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

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

Say no to Eskom's Proposed Nuclear Reactors

ESKOM – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA: 12/12/20/944) FOR

A PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE

REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD

As previously announced, an opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report commenced on 06 March 2010 with a closing date of 10 May 2010 (a 66-day comment period). During the meetings held as part of the public review, various Interested and Affected Parties requested an extension of the review period.

After due consideration of the requests and legal requirements, it has been decided that the comment period will be extended by an additional 21 days. The closing date for comment is now 31 May 2010. You are, therefore, afforded the opportunity to use the extended period to further review the report and submit any additional comments.

On behalf of the EIA Project Team, I should like to thank all those who have attended public meetings and Key Stakeholder Feedback Meetings held during the period 23 March – 21 April 2010, those who have already submitted comments on the Draft EIA Report and those who will take further time to review the reports and submit comments.

For additional information, please contact: Bongi Shinga or Dalene Murie at:

E-mail: nuclear1@acerafrica.co.za l  PO Box 503, Mtunzini, 3867 l Tel: 086 010 4958  l  Fax: 035 340 2232

Kind regards.

Yours sincerely

Ms Bongi Shinga

Public Participation Team

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

All charges against the three activists from the APF and Earthlife who were assaulted, arrested and subsequently charged with public violence and resisting arrest at yesterday’s NERSA hearings, have been unconditionally dropped by the state prosecutor. The dropping of the charges came after the activists were kept locked up in police custody for over eight hours.

None of this comes as a surprise to either the APF or Earthlife since there was no ‘case’ against the activists in the first place. Indeed, the only case to answer is that emanating from the completely outrageous conduct of the SA Police Services, which has unfortunately become a hallmark of many police actions at events and protests involving community organisations. The APF and Earthlife – alongside other community organisations and social movements – will continue to vigorously oppose ESKOM’s application for multiple electricity tariff increases. We will not be silenced!

For further comment/information contact: Ferrial Adam of Earthlife on

0741813197

This morning, the NERSA public hearing into ESKOM’s application for tariff increases got underway at Gallagher Estate in Midrand. Both Earthlife and the APF were present, having made written submissions and requests for presentations in opposition to ESKOM’s application. Not long after proceedings began, a small group of Earthlife activists silently placed several posters on the walls inside the venue. Almost immediately, Gallagher Estate’s private security personnel arrived and tore down all the posters, whilst forcibly escorting those activists identified as the ‘perpetrators’, outside the venue. They then locked the doors and when a larger group of APF activists arrived, refused them (alongside the Earthlife activists already outside) entry.

Despite repeated attempts by these activists to point out the public nature of the hearing, and thus their right to attend, the private security personnel continued to lock them out. When the gathered activists then started toyi-toying, the SA Police Services were called. Three of the APF/Earthlife activists tried to reason with the police and to inform them of their democratic right to participate in the public hearing going on inside the building. The police then assaulted, arrested and hauled them off to the Midrand police station where they were charged with public violence and resisting arrest. The names of the three activists are Makoma Lekalakala, Mashao Chauke and Nomaliza Xhoma. At present they are being held at the Midrand police station while a lawyer engaged by Earthlife and the APF continues attempts to get the charges dropped.

For further comment/information contact: Ferrial Adam of Earthlife on

0741813197

21 January 2010

CANE is a coalition of organizations and individuals opposed to the use of nuclear power in South Africa.

CANE opposes Eskom’s proposed electricity tariff increases based on the information and policy given in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2009 Preliminary Report. The National Energy Act (2008) requires the Minister of Energy “to provide “any data and information reasonably required for the purposes of conducting analysis required for energy planning from any person”. A small extract from the IRP was gazetted on 31 December 2009 and covers the period 2009-2013. It is clear from the Preliminary Report that almost all of the analysis and planning was done by Eskom. This is explicitly stated: “in the absence of a…state-driven governance process for the development of the IRP, the IRP was developed predominantly by Eskom…”[1]. This raises a conflict of interest. Eskom should contribute to the IRP but should not be driving it. The Department of Energy has undertaken to initiate a process of reviewing IRP 1 to allow for consultation with stakeholders, due to commence in January 2010[2], so we trust that we and other organizations and individuals will be consulted in the drafting of a more balanced, policy-driven IRP 2.

IRP 1 is based on the assumption that “[electricity] demand growth is expected to…average 3.2% a year over the 20-year planning horizon.”[3] 3.2% compounded annually implies a doubling of capacity over the 20-year period. The assumption that demand grows relentlessly and that the response is to provide ever more capacity is like putting the demand cart before the policy horse and this is going to be economically and environmentally unsustainable whether it is funded by price increases, borrowing or taxes. The limits to growth set by resource depletion and environmental destruction are already upon us. Cheap fossil fuel, which has powered industrial growth from the start of the industrial revolution up to now, is coming to an end, if it has not done so already. The idea of supplying ever increasing quantities of electricity is completely at odds with what is required now, a policy of energy efficiency and the elimination of all forms of wasteful use of energy. If Eskom has to charge much more for electricity in order to pay for new generation capacity then an equally ambitious energy efficiency strategy needs to be in place as well. This is not the natural function of of Eskom, a power supply monopoly. It is the function of government. Energy efficiency, energy productivity and a strategy to achieve this needs to be at the heart of IRP 2.

Energy productivity is a win-win option. Improvements in energy productivity are far more cost-effective than expansion of power generation. It is entirely possible for energy productivity to substitute for new generation capacity over the period 2010 to 2030 at 20% of the cost of new generation plant.[4] Energy productivity which uses existing energy for more output has no negative impact on the environment, climate change or water supply. On the contrary it has a positive impact and frees up financial resources for other uses. Energy productivity could create many more sustainable jobs than building and operating new centralised generation plant. The IRP commits to 1 million solar water heating installations over the 20 year period. this might save the capacity of one coal-fired power station. This is a start, but much more can be done: like replacing inefficient motors and machines with much more efficient ones, environmentally upgrading buildings, and changing to combined heat and power at large factories and intensive energy users. What is required is a practical strategy and the political will to carry it out.

Eskom plans to meet the projected increased demand over the period by building new coal-fired power stations and the returning to service of out of use power stations. It is intended to save only 3225MW of capacity by 2020 through demand side management[5] out of a total projected peak demand range of 60 000 MW – 66 000 MW. This gives a very low target of 5% for demand side management. The low target is a result of Eskom’s weak incentive and constrained ability, as a supply monopoly, to stamp out wastage and implement energy productivity strategies. The total generation capacity required by 2020 is then calculated from this weak demand-side target.

IRP1 states that “the independent power producer[s] are expected to provide additional capacity in the medium term” and also that “the IRP is developed on the basis that the country builds capacity to meet expected growth at minimum cost (inclusive of externality impacts).”[6] If these statements were translated into action then there would be a much greater amount of generation capacity supplied by Independent Power Producers using renewable energy and micro-generation.

UCT’s Energy Research Centre has shown in a recent study[7] that we can reach a 15% renewable target by 2020 and “combined with an energy efficiency programme, average electricity costs will be lower than the baseline for most of the 2015-2020 period.”  Yet the presently committed capacity of renewable energy from independent power producers under the REFIT (Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff) scheme is only 725MW (400MW from wind and 325MW from “other”).[8] This present commitment is just 1% of total capacity projected for 2020 and only 4% of new build over the period. There are proven wind resources in South Africa[9] to provide constant wind energy when spread across various locations.  There is a proposal in the IRP to introduce Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), but only starting in 2021. This is too late and we need to kick-start CSP now. South Africa has the best solar resources in the world, so this is an opportunity not to be missed: South Africa could become a world leader in this technology. The  Energy Research Centre study has shown  the cost of electricity from concentrated solar power coming down year by year due to ‘technology learning’ until it becomes the cheapest form of electricity from about 2025. This is also good for jobs. Our motor car production lines could easily be converted to solar and wind turbine technology. The IRP does not even go into the socio-economic impact of the IRP and the opportunity costs of the various decisions. The economic impact is “still outstanding”.[10]

Up to 2020 the bulk of new generation capacity according to the IRP is to be coal. From 2020 to  2027 Eskom plans to build a ‘fleet’ of nuclear power stations of 11 500 MW in total. The best most recent cost estimate for nuclear plant construction is a nominal (2008) overnight capital cost of R33 million/MW[11] and a real cost of capital of 14.5%[12] reflecting nuclear’s high risk. But the cost of new nuclear build is not standing still, rather it has been rising by about 12% a year in real terms over the period 2003-2010.[13] At this rate, real costs over and above inflation double every 6 years, so if this continues the overnight cost of each MW of the nuclear ‘fleet’ after 2020 is likely to reach well over R66 million giving a total of R380 billion in 2008 Rands and then calculate 14.5% cost of capital compounded on top of that. I can’t do the sum but the real figure must be heading towards the R1 trillion level in today’s Rands. Such a level of debt would sink Eskom into a debt black hole. Is this the real reason for the huge price increases asked for? From the tables of capacities and costs (Appendix C) it is impossible to determine what costs are attributed to nuclear power out of the cumulative totals, as case by case costs are not given. The ‘moderate’ level of confidence for cost for nuclear of +1 given in the Risk Rating[14] is pure whistling in the wind. Even the Director for Strategy and Research at the World Nuclear Association cannot work out or predict the cost of a nuclear power plant.[15]

What we do know for sure is that costs of nuclear plant are escalating while the costs of renewable energy technologies are coming down and the costs of energy efficiency and energy productivity are negative because they release funds towards other projects.

CANE rejects nuclear power as a source of energy in South Africa now or in the future. Apart from the cost, the other negating factors include the proven health risk[16],the unsolved long-term high level waste problem, the pollution of ground water through uranium mining and the very poor fit with the type of skills available and the small number of jobs relative what could be achieved from renewable energy technology and energy efficiency and energy productivity strategies. The other intractable problem with nuclear power is the risk of nuclear proliferation, and the undesirable type of security state that would have to be reconstructed to try to safeguard the entire nuclear fuel cycle from beginning to end (and for high level radioactive waste there is no “end”). For all these reasons, nuclear power is not the answer to coal and carbon emissions. Funds diverted to nuclear power means less funds available to quicker and cheaper options, which is the huge opportunity cost when one excessively large project is chosen over multiple smaller ones.

While it is accepted that electricity prices must rise to allow for improved capital infrastructure and for energy productivity strategies, we do not accept any increase based on the present Integrated Resource Plan. There should be a much greater commitment to energy efficiency and energy productivity and a commitment to at least 15% renewable energy by 2020. As this can be supplied by the IPP’s, the capital invested would be at no up-front cost to Eskom. Rather, Eskom should commit their funds to upgrading their distribution infrastructure, expanding up to the solar fields of the N Cape and employing smart grid technology in order to manage the various energy supplies. Another 15% of capacity should be saved by energy productivity. Renewable energy, energy productivity and simply eliminating waste are the real answers to carbon emissions. Eskom cannot be allowed to write its own terms of reference and base its price hikes on that. The IRP needs to be re-drafted, to include policy for energy efficiency and for jobs and skills, to actively encourage independent power producers, and to eliminate the nuclear power financial black hole.

Written by:

Rod Gurzynski. For the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy

BA (Economics) B. Arch (UCT)

rod@boma.co.za

Tel: 021 789 2023.

[2] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Government Gazette 31 Dec 2009. Pg 10.

[3] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report Sept 2009. Pg iv.

[4] McKinsey Global Institute. The Case for Investing in Energy Productivity. Feb 2008. Pg 12. http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/reports/pdfs/Investing_Energy_Productivity/Investing_Energy_Productivity.pdf

[5] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report Sept 2009. Table 14 – Expected DSM outcomes. Pg 45.

[6] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report. Sept 2009. Pg 4.

[7] Costing a 2020 Target of 15% Renewable Electricity for South Africa. Marquard et al. Final Draft. Energy Research Centre UCT. Oct 2008

[8] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report Sept 2009. Committed new capacity. Table 3 Pg 9.

[9] Costing a 2020 Target of 15% Renewable Electricity for South Africa. Marquard et al. Final Draft. Energy Research Centre UCT. Oct 2008.

[10] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report. Sept 2009. pg 29.

[11] Business Risks and Cost of Nuclear Power. Craig Severance. Jan 2009. Appendix A: Most Likely case. The most likely overnight cost is $4 070/kW before escalations and excluding cost of capital. $4 070 x exchange rate  $1-R7.29 = R29 670 x CPIX adjuster 167.3/150.3 = R33 026/kW.

[12] Business Risks and Cost of Nuclear Power. Craig Severance. Jan 2009. Appendix A: Most Likely case.

[13] Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. Update on the cost of nuclear power. May 2009.  Pg17. http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2009-004.pdf

[14] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report. Sept 2009. Pg 58.

[15] Escalating costs of new build: what does it mean? Nuclear Engineering International. Aug 2008.

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2050690

[16] International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2009. Article: Very low dose fetal exposure to Chernobyl contamination resulted in increases in infant leukemia in Europe and raises questions about current radiation risk models.  Christopher Busby.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/6/12/3105/pdf

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

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.

Rod Gurzynski

Cape Town – An anti-nuclear group has urged the South African government to make sure that two vessels carrying what is reportedly the biggest ever shipment of plutonium stay out of its waters.

“What we don’t want is an accident at sea where we as a country have to carry the consequences,” said Mike Kantey, chairman of the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy, on Tuesday.

The heavily armed Pacific Pintail and the Pacific Heron left Barrow-in-Furness in the north-west of England last week.

