The government has pulled the plug on its ambitious nuclear energy programme after pumping more than R9-billion into it over more than 11 years. There have been suggestions that this figure is far higher than declared and allegations that PBMR funding resulted in various slush funds. There are also suggestions that the PBMR project may continue to be funded in the US and may yet try to rear its ugly head in South Africa. What we want to know is what will happen with the PBMR “test” fuel factory established at Pelindaba and why were no environmental reports made public from the several years of pebbles experimentation that transpired in the hills of Hartbeespoortdam? And what ever became of the nuclear pebbles produced at Pelindaba that were shipped overseas for testing? – Comment from CANE

In a letter dated July 5, Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan told the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM): “The minister of finance has clearly stated that there will be no further funding for the company, and I would like to reiterate that this position has not changed.

“It is clear that the remainder of the cash on hand is to be utilised solely for the winding down of the company as well as the preservation of the intellectual property.”

One objective was to design, license and build a prototype nuclear reactor plant, which, if successful, would have paved the way for building small power plants to help meet SA’s needs.

The company operates as an independent entity governed by an agreement between founding investors Eskom, the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) and US nuclear giant Westinghouse.

It has spent R5-billion on projects since 1994, including R2.7-billion on a demonstration power plant, which was to have been built at the Western Cape’s Koeberg nuclear power station, but was later scrapped. In the process, the company wasted R268-million on the manufacture of a major component of the demonstration power plant, a 2000-ton reactor pressure vessel.

The vessel, which is due to leave the Spanish port of Santander next Sunday, will be stored at Saldanha Bay for R10000 a month as the company can no longer afford the R1.4-million it will cost to transport it to Pretoria.

Business Times was told that the company decided to have the component shipped to SA as it would have been liable for R34-million in VAT had it remained in Spain. Nuclear experts were unanimous this week that the vessel would have to be scrapped as the PBMR company changed the original design of the demonstration power plant last year to 200MW from 400MW. The vessel can function in a 400MW power plant only.

Although the part is unfinished, as the contract for its construction was cancelled last year, PBMR was forced to pay the Spanish builder R268-million for the incomplete product. The original contract price was R317-million.

Payments to companies that made parts for the demonstration power plant include:

• R503.2-million to Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for a helium turbine for the power plant;
• R256.8-million to German company SGL Carbon for manufacturing carbon reflector blocks; and
• R256-million for graphite for the demonstration power plant.

The company also spent millions of rands manufacturing coated uranium oxide particles encapsulated in graphite fuel spheres, which were sent to Russia for testing.

However, staff say the financial cut-off did not stop the company recently giving golden handshakes of R1.8-million each to some of its general managers.

Last year, the company’s 11 executives were paid a combined R18-million in salaries and other benefits. Other big payments since 1994 include:

• R2-billion to mostly overseas consultants;
• R115.9-million for building rental;
• R707.9-million for the construction of a pilot fuel plant; and
• R172-million for overheads.

Hogan recently turned down a rescue plan proposed by the NUM that included a request for a R262-million government bail-out until March next year. In a detailed submission to Hogan, the union called on the auditor-general’s office to conduct a forensic investigation into the company’s financial affairs.

The union also called on the government to suspend the company’s board and executive officers. It said some engineers and scientists were “inappropriately qualified” for nuclear reactor engineering applications.

“The actions of certain individuals can be treated as sabotage for changing the design almost every second year. It seemed as if they did not want to see the reactor built.”

Union general secretary Frans Baleni deplored the company’s “wasteful expenditure. The closure is marked by serious allegations of corruption and unethical conduct. We would be pleased if it can be investigated thoroughly,” he said.

A nuclear expert employed at PBMR blamed the board and executives for the company’s failure. “The technology in terms of electricity production was good, but the only problem was that it was not well managed. Nothing was ever achieved by the company. It was a waste of taxpayers’ money.”

Eskom said in a short statement that it was a minority investor, and referred queries to PBMR.

PBMR’s acting chief executive Alex Tsela declined to comment, referring all questions to the company’s corporate communications department, which could not be reached for comment.

The chairman, Alistair Ruiters, could not be reached for comment either.

• - govenderp@sundaytimes.co.za

Source: http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article555632.ece/Government-pulls-plug-on-PBMR

Wind is caused by the uneven heating of the Earth by the sun and the fact that temperatures will always be trying to reach an equilibrium (heat is always moving to a cooler area). With the rising price of energy and the destruction of the environment from non-renewable fuels, it is starting to be equitable to harvest this renewable resource.

The advantages of wind energy are that it’s virtually free (in case you purchase the equipment) and there is no pollution. The disadvantages include the fact it’s not a continuing source (the velocity varies and many times it is insufficient to produce electricity) and it typically requires about one acre of land.

How Wind Energy Works

The amount of power that is available varies by wind speed. The amount available is named it’s power density which is measured in watts per square meter. For that reason, the U.S. Department of Energy has separated wind energy into classes from 1 to 7. The typical wind speed for class 1 is 9.8 mph or less while the average for a class 7 is 21.1 or more. For effective power production, class 2 winds (11.5 mph average speed) are usually required.

Generally, wind speeds increase as you get higher above the Earth. For that reason, the standard wind turbine comes with a tower at least 30 feet above obstructions. That there are two basic different kinds of towers useful for residential wind power systems (free standing and guyed). Free standing towers are self supporting and are usually heavier meaning they take special equipment (cranes) to place them. Guyed towers are supported on a concrete base and anchored by wires for support. They typically are not as heavy and most manufacturer’s produce tilt down models which can be easily raised and lowered for maintenance.

The kinetic (moving energy) from the winds is harnessed by a device called a turbine. This turbine includes airfoils (blades) that capture the energy of the wind and use it to turn the shaft of an alternator (like you have on a car only bigger).

That there are two basic types of blades (drag style and lifting style). We all have seen pictures of traditional windmills with the large flat blades which are a good example of the drag style of airfoil. Lifting style blades are twisted instead of flat and resemble the propellor of a small airplane.

A turbine is classified as to whether it is designed to be installed with the rotor in a vertical or horizontal position and whether the wind strikes the blades or the tower first. A vertical turbine typically requires less land for it’s installation and is a much better option for the more urban areas around the globe. An upwind turbine is designed for the wind to impact the airfoils before it does the tower.

These units normally have a tail on the turbine which is needed to maintain the unit pointed into the wind. A downwind turbine doesn’t need a tail as the wind acting on the blades tends to keep it oriented properly.

These turbine systems would be damaged if they were to be allowed to turn at excessive speeds. Therefore, units should have automatic over-speed governing systems. Some systems use electrical braking systems while some use mechanical type brakes.

The output electricity from the alternator is sent to a controller which conditions it for use in the home. Using residential wind power systems requires the home to either remain tied to the utility grid or store electricity in a battery for use when the wind will not blow sufficiently.

When the home is linked with the grid, the surplus electricity that is created by the residential wind power system can be sold to the utility company in order to reduce or even eliminate your utility bill. During times with not enough wind, the home is supplied power from the utility company.

The Cost of Wind Energy

Small residential wind power turbines can be an attractive alternative, or addition, to those people needing more than 100-200 watts of power for their home, business, or remote facility. Unlike PV’s, which remain at basically a similar cost per watt independent of array size, wind generators get more affordable with increasing system size. At the 50 watt size level, for instance, a small residential power wind generator would cost about $8.00/watt when compared with approximately $6.00/watt for a Photo voltaic module.

That’s why, everything being equal, Photo voltaic is more affordable for very small loads. As the system size gets larger, however, this “rule-of-thumb” reverses itself.

At 300 watts the wind turbine costs are down to $2.50/watt, while the PV costs are still at $6.00/watt. For a 1,500 watt wind system the cost is down to $2.00/watt and at 10,000 watts the cost of a wind generator (excluding electronics) is down to $1.50/watt.

About the Author – Mary Jones writes for the residential wind power systems web log, her personal hobby blog focused entirely on ideas to reduce Carbon dioxide and lower energy costs using alternative power sources.

If you wish to read my complete Bio

More and more mainstream media are ignoring the health and economic risk – let alone the legacy – involved with nuclear power and appear to be backing an  already well-oiled propaganda machine of the nuclear industry, hell-bent on foisting dangerous technology on this country. Their published views DO NOT reflect the vast and irrefutable evidence against this heinous form of electricity generation. Here are two letters recently written to the Business Day newspaper to set the record straight which we trust the paper bothered to publish.

