Government pulls plug on PBMR

0 comments

Posted on 20th July 2010 by Pelindaba Working Group in Alternative Energy |Blogroll |DME - Minerals and Energy |Eskom |NECSA - Nuclear Corporation of SA |Nuclear Energy |Nuclear Waste |PBMR - Pebble Bed |Pollution |Radiation

Jul 18, 2010 | By PREGA GOVENDER

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

The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Company (PBMR), which was established in 1999 to build small nuclear power reactors, faces imminent closure.

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

Related posts:

  1. PBMR Fuel Factory at Pelindaba ROD to be amended yet again – register now
  2. ESKOM’s NUCLEAR DECISION IS NO CAUSE FOR OPTIMISM
  3. No Amount of Redesign Will Save the PBMR
  4. Is SAs scandalous PBMR nuclear experiment the real reason for Dalai Lama blunder
  5. 300+ NGOS SAY NO TO MICKEY MOUSE CLIMATE “SOLUTIONS”

4 South Africans busted in alleged ‘dirty bomb’ sting shootout at Pretoria petrol station – radioactive material recovered

1 comment

Posted on 12th July 2010 by Pelindaba Working Group in Blogroll |NECSA - Nuclear Corporation of SA |Nuclear Energy |Nuclear Waste |PBMR - Pebble Bed |Radiation |Uranium

, , , , , , ,

10 July 2010

Closed-circuit video capture the shootout and arrest in South Africa where police obtained nuclear material that could have been used for a dirty bomb.

An international police sting at a Pretoria petrol station has netted four men involved in the sale of a highly radioactive metal suspected to be destined for use in a dirty bomb.

The high-risk operation by the Hawks’ specialised tactical unit was carried out yesterday.

Police recovered some Caesium-137 contained in a protective cover, but admitted they had yet to find a larger device, which was set to be sold on the black market for R45 million.

CCTV footage shows how undercover members of the Hawks’ organised crime unit stormed through a Sasol garage, opening fire on the suspects with semi-automatic weapons, sending terrified customers, motorists and petrol attendants fleeing.

Within moments of arresting the Mamelodi and Vanderbijlpark men, who are aged between 35 and 50, environmental officers and a field team of South African nuclear specialists sealed off the area as they gathered air samples and conducted tests on the radioactive material.

The lunchtime chaos brought an end to a lengthy police investigation involving Interpol agents around the world.

Police said they began their investigation after infiltrating a criminal organisation, which has allegedly been trying to source the highly radioactive Caesium-137.

Sources said the amount recovered, although small, could have been used in building a dirty bomb. According to the Wikipedia website, a dirty bomb combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. It is used to contaminate the area around the explosion and create terror.

A policeman said the source of the Caesium-137 was unknown and investigators were going all out to locate the larger device. “We don’t know what these suspects’ intentions were and we need to find the device quickly,” he said.

Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA spokeswoman, Chantal Janneker, confirmed the material was Caesium-137, and said there had been no contamination in the area.

Hawks spokesman, Colonel Musa Zondi, said the four were arrested as they tried to sell the stolen material which was a sample of a device which was to be sold for R45 million.

Zondi said the suspects would appear in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court on charges of theft, possession of a radioactive device and violating the Health Department’s prohibition of handling this material in public.

* This article was originally published on page 1 of The Independent on Saturday http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20100710085544493C308461

The Pretoria News reported Saturday that police had recovered a limited amount of cesium 137, which has been identified as possible dirty bomb material (see GSN, July 6). The newspaper indicated, though, that the device that once housed the material had not been found.

“At this stage we don’t know where it comes from or where the remainder of the device is, which is of grave concern to us, especially as cesium 137 can be used in dirty bombs,” a police officer said. “We don’t know what these suspects’ intentions were and we need to find the device quickly.”

GSN reported that Friday’s operation was the result of an extended investigation that included Interpol officers from various countries and targeted a criminal group that had spent months trying to sell the radioactive material, police said. It ended at a gas station, with the suspects unsuccessfully trying to flee under semiautomatic fire from the Hawks.

The Right Perspective said in its report officers are still looking for a much larger device the suspects are believed to have.

The Digital Journal reported that Caesium-137 is radioactive isotope (radioisotope) of Caesium and is toxic in even small amounts. It is soluble in water and can be difficult to detect. It is used in small amounts for radiation testing and for some medical applications.
The isotope would make an effective component of a so-called “dirty bomb,” a device which is made up of a normal explosive like TNT and a radioactive isotope. When the bomb explodes, the area it affects becomes contaminated and people coming into contact with surfaces or water containing the radioisotope could become seriously ill or even die.
Caesium-137 was released into the atmosphere during the Chernobyl nuclear power plant meltdown and was one of the three most toxic radioisotopes in the disaster. Dirty bombs are used primarily to created terror in populations, as the explosion itself is no worse than that produced by regular explosives, but the fear of radiation sickness could cause panic.

