Hierdie ouens vertel dieselfde storie as Bernhard. Nie in ons leeftyd nie, nie in ons kleinkinders se leeftyd nie.
PW
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Pieter Van der Walt via <pwvanderwalt=[email protected]> Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 5:20?PM Subject: [ZA-energie] Fusion, forever the energy of tomorrow? To: ZA_energie <[email protected]>
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists<newsletter@...> Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 4:23?PM Subject: Fusion, forever the energy of tomorrow? To: <pwvanderwalt@...>
UK Nuclear Notebook | Bob Rosner Interview | More? ? ?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Read a shareable version of this newsletter.
Was this email forwarded to you? to stay current.
Presented in partnership with
November 14, 2024
?
?
A researcher in the interior of the magnetic fusion experiment known as Alcator C-Mod at MIT. The interior of the donut-shaped device confines plasma hotter than the interior of the sun, using high magnetic fields. (Image courtesy of Bob Mumgaard / Plasma Science and Fusion Center, MIT.)
DAN DROLLETTE JR
The Bulletin's November 2024 magazine investigates nuclear fusion's potential. Will it become a commercial energy source within the next decade, or will we still be waiting a century from now??
DAN DROLLETTE JR
Can nuclear fusion be developed quickly enough to make a difference for climate change? Theoretical physicist, former head of Argonne National Laboratory, and self-described "plasma guy" Bob Rosner discusses?fusion, climate change, and other reasons to pursue it. Part of our November magazine, this article is available to all for a limited time.?
Advertisement
HANS M. KRISTENSEN, MATT KORDA, ELIANA JOHNS, MACKENZIE KNIGHT
For decades, the United Kingdom has maintained a stockpile of approximately 225 nuclear warheads—up to 120 of which are available for delivery by four?Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.?The stockpile is now increasing, according to the latest Nuclear Notebook by experts at the Federation of American Scientists.?
?
Royal Navy Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine HMS Victorious departs HM Naval Base Clyde?in?Scotland. The other three Vanguard-class SSBNs are also based at Clyde. (Credit: Will Haigh / UK Ministry of Defence.)
ROBERT ALVAREZ
Yesterday marked 50 years since the death of?Karen Silkwood, a union activist and whistleblower?at a plutonium fuel plant.?Robert Alvarez recounts the efforts he, his wife, and others made in successfully seeking justice for her.?
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"Because we haven't seen severe illness and deaths yet, I think there's been some complacency around trying to control this virus [H5N1], but I've always said we shouldn't wait for farm workers to die before we take action to protect them. I just don't think you should gamble with people's lives like that."
— Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center and?professor of epidemiology at Brown University School of Public Health,?The Guardian
?
PRESENTED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
Join a free course exploring AI policy challenges, developed with MIT and Oxford experts.
Learn about frameworks for governing advanced AI and proposals to mitigate extreme risks.
Our alumni shape policy at governments, international organizations, and leading think tanks.
Your gift fuels our mission to educate and empower. Together we will work to ensure science serves humanity.
?
?
??? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ??
?
Copyright ? 2024?Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists<newsletter@...> Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 4:23?PM Subject: Fusion, forever the energy of tomorrow? To: <pwvanderwalt@...>
UK Nuclear Notebook | Bob Rosner Interview | More? ? ?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Read a shareable version of this newsletter.
Was this email forwarded to you? to stay current.
Presented in partnership with
November 14, 2024
?
?
A researcher in the interior of the magnetic fusion experiment known as Alcator C-Mod at MIT. The interior of the donut-shaped device confines plasma hotter than the interior of the sun, using high magnetic fields. (Image courtesy of Bob Mumgaard / Plasma Science and Fusion Center, MIT.)
DAN DROLLETTE JR
The Bulletin's November 2024 magazine investigates nuclear fusion's potential. Will it become a commercial energy source within the next decade, or will we still be waiting a century from now??
DAN DROLLETTE JR
Can nuclear fusion be developed quickly enough to make a difference for climate change? Theoretical physicist, former head of Argonne National Laboratory, and self-described "plasma guy" Bob Rosner discusses?fusion, climate change, and other reasons to pursue it. Part of our November magazine, this article is available to all for a limited time.?
Advertisement
HANS M. KRISTENSEN, MATT KORDA, ELIANA JOHNS, MACKENZIE KNIGHT
For decades, the United Kingdom has maintained a stockpile of approximately 225 nuclear warheads—up to 120 of which are available for delivery by four?Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.?The stockpile is now increasing, according to the latest Nuclear Notebook by experts at the Federation of American Scientists.?
?
Royal Navy Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine HMS Victorious departs HM Naval Base Clyde?in?Scotland. The other three Vanguard-class SSBNs are also based at Clyde. (Credit: Will Haigh / UK Ministry of Defence.)
ROBERT ALVAREZ
Yesterday marked 50 years since the death of?Karen Silkwood, a union activist and whistleblower?at a plutonium fuel plant.?Robert Alvarez recounts the efforts he, his wife, and others made in successfully seeking justice for her.?
QUOTE OF THE DAY
"Because we haven't seen severe illness and deaths yet, I think there's been some complacency around trying to control this virus [H5N1], but I've always said we shouldn't wait for farm workers to die before we take action to protect them. I just don't think you should gamble with people's lives like that."
— Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center and?professor of epidemiology at Brown University School of Public Health,?The Guardian
?
PRESENTED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
Join a free course exploring AI policy challenges, developed with MIT and Oxford experts.
Learn about frameworks for governing advanced AI and proposals to mitigate extreme risks.
