I _love_ how these guys make incredibly salient, informative and important points about the politics of energy and electricity in SA whilst also slipping in subtle (and not so subtle) and hilarious political satire, terrible German accents and fart jokes. Hats off!
It's a good thing you're on RUclips where there's a gallery of videos & minidocumentaries on vertical axis wind turbines, sodium-ion battery stacks & perovskites. Renewables are free people, it's plug & play. They should literally sell themselves. It's just a matter of scale & the size of the battery stacks.
Thanks for the content. A lot of what you said shows a good balance of information and satire. I do however believe you have not been fair to nuclear. 1. Nuclear is green energy (along with solar and wind) 2. The price of renewables doesn't take into account inefficiencies - solar panels are 17 - 40 % efficient. They also require energy storage systems (ESS) which are still astronomically expensive. 3. Transmitting the renewable energy results in further losses and, because they are intermittent, they still require a base load backup like coal, gas or nuclear. 4. The environmental costs for preparing the land are greater for wind and solar. More land needs to be prepared, resulting in greater environmental damage. 5. The disposal costs are unknown at this stage but solar panels will need to be replaced every 20 or so years. Nuclear and coal can go on for 50 years+ if maintained. This makes nuclear and/or coal cheaper long-term. Wind and Solar certainly have a role in an energy mix but in the short to medium term (5-20 years) they can't make up more than 25% of the energy mix without jeopardising energy security. Thanks for the show!
What I feel like we don't talk about enough in South Africa when it comes to new energy solutions is nuclear energy. The only air pollution caused by them is from the mining of uranium. The radioactive waste produced by these plants will last for a long time, but is extremely limited and easily manageable. Nuclear power plants also produce a huge amount of energy for how little fuel they require. And despite what Chernobyl might have you think nuclear is safer than pretty much every energy source other than solar. Namibia also is 1 of the top 3 producers of uranium inn the world, meaning that we most likely could get it in abundance for relatively cheap. The only real drawback is skill. We would both need to encourage local experts to work here instead of overseas as well as import some foreign talent. Ideally we would set up some sort of program to encourage nuclear engineers to study and work here.
Did you see the infographic of the costs?? Wind and solar are far cheaper. Why not use the cheaper accessible options where we have an abundance of wind and sun to capitalise on?
@megand4222 the problem woth renweables, especially solar, is that even with grid storage you need to produce far more energy than you need to endure energy stability over cloudy days
@@kayplays6425 then we build a system that can produce what we need in a situation like that, simple. Nuclear is far too dangerous and the waste it produces is a dealbreaker
@@kayplays6425Ya that's why we need a combination of renewable sources plus storage. It says clearly in the video that solar+wind+storage is the best solution for SA. Even when presented with the evidence, people look for other 'solutions'. It's so frustrating!
No they just made it easy to burn diesel that is why they made sure that the tracking of diesel has been removed from the books of eskom. The ANC knew that would be the stick that would remove them but the question is why did it take them this long to solve this.???
I have the strange feeling that to solve loadshedding you would first have to solve corruption in government ... South Africa is litetally overflowing with stuff you can convert into energy, sunlight, wind, uranium 😳... When you walk through Durban you walk through a city that's literally better developed than large parts of Europe or the US, so why then is South Africa failing to keep the lights on, or the water running? Certainly not a lack of material to work with.
Nuclear energy always ticks me off because it's far safer than the coal and gas lobby would want you to believe (and causes less radiation into the environment than coal) but is still far inferior to renewables so its a bad idea but still better than fossil fuels, unfortunately, we can't just buy and ship german nuclear stations here (as they decommission theirs for coal) as completed nuclear power is the best short term(while we build up renewables) but the plants take so damn long to build compared to renewables considering them for any sort of grid work is dumb.
This is a crazy difficult thing to fix. Our plants are all old and are showing their age with poor reliability and availability. We have excess potential capacity so if our plants actually ran then we would not have to worry. But some capacity will always been unavailable for maintenance. That is fine. Our issue is unplanned maintenance. Our plants break cause they are f@cking old. To improve this we have to take better care of our plants with more planned maintenance. Which stacks with the planned maintenance into bad loadshedding. So we run diesel and gas plants which cannot stay on for long periods of time due to design limitations or cost. Diesel is expensive. We have to get karpowership or something like it for a short term boost whilst we do more planned maintenance. But here is the hard part. We need to build new power stations. And not coal or gas. We need Nuclear. It's expensive to build but cheap to run. Modern reactors are safe and we don't have seismic activity in RSA. Plus a nuclear reactor is always at 100% output. Our new coal plants can maybe hit 60% of designed output. Solar is nice and all but we need power at night and early morning and solar is best in the day. We don't have water for hydro, wind is good but needs a lot of land. We need nuclear power plants fast.
lol what this episode missed was what would happened to all the jobs lost in mpumalanga , This video sounded very bias . And I believe is including renewables to our energy mix
I disagree with your take on nuclear power plants. They are always run decades past initial life time and are cheap to run. Their main cost comes with construction which is often bloated by regulations and government red tape. I am not saying safety should be thrown to the wind but nuclear could be so much cheaper to build than it statistically is.
Yes this is green energy propaganda for the WEF. They are just actors. Look at that ridiculous graph. It looks like a marketing graph from Apple AMD or Nvidia 😂
@@M3l_0N666 Eskom is not using more diesel now than in the past(De ruyter era). Nuclear is the cleanest source of energy. Eskom returned to using decommissioned coal power plants since de ruyter closed them down in favour for green energy/IPPs. Load shedding is done, the only thing that can return it is economic growth or sabotage. They have a new CEO whos forward thinking and states that we need more energy procurement and more power transmission lines.
I _love_ how these guys make incredibly salient, informative and important points about the politics of energy and electricity in SA whilst also slipping in subtle (and not so subtle) and hilarious political satire, terrible German accents and fart jokes. Hats off!
Anc is like an onion; the more layers you peel off; the more you want to cry😢😢😢😢😢😢
Watching this video during the first load shedding since the elections 😂
It's a good thing you're on RUclips where there's a gallery of videos & minidocumentaries on vertical axis wind turbines, sodium-ion battery stacks & perovskites. Renewables are free people, it's plug & play. They should literally sell themselves. It's just a matter of scale & the size of the battery stacks.
And Eskom have just requested 35% and up increases for next year.
The criminals with tenderpreneurship and corruption is still in charge😢😢😢😢😢
Thanks for the content. A lot of what you said shows a good balance of information and satire. I do however believe you have not been fair to nuclear.
1. Nuclear is green energy (along with solar and wind)
2. The price of renewables doesn't take into account inefficiencies - solar panels are 17 - 40 % efficient. They also require energy storage systems (ESS) which are still astronomically expensive.
3. Transmitting the renewable energy results in further losses and, because they are intermittent, they still require a base load backup like coal, gas or nuclear.
4. The environmental costs for preparing the land are greater for wind and solar. More land needs to be prepared, resulting in greater environmental damage.
5. The disposal costs are unknown at this stage but solar panels will need to be replaced every 20 or so years. Nuclear and coal can go on for 50 years+ if maintained. This makes nuclear and/or coal cheaper long-term.
Wind and Solar certainly have a role in an energy mix but in the short to medium term (5-20 years) they can't make up more than 25% of the energy mix without jeopardising energy security.
Thanks for the show!
Yes, optimism is renewable!
Creative ways of delivering statistically and professionally backed information. I love it.
7:43 woooh my man Clyde Mallinson!
This was so well done, you got another sub
Love the thumbnail, Mythbusters is one of my all-time favourite shows. Subscribed
Great Ep PA - thanks
Very impressive show guys. Keep it up🙏🏽
Great Video guys! Bringing some humor into this nonsense
3 months later, still no load shedding
What I feel like we don't talk about enough in South Africa when it comes to new energy solutions is nuclear energy. The only air pollution caused by them is from the mining of uranium. The radioactive waste produced by these plants will last for a long time, but is extremely limited and easily manageable. Nuclear power plants also produce a huge amount of energy for how little fuel they require.
And despite what Chernobyl might have you think nuclear is safer than pretty much every energy source other than solar.
Namibia also is 1 of the top 3 producers of uranium inn the world, meaning that we most likely could get it in abundance for relatively cheap.
The only real drawback is skill. We would both need to encourage local experts to work here instead of overseas as well as import some foreign talent. Ideally we would set up some sort of program to encourage nuclear engineers to study and work here.
Did you see the infographic of the costs?? Wind and solar are far cheaper. Why not use the cheaper accessible options where we have an abundance of wind and sun to capitalise on?
