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 13^th 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 16^th FEB closes 18^th 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

www.cane.org.za

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

Please sign this petition and alert your friends.

Nuclear Information and Resource Service  Dear Friends,   Back in 2000, the nuclear power industry tried to obtain credits under the carbon trading schemes set up by the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) provisions.   NIRS and our partners WISE (World Information Service on Energy), working with many environmental groups from across the world, along with a little help from Al Gore, who seemingly had just been elected President of the United States, beat back the industry at the Kyoto Protocol’s COP6 meeting in The Hague in November 2000.   Now the nuclear industry is trying again–at the upcoming climate negotiations in Poznan, Poland, the industry is again seeking to become eligible for lucrative carbon trading credits. And again, NIRS, WISE and the world’s environmental and clean energy movements are gearing up to stop them.   YOU CAN HELP! The statement below will be distributed to the delegates at the Poznan climate meeting. Please join us and sign your organization on by sending your name, organization, city, state and country if outside the U.S. to nirsnet@nirs.org by noon, Eastern time, on Sunday, November 30. (Note: we are only taking organization signatures for now).   Thanks for all you do! Michael Mariotte Executive Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service   Women in Europe for a Common Future Greenpeace International Forum on Globalization World Information Service on Energy Nuclear Information and Resource Service Friends of the Earth International   •   Nuclear Power Has No Place in the Kyoto Protocol Financial Mechanisms: It’s a Dangerous Obstacle to Climate Change Solutions   NGOs Call for Options to “Include Nuclear Activities” in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) to be removed.   (From Agenda Item 3a of the Accra Conclusions of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol: Item I-D, Option 2 in the CDM and Item II-B, Option 2 in the JI)      Nuclear Power contradicts Clean Development The nuclear industry is using the issue of climate change and energy supply as a vehicle to win political and financial support for its dirty and dying sector.  Even a massive, four-fold expansion of nuclear power by 2050 would provide only marginal reductions (4%) in greenhouse gas emissions, when we need global emissions to peak at 2015 and 50 – 80% cuts by 2050. Nuclear energy’s ‘contribution’ to fighting climate change would come too late (long after 2020), with huge costs (US$ 10 trillion) and would create a myriad of other serious hazards related to accidents, waste and proliferation.  These large costs and negative impacts make nuclear energy an obstacle to the necessary development of effective, clean and affordable energy sources – both in developing and industrialised countries. Activities related to nuclear power must not be allowed to become eligible for the Kyoto Protocol’s flexible mechanisms in order to avoid: Undermining climate protection by wasting time and taking resources away from more effective and clean solutions; Dumping this expensive and unsafe technology on developing countries who would be landed with the associated economic and environmental impacts (accumulation of massive financial debts, increased dependency on foreign fuel and technologies, increased risk from reactor accidents and contamination); and Decreasing global security as volumes of nuclear waste with no safe methods of disposal increase massively and both nuclear materials and technologies are spread.  Nuclear power is not only expensive and slow to develop, it would provide only a marginal contribution to carbon mitigation  The OECD International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 Blue Map scenario1 assesses what energy mix could achieve a 50% reduction in carbon emission by 2050.  The agency assumes a four-fold increase of nuclear power generation, from today’s 2,600 TWh/year to 9,900 TWh/year in 2050. But this would only reduce CO2 emissions from the energy sector by 6% (around 4 % of overall greenhouse gases).  Even getting to this 6% would require unprecedented rates of growth, sustained over four decades.  The nuclear industry would have to build an average of 32 large (1,000 MWe) nuclear reactors every year from now until 2050. Compare this with the last decade’s average where the nuclear industry added 3000MW of new capacity a year. In the 1980′s, the decade of the industry’s fastest growth, it built an average of 17,000 MW a year2  – still only half the rate needed to realise the IEA’s Blue Map scenario.  But the IEA believes we can build 32,000MW capacity every year from now to 2050. Then there’s the cost.  Moody’s3 currently estimates the investment cost for new reactors at USD 7,500 USD/kW. Assuming this, the required 1,400 large new reactors would cost around USD 10,500 billion – and this is only the upfront investment. While nuclear power presents itself as the largest carbon free energy source, its potential role in carbon mitigation is very limited and is simply not worth taking, given all its risks and costs.   Nuclear energy’s massive problems and risks remain unsolved   Even today, running at one-tenth of the hypothetically required construction speed, the nuclear industry is struggling with serious problems and has hit many bottlenecks: Massive technical problems and ever-rising costs have affected attempts to build new reactor units, for example both of the French EPR units – in Finland and France – have experienced years of delays and billions in cost overruns already.4 Capacity to produce reactor components is limited to only several pieces a year and are only produced by half a dozen corporations in a handful of countries.5 Shortages in uranium supplies to fuel the existing fleet of reactors; the annual consumption reached 69,000 tonnes of uranium in 2007, compared to an annual production of just 41,300 tonnes in 2007.6 The world’s proven and reasonably assured uranium resources would only be able to cover current consumption for a few decades and, as they deplete, carbon emissions from the nuclear fuel chain would rise significantly.7 A crunch for raw materials, because of the high demand for large volumes of steel and concrete. Negative health effects of ionising radiation. Recently published peer-reviewed research found statistically high incidence of childhood leukaemia in the close vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany8 and the US9. Dangerous impacts of uranium mining and milling threatens the lands, communities and health of Indigenous Peoples, many of whom (in Canada, the US, Africa, India and Australia, inter alia) continue to protest the extraction of uranium on or near their homelands and territories Lack of qualified engineers, inspectors and personnel to safely manage and oversee operations at the current scale. Long lead-times for projects. It takes 10 to 15 years, even in countries with developed related infrastructure, to plan, approve, site and build a new reactor, not to mention bringing it online. It would take even longer in countries that are just starting their nuclear programs. No safe disposal method for radioactive wastes that reactors have already produced, despite decades of research and money spent.  In the past five years, the estimated costs of radioactive waste disposal grew by USD 40 billion in United States10 and by GBP 27 billion in the United Kingdom,11 with no guarantees that safe storage, at the end of the day, is really possible. Growing proliferation problems: As stockpiles of separated plutonium increase, nuclear technologies and materials spread to new countries. International safeguards are under-resourced and structurally weak. It is only a question of time before they become accessible to terrorist groups. One large reactor can produce 200 kgs of plutonium every year – enough for two dozen nuclear weapons.   All these factors raise additional scepticism about the actual potential of nuclear power to really mitigate greenhouse gases on any useful scale and within a reasonable timeframe.   Nuclear power steals “time and money” that would be better invested in energy efficiency and renewable technologies   Expensive, dirty and hazardous nuclear power stands in the way of clean and sustainable solutions.  It could take USD10 trillion or more to build enough reactors to produce 9,900 TWh of “nuclear electricity” as projected under the International Energy Agency (IEA) 2008 “Blue Map” scenario.  Building enough wind farms to produce the same amount of electricity, for example, would cost USD 6 trillion at current prices, for a savings of USD 4 trillion.  And, these costs would decrease over time. Wind power has no associated fuel costs and does not require expensive dismantling of its power plant at the end of its life and long term disposal of radioactive waste as is required in the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant.   Other calculations show that, compared to nuclear, wind power at today’s costs replaces twice as much carbon per invested dollar and energy efficiency measures three to six times more.12 Even the IEA’s 2008 Blue Map scenario itself shows that, while massive nuclear expansion reduces carbon emissions from the energy sector by 6%, the potential of renewable energy sources is around four times greater, and the potential of energy efficiency six times greater. It is clear by these numbers which technology deserves the priority for investment. Lastly is the issue of time. Energy efficiency measures can be implemented in months. A wind farm can be planned and built in one year. Nuclear reactors take one to two decades to plan and build. Every dollar invested in nuclear power means a dollar less invested in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources – sources that can not only replace several times more carbon for the same cost, but also achieve the desired carbon reduction more rapidly.   Renewable energy sources can easily provide power to remote areas with underdeveloped infrastructure and can be implemented quickly while supporting local job development. In contrast, large nuclear power plants are often not compatible with established grids and infrastructure in developing countries. Various institutions have recently warned developing countries against unrealistic expectations from nuclear energy plans.   “You should go for it [renewable energy]. It is cheaper than investing in nuclear development.” 13 - Ferran Tarradellas Espuny, spokesman for the EU Energy Commissioner, speaking about renewable energy projects in South East Asia.               “Nuclear energy is not the panacea for tackling global warming. Even if you set aside the problem   of long-term waste storage and the danger of operator accident and the vulnerability to terrorist attack, you still have two others that are more difficult. The first problem is one of         economics…..The second is nuclear weapons proliferation. For eight years when I was in the    White House, every problem of weapons proliferation was connected to a reactor program.”             – Al Gore, Former Vice President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Winner, 2007     Our Conclusion: Too little, too late, too expensive, and just too dangerous: Nuclear power is not a suitable answer to climate change and should be removed as an investment option for the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation strategies   To endorse our call, or for more information, contact by email or, where indicated, by mobile, in Poznan:    Sascha Gabizon, Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF), sascha.gabizon@wecf.eu, +49-172-8637586 (mobile in Poznan)   Claire Greensfelder, International Forum on Globalization (IFG), cgreensfelder@ifg.org,  +1-510-917-5468 (mobile in Poznan)   Thomas Breuer,  Greenpeace, Thomas.Breuer@de.greenpeace.org   Peer de Rijk, World Information Service on Energy (WISE) , peerder@gmail.com   Michael Mariotte, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, nirsnet@nirs.org   References: 1    International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 (Paris: IEA, 2008) 2    International Atomic Energy Agency’s PRIS database, http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/index.html 3    New Nuclear Generating Capacity – Potential Credit Implications for U.S. Investor Owned Utilities, Moody’s Corporate Finance, May 2008 4    Nucleonics Week, Platts, 4 September 2008; Detailed briefings and references at http://www.greenpeace.org 5    Platts Nucleonics Week publications; Nuclear Engineering International; http://www.areva.com . 6    See World Nuclear Association, online: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html . 7    Benjamin Sovacool, “Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power” (2008) 36 Energy Policy 2940. 8    Spix C et al, Case-control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980- 2003, European Journal of Cancer (December 2007) 9    Joseph Mangano, Janette D. Sherman: Childhood Leukaemia Near Nuclear Installations, European Journal of Cancer Care No 4 Vol 17, July 2008 10   Platts, Nuclear Fuel, 11 August 2008. 11   Guardian, online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/18/nuclearpower.energy . 12   Amory Lovins, The Nuclear Illusion, May 2008. 13   http://www.bangkokpost.com/121008_News/12Oct2008_news08.php

7 February 2008

Press Release: Small independent film upsets the powerful nuclear industry

The South African nuclear industry has lodged a complaint with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission (BCC) over the screening on M-Net’s Carte Blanche of a documentary about the country’s nuclear industry.