10 June 2010

The Editor

Business Day

Dear Sir

Two undated articles from your newspaper were recently forwarded to me. One was an otherwise reasonable article by Siseko Njobeni on the state of play in the IRP2 process, but which had a disturbing caption attached to its photograph: “There is little debate about the benefits of nuclear power … as the least carbon-generating  technology.” Apart from the constant privileging of nuclear power over other and cheaper viable technologies for electricity production that this prominent photograph suggests (and belied in the accompanying article), the very idea of “no debate” is reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher’s TINA: “There is No Alternative” – a Goebbelsian mantra, if ever there was one.

If your reporters had attended the recent Environmental Impact Assessments public meetings for the ill-starred “Nuclear-1”, they would have experienced an extremely robust and entirely hostile debate at all three sites. Indeed – with the rebirth of Earthlife Africa and the Koeberg Alert Alliance in Cape Town; the fierce resistance of the Save Bantamsklip campaign in the Overstrand; and the Thyspunt Alliance in the Kouga Municipality – one can honestly say that the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE) has come of age. It also currently enjoys the active support from the National Union of Mineworkers, the faith-based SAFCEI, and a clear mandate from the Civil Society Energy Caucus to represent its anti-nuclear interests to the IPR2 process.

More objectionable, however, both in its cynical, “embedded” tone and its uncritical content, is Sarah Wild’s “Science & Technology” column on the subject. Quoting (without making it clear) standard nuclear industry propaganda, Wild writes that “fewer than 50 people” died and guesstimates the overall cancers at 4 000 from the disaster at Chernobyl. According to the Russian newspaper Pravda of 16 December 2002, however –

A total area of 50 000 square kilometres covering 12 regions was contaminated in that awful tragedy. Over three million people, including about one million children are suffering [in 2002] from diseases of the respiratory airways, thyroid gland, etc., which rates are higher in the regions contaminated after the tragedy as compared with the whole of Ukraine. About 600 000 people participated in the clean-up … of Chernobyl: 200 000 of them were exposed to an enhanced radiation dose. These people will now need special medical aid and supervision for the rest of their lives.

Within the first ten years after the Chernobyl tragedy, about 168 000 people (out of the total number of 3.2 million … victims) died. It was later discovered that 4 300 died [immediately] as a result of the tragic consequences, about 3 000 of [these] fatalities were those who participated the clean-up. Those victims of the tragedy who remained alive registered a worsening of their health condition.

While the red herrings may be trotted out about for cars and jets and coal stations and farting cattle, the scientific facts are that the two principle by-products of nuclear fission – Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 – both have a half-life close to thirty years and therefore tend to accumulate in the environment over many decades. Even the otherwise extremely reluctant Air Specialist Study in the EIA for Nuclear-1 admits as much:

The methodology described in IAEA Safety Report No. 19 (IAEA 2001) was adopted in the estimation of inhalation and immersion dose….. The inventory of long-lived radionuclides builds up in the environment, with the result that exposures may increase as the discharge continues. [emphasis mine]

When I studied Eskom’s own Environmental Science Laboratory reports to the National Nuclear Regulator on emissions and effluents from Koeberg Nuclear Power Station,
the following amount of Strontium-90 was recorded in liquid effluents in Becquerels per year:
1994 =   53 600 000
1995 =      9 560 000
1997 =   15 100 000
2001 =      3 140 000
It follows, therefore, that there is a genuine risk from routine operations of nuclear power stations, and this was borne out in a number of peer-reviewed studies. Writing for Global Research, Ian Fairlie (2008) drew attention to the following:

