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
AS NEW EVIDENCE COMES TO LIGHT ABOUT FAULTY NUCLEAR FACILITY VENTILATION FILTERS…..
MEDIA STATEMENT: 2 April 2009
Is the unabated greed associated with South Africa’s scandalous Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) nuclear experiment the real reason for Pretoria’s “disgraceful” decision to withhold a visa from the Dalai Lama, the anti-nuclear Pelindaba Working Group asked in a statement today?
Having failed after 10 years of taxpayer funding – and now 10 times over budget – to produce a safe PBMR to generate electricity in South Africa, the PBMR Company has now teamed up with their Chinese nuclear counterparts to cause great international embarrassment merely to foist its nuclear agenda on this country rather than scrapping the project.
The ink on this nuclear agreement is barely dry yet nuclear authorities are trying to push through amendments to the Record of Decision (RoD) on the new scaled-up PBMR nuclear fuel factory at Pelindaba seeking an “exemption” from an environmental impact study for a radioactive waste incinerator to “reprocess” spent fuel. This, in spite of there being no final design or safety approval for the PBMRs failed technology.
It seems our nuclear industry have no scruples and will stop at nothing.
Lengthy documents submitted to the Environment Minister on the RoD amendment yesterday provided new evidence that High-Efficiency Particulate Air filters, commonly known as HEPA filters, to be used in the fuel plant have inherent vulnerabilities that are potentially catastrophic.
In declarations currently before a U.S. District Court in Northern California, evidence of veteran U.S. nuclear scientist Marian M. Fulk states HEPA filters won’t protect public health or workers.
Fulk says in his declarations authorities have relied “on unduly optimistic assertions about HEPA filters” derived from an internal lab report that has never been made publicly available and is now “missing from the Administrative Record”.
“There is a wealth of peer-reviewed, credible and publicly-available expert data on the efficiencies of and problems associated with HEPA filters. Therefore, the omission of this information and any detailed analysis of HEPA filter deficiencies…is both baffling and inexcusable,” Fulk says in his declaration under oath.
HEPA filters are all that stands between the radioactive materials inside many a nuclear installation and the surroundings outside of these facilities and is the best the world has to offer. Yet the risk inherent in the vulnerabilities of HEPA filters is potentially catastrophic, even under “best operating conditions”, says Fulk.
They are fitted in the ventilation applications of every one of South Africa’s nuclear facilities, existing and proposed – including Koeberg and Pelindaba.
At which point will authorities in this country say we’ve had enough secretive manipulation from the nuclear industry agenda? Or are the vested interests for some worthy of the huge risks involved, including a snub of the Tibetan spiritual leader the Tibetan government in exile blames on “intense pressure” from China?
Issued by:Dominique Gilbert
Coordinator
PELINDABA WORKING GROUP& member of the nationalCOALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGYTel: 012 – 205 1125Cell: 083 740 4676EMail: pelindabanonukes@gmail.com
PLEASE NOTE: Fulk’s declarations can be forwarded to those who are interested. In them, this is how he describes his right to a view on HEPA filters:
“I am a Chemical Physicist, retired from the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 1984, where I served 18 years as a staff scientist in chemical physics and material sciences. At LLNL most of my work was classified, but it included the study of radioactive rainout and aerosols; their dynamics, initiation and growth. At LLNL, I studied problems associated with aerosolized particles and their capture by High Efficiency Particulate Air filters, commonly called HEPA filters. I also studied various toxic and radioactive materials including uranium and plutonium. I have worked professionally on these issues for the University of California and the Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies, including the Atomic Energy Commission, since my work at the University of Chicago where I conducted research on biological systems beginning in 1945.”
SA, China PBMR projects to cooperate By: Keith Campbell
Published: 30 Mar 09 South Africa’s Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) company has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with its Chinese counterparts, the Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology (INET) of Tsinghua University and the Chinergy company. INET and Chinergy are also developing PBMR technology.
The MoU is intended to encourage cooperation in specific areas of common interest, both strategic and technical, concerning both countries’ PBMR projects, to create opportunities regarding the commercialisation of the technology in the future, and to reinforce the supply chains in both countries.
PBMR technology was originaly developed in Germany and subsequently licensed to both South Africa and China, each country further developing the concept, although in somewhat (but not fundamentally) different directions.
The Chinese, unlike the South Africans, actually have an operational PBMR reactor, although it is only a small – 10 MW (thermal) – research unit. Located at INET in Beijing, it is the only operational PBMR in the world, and was started in December 2000, achieving full power in January 2003.
The main difference between the two PBMR projects is that the Chinese will use an indirect cycle, steam turbine system for their commercial-scale demonstration plant, while the South Africans have been developing a direct cycle, gas turbine system.
The Chinese demonstration plant will comprise two 250 MW (thermal) reactor modules and a 210 MW (electric) steam turbine generator set.