Earthlife Africa is extremely concerned that this is an attempt by the powerful nuclear lobby to silence any dissenting voices.

A hearing date has been set for February 20 at the BCC’s offices in Johannesburg. The hearing is open to the public.

Entitled Uranium Road the documentary is about the history of the nuclear industry in South Africa as well as the present status of nuclear power in the country. It was screened on Carte Blanche, M-Net’s current affairs programme, in early November 2007. It sparked debate and clearly upset the powerful nuclear industry lobby. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission has received a complaint from NIASA (Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa).

“For many years now, the government of South Africa has been running headlong into a nuclear future despite the dangers and high costs of this technology and the availability of better alternatives. It is perhaps time for energy policy in South Africa to be decided upon, not by the Cabinet, but by its citizens. For this to be possible, the public needs to be informed. Clearly the nuclear industry cannot afford for an informed public to involve itself in energy choices because then the many myths and legends of nuclear power would be exposed”, said Earthlife Africa Cape Town spokesperson Maya Aberman

Earthlife Africa is staunchly against the roll-out of nuclear power and welcomes any debate that broadens the awareness about the impact of nuclear power on our environment. “We’ve spent millions of rands on researching nuclear power in the last decade but it has not been fully discussed with South African citizens.” Most South Africans are still unaware of the impact of nuclear power. The industry itself is constantly marketing ideas that nuclear power is a clean, safe and is even a renewable energy source. Nothing could be further from the truth if one considers:

•         its contribution to climate change: the complete nuclear fuel chain is extremely energy intensive and dirty. The nuclear fuel cycle releases CO2 during mining, fuel production, transport, plant construction and decommissioning
•         the poor economic track record of nuclear projects worldwide and in South Africa
•         the fact that we are fast approaching uranium (nuclear fuel) peak
•         the dangers posed by even low doses of radiation to human and environmental health
•         the risk of catastrophic accident
•         the fact that nuclear waste remains active and a threat to animal and human health for millions of years to come.

In addition, renewable energy can create about 27 times as many jobs as nuclear energy and jobs in the renewable energy generation sectors, like wind power, already have local people making up about 60% of their work force, and is increasing.

There are viable, safer and cleaner alternatives to nuclear power. There are sufficient renewable energy resources in South Africa to provide for 13% of the electricity demand by 2020, and easily 70% or more by 2050.

The film raises some of these concerns and has helped educate many South Africans who have little or no information about nuclear or renewable energy sources.

These developments beg the question; “Is the nuclear industry so vulnerable to open and informed debate that it finds it necessary to shut down any dissenting voices?”

For more information contact:

Maya Aberman
Earthlife Africa Cape Town
Tel: 021 447 4912
Cell: 076 754 6327

Tristen Taylor
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg
Tel: 011 339 3662
Cell: 084 250 2434

0. Participation of civil society is minimal and problematic.

We welcome the opportunity to make submissions to the policy process. However, in our view that the policy process is misplaced, having had no input from civil society in its very formulation. Gone are the days in our democracy when different sectors of society were drawn into the policy making process. Now we are back to the apartheid-era style of governance, whereby the policy documents are formulated behind closed doors by bureaucrats and then opened to public comment for a brief period.

Inclusion of civil society within the most recent 2007 Energy Summit was derisory. Many parts of civil society felt it was an illegitimate process, because they had been excluded from participation, unlike the previous Summit in 1996.

We are pessimistic that public comment on this document will be taken seriously by government, rendering the entire process a cosmetic and therefore an illegitimate form of consultation and participation. Our sense is that we are dealing with a fait accomplit (a done deed) in which government is only going through the motions of consultation.

Nevertheless once again we need to place our concerns on record.

1. The nuclear path is an unsuitable way forward for sustainable development in South Africa.

South Africa has enshrined the principle of sustainable development in its constitution (see article 24) and in its legislation (see the National Environmental Management Act no. 107 of 1998). Furthermore South Africa’s commitment to sustainable development was witnessed in its agreement to host in Johannesburg the 2002 UN World Summit on Sustainable Development. The summit produced the Johannesburg South Africa has also, since 1994, acceded to the Rio treaties on Climate Change, Desertification and Biological Diversity. Under the latter, the government is meant to produce a strategy on sustainable development to be tabled with the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Despite these commitments, government is making choices to introduce unsustainable technologies like nuclear. Nuclear energy is an unsustainable energy source because:
– It is based on fuel that is finite in nature
– It creates a perpetual problem of radioactive waste
– It creates unnecessary risks for workers, consumers, communities
– It removes control over energy to centralised secretive elites
– It poses unnecessary economic burdens on municipalities who need to be prepared for the special disaster management possibilities posed by the industry
– It creates a few high-end jobs for highly trained technicians compared with renewable sources which open up huge job possibilities at local level, therefore it is not the best route for poverty alleviation
– It increases the risks of environmental contamination including our precious freshwater supplies and marine resources
– Unlike the industry’s claims, the nuclear fuel chain is not carbon-neutral
(see the argument for this below)

Furthermore, it requires such large investments that it absorbs resources that could be better devoted to more equitable forms of development. It makes little contribution to poverty alleviation, thus making the realisation of the Millennium Development goals even more remote.

As uranium becomes scarcer, there are a number of important consequences:
– Using this form of energy will become costlier with time
– The quality of the uranium ore mined will deteriorate and become more expensive to mine and process
– There will be longer supply chains as more remote areas will have to be mined
– Electricity tariffs will become less affordable, unless highly subsidised
– Some analysts believe that uranium supply is likely to peak quite soon, making the mineral scarcer and more expensive as a source of fuel, and unavailable in the long run

Nowhere in the policy document is there any serious scientific study of the economics of uranium, and its global availability in the long-run.

We believe that the expense of choosing the nuclear option will take us further down the road of unsustainable energy solutions, raise the price of energy to most consumers, and demand resources from the state that should better be devoted to the meeting of the Millennium Development Goals.

2. The nuclear energy policy and strategy document is an example of special pleading, the embodiment of vested interests, and hence unscientific.

The 1998 Energy White Paper noted that no nuclear developments would take place without first undertaking integrated energy planning. There is no evidence that this planning has been undertaken and that independent scientific evidence shows that nuclear is the most efficient, cost effective and environmentally acceptable option. The nuclear policy and strategy document is therefore a case of special pleading on behalf of one section of the energy industry.

We can only surmise, then, that this scientific work remains undone, and that therefore, the unproven case for nuclear is being motivated by people or organisations with a self-interest in promoting it. Organisations include Eskom, NECSA, at least two ministers, and a small group of scientists, politicians and bureaucrats, former apartheid bomb makers, industrial suppliers, based in and around the industry, all of whom would be beneficiaries if this policy becomes accepted. These people have access to power and therefore can impose their views on the rest of society.

Independent studies around the costs (e.g., of the PBMR) have been suppressed and not placed in the public domain.

Without a scientific or a financial case for this technology, and in the absence of public scrutiny, we now see the DME — which should be defending the interests of the public at large — defending the interests of NECSA and Eskom, bodies which should also be serving the nation, and not serving such narrow sectarian interests.

3. The document relies on half-truths for its arguments that the nuclear energy industry is carbon neutral

Whilst there are few emissions in the fissile reaction itself, there is a considerable carbon footprint resulting from:
– Mining and milling: South Africa’s gold mines, of which uranium is a by-product, has ores located at very deep levels, resulting in a huge need for refrigeration technology, haulage, and drills powered by electricity
– The conversion to gas, enrichment, fuel fabrication and reprocessing stages: these are extremely energy intensive; while the bulk of the power they use up will be coal-fired, these processes will emit a huge amount of carbon
– Transport of nuclear materials, including fuel and waste: this will escalate under the proposed programme and will emit a huge amount of carbon; this will be intensified if long-distance imports and exports are included
– Construction materials for the reactors: cement is especially energy intensive, and together with the manufacture of turbines and other large machinery, is likely to leave a large carbon footprint
– The decommissioning and decontamination of nuclear facilities after use: these activities are likely to be highly energy intensive and raise levels of carbon in the atmosphere, they need to be factored into the overall carbon used in generating nuclear energy
Let us have the arithmetic of the cradle-to-grave stages in the nuclear fuel chain, before glib announcements of how carbon-friendly the industry is. Let us also have the comparative arithmetic on alternative renewable energy resources before we proclaim that nuclear energy has environmental advantages.

4. The nuclear industry is of necessity shrouded in secrecy, not helpful for establishing democratic values in our young democracy

Since it is the citizens and taxpayers who foot the bill for the industry, and who consume its products, every South African should have the right to know about decisions made in their names on energy futures.

However the nuclear industry operates in relative secrecy, which often masks mismanagement:
– There has been no independent audit of the industry for the past ten years and little public scrutiny of the industry is permitted
– Where things have gone wrong, for example at Koeberg in the summer of 2005/6, independent regulators (NERSA) have blamed Eskom mismanagement and failure to report incidents or conform to licence conditions, while politicians insisted that sabotage was the cause, then later denied this was ever suggested
– The finances of the PBMR Company should be openly available, as should the amounts of state investment and subsidy in the company
– All documentation related to the apartheid-era programme of making weapons of mass destruction should be released to the public domain; those responsible for the programme should be named and shamed
– Trials of nuclear traffickers should never be behind closed doors

The policy document advocates the setting up of a dedicated security service, a nuclear police force. This is a typical example of how we are expected to support proposals which see South Africa falling back into the hands of a ‘security state’ as we were under apartheid, where we rely on industries that are so risky that they need special types of police forces. We don’t want the country remilitarised for the sake of this industry, especially when there are cleaner alternatives that pose relatively little risk to the public. We therefore reject all technologies that require us to remilitarise or return our state to how it was under apartheid, driven by security-obsessed minority interests. If the very nature of the nuclear energy industry requires such policing, we should reject it out of hand. We believe such a nuclear police will be repressive in relation to civil society organisations which oppose the industry. In addition, the cost implications of setting up such a security police need to be factored into the costs of nuclear energy.