Last year [2007], researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston carried out a meta-analysis of 17 research papers covering 136 nuclear sites in the UK, Canada, France, the US, Germany, Japan and Spain. The incidence of leukaemia in children under 9 living close to the sites showed an increase of 14 to 21 per cent, while death rates from the disease were raised by 5 to 24 per cent, depending on their proximity to the nuclear facilities (European Journal of Cancer Care, vol 16, p 355).
…
This was upstaged by the yet more surprising KiKK studies (a German acronym for Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants), whose results were published this year [i.e. in 2008] in the International Journal of Cancer (vol 122, p 721) and the European Journal of Cancer (vol 44, p 275). These found higher incidences of cancers and a stronger association with nuclear installations than all previous reports. The main findings were a 60 per cent increase in solid cancers and a 117 per cent increase in leukaemia among young children living near all 16 large German nuclear facilities between 1980 and 2003. The most striking finding was that those who developed cancer lived closer to nuclear power plants than randomly selected controls. Children living within 5 kilometres of the plants were more than twice as likely to contract cancer as those living further away, a finding that has been accepted by the German government.

I am normally convinced that Business Day conducts proper research in order to better inform its readers of investment potential in one business sector or another. I therefore think it would be equally helpful for the newspaper to engage in a more critical investigation into the dubious merits of electricity production from nuclear power stations before questioning the “viability” of its critics. We may not be financially viable (or even properly functional) as a lobbying group, but at least we do our homework.

Mike Kantey
National Chairman
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE)
www.cane.org.za
072 628 5131

Endnotes

Ian Fairlie (2008) “Reasonable Doubt: Children living near nuclear facilities face an increased risk of cancer” April 24, 2008 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8785)

A follow-up for your self-confessed “science” writer may be made through examining Chris Busby’s 2009 study: “Very Low Dose Fetal Exposure to Chernobyl Contamination Resulted in Increases in Infant Leukemia in Europe and Raises Questions about Current Radiation Risk Models” in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Volume 6. www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph]
Chris Busby et al (2006): A survey of cancer in the vicinity of Trawsfynydd nuclear power station in north wales Report 2006/3, Green audit Aberystwyth, June

Communities adjacent to nuclear facilities in the U.S. and U.K. have increased rates of leukemia and other childhood cancers (Cragle et al. 1988; Morris and Knorr 1996; Beral et al. 1993; Pobel and Viel 1997; Cardis et al. 2007).

Arjun Makhijani (2008): The Use of Reference Man in Radiation Protection Standards and Guidance with Recommendations for Change, December (Revision 1, April 2009). Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Takoma Park, Maryland

Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schultze-Rath R, et al. Leukemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer. 2008; 1220:721-726
Baker PJ, Hoel DG. Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities. Eur J Cancer Care. 2007:16:355-363
Laurier D, Jacob S, Bernier MO, et al. Epidemiological studies of leukemia in children and young adults around nuclear facilities: A critical review. Rad Prot Dosim. 2008; 132:182- 190
———————————————-

Sent:     Tuesday, June 08, 2010
To:     busday@bdfm.co.za
Subject: What’s on my plate in a nuclear future?

Dear Editor

What’s on my plate in a nuclear future?

Koeberg emits, by their own admission, ‘permitted levels of radioactive waste’ from their site. This means that radioactive isotopes (such as Cesium-137, Strontium-90 and Iodine-131) become part of the environment in which they are emitted. When we eat the crops, or, the animals that graze on effected vegetation, we take in substances that, are not only carcinogenic to our bodies,  but, will also change the characteristics of our DNA, and, by implication the DNA of future generations. Wind dispersion allows for emissions to be spread over vast areas.

With the government’s planned ‘fleet’ of nuclear power plants to be rolled out in SA, how much of our farming land will be effected?  Which European country will import radioactive fruit, or, wine? Avian flu (a mere virus) decimated sectors of economies in the world. We could face a blanket  ban on all our export produce. So, not only will our health be adversely effected by a nuclear future, but our economy too. If I was a farmer I would definitely be toy toying.

The latter will be nothing compared to a nuclear waste accident…  even if it is  minor.  Consider that every month we transport radio active waste from Koeberg to Vaal Puts in the Karoo for ‘safe storage’. Our road accident rate is high. It is only a matter of time before a transit vehicle, carrying the waste, is involved in an accident. High level waste remains at Koeberg – over 1 million killograms of it.  Why? There is no actual plan for disposal (ps this goes for nuclear waste worldwide). And, as far as procuring material to create nuclear energy is concerned, personally, I will not be applying for a mining position on any uranium mine in the near future… call me crazy if you like. Let us not be duped into thinking that there is anything clean about nuclear energy.

