A public-private partnership between the University of Johannesburg (UJ) and private investors is working on a plant to commercialise thin-film technology in South Africa that will offer consumers a cheaper and highly efficient alternative to standard solar panels.
The breakthrough technology is the result of over 13 years of research by a team of scientists led by UJ’s Professor Vivian Alberts.
Following the discovery, Prof Ablerts and the UJ formed the company Photovoltaic Technology Intellectual Property. The company has since entered into agreements with a solar energy investor in Germany known as Johanna Solar Technology. Currently work is underway on the establishment of a purpose-built plant, in the Western Cape, to produce the thin film solar modules.
Unlike standard solar panels that contain a 350 micron thick silicon layer, these solar panels make use of copper, indium, gallium, sulphur and selenium. The result is a revolutionary thin panel, approximately five microns thick – a human hair is 20 microns thick – that converts light into energy at a fraction of the cost.
The elements used in the panels are all semiconductors making this technology far more effective in attracting heat.
Shareholders in the project include petrochemicals giant Sasol, the Central Energy Fund, the National Empowerment Fund and the University.
Herman Esterhuizen
Coordinator: Media Relations
Division of Institutional Advancement
University of Johannesburg
Tel: +27 11 559-6653
Cell: + 27 72 129 0777
Email: hermane@uj.ac.za
Renewable Wind Energy is not merely a pipe dream. The technology exists, it’s quick to install versus any other method of power generation. It’s renewable, it’s safe and it’s not toxic to human health. Why is the South African government ignoring and resisting this energy source favouring instead lavish cash-cow nuclear projects?
Why has Millions of South African Rands been spent in the last few years for EIA projects on nuclear power stations and to date nothing has materialised from it? Do you have any idea how much wind power could already be installed and operational right now with that wasted money? At the end of 2008 the worldwide nameplate capacity of wind-powered generators was 121.2 Gigawatts. 19% of electricity in Denmark is produced by wind generated power, 11% in Spain and Portugal and 7% in Germany and Ireland. Some countries are serious about alternative forms of energy but the South African government is hell bent on Nuclear and are quick to shun wind and solar energy.
If other countries can produce figures such as above, WHY is South Africa NOT on that list?
Wind Energy in South Africa - It's possible
MEDIA STATEMENT
Anti-nuclear activist evicted from Energy Minister’s nuclear stakeholder fiasco
Government turns its back on thousands of jobs and SME opportunities giving dictatorial support for “arms deal style” nuclear power acquisitions that will impose nuclear risks to South Africans for thousands of years. Billions of rand destined to alleviate poverty will once again be commandeered by the ruling party without allowing any public debate to derail this irrational & unsustainable policy.
“Is this the Government we fought to bring to power?” asked anti-nuclear stalwart Mike Kantey who was evicted from a nuclear stakeholder meeting on Tuesday in Cape Town called by Energy Minister Dipuo Peters.
Meant to be an open and constructive get together of “nuclear stakeholders”- including those against nuclear power – it turned into a fiasco. In just over an hour, Kantey the lone anti-nuclear activist in a predominantly pro-nuclear government and industry gathering, was summarily ejected for daring to challenge Kelvin Kemm’s claim that nuclear power is a form of “clean energy”. Discussion of the ruling party’s nuclear policy was also ruled “out of order”.
A former member of Armscor from 1981-1986, Kemm stands to benefit from the PBMR boondoggle as a director of BEE company Silver Protea. Kantey is the self-funded Chairperson of the national Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE) and was one of only four civil society invitees to the meeting.
At the same meeting, Deputy General-Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers Oupa Komane introduced himself as a “representative of the working class” and confirmed that the biggest trade union in COSATU and an active member of the Tripartite Alliance is “opposed to the PBMR but in favour of nuclear power.”
All those affiliated to CANE — as well as those sister organisations opposed only to the siting of a nuclear power station in their region — will be having their own consultation to determine what response will be appropriate in the forthcoming months leading up to the 2010 World Cup.
Given the credence given to climate change denialist Kelvin Kemm in the meeting, and the Minister’s own attempts to convince civil society that “nuclear power is a clean energy option”, we will continue to broaden and strengthen the Coalition across all sectors of society — including our own trusted allies within the Tripartite Alliance.
The new-look Government should understand once and for all that the anti nuclear lobby cannot be co-opted, isolated or marginalised, since it remains united in opposition to nuclear energy, whether at the local level, or as a “one-size-fits-all” national energy policy. The blatant attempt to over-represent nuclear lobbyists with minimal civil society representation as ‘stakeholders”, must be addressed and rectified.
The anti nuclear lobby believes that the R1.3-trillion nuclear policy will hold back scarce public funds from solving the real issues of grinding poverty and economic injustice and will also substantially delay delivery of reliable energy to the economy due to massive delays in bringing nuclear power plants on line.
