What's next for South Africa’s nuclear roll-out

JStrike

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
12,454
I suspect nothing much will come of this. In the end, Gas + Renewables will win the day.
That is, if TKAG gets smacked down and shale gas extraction goes ahead. Without that, it is 50/50
 

ellyally

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
4,413
Whats next? Something along the lines of calculating how many hundreds of billions they can steal.
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
25,126
I suspect nothing much will come of this. In the end, Gas + Renewables will win the day.
That is, if TKAG gets smacked down and shale gas extraction goes ahead. Without that, it is 50/50
With the amount of bribes possible through this venture (if one percent goes missing: 1% of R1 Trillion is R10 Billion, making the arms deal look small), I think the ANC are going to try push this deal through.
 

JStrike

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
12,454
With the amount of bribes possible through this venture (if one percent goes missing: 1% of R1 Trillion is R10 Billion, making the arms deal look small), I think the ANC are going to try push this deal through.
R1 trillion? It will cost between R250b and R500b. Still, your point is valid. And I'm sure that is why they are pushing for Nuclear.
However, in the end, nothing much will come of this. Gas + Renewables will win the day.
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
25,126
R1 trillion? It will cost between R250b and R500b. Still, your point is valid. And I'm sure that is why they are pushing for Nuclear.
However, in the end, nothing much will come of this. Gas + Renewables will win the day.
Well, you estimated the cost at R500 Billion a year ago, right? The rands dropped to R15 from R11, so it's at least R750 Billion now. Since we can't pay this, we will most likely have to borrow the money and get a higher interest loan resulting in a credit rating drop, making this easily top R1 Trillion without taking into account any bribes/favoritism.
 

JStrike

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
12,454
Well, you estimated the cost at R500 Billion a year ago, right? The rands dropped to R15 from R11, so it's at least R750 Billion now. Since we can't pay this, we will most likely have to borrow the money and get a higher interest loan resulting in a credit rating drop, making this easily top R1 Trillion without taking into account any bribes/favoritism.
You seem to be ignoring the point and focusing on the price. A R1t price point (Which I disagree with) makes my point even more than a R250b price point .
This just will not happen. It will be drawn out over a year or two and end up being cancelled. Gas + Renewables will win the day.
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
25,126
You seem to be ignoring the point and focusing on the price. A R1t price point (Which I disagree with) makes my point even more than a R250b price point .
This just will not happen. It will be drawn out over a year or two and end up being cancelled. Gas + Renewables will win the day.
At no point has it ever been estimated at R250 Billion though. Businesstech said R400 Billion to R1 Trillion.
AllAfrica @ R1 Trillion

Then another site:
Mbambo gave examples of the current world experience, saying the current world experience for quoted numbers for real export would indicate an overnight cost of about $5-billion per 1 200 megawatts, which is equivalent to $4 200 per kilowatt per reactor in new comer states.
"In countries with established domestic construction programmes, such as China, South Korea and India, the prices in order of $2 500 per kilowatts are being quoted. Among the 70-plus reactors in the world, there are a number of projects where because of the local market and political conditions the project costs are higher than these figures."

Read more: http://www.southafrica.info/business/economy/infrastructure/nuclear-build-150715.htm#.VoEfK-h96hc#ixzz3vcAyDTcl
So 4.2 Million per MW on average in dollars, which is about R65 Million per MW. We are planning to build 9600MW, so 65 x 9600 = R624 Billion before delays, bribes etc.
 

JStrike

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
12,454
At no point has it ever been estimated at R250 Billion though. Businesstech said R400 Billion to R1 Trillion.
AllAfrica @ R1 Trillion

Then another site:

So 4.2 Million per MW on average in dollars, which is about R65 Million per MW. We are planning to build 9600MW, so 65 x 9600 = R624 Billion before delays, bribes etc.
Once again, you are fixated on the price. If it is R1t (Which I disagree it would be), then I think there is even less chance of it happening. It will be drawn out over a year or two and end up being cancelled. Gas + Renewables will win the day.

And once again, this is not point, but here you go http://www.fin24.com/Economy/nuclear-wont-costs-r1trn-but-can-sa-even-afford-r250bn-20151227
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
25,126
Once again, you are fixated on the price. If it is R1t (Which I disagree it would be), then I think there is even less chance of it happening. It will be drawn out over a year or two and end up being cancelled. Gas + Renewables will win the day.

And once again, this is not point, but here you go http://www.fin24.com/Economy/nuclear-wont-costs-r1trn-but-can-sa-even-afford-r250bn-20151227
I don't believe that article, not a chance it can come under R250 Billion.
 

lsheed_cn

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
2,866
US price for new Nuclear builds is $7500 / KW
China is closer to $2500 / KW

Its likely we'll be closer to the US price, if not higher, due to BEE, unions and outright theft/corruption by the ANC and associated companies.
Lets not forget shutting it down once its done.
Decomissioning is currently $300 million - $500 million for a Nuclear plant in the US.