Our alumni shape policy at governments, international organizations, and leading think tanks.
Your gift fuels our mission to educate and empower. Together we will work to ensure science serves humanity.
?
?
??? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ??
?
Copyright ? 2024?Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
"... does he
try to influence Trump to recognize that as an economic matter,
clean energy is a huge opportunity for the United States to
outcompete China?"
So nie, vrees
ek, gaan dit andersom wees -- China gaan wen!? Ons nasate sal
almal Chinees moet leer lees en skryf!
Musk
Believes in Global Warming. Trump Doesn’t. Will That Change?
The
Tesla billionaire is a key figure in the president-elect’s
orbit. One question is whether his views on climate and clean
energy will have any sway.
Listen
to this article?· 7:26 min?
Share
full article
614
Elon
Musk is expected to have a direct line to the White House
in the coming months.Credit...Doug
Mills/The New York Times
By?
Elon
Musk has described himself as??and??But he also threw himself
wholeheartedly into electing as president someone who has
dismissed global warming as a hoax.
Now,
as President-elect Donald J. Trump prepares to enter the
White House, one big question is how much sway — if any —
Mr. Musk’s views on climate change and clean energy might
have in the new administration.
During
the campaign, Mr. Trump??on electric
vehicles as he grew more friendly with Mr. Musk, the
billionaire chief executive of Tesla. After months of
bashing plug-in cars and promising to halt their sales, Mr.
Trump backtracked slightly this summer.
“I’m
constantly talking about electric vehicles, but I don’t mean
I’m against them. I’m totally for them,” he told a crowd in
Michigan. “I’ve driven them and they are incredible, but
they’re not for everybody.”
Advertisement
At
the time, Mr. Musk claimed credit for Mr. Trump’s apparent
shift, telling Tesla shareholders at a June meeting, “I can
be persuasive.” Referring to Mr. Trump, he said, “A lot of
his friends now have Teslas, and they all love it. And he’s
a huge fan of the Cybertruck. So I think those may be
contributing factors.”
Now
Mr. Musk,??at Mr. Trump’s
Mar-a-Lago residence and??with the
president-elect’s family, is expected to have a direct line
to the White House in the coming months. Mr. Musk’s
companies, including Tesla and SpaceX,?, and he is expected to seek additional
advantages for his businesses.
But
whether his persuasion might extend to other realms, such as
climate issues, remains to be seen.
“It’s
a real question,” said Paul Bledsoe, a lecturer at American
University Center for Environmental Policy. “Does Musk only
advocate for the interests of Tesla and SpaceX? Is he just a
self-interested lobbyist? Or does he try to influence Trump
to recognize that as an economic matter, clean energy is a
huge opportunity for the United States to outcompete China?”
Mr.
Musk and Mr. Trump’s transition team did not respond to
requests for comment.
Mr.
Trump’s views on??are no mystery.
He has doubted whether the Earth is getting hotter.
(Scientists are unequivocal that it is.) He has??climate change as “where the
ocean is going to rise one-eighth of an inch over the next
400 years.” (Sea levels??an average of roughly eight
inches over the past century and are expected to rise
several feet or more by 2100 as glaciers and ice sheets
continue to melt.)
Advertisement
The
president-elect?, yet again, from the 2015 Paris
climate agreement, under which nearly 200 nations pledged to
curb the greenhouse gas emissions that are heating the
planet. He has attacked solar panels and wind turbines. And
he told a crowd of supporters on Wednesday that the United
States would amp up oil production even beyond current
record levels. “We have more liquid gold than any country in
the world,” Mr. Trump said.
Mr.
Musk, by contrast, has consistently said he thinks climate
change is a problem — although he has sometimes wavered on
how urgent that problem is. He has long been a major
proponent of shifting to low-emissions technology like solar
power, batteries and electric vehicles.
In
a??published
last year by Walter Isaacson, Mr. Musk was described as
becoming interested in solar power and electric vehicles as
a college student because he was worried about the dangers
of global warming and the prospect of the world running out
of fossil fuels.
Tesla’s
success in producing electric cars with mass appeal helped
supercharge a global industry. Mr. Musk’s company also sells
rooftop solar panels as well as batteries that can provide
backup power to homes or help balance wind and solar power
on the grid. This year, battery storage accounts for roughly
10 percent of Tesla’s revenue.
“I
think we should just generally lean in the direction of
sustainability,” Mr. Musk??during a two-hour,
live-streamed chat the two men held on X in August. “And I
actually think solar is going to be a majority of Earth’s
energy generation in the future.”
Advertisement
Mr.
Musk has also supported nuclear power, which does not
produce any greenhouse gases and which Mr. Trump has
sometimes endorsed. “Nuclear electricity generation is
underrated,” Mr. Musk added during their chat. “People have
this fear of nuclear electricity generation, but it’s
actually one of the safest forms of generation.”
Yet
Mr. Musk also suggested that there was no hurry to stop
global warming. “We still have quite a bit of time, we don’t
need to rush,” he said in August. He later added, “If, I
don’t know, 50 to 100 years from now, we’re mostly
sustainable, I think that’ll probably be OK.”
That
puts him at odds with many world leaders and
environmentalists, who have urged nations to??down to
around zero by midcentury, to keep global warming at
relatively low levels. Scientists agree that the longer it
takes humanity to stop pumping greenhouse gases into the
air, the greater the risks of deadly heat waves, wildfires,
drought, storms and species extinction.