Most countries in the world are actively sourcing renewable energy solutions. Countries with no wind or sun to speak of (incl Germany and Denmark) generate substantial  amounts of electricity via renewable sources. Yet, SA is committing to generating nuclear energy in spite of clean alternatives that will cost less financially.

South Africans have been given one chance in Jhb, to participate in the IRP2 process. This ends 10  June 2010 (one day before kickoff date???). This is unacceptable, particularly since Capetonians sit with the ‘permitted emissions’ in our own backyard. I recently wrote a letter to local (CT) organic producers of diary products… “I know that your products are RBST free, but, are they free of radioactive isotopes”, to which the response has been… ‘this is a valid point, we are looking into it’. What if our food producers cannot supply us with raioactive isotope free produce? National health is already strained and just how many lawsuites can our government afford to take on?

Quite frankly, I find embracing a nuclear future to be just a tad unpalatable.

Your sincerely,

Jemimah Birch

Hout Bay
083 716 1010

The Department of Energy has finally issued the invitation for the much touted “broad consultation process” concerning its “IRP2” – basically the electricity / energy plan for this country for the next 20 years – a day BEFORE their deadline. This invitation arrived yesterday but that will not deter us from registering as stakeholders yet again to voice our opposition and reasons for opposition to the proposed inclusion of nuclear in the proposed energy mix for South Africa. But, WE NEED TO ACT QUICKLY.

For those who don’t know much about IRP2, there are web-links to articles on the IRP2 listed below to fill you in. But please ensure you register on the database of stakeholders ASAP for the pattern of recent times has shown that leaving it up to the next person or organisation, results in government turning its back on enlightened views to the detriment of this country’s future.

Over the past number of years we have relentlessly participated in all processes – EIAs, submissions to government or Parliament, presentations to energy regulators and policy makers, public hearings on energy policy etc only to find that pre-determined policies are riding rough-shod over democratic processes. Our petitions to the Speaker for Parliamentary debate over energy mix and nuclear policy have remained unheeded and indeed legislation enabling this lethal energy option has been Gazetted in spite of this. More recently the Energy Minister held a “nuclear stakeholders’” meeting in Cape Town to which she invited only ONE PERSON to represent the growing thousands of people in this country opposed to nuclear expansion while renewable alternative solutions remain the Cinderella option. Needless to say, his objections were dismissed and he was kicked out of the meeting.

You cannot allow the government to continue to be dismissive of whom it consults & recognise as stakeholders. Indeed the entire South African public is the biggest stakeholder!!

YOUR VOICE COUNTS. Please register! Help to drive the message that WE DO NOT WANT NUCLEAR ENERGY IN SOUTH AFRICA!

* * *

Herewith the invitation:

INVITATION TO REGISTER ON THE DATABASE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: IRP2

The Department of Energy hereby calls on all interested parties to register on its database of stakeholders for inclusion in the consultation process for the development of the IRP2 for Electricity 2010.

All interested residents, businesses, groups and sectors are requested to:

1.    Indicate their institution;

2.    Core business;

3.    Area of interest in the IRP;

4.    Preliminary position in their areas of interest; and

5.    Contact person/s and contact details

Interested parties are requested to submit the above-mentioned information to the office of the Director-General by the 20th April 2010. Such information may be faxed, emailed or posted.

Contact Person:

Ms Yolisa Mapekula

Department of Energy

Private Bag X 19

Arcadia

0007

Tel: 012- 444 4063

Fax: 012- 444 4505

Email: yolisa.mapekula@energy.gov.za

_____________________________________________________________________________

Some reading matter on the IRP2 and why your involvement is so important:

Cloud over power plan -Mar 19 2010

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-03-19-cloud-over-power-plan

Energy Department to publish IRP2 by June

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/maqubela-2010-02-24

Inter-Ministerial Committee gives nod to IRP2 consultation plan – 31 March 2010

http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2010/10040110051002.htm

Minister reassures business IRP2 will include broad consultation
April 7, 2010

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=552&fArticleId=5419352

Nuclear deal back on track-Mar 05 2010

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-03-05-nuclear-deal-back-on-track

SA outlines consultation process for 20-year energy plan

http://www.polity.org.za/print-version/sa-outlines-consultation-process-for-20-year-energy-plan-2010-04-01-1

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

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.