5. The policy and strategy maintain that the nuclear energy industry exists for peaceful purposes, but cannot offer assurances that this will be respected by all future governments

The enthusiasm expressed in the document for South Africa to re-acquire enrichment technology, as well as reprocessing technology, open up the way to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The current government may profess to want to do enrichment or reprocessing for peaceful purposes, but once the genie is out of the bottle, is in no position to underwrite that this position will be honoured by all future governments.

The DME sees enrichment and reprocessing as being the same as ‘beneficiation’ of all other minerals. However, uranium is not like other minerals, for obvious reasons: it can be utilised to make nuclear weapons if enriched in the appropriate way.

We reject the idea that enrichment and reprocessing of uranium are necessary for the South African economy. Clearly the sums have not been done, and we suspect that the extra cost burden would raise the price of our energy, when enriched uranium would be imported more cheaply. We reject the technological nationalism which requires us to ape the nuclear industries in the developed economies, to give some spurious status to a handful of scientists, and further devote scarce resources to the local nuclear industry when these could more beneficially be devoted to renewable forms of energy generation and other forms of poverty alleviation.

At the very least, should South Africa go the route of enrichment of uranium, we insist that the Constitution be amended to guarantee that this will be used solely for energy purposes, and that proliferation of nuclear weapons will be deemed illegal and unconstitutional.

6. If expansion of the industry is to be envisaged, we insist on the strengthening of the nuclear regulatory apparatus, its independence, and its obedience to principles of good governance

The National Nuclear Regulator is ill-resourced in relation to its tasks. It needs to be fully capable of managing licence applications for nuclear facilities, as well as securing the nuclear safety of the entire population, and dealing with the backlog of contamination due to over fifty years of uranium mining.

The National Nuclear Regulator should not be fused with other regulatory bodies.

The National Nuclear Regulator should not fall under the control of the Department of Minerals and Energy. The DME is a clear promoter of the industry, and therefore it is a conflict of interest to have any control over the regulator. The regulator should be made independent of the DME, and fall under another authority such as Parliament.

Good governance of the regulator demands that the revolving door syndrome between the industry and the regulator should be made illegal. For example, the current CEO of the NNR should immediately recuse himself from office, having been a formerly an incumbent in the management of the Pebble Bed company. There is clearly a conflict of interest here, something which flies in the face of good corporate governance and the principles of the King Committee. While the revolving door syndrome is allowed to function, the public can have no confidence in the legitimacy and independence of the NNR.

Board members of the NNR should be selected from appropriate constituencies and given budgets to report back to these constituencies. Board minutes should be placed in the public domain as a matter of course.

7. The policy document lists some key role players but reveals its bias in ignoring others

There is no mention of the following being included as key role players
– The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
– The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
– Provincial and local authorities
– The general public – who need to be included in all policy formulation on
national energy questions, given their role as citizens, consumers and taxpayers who fund the industry
– Affected communities – based in the vicinity of nuclear facilities, transport routes or ports where nuclear materials are imported and exported
– Workers in the nuclear industry and their trade unions
– Civil society organisations concerned with safe energy provision and environmental justice
– The news and information media, as potential hosts of open debates on our energy future

It is sad that the DME cannot acknowledge that these constituencies also have important roles to play in the deliberation of nuclear policy.

8. Expansion of the industry will pose enormous extra risk to human and ecological health

Unlike sources of renewable energy, the expansion of the nuclear industry will place an extra burden of risk on the entire population and the eco-systems that sustain its livelihoods.
– Chances for radioactive contamination of land, water and people will expand rapidly
– Workers in the industry will be particularly vulnerable, as will communities adjacent to nuclear facilities
– Chances of transport accidents involving nuclear materials will increase dramatically on our overcrowded road system; our road safety record in South Africa is such that an increase accidents involving radioactive materials is an inevitability
– Preparedness by local government authorities for nuclear-related accidents will place an extra burden on their budgets and skills and redeploy resources away from basic service delivery for the poor
– Victims of nuclear incidents and accidents will be burdened by the costs of contamination, since the insurance industry is unwilling to risk underwriting claims for nuclear damage

Given this situation, we propose:

