

South Africa to reduce green house emission by replacement of cheap coal with Nuclear.

http://www.fin24.com/Business/Six-nuclear-power-stations-planned-20100908

South Africa, the country most similar to Australia in having vast cheap coal reserves and uranium, has opted for the more expensive nuclear generation in order to meet its emission targets.

By building 6 near identical plants it dramatically reduces the cost per plant, and gets zero emission power at a fraction of the cost of "renewables" such as solar and wind.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4019

 

[genetic]

Nuclear is definitely the cleanest way forward.

The Eskom crisis has definitely forced government and Eskom into coming up with a sustainable and "green" solution in the long run.

 

[general_koffi]

Well, at least nuclear power works. I'm sure it will have no effect on climate change whatsoever, but at least the air will be cleaner.

You know, of course, that the coal isn't going to sit there in the ground... We're going to export it to China, who could care less about air quality.

 

[Palimino]

...at least the air will be cleaner.

Will it? With the skills crisis won’t we all be bleeding through the skin as we enjoy our clean (but radioactive) air?

We're going to export it to China, who could care less about air quality.

I’m not so sure. China knows it has a pollution problem. They’re many things, but they’re not stupid. They are aware that the world is looking to them to set an example. They have responsibilities and can’t cower behind an incomprehensible language and closed borders. America has lightened-up on demonising them (through their media control), so the world is learning more about China. Their air quality, pollution and energy needs are great. These are massive motivators with an intelligent, educated and disciplined population who doesn’t wimp-out easily and are not obsessed with money.

I reckon they’re one of the best choices for tackling energy and pollution issues.

 

[Wikkelspies]

Will it? With the skills crisis won’t we all be bleeding through the skin as we enjoy our clean (but radioactive) air?

I’m not so sure. China knows it has a pollution problem. They’re many things, but they’re not stupid. They are aware that the world is looking to them to set an example. They have responsibilities and can’t cower behind an incomprehensible language and closed borders. America has lightened-up on demonising them (through their media control), so the world is learning more about China. Their air quality, pollution and energy needs are great. These are massive motivators with an intelligent, educated and disciplined population who doesn’t wimp-out easily and are not obsessed with money.

I reckon they’re one of the best choices for tackling energy and pollution issues.

The Aussies, for obvious reasons because they export most of their coal and natural gas to China, are looking for ways to use coal cleanly. It may yet be more cost effective than going nuclear.

Nuclear plants are neither cheap to build nor to maintain, even if the cost of the electricity produced appears lower when taken without all the other considerations associated with nuclear generators. The problem of what to do with the waste has yet to be solved; as is the problem of what to do with ageing plants that become too dangerous or costly to keep running. Once closed, the site can't be used for anything else. Its an expensive ruin.

 

[Palimino]

The Aussies, for obvious reasons because they export most of their coal and natural gas to China, are looking for ways to use coal cleanly. It may yet be more cost effective than going nuclear.

If the Aussies pull this off [clean burning coal], SA can piggy-back on Aussie innovation because we also have massive coal reserves. Another aspect SA can piggy-back on the Aussies (and Israel) is how they deal with water. Australia is arid and so is Israel. They are first-world with respectable research facilities and talent (not like the NSA).

Nuclear plants are neither cheap to build nor to maintain, even if the cost of the electricity produced appears lower when taken without all the other considerations associated with nuclear generators. The problem of what to do with the waste has yet to be solved; as is the problem of what to do with ageing plants that become too dangerous or costly to keep running. Once closed, the site can't be used for anything else. Its an expensive ruin.

You are preaching to the converted. I agree 100%.

 

[Tpex]

Geez that is scary.....

 

[Grhardt]

Nuclear energy

Nuclear is the way to go. Even Piet Pompies knows that. The problem with coal is pollution, on a unprecedented scale. Coal fired power stations are basically damping their "faces" in the atmosphere for you to breath and spend lots of money on lawyers to cover up and to explain how effective their filtering system is. When you have a barbecue this evening think about the ash left behind. In a coal fired power station, the ash is pulverized to smatterings and blown off in the atmosphere as high as possible to spread it evenly and as far away from the source as possible. The wisdom goes, if you breath in less of it you won't be able to prove your cancer started because of it With nuclear absolutely no dirty stuff comes out (at least not supposed to). When it does, is much much easier to prove your case from the word go. The problem is where to put the ash. Is inconceivable to do what the fossil fuel stations do. The good thing is - very little ash is created to begin with. Some people think is best to bury the ash in the mines where it came from. After all it was radio active to start with.However, the problem with Africa/South Africa is intelligence/expertise . Affirmative Action and nuclear power stations should never be used in the same sentence - some things are indeed better left to those who invented/discovered them - unless you don't have a issue with Malema been the chief engineer

 

[Palimino]

Nuclear is the way to go.