If China can build a massive two gigawatt solar plant, enough to power about 3 million Chinese households for less than $6 billion resulting in a tariff of 15 to 25 cents per kilowatt hour, why does South Africa with the best solar potential in the world want to go nuclear? *
Nuclear stakeholder groups from Namaqualand, Bantamsklip, Thyspunt, Koeberg and Pelindaba expressed solidarity with Kantey and questioned why their representatives had not been invited to the meeting which was billed as all-inclusive, as announced by the Minister.
ISSUED BY:
National Executive Committee
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy
Email: caneoffice@cane.org.za
Website: www.cane.org.za
15 December 2008
By Derek Luyt
ESKOM might have decided to shelve its R700billion nuclear energy expansion programme, but there remain lots of good reasons why the public should be more actively involved in deciding energy policy in South Africa.
For a start, the Eskom load-shedding fiasco, which still hangs over the country, should remind us that the mandarins can get it wrong. Despite knowing more than a decade ago that SA was heading towards an energy shortage, government could not avert a crisis.
It may well be that there were vested interests involved, coupled with a belief that investors would be found to bring nuclear energy on stream in time to alleviate the looming crunch. We may never know for sure what led to the crisis, but what is quite clear is that government failed to respect the right of the South African public to participate meaningfully in the critical issue of our country’s future energy policy.
The public simply cannot afford to allow this situation to continue. We need to insist on the right to participate in the formulation of energy policy in our country because whatever policy gets adopted and implemented will have profound effects on all South Africans for decades to come.
The energy policy implemented in SA will have a major impact, for example, on efforts to eradicate the poverty which currently blights the lives of far too many citizens. It is imperative that such policy maximizes job creation and enhances opportunities for the improvement of the quality of life of the poor majority.
The issue of nuclear power is central to any consideration of future energy policy. Nuclear power is enormously expensive and there are coherent arguments that it is not cost effective, does not create the kind and number of jobs that our country desperately needs and that it poses unacceptable environmental risks.
Renewable energy, in the considered opinion of some, offers better prospects for job creation than conventional or nuclear energy. For a country with unemployment rates so high, this alone makes renewable energy worthy of far greater investment. But, as Liz McDaid points out, the main obstacle to developing renewable energy in SA is the “lack of political will to transform Eskom”. Hence civil society must “play a major role in lobbying government for change in the energy sector”.
The deputy director-general of the Department of Public Enterprise (DPE), Nelly Magubane, last week stated that “renewable energy is definitely on the cards … we are actually looking at ways of making sure that we get even more renewable energy in the system”. While this is encouraging, and although Eskom has postponed immediate plans for Nuclear One procurement – because, according to Portia Molefe, DPE director-general, “it is not affordable to Eskom” – it has made it clear that nuclear power remains firmly on its long-term agenda. According to Molefe, government “remains committed to introducing nuclear”.
This commitment has been made without any meaningful public participation, and none of the 26 comments recently submitted on the Nuclear Energy Bill have been made public.
Vast amounts of money – about R345bn – will be ploughed into developing energy infrastructure in SA over the next five years. While government has committed about R60bn towards these costs, Eskom is currently negotiating a 5bn (about R50bn) loan from the World Bank to help fund its expansion. It has already secured a 500 million (about R5bn) loan from the African Development Bank.
ANC leader Jacob Zuma, who last week said he and the ANC “are very concerned about the level of corruption in government and we must do something radical about it”, would presumably understand public concern that the amounts of money being pumped into energy development in SA provide fertile grounds for corruption.
The public would rightfully be even more concerned were Eskom to implement an offset based nuclear procurement policy, which seems, finances allowing, probable.
Despite such concerns, nothing especially radical is needed to ensure that SA’s energy policy does not degenerate into a carnival of elite enrichment. A healthy dose of public participation, coupled with legislated oversight and accountability, will be enough.
The public should therefore insist that both Eskom and the World Bank conduct its negotiations openly and transparently. After all, what is being considered is essentially a loan to the people of SA, and we have a right to know what the conditions of the loan are, since we will be repaying it.
The public should also insist that the World Bank, which is committed to promoting transparent and accountable governance, and the government of SA, which is constitutionally obliged to promote transparent and participatory policy-making, make any loan to Eskom conditional on guarantees of meaningful public participation in the formulation of SA’s future energy policy.
Finally, the public should also insist that both parties ensure that the terms and conditions of any loan are transparent, allowing both Parliament and the public to hold Eskom accountable for its use of such funds.
The arms deal may have taken the public by surprise. We still don’t know the extent of corruption involved in the procurement of the weapons involved. Nor do we have accurate information on the offsets which apparently persuaded our government that the deal was good for the country. We are not even sure that we needed the arms in the first place.