– That epidemiological studies are undertaken, under the aegis of the NNR, of communities adjacent to nuclear facilities; the NNR needs to adjust its methodology to account not just for the radioactivity leaving the nuclear facilities, but also its impacts on receiving communities
– Nuclear liability act must be established for the protection of the public, environment and person for any nuclear /radiation exposure amounting to R4 billion per injury.
– Substantial buffer zones between nuclear facilities and populations need to be promulgated and upheld under the law; members of communities adjacent to nuclear facilities be issued with Geiger counters and the appropriate training to monitor levels of radioactivity
– Insurance companies and homeowners are not insured for nuclear accident, therefore the nuclear industry must put forward an insurance fund managed by Parliament for any nuclear incident.
– That given the mismanagement, secrecy and chicanery of NECSA and Eskom, that medical records of nuclear workers be maintained by an independent public health agency
– That, given the especially risky nature of the industry, nuclear industry employers be directly responsible for the health of their employees, that compensation should be offered directly by the industry, and that this be acknowledged as a special case; it has been shown that expecting former nuclear workers to deal with the Compensation Commission is untenable
– That mine owners be held responsible for the cleaning up of any radioactive contamination resulting from mining and milling of uranium, particularly when it results in contamination of watercourses and land; a system of large fines should also be instituted as a deterrent
– The impacts on marine eco-systems adjacent to pressurised water reactors should be analysed annually and the reports placed in the public domain; similarly there should be regular, transparent monitoring of the impacts on land, water and people in a predetermined radius around PBMRs
– Nuclear industry must be refrained from using compensation fund for their workers. They must put a fund separate to manage any nuclear workers espoused to radiation illness.
– An independent public health institution must be appointed to monitor nuclear workers ,communities near nuclear installation. It must have power to access medical records, examine and propose exposure damage to the government for the compensation of the identified workers.

9. Energy alternatives should be more carefully considered

The DME has a responsibility to do the comparative mathematics involved in assessing both the nuclear industry and its alternatives. This should be done independently and the results placed in the public domain. In doing so, all financial subsidies and state investments should be made explicit. All externalities should be included in the comparative pricing of the different options. We insist that this should occur prior to any expansion of the nuclear industry.

10. Export to other African and developing countries

We object to the notion that South Africa should try to profit from exporting its nuclear expertise and materials to other African and developing countries.

We feel that this reopens South Africa to accusations of a ‘big brother’ or sub-imperialist position with respect to its trading partners in the continent. There will be a temptation to foist its technology onto these partners in order to justify economies of scale at home. The danger this poses to other countries extends grave risk, and will impose upon each partner the need to establish highly capital-intensive energy systems, as well as creating the expensive regulatory apparatus needed to manage the industry. It also creates the possibility of South Africa offering to dispose of the nuclear waste of these countries, or placing the burden on each country of disposing of its own waste.

All these plans will create unnecessary energy dependency on South Africa, offer a highly expensive and risky technology, and cause other countries to divert their economies away from poverty alleviation. The possibilities of proliferation of nuclear weapons will multiply accordingly. We need to re-examine our role and responsibility in relation to these possibilities.

Dear Sir

Solly Moeng from DonValley Brand, Marketing and Communications, discusses the role of PR in the Nuclear Energy debate in today’s Cape Times (10 October 2007). He throws out millions and millions of questions, like some over-excited Uranium-235 nucleus.

In the interests of public mental health, I submit a quote from one of his more revealing web-spinning tales:

“As the country prepares to boost its electricity supply … key players – all mainly foreign nuclear giants – are quietly flexing their communications muscles to educate the public and, if need be, help deal with whatever sensationalist media outpourings that tend to come with anything that has to do with the word ‘nuclear’.

“DonValley is fortunate to have been awarded the contract to provide PR & Communication advisory services to one of the key players in this nuclear race …”

http://biztitbits.co.za/story.php?title=Managing_brands_that_operate_in-1

Any more questions, Solly?

Or can we turn over the page now.

–
Mike Kantey

Andrew Kenny deserves a prize for the most contrived and specious piece of nuclear greenwashing (Cape Times 25/09/2007) yet published in the daily press. To say there has only been one nuclear accident “in which five or more people died”, and by implication that there was only one accident at Chernobyl, is to discount the hundreds of thousands of victims of the disaster.

In 2006 a Greenpeace report revealed that the full consequences of Chernobyl could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers. The report involved 52 respected scientists and challenged the UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report, which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident “as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering”.

The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.
It is only via a perverse form of intellectual tinkering that nuclear industry pundits such as Andrew Kenny and John Walmsley, manage to disregard the cumulative effect of low-level ionizing radiation, since such radiation does not carry a signature – manufactured by Three Mile Island. Their technocratic obfuscations are thus legendary and sure to enter the anti-nuclear lobby ‘hall of infamy’.

It is ludicrous to suggest, as Kenny does, that less than five people died in any one of the accidents which “occurred in the West” since epidemiologists are still counting the costs of Sellafield and the Windscale Fire of 1956, both of which happened in the United Kingdom, and whose culmulative effect are essentially off the register of scientific knowledge.

Then there is the recent Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant accident in Japan. An earlier “criticality incident” at Tokaimura in which a nuclear fuel-processing plant went critical resulting in contamination, saw hundreds of residents being evacuated. At a distance of two kilometers (1.24 miles) from the plant, radiation was measured at 10 times normal level.

Despite assurances, there is no possibility of guaranteeing safety when it comes to nuclear power – our City continues to lack a coherent evacuation policy in the event of a meltdown at Koeberg and insurance assessors are therefore loathe to provide cover to the industry. Laws are consequently needed to indemnify nuclear plants (and nuclear-related disasters) against liability claims, contradicting those who seek to promote the industry as clean and carbon-friendly. Perhaps somebody should insure Kenny against the likelihood he will eventually arrive at the proposition that nobody died at Chernobyl?