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

http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=279738

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

5 December 2008There is little reason for over optimism about Eskom’s decision today not to invest in foreign companies for the Nuclear-1 project plant while the government remains committed to its nuclear power programme. 

The Board of Eskom Holding Limited announced its decision on December 5 not to proceed with the proposed investment in Nuclear-1 project due to the magnitude of the investment. The proposed Nuclear 1 project would have resulted in the construction of the country’s second pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Koeberg Power Station is South Africa’s first and only nuclear power station. 

There remains a deliberate silence over the ill-conceived experimental Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) which has already cost taxpayers over R16 bn (some estimates put this figure closer to R32 bn), and the nuclear industry’s stated intention to re-launch uranium enrichment plant at Pelindaba and “reprocess” radioactive waste to fund nuclear power projects. 

The country stopped enriching uranium in 1997 following the dismantling of its apartheid-era nuclear weapons programme. 

Nuclear officials have repeatedly said they intend planting up to 36 PBMRs throughout South Africa and elsewhere in Africa and, we fear, intend to trade and traffic in radioactive waste to fund this. 

Already the mechanism exists for an untouchable and virtually privatised State-run business via a Radioactive Waste Management Agency, which was approved this year. 

Officials in the nuclear industry and Minerals & Energy have declared government’s intention to re-launch extremely hazardous and highly energy intensive uranium enrichment & reprocessing plans, and sold the notion by using words like “recycling”, “sustainable” and “renewable”.  The DME’s Nuclear Chief Tseliso Maqubela sold the idea to government last year by announcing that despite the hefty costs of building a uranium enrichment plant, its “profits are big”. 

The approved radioactive waste Smelters at Pelindaba await licensing despite long-standing  opposition for fear that these will be commercialised, leading to nuclear waste dumping by other nuclear countries on South Africa for profit.  

In addition, former Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin announced some time back that old Russian nuclear warheads will be “brought in to fuel the PBMRs”. 

Questions remain unanswered over the brazen “military-styled” attacks by two armed groups last November on the heavily guarded Pelindaba Complex which is stores hundreds of tons of weapons-grade radioactive spent uranium fuel (HEU) enough to build a dozen atomic bombs. International reports claim the attackers were after the HEU and had inside help. South Africa has been implicated in nuclear-trafficking rings in at least three trials in the recent past. 

South Africans can only rest once the nails are hammered into the coffin of the Nuclear Energy Bill, the PBMR and calls for South Africa to hand over its HEU for international safekeeping are heeded. 

(Below you’ll find some of the recent news reports on Eskom’s decision.) 

ISSUED BY: 

Dominique GilbertCoordinatorPELINDABA WORKING GROUP& member of the COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGYhttp://www.cane.org.za 

___________________________________ 

(A reflection of how inane the electricity debate here remains… not even a mention of who is really responsible for guzzling SA electricity, just a stupid prediction of ‘decades of darkness’…) 

SA set for decades of darkness 

December 06, 2008 Edition 1 

 by Thabiso Thakali, www.iol.co.za 

South Africa faces up to two decades of electricity crises after Eskom decided to pull the plug on the construction of a second nuclear power station, experts have warned. 

Eskom announced yesterday that it had decided not to proceed with the proposed building of its second nuclear power station because of the magnitude of the investment. 

Environmentalists called it a “watershed moment” in South Africa’s history of energy supply, but energy experts said it meant the electricity crisis was going to remain in the country for at least the next 15 to 20 years. 

Andrew Kenny, an independent energy expert, said the decision means South Africans will have to keep their candles handy for many more years. 

“We are already struggling with a very low reserve margin and they(Eskom) are basically telling us that we will run out of capacity again in the near future.” 

Kenny said although capital costs for building a nuclear power station were higher than those for a coal-fired power station, it would cost less to run and maintain such a plant considering it would last longer than a coal-fired plant. 

However, Tristen Taylor, a policy officer with Earthlife Africa, said by cancelling its plans to build a new reactor Eskom has saved the country from “economic ruin”. 