A policeman who was not named said:  “We don’t know what these suspects’ intentions were and we need to find the device quickly” according to the Digital Journal.

The suspects will appear in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court to face charges of theft, possession of a radioactive device and violation of health regulations pertaining to nuclear material.

The Global Security Network reports that police said the incident was not World Cup related despite earlier reports that Iraq claimed its security forces had detained an al-Qaeda militant suspected of planning to detonate a “dirty bomb” at a soccer stadium.

While it was not immediately clear where the device involved in Friday’s sting had come from, a significant amount of nuclear medicine manufacturing for treatment of certain cancers is manufactured at NECSA’s Pelindaba site near the Hartbeespoortdam outside Pretoria.

In 2007 a daring breach in security occurred at Pelindaba as two separate gangs of armed men broke into NECSA’s operations room during which an official was shot. NECSA passed this incident off as “crime-related” at the time and no further information was ever made available. There has been little fuss in South Africa over the security breach at Pelindaba but international media and  nuclear watchdog organisations remain severely disturbed believing that a significant amount of Highly Enriched Uranium at Pelindaba was a likely target for the break-ins.

Sources:

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100712_8973.php

http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/07/11/south-africans-arrested-selling-dirty-nuke/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/294511

Related posts:

  1. Securing the Bomb 2008
  2. Pretoria varsity to “minimise” PBMR radioactive waste
  3. THE RADIOACTIVE MERRY-GO-ROUND
  4. WHAT ABOUT INVESTING IN SOUTH AFRICANS?
  5. Former Pelindaba nuclear plant worker sues over cancer

The Truth About PBMR

0 comments

Posted on 8th December 2009 by admin in PBMR - Pebble Bed

, , , , ,

The Editor
Business Day

per e-mail

Your correspendent Brian Sandberg, “The Truth about the PBMR” (Business Day, 27 November 2009) refers. As a self-confessed layman, it is commendable that he is so enthusiastic about the possibilities posed by the Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project, but perhaps he was blinded by the apparent science and economic benefits.

The truth of the matter is that this technology failed spectacularly in May 1986 when there was a major release of radiotoxic isotopes into the environment in Germany. An attempt was made to cover this up as spillover from the catastrophe at Chernobyl in the Ukraine (April 1986), but some astute — and less sanguine — scientists identified the source correctly.

Despite the arms boycott, the technology was then sold forward to Armscor as a potential nuclear submarine reactor and survived the transition to democracy, reappearing in 1993 as the current choice for “Generation IV” reactors. This was the bais of the agreement signed recently between Energy Minister Dipuo Peters and US Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu.

While the “spin-offs” and “knock-on” effects of ANY investment in ANY technology are always welcome, the challenge for any open-minded industrial policy wonk is whether THIS technology is worthy of the R16-billion already squandered on a doubtful boondoggle for bomb-happy veterans of the nuclear arms trade.

As for global acceptance, it is still doubtful whether — in a truly democratic and participatory society — nuclear power will survive 2010 intact at all. The market certainly has no appetite for nuclear power, but is rather ploughing — like Venfin and Google — all their  money into truly renewable and power-saving technologies.

The respect your correspondent speaks about is probably within a tightly controlled circle of embedded scientists and governemt favourites, NOT among private investors and energy analysts. Even the World Bank refuses to fund nuclear power stations.

If there is such a fantastic market for the PBMR, where is the order book? Even Eskom has turned its back on the project, after its former political boss, Public Enterprises Minister Alec “Wingnut” Erwin promised an order of 24-30 reactors. Another enthusiastic backer, Exelon of the USA (currently struggling with another problem at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania) withdrew when it was clear that the US NRC was not rolling over a nuclear licence.

With regard to “containment”, the 1986 accident proved that there no such thing. As Edward Lyman pointed out to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission long ago, the inside of the reactor wall is coated in graphite and it only takes a little air to get inside for a Chernobyl-type fire to ensue. Moreover, even the renowned precision engineering of the German engineers could not guarantee the perfect sphericality of every single pebble, which ultimately lead to the balls becoming stuck in the outlet flue. We may be very rightly proud of our engineering expertise, but we are not less fallible than the best that Europe has to offer, surely!

Mistakes may be made, absolutely, but the costs are too high and the risks too uncertain. We cannot afford a nuclear programme any more than we can afford sleek limousines and six-star hotel accommodation. We are definitely NOT Europeans, as any stroll through your local squatter camp will reveal.

