Explosion at Medupi power station.

[Paul Hjul]

What do you mean? I thought Bantamsklip was shelved years ago? There were big local rumblings but I've not heard anything for ages now.

Nope Bantamsklip is still in the nuclear strategy. Eskom's official argument is that they wish to build at Thyspunt and thereafter will reconsider which site of the nuclear identified sites

However Thyspunt was identified in the original site spotting as the least suited, Bantamsklip as the second least suited. But when you understand that there is a land grab and bullshit campaign its very clear - and confirmed in replies from Gibb consulting - that a domino theory is at work. Get approval on the most challenging site and move on down the line.

Anybody in Hermanus who thinks that their uproar is why the focus is on Thyspunt is a moron and needs to get on board with dealing with the actual issue which is the suitability of Eskom commissioning and running an additional nuclear plant anywhere in the Republic - and the associated point that Koeberg needs to be disentangled from the rest of Eskom. Busy prepping to give them hell over the next few weeks.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Koeberg will not get another nuclear reactor, the city will veto it to insanity, you will get mass protests permanently. It's too close to the city and has been a serious damper on city expansion, the fact that Koeberg was allowed to extend its lifespan is insane.

And @Paul Hjul you better hope they do not build a nuclear reactor at all, current costs even for conventional nuclear are more expensive than pretty much every other energy source while taking decades; going pebble reactor when not a single one has been built in the world seems like a very dumb thing to do considering the already huge debt and power generation constraints, rather let China or the USA trial it, but I doubt they will do more than minor as CSP is just dropping in price substantially as better automation is coming online and we're getting ever closer to a smart grid.

Ja I am not advocating for nuclear per se - solar (in various forms) and wind simply provide a better approach for SA - what I am not prepared to do though is emphatically discount nuclear power generation which is certainly a better approach than coal. I am also strongly of the view that nuclear power generation has a generational costs step problem - the investment required to achieve a generational leap that reduces cost is so high that by the time you achieve it the incremental cost improvements in other tech makes the cost savings on nuclear negligible. If it wasn't for the whole mad government thing Iran's energy strategy aligns with nuclear quite well - long term pivot away from fossil fuel, carbon capture and production and hydrocarbons for applications where density an issue (aviation and even shipping) and desalination actually makes sense but mad governments are bad.
But let's go with a hypothetical case of Elon Musk rallies venture capital to try a nuclear plant in South Africa, the costs relate to the morons who put up their money. Thyspunt and Bantamsklip are still profoundly stupid sites. Dynefontien (next to Koeberg, the Koeberg site can house additional reactors and an entire additional plant) is a sensible site. At that point my concerns would be about proof of compliance, insurance etc... The fact that to achieve a nuclear generation step and associated costs reduction will require more investment than there are funds being invested in electrical energy production globally is hardly my concern - the moron disciples of Elon can be burnt for their folly.

Solar and smart grid are where the important shit it. Better storage and also the means to use electricity in simply better industrial scale ways (desalination is energy intensive sure but if you are running water purification on the basis of cheapest electricity based on other demand factors the equations change).

BTW even if CoCT want to they can't veto expansion of Koeberg, the site authorization allows expansion and there is already the ground for the earlier abandoned pebble bed work there.
CoCT will have to fight it in the courts. Honestly I don't see how they can win in court. Dynefontien will be a little more complicated as it isn't yet a site but once Eskom gets Thyspunt they'll move on to Bantamsklip, then I think it's Brazil then the other northern site on west coast then Dynefontein. 6 sites each with 2 plants.

 

[Johnatan56]

Ja I am not advocating for nuclear per se - solar (in various forms) and wind simply provide a better approach for SA - what I am not prepared to do though is emphatically discount nuclear power generation which is certainly a better approach than coal.

I am also strongly of the view that nuclear power generation has a generational costs step problem - the investment required to achieve a generational leap that reduces cost is so high that by the time you achieve it the incremental cost improvements in other tech makes the cost savings on nuclear negligible. If it wasn't for the whole mad government thing Iran's energy strategy aligns with nuclear quite well - long term pivot away from fossil fuel, carbon capture and production and hydrocarbons for applications where density an issue (aviation and even shipping) and desalination actually makes sense but mad governments are bad.

So the issue there is nuclear is impossible to fund for South Africa just based on sensitivity for cost of capital.

This is more interesting in terms of trend:

CSP should drop quite a bit in the next report, it's due in three months, that's mostly as a lot of CSP came online in that window so finally know cost of it.

It's also how coal cost is going up over time, mostly has to do with requirements against air pollution.

Stats are from: https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf

But let's go with a hypothetical case of Elon Musk rallies venture capital to try a nuclear plant in South Africa, the costs relate to the morons who put up their money.

The problem is nuclear cannot be private due to cost of capital, even your hypothetical doesn't work for me.

Thyspunt and Bantamsklip are still profoundly stupid sites. Dynefontien (next to Koeberg, the Koeberg site can house additional reactors and an entire additional plant) is a sensible site. At that point my concerns would be about proof of compliance, insurance etc... The fact that to achieve a nuclear generation step and associated costs reduction will require more investment than there are funds being invested in electrical energy production globally is hardly my concern - the moron disciples of Elon can be burnt for their folly.

Solar and smart grid are where the important shit it. Better storage and also the means to use electricity in simply better industrial scale ways (desalination is energy intensive sure but if you are running water purification on the basis of cheapest electricity based on other demand factors the equations change).

BTW even if CoCT want to they can't veto expansion of Koeberg, the site authorization allows expansion and there is already the ground for the earlier abandoned pebble bed work there.
CoCT will have to fight it in the courts. Honestly I don't see how they can win in court. Dynefontien will be a little more complicated as it isn't yet a site but once Eskom gets Thyspunt they'll move on to Bantamsklip, then I think it's Brazil then the other northern site on west coast then Dynefontein. 6 sites each with 2 plants.

I think CoCT can win based on population being close to it and then argue e.g. Fukushima. It will be interesting.

The only reason for nuclear ever to be done in South Africa is corruption due to how much capital would be required, and it's a too long-term solution. So even if they tried building it close to CT, as long as the DA or someone else keeps it stuck in the courts for long enough, the problem should hopefully be delayed till all the older people in the ANC die and it can be argued to get a different party.