Why is South Africa interested in old nuclear technology?

[JStrike]

We need the power now , not in 2050 .
That will be a little late.
If it took them 11 years to build a coal powered power station then nuclear will probably take about 35 years.

There is a lot of generation being procured (Either through IPP or self build) for the immediate and short term. It doesn't change the fact that action need to start now to secure large baseload for the long term

 

[kolakidd]

Who is the payback period for?
We cannot finance the build of these units, and no one is going to loan us the money. Therefore the units will be built and owned by one of the bidding providers who will then be able to set the price for power moving forward. Do we really want a foreign power setting the price of our power?

The only explanation for the payback period is that it is the payback period for the entity who finances and builds the units. Sweet deal for them.

The truth is Eskom could get a large part of their generation capacity back if they enabled tax incentives and buy back policies on households moving to alternative energy. They don't do this because they know that it's the top end of their paying customer base that will move, the part of the base that provides a subsidy to all of the other private consumers.

In the short term Nuclear seems to maintain this staus quo, but that assumes the entity controlling the nuclear portion of the grid doesn't simply escalate pricing and simply cut off non-paying areas.

The other consideration is that over a 50 year period, solar and energy storage are going to continue to evolve and become cheaper, natural gas may also become more predominant, so the likelihood that the consumer base and it's consumption patterns will be the same by that time is actually pretty bad.

 

[furpile]

Prescription for the Planet author Tom Blees told Fin24 in an exclusive four-part studio interview this week that pressurised (or light) water reactors consume about 60% of the 1% potential energy in uranium.
...
Blees said metal fuel fast reactors consume about 100% of the same potential in uranium, “so they are over 150 times more efficient when it comes to fuel”, he said.

From 60% to 100% might be over 150% increase, but it is definitely not 150 times more.

 

[Segg]

Yes, we need nuclear, but definitely not in the manner it is currently being proposed. If a proper reputable proposal is put forward in the future, and its is affordable then I say go for it. Coal is dirty, and renewables aren't reliable enough. When the waste from nuclear is properly dealt with, it makes the most sense in the long run

 

[agel]

"However, Treasury allocated R200m to the Department of Energy to focus on researching nuclear energy funding models in October."

And this above, why the hell does it cost R200m to research funding models!!!

 

[1441568916]

"However, Treasury allocated R200m to the Department of Energy to focus on researching nuclear energy funding models in October."

And this above, why the hell does it cost R200m to research funding models!!!

The gravy she gotta keep on flowin'

 

[Segg]

"However, Treasury allocated R200m to the Department of Energy to focus on researching nuclear energy funding models in October."

And this above, why the hell does it cost R200m to research funding models!!!

Probably includes very expensive foreign "research visits"

 

[Lindiswa]

i thought the reason we are alias with russia is because of the nuclear plant????

 

[Segg]

i thought the reason we are alias with russia is because of the nuclear plant????

Kuberg is French AFAIK

 

[Ockie]

Kuberg is French AFAIK

Ja. Think Areva?

 

[Gnome]

I would take a LWR any day over this crap this guy shoveling.

It is the most widely deployed reactor in the world, by far. Whereas this other reactor, well, there is one in Russia, China *may* build some. And then what, us?

Sensationalist article is sensationalist.

 

[Segg]

I would take a LWR any day over this crap this guy shoveling.

It is the most widely deployed reactor in the world, by far. Whereas this other reactor, well, there is one in Russia, China *may* build some. And then what, us?

Sensationalist article is sensationalist.

TBH the newer technology sounds like a god send, but also too good to be true....

LWR are an established technology, and we won't need to play nuclear guineapig....

We need nuclear, but the economics must be diligently looked at first, what are the pros and cons of each technology and their operating costs. Being a new technology, I'm sure it's going to turn out being ridiculously expensive in the long run.