You have less than a week to comment on the nuclear plans Eskom tried to hide from yo

[BusinessTech]

You have less than a week to comment on the nuclear plans Eskom tried to hide from you

Outa has appealed to South Africans to comment on nuclear procurement plans, which the group says Eskom tried to sneak past the public participation process by gazetting them in a provincial documents.

 

[Moosedrool]

We aren't under terrorist threat and nuclear energy is clean yet efficient energy. Used uranium being stored is the only problem today. Frekin go for it.

 

[The_Librarian]

Done.

 

[The_Librarian]

We aren't under terrorist threat and nuclear energy is clean yet efficient energy. Used uranium being stored is the only problem today. Frekin go for it.

NOT if they're being sneaky and underhanded about it. Remember what happened with eTolls? They sneaked it in while we weren't looking.

 

[Moosedrool]

OK maybe I said that wrong. My vote would be go for it and yes doing under the table like that isn't in our best interests.

The thing is I believe more awareness is required on nuclear energy among people than just simply thinking oh fork we're all gonna die. Even the picture on that news topic is biased with a radiation warning symbol on a deteriorated background. Seriously? How is having a stance even an option when people don't have the slightest idea what nuclear power really is?

 

[Nerfherder]

I'm pro the Nukes.

Just get on with it.... in a few years the DA will take over and make sure its all above board.

 

[ToxicBunny]

I'm pro the Nukes.

Just get on with it.... in a few years the DA will take over and make sure its all above board.

If the contracts are signed there will be little the DA can do to recover the costs lost to ridiculous corruption.

I am for Nuclear Power in theory, I am not for Nuclear power in this country given that as a whole the industry (worldwide) is prone to vast amounts of corruption, cost overruns, deadline overruns, etc etc etc...

 

[greg0205]

Done

 

[etienne_marais]

OK maybe I said that wrong. My vote would be go for it and yes doing under the table like that isn't in our best interests.

The thing is I believe more awareness is required on nuclear energy among people than just simply thinking oh fork we're all gonna die. Even the picture on that news topic is biased with a radiation warning symbol on a deteriorated background. Seriously? How is having a stance even an option when people don't have the slightest idea what nuclear power really is?

This is not about whether nuclear should or should not be used in principle. It is about following the correct procedure for yet another massive expenditure and preventing possible corruption.

•The decision to build these Nuclear Reactors precedes the entire decision on the ability of the nation to (a) affordability of the proposed Nuclear Energy Program and (b) the alternative energy solutions available to the public which may negate the need for the building of Nuclear reactors at these sites

where 'alternative energy solutions' are not presented because of nuclear being 'wrong', but because of the way the whole thing is being approached.

 

[IdlePhaedrus]

I don't think the problem is Nuclear per se, not in the South African context. I live five kilometres from Koeberg, so clearly I have no problem with nuclear.

The problem is that this deal is probably going to be like the arms deal on steroids, and we know already that Eskom just cannot manage big builds without huge over-runs in time and cost.

So, regardless of the merits of nuclear or not, it is an almost dead cert that Eskom and Government will bugger it up, and it will end up costing far more than it should have.

Also, from a personal perspective, I am not sure that we need this amount of base load (regardless of source) given the demand trajectory as it currently stands, and I am further concerned that the requirements are based on a plan that is way out of date. Things have moved on considerably since the plan this procurement is based on was produced (2011 if I recall correctly).

So, we aren't really in a position now to even discuss the merits of nuclear vs other base load tech, and yet we (or the government rather) seems intent on rushing into it regardless. That by itself just raises a whole bunch of red flags especially given the relationship between number 1, Putin, and the Guptas.

OK maybe I said that wrong. My vote would be go for it and yes doing under the table like that isn't in our best interests.

The thing is I believe more awareness is required on nuclear energy among people than just simply thinking oh fork we're all gonna die. Even the picture on that news topic is biased with a radiation warning symbol on a deteriorated background. Seriously? How is having a stance even an option when people don't have the slightest idea what nuclear power really is?

 

[IdlePhaedrus]

Anyway, I have lodged my objection based on the fact that the IRP is two cycles out of date and so unlawful, in reference to this:

http://www.doe-irp.co.za/

 

[creeper]

Done. Stated the lack of transparency on the cost / benefits and the contrarian approach to go against renewables

 

[IdlePhaedrus]

We aren't under terrorist threat and nuclear energy is clean yet efficient energy. Used uranium being stored is the only problem today. Frekin go for it.

With regards Uranium specifically, as far as I understand it to date Thorium may be a better alternative. These refer:

http://www.thoriumpowercanada.com/technology/the-fuel/thorium-vs-uranium-fuels/
https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium.html

Not overly knowledgeable on this, just throwing it into the mix...

 

[The_Librarian]

My main reason for lodging an objection will be the lack of transparency and obvious cost overruns.

Just look at what happened to Medupi and Kusile.

This is not about whether nuclear power is cleaner, but this is about avoiding a corrupt and nontransparent system where cost overruns will be the norm.

If due process are followed, everything is transparent and above board, then I would say go ahead. But not when it is like this, shady underhanded deals...

 

[The_Librarian]

I don't think the problem is Nuclear per se, not in the South African context. I live five kilometres from Koeberg, so clearly I have no problem with nuclear.

The problem is that this deal is probably going to be like the arms deal on steroids, and we know already that Eskom just cannot manage big builds without huge over-runs in time and cost.

So, regardless of the merits of nuclear or not, it is an almost dead cert that Eskom and Government will bugger it up, and it will end up costing far more than it should have.

Also, from a personal perspective, I am not sure that we need this amount of base load (regardless of source) given the demand trajectory as it currently stands, and I am further concerned that the requirements are based on a plan that is way out of date. Things have moved on considerably since the plan this procurement is based on was produced (2011 if I recall correctly).

So, we aren't really in a position now to even discuss the merits of nuclear vs other base load tech, and yet we (or the government rather) seems intent on rushing into it regardless. That by itself just raises a whole bunch of red flags especially given the relationship between number 1, Putin, and the Guptas.

^ What he said.

 

[IdlePhaedrus]

...
Just look at what happened to Medupi and Kusile.
...

You forgot Ingula

Eskom is denying the report, but there you go. The truth is, it probably is way over budget.

 

[The_Librarian]

You forgot Ingula

Eskom is denying the report, but there you go. The truth is, it probably is way over budget.

More oil on the fire then.

 

[itareanlnotani]

Regardless of opinion whether its good to go nuclear or not, we simply can't afford it.

it *WILL* bankrupt the country. As such, its a fcking atrocious idea.

 

[IdlePhaedrus]

Regardless of opinion whether its good to go nuclear or not, we simply can't afford it.

it *WILL* bankrupt the country. As such, its a fcking atrocious idea.

And every time the "administration" messes with Treasury we get this:



Which just increments the cost...

 

[Ninja'd]

Immediately