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
- Government still supports nuke plans & its nuke industry is likely to turn to dangerous tactics like U-enrichment & radioactive waste to fund its ambitions
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
Please sign this petition and alert your friends.
|
|
- New President Kgalema Motlanthe has yet to be briefed
11 November 2008
Opponents of the Nuclear Energy Policy are hereby notified to back calls for an urgent Parliamentary debate because the Bill has completely by-passed the National Assembly.
Five days to complete plenaries remain and the Bill is expected to be gazetted sometime this November.
In a letter to the Speaker of Parliament urging for this debate, CANE chairman Mike Kantey wrote: ”The future of this country, Madame Speaker, depends on your and your party’s accurate assessment of the popular mood and we believe that, if you refuse to accept such a debate on nuclear power at this precise time, it will send a clear signal to the masses of people who were promised a “better life for all” in the 1990s. “We do not believe that spending over R1-trillion on a nuclear strategy will be compatible with combating rampant crime and HIV/AIDS, delivering basic services to the poorest of the poor (including refugees!), and developing a sound and affordable education, health and public transport system. “We therefore appeal once again to heed the Honourable Member’s call for an open debate on nuclear policy.”
In his letter to the Speaker on 5 November reiterating his call for nuclear debate in Parliament, the DA’s Gareth Morgan said that the Policy had recently been completed by the Minerals and Energy Department despite having received no input from the country’s MPs.
“It betrays many of the principles of the 1998 Energy White Paper, which clearly states the ‘government will ensure that decisions to construct new nuclear power stations are taken within the context of an integrated energy policy planning process, with due consideration given to all relevant legislation, and the process subject to structured participation and consultation with all stakeholders’, Morgan wrote.
The Pelindaba Working Group said the Bill is NOT a democratically produced policy. Mbeki’s Cabinet had made a unilateral decision to approve the Policy. A draft was submitted for public comment – none of which were ever made public and many not even acknowledged by the DME or it Nuclear Chief Tseliso Maqubela who maintained most submissions were “pro”.
Maqubela had failed to respond to several challenges over his contentious statements and simply ignored numerous lengthy submissions and calls for an all-inclusive summit on the issue.
During the public hearings on the National Energy Bill in August, DME officials maintained the National Energy Policy was not on the Parliamentary schedule for this year and was in abeyance until next year. So when was this Policy approved? Has it been written into law? What, if any, announcements were ever made?
A nuclear industry website announced the Bill will be gazetted this November.
Even new South African President Kgalema Motlanthe has yet to be briefed on the new nuclear build programme. This was admitted to journalists in Pretoria by Minerals Minister Buyelwa Sonjica yesterday. She blamed this on the recent political upheaval and added that the nuclear project was still enjoying top priority.
Asked if the current economic turmoil would delay the project, Sonjica said that the impact of the financial meltdown’s effect on the local economy would be investigated, and a solution, if needed, “would be found”.
If ever there an issue that warrants focus in the coming election campaigns, this is it!!
Members are urged to contact their MPs to lobby for this debate and against the adoption of the Nuclear Energy Policy.
| Call to put nuke policy to Parliament |
| The new national nuclear policy which the government will reportedly gazette before the end of this month has completely bypassed Parliament and ordinary MPs have not had any input into its formulation, says the opposition DA.
It is now asking the Speaker to place the policy on Parliament’s agenda. The move coincides with concern by some “interested and affected parties” that they are still not being given enough time to respond to the environmental impact assessment report for the controversial Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) “mini” nuclear demonstration project that Eskom wants to build at Koeberg. The already-extended deadline for comment is Friday. DA environment spokesperson Gareth Morgan said the government’s announcement of its preferred bidder to construct a new conventional nuclear power station – “Nuclear 1″, the first of what is expected to be a series of new conventional nuclear facilities in addition to the PBMR project – was “imminent”.Also, the “National Nuclear Policy for the Republic of South Africa” recently completed by the Minerals & Energy department, was apparently about to be published in the Government Gazette, despite having received no input from the country’s MPs, said Morgan. “Therefore a debate on the matter is crucial.” The process of formulating the new policy had been entirely driven by the Cabinet, he added. “It betrays many of the principles of the 1998 Energy White Paper, which clearly states the ‘government will ensure that decisions to construct new nuclear power stations are taken within the context of an integrated energy policy planning process, with due consideration given to all relevant legislation, and the process subject to structured participation and consultation with all stakeholders’. “It’s true there’s an energy crisis in South Africa and increased generation from nuclear may very well have a role to play in South Africa’s energy future.” But Morgan said there were serious issues that needed to be addressed. These included the true costs of nuclear power generation and its effects on tariffs. · This article was originally published on page 5 of Cape Argus on November 07, 2008 Source: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=vn20081107114953731C601440 |
|
Ironically, Necsa invites tenders for coal supply
By: Matthew Hill
Published: 7 Sep 07 – 10:06
South Africa’s nuclear research and development body, the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa), has invited tenders for companies to supply it with coal.
Strange as it may sound at surface value, given that this is a nuclear corporation, Necsa’s need for coal is explained by the steam-producing boilers that it uses to supply its factories, in Pelindaba, near Hartebeestport dam.
Procurement head Johan Deetleefs said that Necsa consumed, on average, 230 t of coal a month.
The closing date for tenders was September 17.
South Africa is embarking on a nuclear drive, which could see five new nuclear power stations built in the next twenty years.
The country’s only existing nuclear power station is at Koeburg, near Cape Town, which has two reactors.
Source: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=116425