In
recent years, Mr. Musk has urged caution about drastic
societal changes to address climate change. “I’m super pro
climate, but we definitely don’t need to put farmers out of
work to solve climate change,”?, commenting on farmers in Belgium
who were protesting limits on nitrogen pollution.
He
also said in his August chat with Mr. Trump, “If we were to
stop using oil and gas right now, we would all be starving
and the economy would collapse. So it’s, you know, I don’t
think it’s right to vilify the oil and gas industry.”
Advertisement
In
the past, however, Mr. Musk has openly disagreed with Mr.
Trump on climate issues.
In
2017, when Mr. Trump announced that the United States would
withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, Mr. Musk stepped
down from two presidential advisory councils in protest.
“Climate change is real,” he wrote. “Leaving Paris is not
good for America or the world.”
At
the time, several officials in the Trump administration —
including Rex Tillerson, then secretary of state —??the president to stay in the
Paris accord. But in the end, Mr. Trump sided with those in
his cabinet who dismissed climate change altogether and
wanted to exit the pact.
Some
observers point out that Mr. Musk isn’t the only influential
donor on the issue of energy in the president-elect’s orbit.
During the campaign, Mr. Trump??from oil and gas
interests, including the billionaire Harold Hamm of
Continental Resources.
Mr.
Hamm has had Mr. Trump’s ear since 2016 and pushed him then
to appoint Scott Pruitt to run the Environmental Protection
Agency, where Mr. Pruitt denied the science of global
warming and unraveled various climate regulations. (Mr. Hamm
did not respond to a request for comment.)
“One
can only hope that Donald Trump will put conspiracy theories
to the side and take the decisive action to address the
climate crisis that the American people deserve,” said Dan
Lashof, U.S. director of the World Resources Institute, an
environmental group. “But I won’t hold my breath.”
The biggest
of 2 dams for this has already been completed years ago. Then
after severe mismanagement, some fatal accidents and huge cost
overruns at the Ingula pumped storage scheme, further work at
the larger (1.5 GW,? 21 GWh) Tubatse scheme was stopped.
Re: Eskom wastes R840m on Wilge Project, then asks for 40% rate increase
On Tue, 05 Nov 2024, 06:56 Pieter Van der Walt via , <pwvanderwalt=[email protected]> wrote:
Daardie plaat haak vas!?
On Tue, 05 Nov 2024, 06:04 bernhard via , <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:
Sabine has
quite a sense of humour, excellent common sense, and in my view
is right on most topics.? Also on the current reality of modular
reactors.
But not on
nuclear power generally or on renewables -- she after all
trained as a particle physicist rather than a nuclear physicist,
and does not really understand the practical effects of the
complexity of radioactive decay products.
On Tue, 05 Nov 2024, 06:04 bernhard via , <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:
Sabine has
quite a sense of humour, excellent common sense, and in my view
is right on most topics.? Also on the current reality of modular
reactors.
But not on
nuclear power generally or on renewables -- she after all
trained as a particle physicist rather than a nuclear physicist,
and does not really understand the practical effects of the
complexity of radioactive decay products.
Sabine has
quite a sense of humour, excellent common sense, and in my view
is right on most topics.? Also on the current reality of modular
reactors.
But not on
nuclear power generally or on renewables -- she after all
trained as a particle physicist rather than a nuclear physicist,
and does not really understand the practical effects of the
complexity of radioactive decay products.
Re: Eskom wastes R840m on Wilge Project, then asks for 40% rate increase
On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 10:53?PM bernhard via <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:
Dr NEIL OVERY: Weaponising
science in SA’s nuclear discourse
The denigration of other
disciplines or voices is dangerous as nuclear power poses so
many questions that science cannot answer
?
01 November 2024 -
05:00
by?Neil Overy
During her
welcoming speech at last month’s Nuclear Energy Summit
hosted by the department of electricity & energy in
Tshwane, Princy Mthombeni, one of SA’s most vocal
nuclear boosters, referenced author Chimamanda Ngozi
Adichie’s observation that it is dangerous to reduce
anything to a single story, reminding those present of
“the importance of embracing diverse perspectives”.
Speaking at the
summit, both electricity & energy minister
Kgosientsho Ramokgopa and his deputy, Samantha
Graham-Marê, continued on this theme by emphasising that
the government was intent on engaging properly with all
stakeholders when it comes to nuclear power. For
example, Graham-Marê stated that “our ministry is not
going to compromise on public participation ... openness
and transparency ... we need to work together”.
ADVERTISING
Unfortunately, and
clearly quite intentionally, rather than embracing
“diverse perspectives” and “public participation”, the
summit did the exact opposite. Not only were
representatives of civil society entirely excluded from
the summit, but both Graham-Marê and Ramokgopa made it
clear that they had little interest in opinions about
nuclear power that were contrary to theirs or the
government’s.
Graham-Marê came
straight to the point in her address by stating that
opponents of nuclear power in SA are simply “ignorant”.
Ramokgopa drank even deeper from the well of?ad hominin?attacks,
noting that opponents of nuclear power “live in the mud”
because they “soil” nuclear technology. These mud
dwellers are, he observed, merely “commentators” who do
not provide evidence against nuclear power, but rather
use myths to “deceive” South Africans.
During her
welcoming speech at last month’s Nuclear Energy Summit
hosted by the department of electricity & energy in
Tshwane, Princy Mthombeni, one of SA’s most vocal
nuclear boosters, referenced author Chimamanda Ngozi
Adichie’s observation that it is dangerous to reduce
anything to a single story, reminding those present of
“the importance of embracing diverse perspectives”.