Both Kenny and Walmsley continue to dine at the table of nuclear fatuousness, while ruling out the possibility of low-ionising radiation, and seemingly ignoring the problem of routine emissions of Strontium90 and Ceasium137 from South Africa’s own Koeberg facility. Despite legal safety limits continually having to be raised to accommodate these emissions, (which have been given the stamp of approval by the Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism) the plant does not operate within the parameters for which it was designed, and the debate about low-level ionizing radiation and baseline thresholds refuses to go away.

While the pro-nuclear camp filibusters on the issue of renewable energy, ignoring geothermal, kinetic ocean energy, and hydrogen fuel cells, we are sacrificing our Swartland wheat and dairy and West Coast fishery, creating a cycle of contamination that accumulates up the food chain, arriving in our daily milk and cereal, and all because nuclear engineers want to conserve jobs. Paid nuclear advertorials by the pronuclear lobbey are less than ingenious since the appearance of debate undermines the role of other sectors in determining a sustainable energy future.

What do doctors, lawyers, religious leaders and independent scholars have to say about nuclear energy? Can we really accept the narrow opinions of those who refuse to accept the evidence of damming recklessness and intellectual corruption such as the Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation (HEIR) Reports put before the US Committee for Nuclear Responsibility and our own portfolio committee on environmental affairs?

The public have a right to demand an impartial and independent inquiry into the threat posed by radioactive emissions, in particular communities affected by radioactive tailings from slimes dams such as Wonderfonteinspruit and Tweelopiesfontien. Our government’s nuclear energy ambitions should not be seen as a foregone conclusion but rather as an invitation to rise to the challenge of supplying alternative energy sources that meet the needs of environmentally-friendly growth and development.

Yours truly

David Robert Lewis

Founding member, Coalition Against Nuclear Energy

If nuclear power is okay for South Africa, what about Zimbabwe? Or how about Rwanda, or Sierra Leone? If we are concerned about South Africa’s ability to provide safe transport for nuclear fuel and waste, risks of sabotage and smuggling of nuclear materials – what about nations in Africa that have been torn by civil war? What about a neighbouring nation like Zimbabwe where inflation is now at 7000%? South Africans may not be aware that despite poverty and starvation, Zimbabwe is somehow still considering the hugely expensive option of nuclear power. How comfortable do South Africans feel about President Mugabe sitting with a potential finger on the nuclear button?

The nuclear industry’s multi-million dollar marketing programme (courtesy of the taxpayer) is making security in Africa about as predictable as a game of roulette. Spin the nuclear wheel of fortune and the dial could point to any one of a number of African countries, where despite a majority of impoverished people, certain governments have still managed to spend millions on weaponry.

Countries in Africa currently prospecting for uranium, include: Algeria, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and of course, Zimbabwe.

In Harare Zimbabwe’s Minister of Energy Michael Nyambuya said nuclear energy was an option, although Zimbabwe still had to verify uranium deposits. The company responsible for prospecting uranium in Zimbabwe is Omegacorp Ltd.

However, the same names pop up in each country – like Uramin, Brinkley Mining, Paladin and Areva. And while the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) has gone out of its way to reassure South Africans that an expanded nuclear programme in this country would be “safe”, there is no way that they can make any guarantees concerning other nations. Despite this, Necsa and the fabled Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project intend – not only to manufacture nuclear reactors for South Africa – but also to export to the rest of Africa.

What about the Congo? This country’s uranium mines produced material for the nuclear bombs the US dropped on Japan in World War II. They were officially closed since 2000, but illegal mining continued. Negotiations between the Congo and Brinkley Mining ground to a halt when the government official who set up the deal was imprisoned on charges of illegally selling uranium.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is suspected of trying to reopen the Shinkolobwe uranium mine with help from North Korea. (In 2000, North Korea denied reports that it might be importing uranium from Congo to manufacture nuclear weapons).
In Malawi, five Non-Governmental Organisations oppose uranium mining. They are extremely concerned about Malawi’s natural heritage including treasures such as Sere Stream, Rukuru River and Lake Malawi. “This is an ecological disaster in waiting,” they said. They were aware of the detrimental impact uranium mining would have on the health of workers and nearby communities, radioactive mine wastes, environmental damage and water contamination.

In Niger, the uranium mining industry has been plagued by violence. In April 2007, heavily-armed men attacked a camp of uranium prospectors in northern Niger, killing a security guard and wounding three other people. Between 20-30 men from the Niger Movement for Justice raided French nuclear company Areva’s camp. A Chinese employee from a uranium mining company was captured on July 6, 2007, by the same group.

Despite this, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has directed his energy ministry to establish a nuclear unit and in Zambia, Albidon Ltd and African Energy Resources Ltd have begun feasibility studies for uranium mining. The Omega Corporation wants to open up a uranium mine in Siavonga with an investment of 60 million US dollars and Equinox Minerals Ltd is considering extracting uranium from Lumwana in Zambia.

In South Africa, Uramin Inc wants to expand into the Beaufort West area of the Karoo and produce 1745 tonnes of uranium oxide per year. Interestingly, an American comapny – SRK Consulting – was to conduct the feasibility study.
The Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) granted Uranium One a new order mining right for the Dominion Uranium Project for 30 years covering an area of 14 000 hectares. First Uranium intends to produce 342 tonnes of uranium annually. This year, Uranium One produced ammonium diuranate (ADU) at Dominion Reefs Uranium Mine near Klerksdorp. This was shipped to the Nuclear Fuels Corporation of South Africa (Nufcor SA) to be processed into U3O8 (yellow cake) in Nufcor’s calcining plant.

