Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

South Africa Abandons Planned Nuclear Power Plant - Too Expensive - SF Chronicle

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 12:18 PM
Original message
South Africa Abandons Planned Nuclear Power Plant - Too Expensive - SF Chronicle
In a blow to South Africa's efforts to reduce reliance on cheap, polluting coal, the state electricity company said Friday it could not afford to build a planned new nuclear power plant. Eskom said it had ended the bidding process between the EPR consortium led by Areva of France and the N-Powerment consortium led by Westinghouse of the United States because of the "magnitude of the investment."

It was estimated that the pressurized water reactor would cost more than 100 billion rands ($10 billion) the largest single investment in Eskom's history. Construction was due to start in late 2010 to complement the sole existing nuclear power station at Koeberg near Cape Town.

South Africa relies on its big domestic reserves of coal for nearly 90 percent of its energy needs, but is increasingly concerned at the environmental impact of this, given that Africa is expected to bear the brunt of global warming.

Eskom and the government announced the nuclear expansion program last year at the height of crippling energy shortages that brought rolling blackouts to much of the country and temporarily closed the vital gold mining industry. The government said it supported Eskom's decision and that the projected fall in energy demand associated with the global downturn should ease supply pressure. It said it was still committed to exploring the use of nuclear energy to cut reliance on coal but at a more reasonable cost.

EDIT

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/1...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Capital requirements have become the Achilles heel of nuclear power
As anyone with the ability to read a newspaper could figure out.

Shame about that 90% of coal, though. I hope they can build lots of windmills really fast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. Illiterate Greenpeace Yuppie Twits!!!1111
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. It will be fun to watch the Germans scramble for coal for their "renewable paradise".
Edited on Fri Dec-05-08 09:15 PM by NNadir
South Africa was the place that the Germans were planning to get their coal for the ignorant and violent "nuclear phase out."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Germany/Coal.html

http://africa.reuters.com/business/news/usnBAN556083.ht...

I guess they're going to have to spend more time sinking their noses deeper into the South end of Putin's alimentary canal just to keep the room warm, sort of like those yuppies in Maine who don't know what the fuck they're going to do - besides whine - when Sable Island turns up empty.

The dangerous fossil fuel apologetics crowd always cheers for coal, which is why they are dumb fundie antinukes.

I note, with due contempt that the <em>apparent<em> low price for coal exists <em>only</em> because external costs are ignored.

If the external costs of all forms of energy were charged up front - including the externalstorage of stuff like the chemical waste from producing the low energy/mass density of the failed solar industry which still has miles to go before producing as much energy as just three of the world's 440 nuclear plants - there would be nothing <em>but</em> nuclear plants built.

One of the problems of nuclear power is that dumb yuppie shits who applaud stuff like coltan mines all over Africa has set a safety standard for nuclear energy that no other energy industry could meet, even if the standards were 100 times higher.

The dangerous fossil fuel industry kills more people in a week than nuclear energy has killed in its entire history.

It is a full moral measure that of course, our very twisted Giggly boys are here cheering like the stupid little twits that they are, for coal.

It is very nice however to obviate what I have always insisted. The anti-nuke cults are all apologists and denialists for dangerous fossil fuels.

There is NOT ONE anti-nuke, from the paid off moral midgets Amory Lovins to the sick fuck Gerhard Schroeder who has done anything other than to maintain the disgusting status quo.

QED.

We'll all stand by to watch the anti-nuke cults giggle stupidly while they ignore and trivialize the great loss of life that will accompany the use of coal in South Africa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-08 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Koo koo, Koo koo, Koo koo
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. Just too big for the current credit market...
The article doesn't mention that this would have been a 3.5GW plant: $2.8/watt isn't too bad at all - certainly compared to the $10.7/watt the Spanish just blew on a plant that runs at 30% capacity - it's just too many eggs in one basket for a firm the size of Eskom. A couple of AP1000's would be a saner choice.

Still, the continued use of coal seems to have made Jpak happy, so that makes it all worthwhile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Myself I'm just happy to see another nuclear power plant not get built
and no I don't want to see more coal plants either. The time and money spent on pushing for more nuclear energy could be better spent in research and development in alternatives. IMO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. ???
"Westinghouse Submits Bid for AP1000 Nuclear Plants in RSA

PITTSBURGH, Feb. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Westinghouse Electric Company
announced today that it submitted its response to provide three AP1000 (TM)
nuclear power plants to the Republic of South Africa beginning in 2016. The
company also submitted a second response to provide up to 20,000 MW of
nuclear power generation in South Africa by 2025...."


http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Ahh, sorry...
...I meant as separate plants, rather than one plant with multiple units - the cost/watt goes up because you have to duplicate some of the work, but the individual projects would be cheaper, and more palatable to investors.

We'll see what happens, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. and just where is that certain someone to chime in and call us all
fundie nut jobs?

hmm....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 01st 2014, 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC