Great article. There is a lot of information here. The strength of a nation, like the strength of an elite athlete, must come from its core. A few barbell curls on the beach are not adequate. Wind and solar may augment fossil fuels and nuclear but it they are not dense enough to gamble the prosperity of a nation upon. Hugo makes a technological argument for South Africa to start building her core strength. Think of it as similar to an athletic training philosophy. We should be following this advice in the United States as well.
When I was a child my father travelled to America for business and brought me back a collection of postcards from the Hoover Dam. I studied that project in depth and it is what got me interested in civil engineering. Without the Hoover Dam as a mega project, America wouldn't have had the industrial capability to win WW2. The amount of dispatchable energy gave it the technological edge to mass produce armaments for the war effort.
Modern economists dismiss megaprojects and rather refer to places like Silicon Valley, without taking into account that had it not been for the hoover dam or the golden gate bridge, then Apple or Microsoft would never have been possible.
Since the 1973, the memory of the New Deal has been attacked, and anyone who argued for some level of government investment was labelled as a "communist". It's my belief that nuclear energy was one of the first casualties, because it remains till today, a social democratic argument.
The history of the energy sector in the United States is nuanced and complex. By-the-way, as you probably know, there is more cement in a typical US nuclear plant than in Hoover Dam. However we do it, Hugo, we must convince our nations we have to build big stuff if our children are to prosper.
I am curious. This is a little off topic, but I wanted your opinion on an idea that has been bouncing around my brain.
Do you think that nations like South Africa could buy modular nuclear reactors from South Korea, which has shown the ability to manufacture nuclear plants at a much lower cost than other nations?
It seems like a high-value export opportunity for South Korea and a cost-effective alternative to coal-burning plants in other nations. South Korea also already mass-produces cargo ships, so I doubt that they would have problems customizing a ship design that could carry a disassembled nuclear plant to any port in the world.
Hey Michael, it is completely possible, but South Korea as far as I know are only finalising their design by 2028 and it won't hit the market before 2032 or so. In fact no SMR, in my view, will be built this decade, except maybe the Russian large submarine on a boat.
Shifting to current large reactors (ie not SMR), do you happen to know the percentage of parts are too big to put in a container? Is it conceivable to manufacture all the parts in South Korea and then assemble the parts on site?
I assume that there would need to be a huge concrete pour for the foundation and the containment shield, but are there lots of other oversized pieces?
South Africa does have the ability to do that, but I caution against doing too much local, as it can easily explode the costs, especially for the first plant.
Russia, South Korea, France and Japan all have experience in the export market, China also recently did it,
the concrete, rebar etc can all be sourced locally as standards are universal, but the reactor, SG and other equipment will be shipped from the vendor. There are also IP laws that come into play.
Great article. There is a lot of information here. The strength of a nation, like the strength of an elite athlete, must come from its core. A few barbell curls on the beach are not adequate. Wind and solar may augment fossil fuels and nuclear but it they are not dense enough to gamble the prosperity of a nation upon. Hugo makes a technological argument for South Africa to start building her core strength. Think of it as similar to an athletic training philosophy. We should be following this advice in the United States as well.
When I was a child my father travelled to America for business and brought me back a collection of postcards from the Hoover Dam. I studied that project in depth and it is what got me interested in civil engineering. Without the Hoover Dam as a mega project, America wouldn't have had the industrial capability to win WW2. The amount of dispatchable energy gave it the technological edge to mass produce armaments for the war effort.
Modern economists dismiss megaprojects and rather refer to places like Silicon Valley, without taking into account that had it not been for the hoover dam or the golden gate bridge, then Apple or Microsoft would never have been possible.
Since the 1973, the memory of the New Deal has been attacked, and anyone who argued for some level of government investment was labelled as a "communist". It's my belief that nuclear energy was one of the first casualties, because it remains till today, a social democratic argument.
The history of the energy sector in the United States is nuanced and complex. By-the-way, as you probably know, there is more cement in a typical US nuclear plant than in Hoover Dam. However we do it, Hugo, we must convince our nations we have to build big stuff if our children are to prosper.
I am curious. This is a little off topic, but I wanted your opinion on an idea that has been bouncing around my brain.
Do you think that nations like South Africa could buy modular nuclear reactors from South Korea, which has shown the ability to manufacture nuclear plants at a much lower cost than other nations?
It seems like a high-value export opportunity for South Korea and a cost-effective alternative to coal-burning plants in other nations. South Korea also already mass-produces cargo ships, so I doubt that they would have problems customizing a ship design that could carry a disassembled nuclear plant to any port in the world.
Hey Michael, it is completely possible, but South Korea as far as I know are only finalising their design by 2028 and it won't hit the market before 2032 or so. In fact no SMR, in my view, will be built this decade, except maybe the Russian large submarine on a boat.
Thanks for the reply.
Shifting to current large reactors (ie not SMR), do you happen to know the percentage of parts are too big to put in a container? Is it conceivable to manufacture all the parts in South Korea and then assemble the parts on site?
I assume that there would need to be a huge concrete pour for the foundation and the containment shield, but are there lots of other oversized pieces?
South Africa does have the ability to do that, but I caution against doing too much local, as it can easily explode the costs, especially for the first plant.
Russia, South Korea, France and Japan all have experience in the export market, China also recently did it,
the concrete, rebar etc can all be sourced locally as standards are universal, but the reactor, SG and other equipment will be shipped from the vendor. There are also IP laws that come into play.