Eskom spokesman Tony Stott said the decision did not mean Eskom would no longer consider building nuclear power stations. 

“We now have a downturn in the economy which means we have a leeway of about 12 to 18 months in terms of how quickly we need to build power stations as per the projections made,” he said. 

“And in terms of government’s nuclear policy and commitments to the Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative of SA (AsgiSA) government wanted more local companies to take part in the project.” 

He said the decision would have no implications for the development of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). But he warned that the electricity grid would remain tight going forward unless consumption levels were reduced by the required 10%. 

Stott said the government and Eskom would now review a 4% projection growth on electricity demand given that a lot of manufacturing companies had now indicated they would cut down on their production. 

Eskom had hoped to raise R300 billion for its expansion programme in the next five years but according to Stott, the utility’s balance sheet is not strong enough to handle this scale of spending. 

This is largely because, Stott added, Eskom was unable to get the 60% electricity tariff hikes earlier this year. “Rating agencies downgraded us and therefore we couldn’t get the money we hoped to raise,” he said. 

As part of its long-term plans to double its generation capacity by 2025, Eskom had hoped the first of the proposed nuclear power plants would add about 3 500 megawatts of capacity to its grid. 

Koeberg power station is the only nuclear power station and two groups of companies led by French company Areva and US-based Westinghouse were bidding for the construction of the proposed plant. 

Serge Lafont, Areva South Africa chairman, said the company was disappointed by Eskom’s decision even though he said they remained committed to being Eskom’s partner in the future. 

“You must understand that when we put up the bid we did so with intent to win,” he said. “So this is like a loss to us but that is the nature of life. Government has said it is still willing to continue with nuclear as part of its energy mix therefore we remain hopeful that we will still be Eskom’s partner.”………………………………………… 

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fSetId=262&fArticleId=4747885 

Nuclear powers on without Eskom
December 5, 2008

Johannesburg – South Africa remains committed to its nuclear power programme despite Eskom’s decision not to proceed with the construction of a second nuclear power plant, a government official said on Friday.

“The South African government remains committed to introducing nuclear because we have to deal with our carbon footprint and we have to diversify our energy mix,” Portia Molefe, director general at the Department of Public Enterprises told Reuters and other reporters present at the announcement.

Sapa reported that Eskom will not proceed with its proposed investment in the Nuclear-1 project due to the magnitude of the sum involved, the parastatal said on Friday.

The proposed Nuclear 1 project would have resulted in the construction of the country’s second pressurised water reactor nuclear power plant.
Koeberg Power Station is South Africa’s first and only nuclear power station.

Eskom said that, as a result, it has also terminated the tender process to select the preferred bidder for the construction of the Nuclear-1 project.

The two bidders, the EPR consortium led by Areva of France and the N-Powerment consortium led by Westinghouse of the USA, have been informed of Eskom’s decision.

“The board has expressed its appreciation to the two bidders for their interest in the Eskom build programme, and in particular their desire to participate in the nuclear industry in South Africa,” said Eskom chief executive Jacob Maroga.

“We were impressed by their professionalism throughout the bid process.” – Sapa and Reuters 

ESKOM NOT IN A POSITION TO INVEST IN NUCLEAR 

The Board of Eskom Holding Limited announced today its decision not to proceed with the proposed investment in Nuclear-1 project due to the magnitude of the investment. The proposed Nuclear 1 project would have resulted in the construction of the country’s second pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Koeberg Power Station is South Africa’s first and only nuclear power station. 

The proposed Nuclear 1 project would have resulted in the construction of the country’s second pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Koeberg Power Station is South Africa’s first and only nuclear power station. 

The Eskom Board has, as a result, terminated the commercial procurement process to select the preferred bidder for the construction of the Nuclear-1 project. The two bidders, the EPR consortium led by Areva of France and the N-Powerment consortium led by Westinghouse of the USA, have been informed of this decision of the Eskom Board. 

“The Board has expressed its appreciation to the two bidders for their interest in the Eskom build programme, and in particular their desire to participate in the nuclear industry in South Africa. We were impressed by their professionalism throughout the bid process. We thank them for their patience and understanding during the past few months”, says Mr Jacob Maroga, Chief Executive of Eskom Holdings Limited.ENDS