Speaking
at the summit, both electricity & energy minister
Kgosientsho Ramokgopa and his deputy, Samantha
Graham-Marê, continued on this theme by emphasising that
the government was intent on engaging properly with all
stakeholders when it comes to nuclear power. For
example, Graham-Marê stated that “our ministry is not
going to compromise on public participation ... openness
and transparency ... we need to work together”.
Unfortunately,
and clearly quite intentionally, rather than embracing
“diverse perspectives” and “public participation”, the
summit did the exact opposite. Not only were
representatives of civil society entirely excluded from
the summit, but both Graham-Marê and Ramokgopa made it
clear that they had little interest in opinions about
nuclear power that were contrary to theirs or the
government’s.
Graham-Marê
came straight to the point in her address by stating
that opponents of nuclear power in SA are simply
“ignorant”. Ramokgopa drank even deeper from the well of?ad hominin?attacks,
noting that opponents of nuclear power “live in the mud”
because they “soil” nuclear technology. These mud
dwellers are, he observed, merely “commentators” who do
not provide evidence against nuclear power, but rather
use myths to “deceive” South Africans.
He
contrasted those who live in the mud with a “fraternity
of scientists”, experts who provide “objective” and
“unemotional” evidence that is not sullied by politics.
It is these scientists and experts, the minister
declared, who will guide the government’s decision on
nuclear power, not the commentators who have “not been
in a science lecture hall”.
The
problems with Ramokgopa’s characterisation of the
nuclear debate and the role of scientists in that debate
are so many it is hard to know where to begin.?The first
is one of categorisation. What exactly is a scientist?
Ramokgopa boldly stated in his address that “we have a
duty as scientists here to sustain the momentum of this
conversation”.
Koeberg
nuclear plant as seen from Melkbosstrand. Picture:
SHELLY CHRISTIANS
Yet
Ramokgopa, and quite a few of those who spoke in
different panels during the summit are engineers, who
many would argue are not scientists. Put simply, in
terms of nuclear power scientists are people who are
said to understand the phenomena, while engineers apply
or “engineer” the phenomena in the real world.
The
homogeneous categorisation of scientists is also
problematic. Zizamele Mbambo, the deputy director of
nuclear power in the department of mineral resources, is
a geologist. Is a scientist without any qualification in
nuclear physics or any of the nuclear sciences any more
competent than, say, a geographer, to have an opinion on
nuclear power?
This
grouping together of a “fraternity of scientists”
reveals the problem of privileging and venerating
science in this debate, as it assumes that anyone with a
science background, no matter what disciple of science
it may be in, not only understands the debate but
automatically understands it better than anyone who is
not a scientist. In this way, science and scientists are
“weaponised” as a means by which to present some form of
pure, evidential truth that nuclear power is good for
SA.
In
privileging scientists the minister can also dismiss
inconvenient opposition to nuclear power from other
disciplines, such as sociology, philosophy or economics.
Let’s use economics as an example. There are highly
skilled economists working in SA for reputable
independent research organisations, such as Meridian
Economics, that have repeatedly shown that there is no
economic case for nuclear power in SA. But hey, they are
not “scientists”, so it doesn’t matter what they have to
say. The same goes for those who model energy choices,
such as academics at the University of Cape Town’s
Energy Systems Research Group, who can presumably be
similarly ignored.
It is also
nonsense to suggest that scientists are by definition
objective, unemotional and not subject to political
influence. There are plenty of scientists who will work
for whoever pays them the most, including tobacco and
fossil fuel companies, while history has repeatedly
shown that science can serve the ends of despicable
policies founded on deeply subjective opinions and toxic
political perspectives. Let’s not forget, for example,
how the discourse of “scientific” racism buttressed the
apartheid regime.
Finally,
Ramokgopa’s argument cannot explain scientists who
oppose nuclear power, of which there are many. How are
they accounted for in his schema? Similarly, if only
scientists are worthy of being listened to when it comes
to nuclear power, the guest of honour at the summit,
International Atomic Energy Agency director-general
Rafael Mariano Grossi has a problem, as he has a PhD in
international relations. The absurdity of this argument
is clear.
The
denigration of other disciplines, or voices from civil
society and society more generally, is dangerous because
nuclear power poses so many questions that science
cannot answer because they are either unanswered by
science or beyond its disciplinary scope. For example,
there is no scientific consensus on the effect of
repeated exposure to low doses of radiation, and science
has little to offer when we consider the question of how
to persuade humans to keep away from nuclear waste sites
for 100,000 years.
Despite
the rhetoric about the need to embrace different
perspectives, what we actually heard from Ramokgopa was
his willingness to embrace only those scientists who
share his government’s views on nuclear power, dividing
the world into the enlightened and the ignorant. In
closing down debate in this fashion the exact opposite
of what the minister wants to happen, will happen.
Rather than accelerating the arrival of a shiny, happy
nuclear future, further distrust in the government’s
intentions will be sown.
Science
and scientists are, of course, absolutely critical to
any debate on nuclear power, but they do not have a
monopoly of wisdom on nuclear power and cannot be the
only resource the government relies on to make difficult
political choices.
Science
must not be used as an excuse to evade the substantive
and important pluralistic conversations that need to
take place among all South Africans about the role of
nuclear power. After all, engaging in robust debate
about important issues is the lifeblood of a healthy
democracy and should result in more rational outcomes.
Comment
Indeed. Neither the Electricity & Energy Minister nor his deputy appear to have any qualifications in nuclear physics or nuclear fission. They
have no scientific right to their statements quoted
above. Indeed,?their derogatory
statements?(and those of others of
their ilk)?apply more to
themselves than to those they criticise.
?In sharp contrast, real nuclear physicists can assess the potential of nuclear power reactors scientifically, and have a much better understanding of the enormous complexity engendered by the fact that hundreds of different fission product nuclides result from the fissions in a typical power reactor.
?
?This complexity, coupled to the fact that most of these neutron-rich fission products are radioactive, with half-life times varying from below a micro-second to thousands of years.
?
?This complex radioactivity, whose alpha, beta and gamma-decay creates further radioactive isotopes of elements ranging from zinc to the lanthanides. ?The huge variety of unstable nuclides necessitate complex and expensive safety measures.?
Dr NEIL OVERY: Weaponising
science in SA’s nuclear discourse
The denigration of other
disciplines or voices is dangerous as nuclear power poses so
many questions that science cannot answer
?
01 November 2024 -
05:00
by?Neil Overy
During her
welcoming speech at last month’s Nuclear Energy Summit
hosted by the department of electricity & energy in
Tshwane, Princy Mthombeni, one of SA’s most vocal
nuclear boosters, referenced author Chimamanda Ngozi
Adichie’s observation that it is dangerous to reduce
anything to a single story, reminding those present of
“the importance of embracing diverse perspectives”.
Speaking at the
summit, both electricity & energy minister
Kgosientsho Ramokgopa and his deputy, Samantha
Graham-Marê, continued on this theme by emphasising that
the government was intent on engaging properly with all
stakeholders when it comes to nuclear power. For
example, Graham-Marê stated that “our ministry is not
going to compromise on public participation ... openness
and transparency ... we need to work together”.
ADVERTISING
Unfortunately, and
clearly quite intentionally, rather than embracing
“diverse perspectives” and “public participation”, the
summit did the exact opposite. Not only were
representatives of civil society entirely excluded from
the summit, but both Graham-Marê and Ramokgopa made it
clear that they had little interest in opinions about
nuclear power that were contrary to theirs or the
government’s.
Graham-Marê came
straight to the point in her address by stating that
opponents of nuclear power in SA are simply “ignorant”.
Ramokgopa drank even deeper from the well of?ad hominin?attacks,
noting that opponents of nuclear power “live in the mud”
because they “soil” nuclear technology. These mud
dwellers are, he observed, merely “commentators” who do
not provide evidence against nuclear power, but rather
use myths to “deceive” South Africans.
During her
welcoming speech at last month’s Nuclear Energy Summit
hosted by the department of electricity & energy in
Tshwane, Princy Mthombeni, one of SA’s most vocal
nuclear boosters, referenced author Chimamanda Ngozi
Adichie’s observation that it is dangerous to reduce
anything to a single story, reminding those present of
“the importance of embracing diverse perspectives”.
Speaking
at the summit, both electricity & energy minister
Kgosientsho Ramokgopa and his deputy, Samantha
Graham-Marê, continued on this theme by emphasising that
the government was intent on engaging properly with all
stakeholders when it comes to nuclear power. For
example, Graham-Marê stated that “our ministry is not
going to compromise on public participation ... openness
and transparency ... we need to work together”.
Unfortunately,
and clearly quite intentionally, rather than embracing
“diverse perspectives” and “public participation”, the
summit did the exact opposite. Not only were
representatives of civil society entirely excluded from
the summit, but both Graham-Marê and Ramokgopa made it
clear that they had little interest in opinions about
nuclear power that were contrary to theirs or the
government’s.
Graham-Marê
came straight to the point in her address by stating
that opponents of nuclear power in SA are simply
“ignorant”. Ramokgopa drank even deeper from the well of?ad hominin?attacks,
noting that opponents of nuclear power “live in the mud”
because they “soil” nuclear technology. These mud
dwellers are, he observed, merely “commentators” who do
not provide evidence against nuclear power, but rather
use myths to “deceive” South Africans.
He
contrasted those who live in the mud with a “fraternity
of scientists”, experts who provide “objective” and
“unemotional” evidence that is not sullied by politics.
It is these scientists and experts, the minister
declared, who will guide the government’s decision on
nuclear power, not the commentators who have “not been
in a science lecture hall”.
The
problems with Ramokgopa’s characterisation of the
nuclear debate and the role of scientists in that debate
are so many it is hard to know where to begin.?The first
is one of categorisation. What exactly is a scientist?
Ramokgopa boldly stated in his address that “we have a
duty as scientists here to sustain the momentum of this
conversation”.
Koeberg
nuclear plant as seen from Melkbosstrand. Picture:
SHELLY CHRISTIANS
Yet
Ramokgopa, and quite a few of those who spoke in
different panels during the summit are engineers, who
many would argue are not scientists. Put simply, in
terms of nuclear power scientists are people who are
said to understand the phenomena, while engineers apply
or “engineer” the phenomena in the real world.
The
homogeneous categorisation of scientists is also
problematic. Zizamele Mbambo, the deputy director of
nuclear power in the department of mineral resources, is
a geologist. Is a scientist without any qualification in
nuclear physics or any of the nuclear sciences any more
competent than, say, a geographer, to have an opinion on
nuclear power?
This
grouping together of a “fraternity of scientists”
reveals the problem of privileging and venerating
science in this debate, as it assumes that anyone with a
science background, no matter what disciple of science
it may be in, not only understands the debate but
automatically understands it better than anyone who is
not a scientist. In this way, science and scientists are
“weaponised” as a means by which to present some form of
pure, evidential truth that nuclear power is good for
SA.