However, recently, the South Africans have started developing technology for indirect cycle, steam turbine systems, as a result of increasing interest in process heat and co-generation applications for the PBMR.
This means that the South African programme is now converging with the Chinese, creating more synergies between them. This became very clear at an international high temperature reactor (HTR) conference in Washington, DC, in December.
This was followed, earlier this year, by a visit to South Africa by representatives of INET and Chinergy, who, with their local counterparts, worked out the framework for cooperation.
The PBMR is an HTR design and is so named because its fuel is in the form of spheres. These take the form of enriched uranium oxide coated with silicon carbide and pyrolytic carbon, in turn encased by graphite. The resulting sphere is about the size of a billiard ball.
A fully-loaded PBMR reactor core would contain some 450 000 fuel spheres. Because of its design and and the nature of its fuel, it will be possible to remove spent fuel spheres from the bottom of the PBMR, and feed fresh fuel spheres in at the top, while the reactor is running.
In other designs, the reactor has to be shut down for refuelling to take place.Copyright Creamer Media (Pty) Ltd. All rights reserved.
Dalai Lama’s South Africa conference ban causes uproar
By Chris McGreal in Johannesburg guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 March 2009 18.33 GMT Two of South Africa’s Nobel peace prize winners, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and FW de Klerk, have pulled out of a Johannesburg conference to fight racism after what they branded as Pretoria’s “disgraceful” decision to ban the Dalai Lama from attending following Chinese pressure.The Nobel peace prize committee also said it would boycott this Friday’s conference, which is dedicated to tackling racism ahead of the 2010 World Cup.The row threatens to draw in Nelson Mandela, who, with his fellow South African laureates, invited the Tibetan spiritual leader, and further embarrasses South Africa, which has been accused of squandering its moral authority since ending apartheid by blocking UN security council moves to pressure rogue governments in Burma and Zimbabwe.Tutu, who won the prize for his resistance to white rule, told Johannesburg’s Sunday Independent newspaper he will not attend the conference to discuss how to use the World Cup preparations to combat racism and xenophobia if the Tibetan spiritual leader is not present.“If His Holiness’s visa is refused, then I won’t take part in the coming 2010 World Cup-related peace conference. I will condemn [the] government’s behaviour as disgraceful, in line with our country’s abysmal record at the United Nations security council, a total betrayal of our struggle’s history,” he said.“We are shamelessly succumbing to Chinese pressure. I feel deeply distressed and ashamed.”The FW de Klerk Foundation, established by South Africa’s last white president, said it would also pull out of the conference, albeit reluctantly.“South Africa is a sovereign constitutional democracy and should not allow other countries to dictate to it regarding who it should and should not admit to its territory,” the foundation said in a statement.“Mr De Klerk has been in touch with Archbishop Tutu and identifies himself with the views that he has expressed with regard to the refusal of the South African government to grant a visa to the Dalai Lama.”The Norwegian Nobel peace prize committee also condemned the South African decision.“It is impossible for us to be part of an event where one of the main participants is not able to enter the country,” said Geir Lundestad, the committee’s secretary.The Tibetan government in exile in India today blamed “intense pressure” from China, which has become one of South Africa’s largest trading partners. The claim was apparently confirmed by the Chinese embassy in Pretoria, where the minister counsellor, Dai Bing, was quoted as telling the South African media that his government had warned that allowing the Tibetan spiritual leader to attend the conference would damage bilateral relations.But the South African government denied its decision had anything to do with Beijing. It said the Dalai Lama had been refused a visa because his presence would draw attention away from the World Cup preparations.Thabo Masebe, the spokesman for the president, Kgalema Motlanthe, said the conference organisers had not consulted the government before inviting the Tibetan leader.“We in the South African government have not invited the Dalai Lama to visit South Africa, because it would not be in the interests of South Africa,” he said. “The attention of the world is on South Africa because of it being the host country for the 2010 World Cup, and we wouldn’t want anything to distract from that.”Pretoria has shied away from the Tibetan leader before. Ten years ago, South Africa’s then president, Thabo Mbeki, said he was too busy for a one-to-one meeting with the Dalai Lama.The actors Morgan Freeman, who is to play Mandela in a new film, and Charlize Theron, a South African, are also due to attend the conference.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/dalai-lama-south-africa-world-cup-ban
Press Release: Earthlife Africa Jhb 18th of Feb. 2009
With the PBMR Company seeking to redesign the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) to focus more on heat applications, it is imperative to note that disadvantages of continuing with the PBMR remain.
The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor has become a black hole for public funds. The costs involved in the PBMR saga are illustrative of the financial risks inherent in nuclear power in general.
In 1999, the PMBR (165MW capacity) construction costs were budgeted at R2 billion. By 2005, these construction costs had risen by a factor of seven, to R14 billion without a single PBMR being constructed. These costs do not include the decommissioning costs, which will be considerable.