What we do know is that the public was not involved in deciding any of these matters. Vested interests took these costly decisions on our behalf. We dare not let our future energy policy become a hugely expanded repeat of the arms deal. There is a lot more at stake than keeping the pool pumps running.
Derek Luyt is media and advocacy head for the Public Service Accountability Monitor
Source: Daily Despatch Insight
by Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Thanks to everyone who signed the nukes/climate statement for release at the negotiations in Poznan, Poland. More than 300 organizations and more than 1200 of you signed as individuals. We appreciate your support! Below is the press release for the action in Poznan where the statement was released. Please feel free to send to your own local media. At the bottom of the release are links where you can obtain a formatted copy of the statement and a list of the organizational signers.
It can no longer be said that nuclear energy is acceptable anywhere in the world. Globally opposition to nuclear energy is mounting.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
**************************************************
Poznan, Poland. Three dozen environmental leaders from 16 countries braved icy cold weather on Wednesday morning in front of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Meeting in Poznan, Poland where they called nuclear power “a Mickey Mouse solution” to climate change. The activists were carrying banners and posters with lively slogans including “Don’t Nuke the Climate,” “No Nuclear Power in The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)” and “Nuclear Power, No Thanks!”
Most were wearing t-shirts with the familiar “Mickey Mouse ears” emblazoned with the radiation symbol. The activists, representing non-governmental organizations from nearby European countries and from as far away as Taiwan, South Korea, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and California, announced the release of a global call for the elimination of proposals to include nuclear power as an approved investment for greenhouse gas mitigation in the 2nd commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC.
In only one week, over 300 NGOs representing millions of individuals from 50 countries in every corner of the planet signed on to the public appeal to keep the nuclear power option out of the climate talks.
Spokespeople from the four organizers of today’s action made their case throughout the morning by talking one-on-one to hundreds of government delegates and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as they entered the conference site for morning sessions.
Speaking to the press, Sabine Bock, coordinator of energy and climate protection for Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) said: “Nuclear energy has proven in the past that it is a threat not only to our health and the environment, but also to human rights.”
“In our work at WECF with local communities,” Bock continued, “we have encountered severe health problems and human rights abuses of populations due to the harmful effects of nuclear energy and radiation.” Bock added: “We can’t understand why governments still promote this dangerous technology rather than taking the opportunity to develop safe and sustainable new, renewable, and clean energy solutions.”
Jan Van de Putte, Nuclear Campaign Coordinator for Greenpeace described nuclear power as an obstacle to effective climate protection saying that money invested in nuclear power is not nearly as effective as money invested in wind power, for example.”
“Nuclear power is a dangerous and dirty energy source – it provides too little energy for mitigation at too slow a pace and at too great a cost.” Van de Putte continued, “the cost per Kwh of nuclear power is double that of wind energy. It just doesn’t make sense to pursue this outdated energy source.”
Vladimir Slivyak, Co-Chair of Ecodefense Russia, called upon his national government as well as other delegations to stop promoting nuclear power into the Kyoto Protocol via provisions for Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism. “78 % of Russians are opposed to nuclear power,” Slivyak said. “We demand that the Russian delegation stop any plans to develop new nuclear plants.” “We further call on all governments to stop new nuclear development.”
Claire Greensfelder, Deputy Director of the International Forum on Globalization of San Francisco, California, said: “Despite year after year of rejection by the state parties to the Convention, the nuclear industry (and a small group of states) continues to promote the economic and public health disaster of nuclear power.” Greensfelder continued: “We also have grave concerns about the health and environmental impacts of increased uranium mining, milling and nuclear waste storage, much of which is on indigenous peoples’ lands, many of whom are opposed to continued nuclear development. Indigenous peoples’ right to free prior and informed consent of development on their lands, as established by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (passed in the UN General Assembly in September 2007), must be taken into consideration.”
Holding a colorful homemade banner proclaiming “No Fishy Nukes!,”, Gloria Hsu, Chair, of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union (TEPU) said: “Using nuclear power for CO2 reduction is the same as drinking some poison to quench your thirst.”
“We have managed thus far to keep nuclear power out of the Kyoto Protocol,” said Peer de Rijk, executive director of World Information Service on Energy (WISE), speaking from Amsterdam. “We will continue to do whatever we can to achieve the same for a much needed post-Kyoto agreement. Nuclear energy is a deadlock, blocking real solutions. Don’t nuke the climate!
A copy of the statement can be found on NIRS’ website at http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/pa_nuclearaction9dec17h1.pdf
A list of the organizational signers can be found on NIRS’ website at http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/nonuclearcdm_signons_10dec08press-pdf.pdf
—————————————————————-
Thanks for all you do!
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
nirsnet@nirs.org