In
privileging scientists the minister can also dismiss
inconvenient opposition to nuclear power from other
disciplines, such as sociology, philosophy or economics.
Let’s use economics as an example. There are highly
skilled economists working in SA for reputable
independent research organisations, such as Meridian
Economics, that have repeatedly shown that there is no
economic case for nuclear power in SA. But hey, they are
not “scientists”, so it doesn’t matter what they have to
say. The same goes for those who model energy choices,
such as academics at the University of Cape Town’s
Energy Systems Research Group, who can presumably be
similarly ignored.
It is also
nonsense to suggest that scientists are by definition
objective, unemotional and not subject to political
influence. There are plenty of scientists who will work
for whoever pays them the most, including tobacco and
fossil fuel companies, while history has repeatedly
shown that science can serve the ends of despicable
policies founded on deeply subjective opinions and toxic
political perspectives. Let’s not forget, for example,
how the discourse of “scientific” racism buttressed the
apartheid regime.
Finally,
Ramokgopa’s argument cannot explain scientists who
oppose nuclear power, of which there are many. How are
they accounted for in his schema? Similarly, if only
scientists are worthy of being listened to when it comes
to nuclear power, the guest of honour at the summit,
International Atomic Energy Agency director-general
Rafael Mariano Grossi has a problem, as he has a PhD in
international relations. The absurdity of this argument
is clear.
The
denigration of other disciplines, or voices from civil
society and society more generally, is dangerous because
nuclear power poses so many questions that science
cannot answer because they are either unanswered by
science or beyond its disciplinary scope. For example,
there is no scientific consensus on the effect of
repeated exposure to low doses of radiation, and science
has little to offer when we consider the question of how
to persuade humans to keep away from nuclear waste sites
for 100,000 years.
Despite
the rhetoric about the need to embrace different
perspectives, what we actually heard from Ramokgopa was
his willingness to embrace only those scientists who
share his government’s views on nuclear power, dividing
the world into the enlightened and the ignorant. In
closing down debate in this fashion the exact opposite
of what the minister wants to happen, will happen.
Rather than accelerating the arrival of a shiny, happy
nuclear future, further distrust in the government’s
intentions will be sown.
Science
and scientists are, of course, absolutely critical to
any debate on nuclear power, but they do not have a
monopoly of wisdom on nuclear power and cannot be the
only resource the government relies on to make difficult
political choices.
Science
must not be used as an excuse to evade the substantive
and important pluralistic conversations that need to
take place among all South Africans about the role of
nuclear power. After all, engaging in robust debate
about important issues is the lifeblood of a healthy
democracy and should result in more rational outcomes.
Comment
Indeed. Neither the Electricity & Energy Minister nor his deputy appear to have any qualifications in nuclear physics or nuclear fission. They
have no scientific right to their statements quoted
above. Indeed,?their derogatory
statements?(and those of others of
their ilk)?apply more to
themselves than to those they criticise.
?In sharp contrast, real nuclear physicists can assess the potential of nuclear power reactors scientifically, and have a much better understanding of the enormous complexity engendered by the fact that hundreds of different fission product nuclides result from the fissions in a typical power reactor.
?
?This complexity, coupled to the fact that most of these neutron-rich fission products are radioactive, with half-life times varying from below a micro-second to thousands of years.
?
?This complex radioactivity, whose alpha, beta and gamma-decay creates further radioactive isotopes of elements ranging from zinc to the lanthanides. ?The huge variety of unstable nuclides necessitate complex and expensive safety measures.?
"Titus
Mathe?said . . . “Other possible options
are limited. Battery storage is extremely expensive and the
country currently cannot afford to implement this technology at
a large scale. Hydropower can take around 15 years to develop .
. . "?? Of course, nuclear can also be
very expensive (especially to the taxpayer) and typically
takes even longer.
"The
trading environment favours products from low-carbon economies
and Europe is imposing charges based on carbon content,” said
Eskom Group Executive for Distribution?Monde
Bala."
? Indeed! Most important!
"Nuclear
energy provides a solution that can be retrofitted into
existing power plants using modular reactors. “South Africa
has been a leading country in modular reactor technology,
which is a precursor to small modular reactors that countries
such as China are using,” said?Vikesh
Rajpaul,
Eskom GM. “This is far safer than water-cooled reactor
technology and does not require access to water, which makes
it a key tech option for repurposing coal-fired power
stations. It can use existing infrastructure, including
transmission infrastructure."
According to , "There
are more than 80??under
development in 19 countries" (none at present in
SA).? And the only countries that have commercially operated
modular reactors are Russia (a single floating plant with
two tiny reactors) and China (pebble bed reactors).? And
both of these have had abysmal availability factors.?
Concerning
the Chinese HTR-PM, the authoritative 2023 WNISR says,
“Between January and December 2022, the reactors operated for
only 27 hours out of a possible maximum of 8,760
hours. A mere 0.03% availability factor for the
year 2022.? In the subsequent three months, they seem to have
operated at a load factor of around 10 percent.”
Indian nuclear weapons, 2024 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Arkansas
May Have Vast Lithium Reserves, Researchers Say
Federal
and state researchers said there might be five million to 19
million tons of lithium, more than enough to meet the world’s
demand for the battery ingredient.
Listen
to this article?· 4:04 min?
Share
full article
Much
of the world’s lithium comes from a handful of countries,
including Chile where brine containing the metal is placed
in huge ponds to dry.Credit...John
Moore/Getty Images
By??and?