Based upon the 2008 Environmental Impact Assessment for the PBMR Demonstration Reactor and the decommissioning costs for of the predecessor to the PBMR-the German AVR-the costs to decommission a single PBMR range from R1.5 billion to R70 billion. It is nearly impossible, due to the lifespan of the reactor and the variable rates of contamination, to be more exact than this. Hence, the decommissioning costs of the PBMR are uncertain and could incur a heavy burden on future generations, absorbing funds for vital social programmes.
An additional expense will be the waste storage costs, which are impossible to calculate due to the long-term nature of storing waste; for example, uranium-235 has a half-life of 704 million years, plutonium-239 a half-life of 24,110 years, and caesium a half-life of 30.2 years. These kinds of timeframes defy economic planning, and, given our pressing social needs, should not be entertained.
The costs for the PBMR are not efficient in terms of power generation. For example, Eskom is seeking finance of R5 billion to build a concentrated solar plant (100MW) in the Northern Cape; R14 billion for 165MW or R5 billion for 100MW capacity, economic sense favours the solar plant. This also excludes the costs associated with the security apparatus necessary for the PMBR.
Nuclear materials and equipment need to be protected and highly regulated, due to the threat of contamination and theft. The consequences of radioactive material in the hands on malicious organisations could have profoundly negative consequences and has to be avoided at all costs. While currently unquantifiable at this stage, these security costs will be passed onto the state and are unique to nuclear power. Other forms of energy generation (including heat generation) do not require these increased security costs.
No matter how much the PBMR Company and the Department of Minerals and Energy seek to spin the matter, the PBMR has been a waste of vital public funds and will continue to be so until abandoned.
For more information, please contact:
Tristen Taylor
Energy Policy Officer
Earthlife Africa-Johannesburg Branch
Tel: +27 11 339 3662
Fax: +27 11 339 3270
Cell: +27 84 250 2434
Email: tristen@earthlife.org.za
Makoma Lekalakala
Programme Officer
Earthlife Africa Jhb
Tel: +27 11 339 3662
Fax: +27 11 339 3270
Cell: +27 82 682 9177
Email: makomaphil@gmail.com
South Africa’s nuclear industry want to try to get the PBMR fuel ROD amended yet again – with the third or fourth new set of Environmental Consultants appointed – each one more driven than the last to get through the public comment period as fast as possible & drive the process using the new legal loopholes as far as we will allow them.
- The fuel manufacture is happening at Pelindaba but is another step towards the PBMR being built – so please mobilize country wide communities to lodge objections to the increased quantity of fuel (originally the ROD was given for the 110 MW PBMR) now they want to increase that to allow for the increased fuel for the new PBMR.
- They also want to include a (small) radioactive incinerator smelter and are asking for an EIA exemption.
- They are also asking for a change in wording of the ROD already issued (so that it is clear what the requirements are)
This falls into the grand scheme of things the State wants to do & includes:
1. Complete the PBMR Environment Impact Report and achieve a positive Record of Decision before the elections.
2. Continue with the EIAs for Nuclear-1 at Bantamsklip, Thyspunt and Koeberg up to an including a positive Record of Decision
3. Continue with the EIAs for infrastructure (Roads and Powerlines, included), so that there will be NO LEGAL OPPOSITION when the time comes to impose their will.
4. Spend several more billion rand on the PBMR (Pty) Ltd Company.
URGENTLY please take a few minutes TODAY before the 13th February 2009 to register as an Interested and Affected Person (I&AP) with Strategic Environmental Management Consultants about an application to amend the Record of Decision (ROD) for the PBMR Nuclear Fuel Plant at Pelindaba.
Public comment starts on 16th FEB closes 18th March 2009 but you need to register TODAY and ask for relevant documentation to be sent to you.
The contact is Sean O’ Beirne
PO Box 100339
Moreleta Plaza
0167
sobeirne@sesolutions.co.za
0829039751
ANYONE MAY REGISTER & IS URGED TO DO SO IF YOU WISH TO PLAY YOUR PART IN PUTTING AN END TO THE PBMR PROJECT .
Regards
Dominique Gilbert
Coordinator
PELINDABA WORKING GROUP
& member of the national
COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY
Tel: 012 – 205 1125
Cell: 083 740 4676
South Africa’s Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica said on Tuesday the government would ensure the country would have enough power supply by 2018 despite a postponement of its nuclear expansion programme.
South Africa expects its next nuclear power plant to come on stream by 2019, two years later than initially planned by utility Eskom , which has dropped plans to build the facility due to financial woes.
“The next nuclear power plant has been postponed. Measures are in place to ensure that there will be no electricity shortage by 2018,” Sonjica said at Africa’s biggest mining conference in Cape Town.
“I want to stress …the nuclear project has been postponed, not abandoned.”