Rather biofuels.
#1 It provides masses of unskilled, agrarian-type employment with little quality control (not like food crops). Nuclear has a few, highly skilled employment positions (skills which we don’t have).

#2 It is relatively safe and simple (compared to nuclear).

#3 It’s cheaper.

#4 The infrastructure exists to deal with biofuels. Everything used for regular fossil fuels (including the internal combustion engine) such as cars, service stations, mechanical skills, pipelines, etc. can be employed with little modification.

#5 Existing coal-fired power stations can be converted to biofuels.

Biofuels may not be the most ideal solution but, on balance when everything is factored-in, it is the best option.

In a coal fired power station, the ash is pulverized to smatterings and blown off in the atmosphere as high as possible to spread it evenly and as far away from the source as possible.

No, it’s not (what rubbish!). The ash is called ‘clinker’ and is used as bedding for tar roads - and road maintenance is something we need.

 

[Wikkelspies]

Certainly biofuels should tend to be much, much cleaner burning than coal and petro-chemicals. I'm not sure about there being any less CO2. Personally I'm not too fussed about CO2; its the other pollutants that will kill us, not CO2 or adapting to climate change. The extent to which CO2 contributes to climate change, if at all, is still being debated.

 

[w1z4rd]

Nuclear is definitely the way to go.

 

[Palimino]

Nuclear is definitely the way to go.

Why? You can’t just make an arbitrary claim without some justification.

“Rabbit droppings are definitely the way to go.”

 

[w1z4rd]

Why? You can’t just make an arbitrary claim without some justification.

“Rabbit droppings are definitely the way to go.”

Ive stated my reasons hundreds of times before. I was just expressing my opinion and since its sunday, have no intention of justifying it.

 

[Palimino]

Certainly biofuels should tend to be much, much cleaner burning than coal and petro-chemicals. I'm not sure about there being any less CO2. Personally I'm not too fussed about CO2; its the other pollutants that will kill us, not CO2 or adapting to climate change. The extent to which CO2 contributes to climate change, if at all, is still being debated.

I’m not sure about the CO2 issue either but it seems a reasonable solution for SA needs. Employment, cost, skills, safety, existing infrastructure, cleaner, energy independence, etc.

 

[scotty777]

Hmmm, I know that the universities are pumping nuclear engineering, there's a few of those chaps in my classes. So as long as the government can keep those guys in South Africa, we will have the skills...

But yeah, Nuclear power isn't refined enough atm, so I think it's more of an interlude power solution than anything else. It's cleaner than coal, but when things go wrong lots of people will be effected negatively (death... cancer... and these effects will stuff around with people for generations to come!).

Ultimately, we need to make use of our hot sun and stable weather, that's the way to go.

 

[Palimino]

Ive stated my reasons hundreds of times before. I was just expressing my opinion and since its sunday, have no intention of justifying it.

Lame. So you can’t justify it because you’ve “stated your reasons hundreds of times before”. So you’ve got nothing except empty vaporings.

 

[w1z4rd]

Lame. So you can’t justify it because you’ve “stated your reasons hundreds of times before”. So you’ve got nothing except empty vaporings.

Clearly

 

[shogun]

-1 to biofuels.

There's a lot of research coming out that leans towards them pushing up food prices because now there's a lot more competition as farmers move over to providing biofuels rather than normal crops. Also, they trend up and down with food prices and the amount of land you require is huuuuge (more habitat destruction in the quest for farmland anyone?).

I'm all for a combination of nuclear and wind & solar. Like that new development they want to put up in the Northern Cape. You have to have different forms of energy that balance each other out (like wind to balance out solar in a cold front etc).

Come to think of it... I wonder if these guys have got their act together on our east coast yet (http://www.cyclocean.com/home.html)? Fantastic idea for a base load where wind variability and sun aren't factors.

 

[Palimino]

It's cleaner than coal...

That’s not in dispute. The employment issue is a biggie (and will remain with us) and nuclear (forget about the other disadvantages) won’t address mass, low skilled employment. Biofuels will.

Ultimately, we need to make use of our hot sun and stable weather...

Don’t know about ‘stable weather’ with climate change on the go. Wait and see? The ‘hot sun’ is a possibility (although there are disadvantages). However, you are assuming static power stations and electric vehicles (not to mention the horrendous costs that the poor, sodding, overburdened taxpayer will be expected to bear). There is no infrastructure for electric vehicles and the consumer can’t afford one. They already have cars (internal combustion engine).

 

[w1z4rd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usg7-xbQOcM Penn & Teller