Whether capital was amortised over the plant’s full 50-year life cycle makes a big difference
27 June 2023 - 16:27
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Eskom's Koeberg nuclear plant as seen from Melkbosstrand. Picture: SHELLY CHRISTIANS
What is in a price? There is so much more to price comparisons when it comes to different forms of energy generation. Andrew Kenny comments on some regarding green energy: does it include the cost of backup to compensate for the availability factor, or extra transmission, or storage, or mining externalities, or decommissioning? (“Green lies about energy”, June 22).
I would like to know whether this study was fair to nuclear. Did it amortise capital over the full life cycle — more than 50 years — of the plant or was the same lifespan of about 20 years for a renewables investment used? It makes a big difference.
Anthony Still Waverley
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businesslive.co.za. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
LETTER: Details needed on study of nuclear costs
Whether capital was amortised over the plant’s full 50-year life cycle makes a big difference
What is in a price? There is so much more to price comparisons when it comes to different forms of energy generation. Andrew Kenny comments on some regarding green energy: does it include the cost of backup to compensate for the availability factor, or extra transmission, or storage, or mining externalities, or decommissioning? (“Green lies about energy”, June 22).
Bernard Benson (“Nuclear more reliable option”, June 22) draws attention to this with reference to the price comparisons in the article “Renewables-led energy mix in SA will be cheaper than nuclear, study shows”, June 19.
I would like to know whether this study was fair to nuclear. Did it amortise capital over the full life cycle — more than 50 years — of the plant or was the same lifespan of about 20 years for a renewables investment used? It makes a big difference.
Anthony Still
Waverley
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businesslive.co.za. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most Read
Related Articles
LETTER: Nuclear energy no-brainer
Climate body sees no place for new nuclear in SA energy mix
Mantashe to forge ahead with procurement of 2,500MW nuclear power
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.