Researchers
at the United States Geological Survey and the Arkansas
government announced on Monday that they had found a trove
of lithium, a critical raw material for electric vehicle
batteries, in an underground brine reservoir in Arkansas.
With
the help of water testing and machine learning, the
researchers determined that there might be five million to
19 million tons of lithium — more than enough to meet all of
the world’s demand for the metal — in a geological area
known as the Smackover Formation. Several companies,
including Exxon Mobil, are developing projects in Arkansas
to produce lithium, which is dissolved in underground brine.
Whether
lithium harvesting takes hold in the region will depend on
the ability of those companies to scale up new methods of
extracting the valuable battery ingredient from salty water.
The processing technique that Exxon and others are pursuing
in Arkansas, known as direct lithium extraction, generally
costs more than more conventional methods do,?.
Energy
and mining companies have long produced oil, gas and other
natural resources in the Smackover, which extends from Texas
to Florida. And the federal and state researchers said
lithium could be extracted from the waste stream of the
brines from which companies extracted other forms of energy
and elements.
Advertisement
The
energy industry, with the Biden administration’s
encouragement, has been increasingly working to produce the
raw materials needed for the lithium-ion batteries in the
United States. A few projects have started recently, and
many more are in various stages of study and development
across the country.
Follow
The New York Times
?for the best of
our visual journalism and beyond.
?for breaking
news, games, recipes and more.
?to get the
best of The Times, right in your feed.
Most
of the world’s lithium is produced in Australia and South
America. A large majority of it is then processed in China,
which also dominates the manufacturing of electric vehicle
batteries.
“The
potential for increased U.S. production to replace imports
has implications for employment, manufacturing and supply
chain resilience,” David Applegate, the director of the
United States Geological Survey, said in a statement
announcing the study. “This study illustrates the value of
science in addressing economically important issues.”
Federal
researchers also have identified other potential resources
that could produce large quantities of lithium, including
the Salton Sea in Southern California, where Berkshire
Hathaway Energy and other companies are working to extract
lithium from hot liquid pumped up from an aquifer more than
4,000 feet below the ground by geothermal power plants.
Exxon
Mobil recently drilled exploratory wells in Arkansas and was
evaluating whether it could extract lithium in a
cost-competitive way, Dan Ammann, the president of the
company’s Low Carbon Solutions business, said in an
interview last month.
Advertisement
“We
know we have an attractive resource. We’re working on
understanding that cost equation, understanding the
supply-and-demand picture,” Mr. Ammann said at the time.
Exxon
said last year that it??and to be
churning out enough lithium by 2030 to supply more than a
million electric vehicles per year.
Lithium
is already extracted from brine in Chile, one of the world’s
largest producers of the metal. Companies operating there
typically place brine in large ponds until the liquid has
evaporated, leaving behind various minerals. That process is
relatively cheap, but it takes time and?.
Several
companies are hoping that direct lithium extraction will
allow them to more efficiently remove lithium from brine
with the help of filters and other tools. Such an approach
would use less land and could have a smaller environmental
impact than evaporation ponds have. But it could take mining
and energy companies years to perfect the technology and
apply it at a large scale.
Ek weet, maar daardie klomp spieels bekommer my. Dis groot goed en hulle gaan ‘n eindige lewe he. Daar gaan geen opsie wees om hulle aandryfmiddel
vir “station keeping” aan te vul nie.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Stellenbosch University network. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
?
Ek bedoel meer sonpanele op aarde, nie spie?ls nie!??
?
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024, 00:06 Pieter Van der Walt via , <pwvanderwalt=[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Bernhard
Ek verstaan dit so. Die spie?loppervlak word betreklik swak benut en om 'n beter dienssiklus te bewerkstellig sal 'n mens meervuldige aardstasies met een spie?l moet belig. Vir elkeen sal die spie?l se orientasie die heel tyd fyn beheer
moet word.?
Die geld sal sekerlik beter belê word in meer spie?ls + batterye op aarde.
PW
?
?
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024, 04:33 bernhard via , <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:
Sputnik was in 'n elliptiese baan (perigee 227 km, apogee 941 km).? Dus
veel laer as 1500 km.???
Die tye rondom (voor en na) sononder by die sonplaas en veral by die verbruiker is van sleutelbelang.? As die spieel bv reg bokant die sonplaas is met sononder sal hy sowat???
??? ??? ??? ??? I x A x eta x cos 45 grade = 0.7071 x IA eta??
sonlig daarheen weerkaats.? Hier is A die spieel se oppervlak, I die son se irradiansie, eta die reflektiwiteit (na aan 1).? Kort voordat hy in die aarde se skaduwee verdwyn, is sal hy nog
meer sonlig in die rigting van die sonplaas weerkaats teen (of na? aan) sononder by die sonplaas, maar dit sal skuins op die sonplaas inval, en deels bo-oor en/of op die grond voor die sonplaas skyn.? En atmosferiese attenuasie (wat hierbo met goeie
rede weggelaat is) sal meer wees.? Attenuasie van gereflekteerde lig sal dan
minder wees (veel korter pad deur atmosfeer) as van direkte son na aan sononder.
On 2024/10/16 18:21, Pieter Van der Walt wrote:
Haai Benhard
Ek onthou nog goed hoe ek saans in die Karoo uitgehardloop het om gou vir vir Spoetnik te kyk, en hoe dit net voor 21:0 in die aarde se skaduwee verdwyn het. ek kon dit gewoonlik twee keer sien.
Teen daardie tyd is die sonhoek baie ongunstig vir 'n spie?l.
?
PW
?