Just as there is no smoke without a fire, so there is no nuclear without the uranium fuel. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry has been selling nuclear as a “sustainable” energy source, which it obviously is not. In fact uranium reserves will be depleted before coal reserves run out and the nuclear industry is even asking for coal to power its nuclear smelter at Pelindaba.

The nuclear industry has also been marketing itself as “safe” which again has proven to be a false claim. South Africa has one nuclear reactor at Koeberg and yet at least three men have been caught and stood trial for smuggling nuclear materials. If, as the South African government intends, the nuclear programme in this country expands to include 30 nuclear reactors for South Africa and others marketed to Africa, how much illegal nuclear trade will go on?

The construction of “dirty bombs” and international terrorism is only one of the deadly faces of the nuclear industry. Wherever uranium mines are sited, radioactive contamination spreads to soils and water sources and the dust is blown by the wind into the homes of nearby communities. Primary cancers are recognized as a health hazard of uranium mining and the inhalation of uranium dust is second only to tobacco smoking for producing lung cancers.

From the cradle to the grave, the nuclear process is deadly. And for Africa – regarded as the cradle of life – this would seem to be the final desecration of a once beautiful and fertile continent.

Yours sincerely

INGELA RICHARDSON

In 1994, South Africa held its first democratic elections. Part of that democratic heritage was that a new way of governing was brought into being. People were to be involved in decision-making, and government would facilitate this. Legislation which supports access to information, administrative justice and environmental justice was enacted and many sector specific policy processes were undertaken. One of these was the policy process on energy which culminated in the White Paper on Energy of 1998.

A day after South Africa celebrates Heritage Day next week, the Department of Mineral and Energy will sit – together with selected invitees – to review the 1998 White Paper on Energy. Topics on the agenda include uranium enrichment, electricity restructuring and encouraging competition in energy markets.

But the critical importance of exploiting our global advantage of abundant solar resources, or taking advantage of our wind or biogas potential (calculated to be able to supply 70% of our electricity by 2050) which would result in significant job creation, have been largely ignored. Such critically important energy security issues, together with a commitment to implementing energy efficiency so that we ensure affordable access to energy for all, are relegated to a handful of sessions out of 21.

The Minister of the DME has publicly stated that the purpose of the Energy Summit was to afford all stakeholders an opportunity to reflect on the energy policy development process, particularly the Energy White Paper. However, the experience over the last month has been that NGOs, such as Earthlife Africa Cape Town and Sustainable Energy Africa (with many years of experience in the energy sector), who have tried to engage with DME to change the programme to reflect meaningful engagement, have had little success. Their efforts have either been ignored or rejected.

Communities, represented by organizations like the South African Council of Churches (SACC) have not been invited. Significantly, neither have organizations directly affected by a policy review process such as the Namaqualand Action Group for Environmental Justice and the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance been given notice of this “Energy Summit. Community networks and organizations do not have the resources to transport themselves to the summit.

Earlier this year – at the announcement of the annual Budget – the People’s Budget Campaign whose stakeholders include the South African Council of Churches (SACC), COSATU and SANGOCO urged government to “spend more, spend better on the right programmes.” Believing expenditure on the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor – as an example – to already be a non-viable and expensive project, the PBC proposed that government redirect spending on the PBMR – somewhere in the region of R6 billion  – for the development and financing of renewables over the next five years.

Recommendations such as these are unlikely to get a fair hearing at next week’s conference. Yet, the impact of its decisions on energy solutions for the future – especially on the poor who are forced to live under unhealthy clouds of coal fired power stations and oil refineries – will impact heavily on the price they pay for energy services.

Government – the custodian of the process of democratic participation and consultation – will effectively have failed to invite the poorest and those who represent them to participate in the initiation of a review of one of the most significant pieces of legislation to affect the quality of the livelihood of present and future generations.

In order for an energy summit to claim that it is both national and of the people, government would need to provide sufficient notice and invite civil society organizations and communities active in the energy sector to genuinely consultative process. Such a process should be open and transparent, with a programme that reflects the full range of energy topics that affect South Africans today. The undersigned organizations call on government to return to the basic tenets of democracy. We demand the right to participate in decisions that affect policy changes to energy use. We demand a say for future generations that may not have a voice because of the choices government and big business make today.

Signed by:
———-
Earthlife Africa Cape Town
SA Catholic Bishops Conference Justice & Peace Environmental Desk
Goedgedacht Forum for Social Reflection
Keith Vermeulen – member of the People’s Budget Campaign
South African Energy Caucus
Sustainable Energy Africa
Namaqualand Action Group for Environmental Justice
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg
Citizens United for Renewable Energy & Sustainability (CURES)
EcoCity
Koesterfontein Residents Action Group
groundWork
Earthlife Africa eThekwini
Pelindaba Working Group
South African Faith Communities Environmental Institute
Justice & Peace Department: Archdiocese of Johannesburg
SA Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering
South Durban Community Environmental Alliance

Contact
Keith Vermeulen       021 423 4261/082 523 0701
Maya Aberman         021 447 4912/076 754 6327