You may be able to afford international, high-flying standards of excellence, Mr Sandberg, but we can’t. If all the basic services have been met — clean water, sanitation, affordable basic energy, transport, a reduction in the impossibly high levels of crime and HIV/AIDS, yes, then perhaps, but not before.

Even if we were living at a European standard, my choice would be for a heavy investment in energy efficiency, Concentrated Solar Power, wind farms, thin-film solar technology, micro-hydro, and wave power around Cape Columbine to Cape Agulhas.

THAT would be innovative and job-creating and much could be achieved in two years, not twenty.

Sincerely

Mike Kantey
National Chairperson
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE
www.cane.org.za

Related posts:

  1. PBMR contract awarded to M&R
  2. Eskom’s PBMR Report Delayed
  3. THE PBMR: “OLD WINE IN A NEW BOTTLE”
  4. PBMR EIA REACHES ITS FINAL STAGE
  5. ESKOM’S MONEY-HUNGRY MONSTER: PBMR PTY LTD

Anti-nuclear activist evicted from Energy Ministers nuclear stakeholder fiasco

0 comments

Posted on 11th September 2009 by admin in Alternative Energy |Eskom |NECSA - Nuclear Corporation of SA |Nuclear Energy |PBMR - Pebble Bed |Press Releases

MEDIA STATEMENT

Anti-nuclear activist evicted from Energy Minister’s nuclear stakeholder fiasco

Government turns its back on thousands of jobs and SME opportunities giving dictatorial support for “arms deal style” nuclear power acquisitions that will impose nuclear risks to South Africans for thousands of years. Billions of rand destined to alleviate poverty will once again be commandeered by the ruling party without allowing any public debate to derail this irrational & unsustainable policy.


“Is this the Government we fought to bring to power?” asked anti-nuclear stalwart Mike Kantey who was evicted from a nuclear stakeholder meeting on Tuesday in Cape Town called by Energy Minister Dipuo Peters.

Meant to be an open and constructive get together of “nuclear stakeholders”- including those against nuclear power – it turned into a fiasco. In just over an hour, Kantey the lone anti-nuclear activist in a predominantly pro-nuclear government and industry gathering, was summarily ejected for daring to challenge Kelvin Kemm’s claim that nuclear power is a form of “clean energy”. Discussion of the ruling party’s nuclear policy was also ruled “out of order”.

A former member of Armscor from 1981-1986, Kemm stands to benefit from the PBMR boondoggle as a director of BEE company Silver Protea. Kantey is the self-funded Chairperson of the national Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE) and was one of only four civil society invitees to the meeting.

At the same meeting, Deputy General-Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers Oupa Komane introduced himself as a “representative of the working class” and confirmed that the biggest trade union in COSATU and an active member of the Tripartite Alliance is “opposed to the PBMR but in favour of nuclear power.”

All those affiliated to CANE — as well as those sister organisations opposed only to the siting of a nuclear power station in their region — will be having their own consultation to determine what response will be appropriate in the forthcoming months leading up to the 2010 World Cup.

Given the credence given to climate change denialist Kelvin Kemm in the meeting, and the Minister’s own attempts to convince civil society that “nuclear power is a clean energy option”, we will continue to broaden and strengthen the Coalition across all sectors of society — including our own trusted allies within the Tripartite Alliance.

The new-look Government should understand once and for all that the anti nuclear lobby cannot be co-opted, isolated or marginalised, since it remains united in opposition to nuclear energy, whether at the local level, or as a “one-size-fits-all” national energy policy. The blatant attempt to over-represent nuclear lobbyists with minimal civil society representation as ‘stakeholders”, must be addressed and rectified.

The anti nuclear lobby believes that the R1.3-trillion nuclear policy will hold back scarce public funds from solving the real issues of grinding poverty and economic injustice and will also substantially delay delivery of reliable energy to the economy due to massive delays in bringing nuclear power plants on line.

If China can build a massive two gigawatt solar plant, enough to power about 3 million Chinese households for less than $6 billion resulting in a tariff of 15 to 25 cents per kilowatt hour, why does South Africa with the best solar potential in the world want to go nuclear? *

Nuclear stakeholder groups from Namaqualand, Bantamsklip, Thyspunt, Koeberg and Pelindaba expressed solidarity with Kantey and questioned why their representatives had not been invited to the meeting which was billed as all-inclusive, as announced by the Minister.