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024, 22:55 bernhard via , <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:
Best PW
Ek reken maar net dat wat ek om 16:37 op 10 Sept aan ZA-Energie aangestuur het, geloofwaardig is.? Moet ek daardie weer aanstuur?? As ons nader aan mekaar was, kon ek maklik sketse wys om
wat ek in hierdie diskussie beweer, toe te lig.? Reeds die heel eerste Sputnik (1957?) het na sononder lig na die aarde weerkaats (wat hom sigbaar gemaak het).? Hy was veel minder as 1500 km bokant die aarde.
On 2024/10/14 22:05, Pieter Van der Walt wrote:
Beste Bernhard,
Met konsensus oor geostationêre stelsels se onwerkbaarheid, wat presies het jy in gedagte met plat spie?ls in lae orbitale? Gedurende die dag is hulle tussen die aarde en die son, so hoe moet hulle sonlig na die aarde weerkaats en waarom
is dit nodig?
Snags sal hulle vir 'n baie groot deel van die tyd in skaduwee wees?
Groete
PW
On Wed, 09 Oct 2024, 20:32 bernhard via , <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:
Ek neem aan die artikel waarna verwys word is
.? Vir sonlig is die spektrum gekonsentreer rondom 500 nm, meer as 'n miljoen keer soveel as 300 mm.? Dan is eenvoudige reflektore wat mooi plat is en korrek gerig word al wat nodig is in die
ruimte (lae baan LEO).? Groter maar origens veel makliker as wat reeds met die James Webb teleskoop (JWT) bereik is -- vir die reflektore is die afstand maar so ~1500 km van die aarde, terwyl dit vir JWT 1.5 miljoen km is. Dit is sowat 1000 keer soveel.
En met die reflektor so na aan die aarde, en die golflengtes so kort, sal geometriese optika voldoende wees -- eerder as die orde 100 nm akkuraatheid wat nodig is by JWT.? 'n Tegnies relatief
maklike doel, wat myns insiens reeds in of dalk selfs voor die 1930s kan werk.? Dis nou as Elon hom maar hierop wil toespits eerder as om hom met Twitter/X of politiek te wil bemoei!??
Hierdie opsie maak van PV plase op die grond gebruik, eerder as PV in die ruimte.? En vul daardie plase se opbrengs aan van bv 'n uur of twee voor sononder tot so 2 of 4 ure na sononder.?
Dit is gedurende tye van piek-aanvraag.? En van bv 2 uur voor sonop tot 2 ure na sonop.? Ook tye wanneer gewone PV tekortskiet.??
As die sonplase bv in die NoordKaap of NoordWes Provinsie sou wees, sal daar nie te dikwels wolke wees wat die gereflekteerde son sal afkeer nie.? Eskom se kragnet-opvolger moet net die transmissielyne
bou.? Transmissielyne wat met hierdie reflektor-stalliete vir baie meer (tipies dubbel soveel) ure per jaar sal kan PV krag lewer as sonder die reflektore.? As daar groot Li-ioon of Na-ioon batterye by die plase opgerig word, kan krag op meeste dae vir 24
uur / dag gelewer word
On 2024/10/09 08:27, Wolhuter, Riaan, Dr [wolhuter@...] via
wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Stellenbosch University network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
?
Ja, die ruimteverspreiding?oor daardie afstand is so groot dat jy 'n baie groot antenne nodig het om? 'n smal bundel te vorm en 'n antenne met 'n baie groot ontvangs oppervlakte
op aarde nodig het om 'n goeie breuk van die uitgestraalde?drywing op te vang.?
Om 'n paar syfers te noem:
'n Kol van omtrent 10 km deursnit op aarde benodig?bo 'n antenne met 'n deursnit van? sowat 3600 golflengtes. Met 'n golflengte van 300 mm werk dit uit op 'n skottel met 'n deursnit
van omtrent 'n kilometer. Die toelaatbare afwyking? van die?oppervlakteprofiel?vanaf 'n perfekte parabolo?ed?is 'n wortel-gemiddeld kwadraat fout van die orde van 1/12 golflengte, of 25 mm. Jy moet nou al die boumateriaal hiervoor van die aarde af lanseer
in 'n geosinkrone wentelbaan.
Die 10 km deursnit antenne op aarde moet dieselfde akkuraatheid handhaaf om die golwe koherent te kan sommeer.
?
?
Dit word 'n baie baie vinnig 'n baie? duur speletjie!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Stellenbosch University network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
?
Ja.? Geostasionere baan is baie ver, wat logistiek duur maak, en mikrogolwe wyd laat sprei, sodat dit nie op klein- of medium skaal bedryf kan word nie.? Maar ek sou graag die artikel wou sien!
On 2024/10/07 10:36, Wolhuter, Riaan, Dr [wolhuter@...] via
wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Stellenbosch University network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
?
Hi Bernhard
Dit wys by my 'n prentjie. Dit is 'n redakteursnota vir 'n artikel in IEEE Spectrum wat bevestig dat 'n ruimtekragstasie wat mikrogolfdrywing na die aarde straal glad nie haalbaar
is itv koste, tegniese en logistieke uirdagings nie.
?
On Sun, 06 Oct 2024, 20:37 bernhard via
, <bernhard=[email protected]> wrote:
Die skakel hieronder wil nie oopmaak nie!
On 2024/10/06 19:31, Pieter Van der Walt wrote:
Ek stem heelhartig saam.
The integrity and confidentiality of this email are governed by these terms.
Die integriteit en vertroulikheid van hierdie e-pos word deur die volgende bepalings bere?l.