@megand4222 the problem woth renweables, especially solar, is that even with grid storage you need to produce far more energy than you need to endure energy stability over cloudy days
@@kayplays6425 then we build a system that can produce what we need in a situation like that, simple. Nuclear is far too dangerous and the waste it produces is a dealbreaker
@@kayplays6425Ya that's why we need a combination of renewable sources plus storage. It says clearly in the video that solar+wind+storage is the best solution for SA. Even when presented with the evidence, people look for other 'solutions'. It's so frustrating!
guys,netflix has to fetch you,this is my tonight show+snl
No they just made it easy to burn diesel that is why they made sure that the tracking of diesel has been removed from the books of eskom. The ANC knew that would be the stick that would remove them but the question is why did it take them this long to solve this.???
Technically, "loadshedding" doesn't exist anymore. It's "load reduction" now. 😂
Since Gordahn has resigned - load shedding has ended - the Eskom board are now on a compulsory "load shedding" diet🤣🤣
Great thumbnail 😂
love the mythbusters
I have the strange feeling that to solve loadshedding you would first have to solve corruption in government ... South Africa is litetally overflowing with stuff you can convert into energy, sunlight, wind, uranium 😳... When you walk through Durban you walk through a city that's literally better developed than large parts of Europe or the US, so why then is South Africa failing to keep the lights on, or the water running? Certainly not a lack of material to work with.
Keep it up expose those in the background that make us the poor pay more for everything
Still waiting for eskom to do the bare minimum
Nuclear energy always ticks me off because it's far safer than the coal and gas lobby would want you to believe (and causes less radiation into the environment than coal) but is still far inferior to renewables so its a bad idea but still better than fossil fuels, unfortunately, we can't just buy and ship german nuclear stations here (as they decommission theirs for coal) as completed nuclear power is the best short term(while we build up renewables) but the plants take so damn long to build compared to renewables considering them for any sort of grid work is dumb.
I have a question, what is the best plan to distinguish load shedding?
Clearly all these parties have different approach
This is a crazy difficult thing to fix. Our plants are all old and are showing their age with poor reliability and availability. We have excess potential capacity so if our plants actually ran then we would not have to worry. But some capacity will always been unavailable for maintenance. That is fine. Our issue is unplanned maintenance. Our plants break cause they are f@cking old. To improve this we have to take better care of our plants with more planned maintenance. Which stacks with the planned maintenance into bad loadshedding. So we run diesel and gas plants which cannot stay on for long periods of time due to design limitations or cost. Diesel is expensive. We have to get karpowership or something like it for a short term boost whilst we do more planned maintenance. But here is the hard part. We need to build new power stations. And not coal or gas. We need Nuclear. It's expensive to build but cheap to run. Modern reactors are safe and we don't have seismic activity in RSA. Plus a nuclear reactor is always at 100% output. Our new coal plants can maybe hit 60% of designed output. Solar is nice and all but we need power at night and early morning and solar is best in the day. We don't have water for hydro, wind is good but needs a lot of land. We need nuclear power plants fast.
The Accents are so diverse ey
lol what this episode missed was what would happened to all the jobs lost in mpumalanga , This video sounded very bias . And I believe is including renewables to our energy mix
I disagree with your take on nuclear power plants. They are always run decades past initial life time and are cheap to run. Their main cost comes with construction which is often bloated by regulations and government red tape. I am not saying safety should be thrown to the wind but nuclear could be so much cheaper to build than it statistically is.
I agree.
ruclips.net/video/5EsBiC9HjyQ/видео.htmlsi=KA0nUCdgMptsND19
Yes this is green energy propaganda for the WEF. They are just actors. Look at that ridiculous graph. It looks like a marketing graph from Apple AMD or Nvidia 😂
When you think your laptop is acting up again :)
dis is a lekka channel
Propaganda channel!
Hope you intend to state facts here so we can understand why you say so.
@@M3l_0N666 Eskom is not using more diesel now than in the past(De ruyter era). Nuclear is the cleanest source of energy. Eskom returned to using decommissioned coal power plants since de ruyter closed them down in favour for green energy/IPPs.
Load shedding is done, the only thing that can return it is economic growth or sabotage. They have a new CEO whos forward thinking and states that we need more energy procurement and more power transmission lines.
More videos please 😂