They will collect their freight – a load of MOX nuclear fuel containing what environmentalists say are 1800kg of plutonium – at Cherbourg in France, then head for Japan. The route around the Cape is one of a number of possible routes the ships – which have been barred from the Suez Canal – may use. In previous years the Pintail has used the Cape route when carrying nuclear materials.

Kantey said Cane called on the government to ensure that the vessels stayed outside South Africa’s 200 nautical mile economic exclusion zone.

‘No capacity to deal with accident’

He said South Africa did not have the capacity to deal with any accident.

“It’s no good to say it will never happen. There is precedent for a nuclear cargo going down. “It’s a risk that is unacceptable to the South African people.”

Freedom Front Plus Western Cape leader Corne Mulder said in a statement that the ships should not be allowed in South African waters. His party would ask African Union head Muammar Gaddafi to see to it that no African state’s territorial waters were made available to the ships.

“Africa has to protect its territorial integrity at all costs,” he said.

The two ships carry an on-board armed force as a measure against hijacking.  MOX, or mixed oxide, is a blend of plutonium and reprocessed uranium.

The MOX on the two ships is intended for use at reactors of three Japanese power companies.  Japan relies on nuclear power plants for nearly one-third of its power demands. SAPA
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_2479323,00.html
‘Risky’ nuke ship passes Cape
7 March 2009
Johannesburg – A massive shipment of plutonium mixed oxide (MOX) is meant to travel via the Cape of Good Hope on Saturday, Greenpeace Africa said in a statement.

“MOX shipments are simply not worth the risk, they are a major terror target and pose an enormous threat to the environment of all countries en route,” said Rianne Teule, nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace International in a statement on Saturday.

The ships, Pacific Pintail and the Pacific Heron, were heavily armed and protected by specially trained British forces, the statement read.

They are to enter South African waters as they make their way from France to Japan.

Poses risk

The shipment left Chebourg port with about 1.8 tonnes of MOX fuel – enough to make 225 nuclear weapons – and will travel via the Cape of Good Hope.

“This MOX transport poses immediate contamination and security risks, and is yet another example of the dangers of nuclear energy… not only is the shipment unnecessary and insecure, there is no evidence that the containers carrying the fuel are safe from accidents,” Teule said.

MOX fuel is an alternative nuclear fuel made up of a mixture of uranium and plutonium.

“This shipment is a reminder to the South African government that the health and environment risks associated with nuclear power are real, and that taking the nuclear route in power generation is not the solution to reducing climate change emissions.

“Nuclear power will provide too little, too late to address climate change and it is a dangerous distraction, sucking billions of rands in funding, away from the real solutions which could already be implemented today,” said Brad Smith, programme director for Greenpeace Africa.

In a bid to stop this shipment, Greenpeace Africa has sent a warning letter to several African environmental ministers including South Africa’s environmental affairs and tourism Minister, Marthinus Van Schalkwyk, urging them to take immediate action against the two ships.
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2481660,00.html

SA blocks nuclear cruiser
6 January 2009 
 Cape Town – The Russian navy’s nuclear-powered heavy missile cruiser, Pyotr Velikiy, has been denied entry to Cape Town harbour because the application for it to do so lacked “specific criteria”, South Africa’s National Nuclear Regulator said on Tuesday.

The NNR’s refusal was “based on non-compliance with certain aspects of the licensing requirements”, a spokesperson for the regulatory body, Gino Moonsamy, told Sapa.

The SA Navy had submitted an application to the NNR in December for the Pyotr Velikiy – Russian for Peter the Great – to visit Cape Town from January 9 to 12.

Moonsamy said the specific criteria for the refusal related to a safety certificate from the Russian regulatory authority; a liability letter that provided only for international nuclear damage; and an emergency plan that was “not comprehensive enough”.

Asked if the NNR would consider a revised application, Moonsamy said if such documentation was submitted, it would be reviewed by the regulator.

Five years ago, a Russian navy chief said the Pyotr Velikiy, launched in 1996, was unfit for service.

According to news agency reports at the time, Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov said the massive 256-metre long cruiser “was being poorly maintained”.

The Pyotr Velikiy is heavily armed, carrying both surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles, including 20 long-range Granit anti-ship missiles, and is described by Jane’s Navy International as an “immensely powerful” warship.

It is powered by two 300MW nuclear reactors, and has auxillary steam boilers.

The SA Navy on Tuesday said it was continuing with preparations for the visit.

“The SA Navy is continuing with all preparations for the visit while other role-players sort out the NNR’s requirements,” said navy spokesperson Lieutenant-Commander Greyling van der Berg. -SAPA
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2449286,00.html