All in costs for a Nuclear plant are so far out of budget, that its not even viable without cost overruns.
Going by Medupi, or even most foreign Nuclear builds, expect costs to triple.

So 3 Trillion Rand or so.

The interest alone on that is unaffordable.
 

pinball wizard

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
15,592
Point them out to me please. Note that this read is about the nuclear roll out and not about gas/solar/coal alternatives besides their price point.
Exactly. Nuclear waste is yet to be proven to be more of an environmental hazard than any other form of energy production.

This country has priced coal based electricty out of the market, and so-called renewable sources simply do not provide enough electricity. (Let's stop using "energy" when we all mean the stuff I need to turn my lights on)

In this microscopic South African version, the price is a non event, the entire build will be scrapped, and that is something we cannot afford. We need power in the long run. There simply is no alternative. The cANCer have backed themselves into a Mexican Stand-off with themselves here.
 
Last edited:

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
25,126
Exactly. Nuclear waste is yet to be proven to be more of an environmental hazard than any other form of energy production.

This country has priced coal based electricty out of the market, and so-called renewable sources simply do not provide enough electricity. (Let's stop using "energy" when we all mean the stuff I need to turn my lights on)

In this microscopic South African version, the price is a non event, the entire build will be scrapped, and that is something we cannot afford. We need power in the long run. There simply is no alternative. The cANCer have backed themselves into a Mexican Stand-off with themselves here.
The issue is that price is a major factor. If no one can afford the power/it becomes cheaper for households to use solar panels there will only be those who cannot afford a lot of power/steal electricity still on the system. The results will be a tax increase in order to keep the project funded, resulting in further job losses.

If the electricity price increases, more smelters/mines/factories will leave as there are cheaper alternatives in other countries, resulting in even less people purchasing power, increasing the costs.
Do you understand the endless cycle?

Then take into account that if it all runs to schedule it will be at least 20-25 years before it comes online, these things should have been planned decades ago. We need most of that power now, in the short term, for which wind power is a very good alternative as it is cheap, is built quickly and is easy to deploy.

There are so many alternatives to nuclear, and if we choose the nuclear route, can we at least pick a modern power plant (was on carte blanche, think it was posted in this forum as well at one point)? The one the Russians are currently suggesting does not have a single operational version anywhere in the world, all of them are behind schedule/way above initial cost estimates.
 
Last edited:

pinball wizard

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
15,592
Yeah, no. The solution to the national electricity deficit is not for a few middle class households to try and go off grid with solar panels.

And a wind farm big enough to see us through the next few decades will certainly take more than a few years to be built.

Who said we are going with the Russian design?

There are not so many alternatives to nuclear supply. The way certain media are indoctrinating things doesn't make them correct.
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
25,126
Yeah, no. The solution to the national electricity deficit is not for a few middle class households to try and go off grid with solar panels.

And a wind farm big enough to see us through the next few decades will certainly take more than a few years to be built.

Who said we are going with the Russian design?

There are not so many alternatives to nuclear supply. The way certain media are indoctrinating things doesn't make them correct.
Multiple can be built at the same time, it will still take less than 20-25 years of nuclear. Wind is also cheaper than nuclear. Since each wind turbine is basically a standalone power generator, you will constantly have extra power coming online that is needed now.
The way media indoctrinates: what do you mean by that? Do you mean that you disagree with what the suggested nuclear power plant from Russia would be or are you saying they are punting the alternatives too much? And who is/are the "certain" media?

And to your first sentence: I did not say it was a solution, I said that would happen if the electricity prices increase. Those households that use a large amount of electricity are already leaving the grid and going with solar as it is cheaper in the long run, especially considering the amount of price increases Eskom is being granted. There were some threads on this forum about it, someone said his system would break even in about 5 years if the price increases are as planned, without taking into account that there will be a large price increase in order to budget for nuclear.
 

system32

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
2,840
Levelized Cost of Energy

See
Lazard: Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis 9.0 - Nov 17 2015
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90/
USD per MWh
  • Nuclear: $97-$136 (not including decommissioning costs)
  • Wind: $32-$77
  • Solar PV-Crystalline Utility Scale: $58-$70
  • Solar Thermal with Storage: $119-$181
See Also:
Institute for Energy Research - 2015 results
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/
levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies2.png

So, remind me again why we going for Nuclear instead of wind in Windy Jeffreys bay?
 
Top