ISSUED BY:
National Executive Committee
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy
Email: caneoffice@cane.org.za
Website: www.cane.org.za

Related posts:

  1. Greenpeace Supports Historic Launch of CANE
  2. Urgent call to Parliament to debate nuclear policy before Nuke Bill is gazetted
  3. DRAFT NUCLEAR ENERGY STRATEGY – LAST CHANCE FOR DISSENT
  4. SAs future energy policy needs greater public scrutiny, input
  5. State Sees Bright Future in Nuclear Energy

PBMR EIA REACHES ITS FINAL STAGE

0 comments

Posted on 29th July 2009 by admin in DME - Minerals and Energy |NECSA - Nuclear Corporation of SA |PBMR - Pebble Bed

Dear all

As evidenced by the attached correspondence and (Revised) Socio-Economic Impact Report, the mandatory process of the Environment Impact Report for the Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) Demonstration Unit at Koeberg in Cape Town is reaching its closing stages, with the Final Environmental Impact Report due in September 2009. Given her stated commitment to a nuclear energy future, it seems a foregone conclusion that the recently appointed Minister of Water & the Environment, the Honourable Bujelwa Sonjica MP, will rubber-stamp the deeply flawed process with her signed Record of Decision (RoD) — in favour of the beast.

Given the possibility of fresh challenges in the High Court, as well as the renewed and envigorated popular mobilisation in Greater Cape Town area against this travesty of public spending, we believe it is of vital importance to register and engage — however succinctly — in this pathetic excuse for public participation only to ensure that we have collectively “exhausted all remedies” before approaching the Bench.

May I then remind you as to what issues remain for objection to the PBMR:

1. Its hopelessly flawed issues relating to technical safety:

1.1. the high temperatures greater than anticipated in the the case of the AVR in Germany, leading to greater instability
1.2. the lack of integrity with regard to the continued sphericality of the silicon carbide “pebbles” under high temperature, pressure and constant jostling, leading to the jamming of the outlet flue, as occurred at the THTR-3000 in Germany in May 1986.
1.3. the possibility of a leak in the piping whereby oxygen can enter into the system and cause the graphite to spontaneously ignite, as occurred at Sellafield in the United Kingdom in 1957.
1.4. the possibility of the graphite tiles on the inside of the reactor housing falling off the walls under high pressure, temearature and jostling — not to mention constant neutron bombardment.

2. The logical and scientifically well-known threats to human health, both in terms of workers and the surrounding community, from the long-lived and carcinogenic radio-isotopes Cesium-137 and Strontium-90, which are equally well-known and well-documented daughter products of nuclear fission.

3. The reasonably unlikely but scientifically plausible threat of an accident on the major scale of INES-7 )akin to Chernobyl of April 1986), whereby massive releases of the radioactive core through a combination of high temperature, pressure and the ingress of oxygen to ignite the graphite, causing a major runaway nuclear firestorm, depositing Cesium-137 over an 80-km radius.

4. The necessity, therefore of instituting a workable emergency plan for the whole of the City of Cape Town — NOT “3 km” !!! – a plan which has been categorically stated by members of the Cape Town Disaster Management as being “impossible to implement successfully”.

5. The further hindrance of development north of Cape Town because of the extended presence of a nuclear complex at Duynefonteyn.

6. The unacceptability of the production of high-level (spent fuel) nuclear waste without a reasonable location for its proper long-term storage (NOT “disposal”) and management (over 24 000 years, in the case of Plutonium-239), thereby rendering the technology unclean, unsustainable and at odds with the principle of inter-generational equity.

7. The unacceptability of the high costs of the PBMR — as well as the added costs of uranium enrichment, fuel fabrication, transport, and security when so many better, cheaper and more relatively benign technologies exist for the produciton not only of electricity but also of pure energy for lighting, cooking, space heating, water heating and the running of electrical appliances.

8. An increase in the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, demonstrated not only by the capture and successful prosecution of nuclear weapons dealers in South Africa, but also the yet unsolved and highly sophisticated raid on the nuclear complex at Pelindaba, a national key point, thus demonstrating the incompetency of NECSA and the NNR in protecting or prohibiting anything remotely resembling public safety.

I trust that you will make your voices heard in resisting this unilateral imposition of an obsolete and technically unworkable “solution” to global warming and will encourage all who you know that work and play in Cape Town to oppose this rubbish in the name of democracy, environmental justice and economic common sense.

Join CANE now and help us change nuclear policy in this country once and for all.

Go to www.cane.org.za and add your voice to those who say “Nukes? No thanks!”

Mike Kantey
National Chairman
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE)

Related posts:

  1. Eskom’s PBMR Report Delayed
  2. Van Schalkwyk rejects appeals against PBMR pilot fuel plant
  3. No Amount of Redesign Will Save the PBMR
  4. THE PBMR: “OLD WINE IN A NEW BOTTLE”
  5. Is SAs scandalous PBMR nuclear experiment the real reason for Dalai Lama blunder
« Older Entries
lazy-submarginal
Afrigator