So now we have it: the cost of Nuclear 1 is “over R300 billion” (African Energy News Review quoting Eskom’s CEO Jacob Maroga.) not R100-120bn as first mentioned.
For R300bn you could fund the entire Inga III 4500MW hydroelectric scheme, 3000 MW of wind power,1600MW of solar thermal concentrator with salt storage, 5000MW of capacity displacement by solar water heaters and have a few Rbillion change for an upgrade of the distribution.
Nuclear1, 2, 3 would take up almost the entire Eskom budget of R1.3 trillion to 2025.
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.”
A former operator at the uranium enrichment plant at Valindaba, west of Pretoria, believes he contracted multiple myeloma (cancer of the blood plasma) while on duty and is thus entitled to workman’s compensation.
Tilman Roux (62) claimed that the cancer might be related to his being exposed to radiation while he worked at the plant about 30 years ago.
The Compensation Commissioner (CC), however, earlier turned down Roux’s application on the ground that his illness was not work-related.
On Tuesday, Roux will head for the Pretoria High Court for an order to either declare that he is entitled to compensation or to force the CC to properly consider his application.
Roux also wants the Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA (Necsa) to make information available to the office of the CC to enable it to investigate the circumstances under which he worked at the plant. These include the radiation levels in the plant during the time he worked there, as well as records of all incidents and accidents relevant to his claim.
Roux said he was diagnosed with cancer last year and was told by his doctor that it might be related to exposure to ionising radiation. He said his only exposure to such radiation was when he was employed at Valindaba between 1974 and 1982.
“My condition has steadily worsened from June last year and I am now experiencing excruciating pain, for which I require high doses of morphine.
“I was advised by my doctor that my condition will become terminal unless I receive immediate treatment in the form of chemotherapy and stem cell transplant,” Roux stated in court papers.
Man seeks compensation for cancer
December 19, 2008
PRETORIA: A 62-year-old former operator at the uranium enrichment plant at Valindaba, west of Pretoria, who has multiple Myeloma (cancer of the blood plasma), believes that he contracted the illness while on duty and is entitled to workman’s compensation.
Tilman Roux said the cancer might be related to him being exposed to radiation while he was working at the plant 30 years ago.
The Compensation Commissioner, however, earlier turned down Roux’s application on the ground that his illness was not work related. Roux will ask the Pretoria High Court on Tuesday for either an order declaring that he is entitled to compensation or that the commission be ordered to properly consider his application.
Roux also wants the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa to make information available to the commission to enable it to investigate the circumstances under which he had worked at the plant.
These include the radiation levels in the plant during the time he worked there and records of all incidents and accidents which may be relevant to his claim.
Roux said when he was diagnosed with cancer last year was told by his doctor that it might be related to exposure to ionising radiation. He said his only exposure to ionising radiation was between 1974 and 1982 when he was employed at Valindaba. – Mercury Correspondent http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4767721
COMMENT:
We are grateful that finally there is a case now before the courts involving the shoddy treatment of former nuclear workers at Pelindaba Complex. If the truth be known, there are over 500 ill former workers who have approached the environmental justice organisation Earthlife Africa seeking assistance for compensation. Their former employers have held back medical and work records in many cases and even denied knowledge of some of these workers – this despite the fact that many worked for sub-contractors to the nuclear plant but were required to comply with all the normal security regulations.
There continue to be any number of these workers who, according to an Occupational Health medical practitioner who incidentally helped write the relevant legislation, believes they qualify for compensation. Yet, their former employers have white-washed the findings of the doctor’s study, and the Compensation Commissioner appears to have turned down their applications. Government officials have promised to help these people but to date no-one has. At last count, well over 20 of those former workers who came forward for assistance two years ago have now died.
Many of these people tell gruelling stories. Let’s hope the truth will out before it is too late – not only for the workers but also the surrounding populations. Nuclear waste, ionizing radiation and the emissions and pollution from normal operations (excluding accidents) is already deadly enough to cause long term harm which in many cases takes years to manifest. Then it’s too late.
Dominique Gilbert
Coordinator
PELINDABA WORKING GROUP
& member of the national
COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY
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
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
To order the documentary "Buried in Earthskin" Please Click Here
Cost is R120 plus postage (within South Africa)
Archives
Join CANE its SANE !!! CANE is a growing group of Organisations, NGOs, Environmental Groups, Communities and Citizens from all over South Africa who are opposed to Nuclear Energy as a Power Source.
"Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world." --- Eleanor Roosevelt
Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:truthout: Document Reveals Military Was Concerned About Gulf War Vets' Exposure to Depleted Uranium‘For years, the government has denied that depleted uranium (DU), a radioactive toxic waste left over from nuclear fission and added to munitions used in the Persian Gulf and Iraq wars, poisoned Iraqi civi […]
The short answer: not likely.In fact, not only will they not be likely to come ‘clean’, but today we are releasing fresh evidence that Sinar Mas’s notorious forest destroying practices continue unabated and in direct violation of the company’s own environmental commitments on protecting forests and peatlands.Sinar Mas is Indonesia’s largest palm oil, and pul […]
Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:Press TV: Bushehr nuclear plant ready by Sept.?‘Iran's first nuclear power plant in Bushehr will come on stream in the southern city of Bushehr by September generating 1,000 megawatts of electricity, officials say. Iranian Energy Minister Majid Namjou made the remark Tuesday on the sidelines of the inau […]
Aurthur JD writes from Dalian in China...I arrived in Dalian on the day of the funeral for firefighter Zhang Liang, who drowned beneath the thick crude when his crew jumped into the ocean – without safety gear – to attempt, in vain, to fix an underwater pipe. Our lead photographer, Jiang He, who by now has reached legendary status globally for capturing the […]
It seems there are oil spills and oil leaks everywhere recently - not just in the Gulf. And as BP decides to replace one CEO with another -- it's becoming clear that changing one oil company's leader is not really enough. The problem isn't just Tony Hayward and it's not just BP. Dangerous offshore drilling is happening all over the world […]
Greenpeace International Executive Director, Kumi Naidoo, writes:I wanted to share with the broader Greenpeace family a small piece of my recent time with Dorothy Stowe.I feel deeply blessed that I had the opportunity to meet Dorothy Stowe last month for brunch at her home in Vancouver, to which she also invited other people from the early Greenpeace years, […]
