Acid Mine Drainage -the Eastern basin is currently experiencing an ingress of 120-million litres of water and only has the capacity to treat about 80-million litres of water

If relevant to your concerns and environmental issues,  kindly raise your concerns regarding Mine Waste Solutions’ (MWS) Water Use License authorisation and positive environmental authorization for its Centralised Tailings Storage Facility (super dump) within the KOSH goldfields, one kilometer from the highly compromised Vaal Barrage River system. MWS is of the intention to reprocess 15 uraniferous tailings dams, to reprocess 1.9 million tons per month of uraniferous tailings (producing 922,000 lb/yr U₃O₈ in yellowcake) and to establish a new centralized tailings storage facility of about 1 400 ha, one kilometer from the Vaal River.  The properties adjacent to the proposed super dump are game farms and conservancies.

Your concerns and objections (please see subjoined “gaps in information”) should be submitted to:

Mr. Scot Sobey (scot@firsturanium.com)

Mr. Tshepo Moremi (Tshepo@nwpg.gov.za)

Ms. Deborah Mochotlhi (mochotlhi@dwaf.gov.za)

Mr. Willem Grobler (groblerw@dwaf.gov.za )

Mr. Piet Theron (PietT@nda.agric.za)

Mr. David Klein (DavidKl@nda.agic.za )

In terms of Mine Waste Solutions’ Environmental Management Report, it was submitted that the following gaps in the environmental impact assessment exist:

1. The existing groundwater monitoring network at MWS, Buffelsfontein and Hartebeestfontein does not meet all the requirements of [an effective ] monitoring network. (The purpose of groundwater monitoring network is to provide an early warning of possible adverse effects of the activities in the vicinity of the tailings complex, on both yield and quality of the shallow groundwater system.) No dedicated monitoring boreholes are available for the existing MWS plant site and the proposed extension site. The leachate from the proposed TSF will lead to long-term groundwater pollution.
2. A detailed geochemical assessment was not incorporated; only static laboratory test work was included on available tailings samples for the purpose of the geochemical assessment because of the limited time frame.
3. A  geophysical assessment must be done to confirm the structural geology to the east of the proposed site.
4. Certain areas were excluded re aquifer related flow parameters.
5. The status of groundwater users and uses was not confirmed.
6. The proposed reclamation sites (existing TSFs) are mostly located on dolomite/chert formations.  Ground water characteristics for these sites are unknown and NO site specific aquifer data exist.  MWS solutions will take responsibility for existing contamination plumes BUT these are not clearly  identified.  Future positive impacts of the proposed reclamation activities can therefore not be demonstrated.
7. After closure, the mine workings will flood and the dolomite aquifers will largely recover to pre-mining levels.  There are currently no management options in place to cope with contaminated decant water.
8. The flora assessment was incomplete since most of the investigations were conducted during the winter period, and no investigations were conducted during or after the high rainfall seasons.
9. The wetland assessment was incomplete since the investigation was undertaken at the end of the dry season which made plant species identification very difficult.

In view of the aforesaid gaps it perplexes how a water use licence and a positive environmental authorisation could have been issued by the Department of Water Affairs and the North West Department of Agriculture and Rural Development respectively.

The impacts of mining on the environment is current and the long term impacts from Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and heavy metal accumulation, including Uranium,  in the vicinity of the CTSF, Tailings Storage Facilities and reprocessed footprints within the KOSH goldfields have been acknowledged.  (Please see the DMR’s Regional Mine Closure Strategy for the KOSH goldfields and the Environmental Management Report of Mine Waste Solutions, March, 2009.)

In terms of MWS’s  Environmental Management Report “Mine Waste Solutions will be responsible for the existing pollution plume and zone of influence.  The anticipated zone of influence (SO₄ plume) falls within The Koekemoerspruit# and Vaal River Catchment* areas.”

#(The Koekemoerspruit, is a tributary of the Vaal River.  The Koekemoerspruit catchment is already compromised.  The transport of dissolved uranium from slimes dams is a major pathway for environmental contamination of the Koekemoerspruit. Reference:  “Gold tailings as a source of waterborne uranium contamination of streams –  The Koekemoerspruit (Klerksdorp goldfield, South Africa) as a case study.  Part I of III: Uranium migration along the aqueous pathway”. Frank Winde, Peter Wade and Izak Jacobus van der Walt)

*( In terms of the Water Research Commission Report No. 1397/1/07, entitled “Monitoring Environmental Water for the Presence of Toxic Agents:  A Pilot Study in the Vaal Barrage Catchment” it was found that “mining operations, even after they have been discontinued, are still having a major impact on the water quality in the Vaal Barrage catchment to the extent that it can no longer be compared with other natural water systems…only 21% of the sites showed no evidence of cytotoxicity at any time.  This suggests a failure on the part of those agencies responsible for the enforcement of existing  regulations and is an unacceptable situation, bearing in mind that source water from this survey area impacts directly upon the Vaal Barrage, a national water resource….Substantial deposits of immobilized toxicants could have accumulated in the southern Gauteng river silts over a prolonged periods.  Experience elsewhere suggest that such deposits pose long-term health and environmental risks”.)

With gratitude,

Mariette Liefferink.
CEO:  FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

On 1 September the Federation for a Sustainable Environment submitted the following request for information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act:

Dear Mr. Sobey,

In terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Section 32 (1) of the Bill of Rights “everyone has the right of access to any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights”.

In the context of Mine Waste Solutions’ establishment of a Tailings Disposal Facility, 1 (one) kilometer from the Vaal River, the rights that interested and affected parties wish to exercise and protect are:

1. Everyone has the right to life (Section 11);
2. Everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health and wellbeing; and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development (Section 24);
3. Everyone has the right to have access to sufficient water (Section 27).

I am of the intention, in the public interest and on behalf of members of affected communities, and the Federation for a Sustainable Environment, to submit my request for access to public documents such as the Water Use Licence, the Social and Labour Plan, the amended Environmental Management Programme and Environmental Impact Assessment Report, etc. to Mine Waste Solutions, in terms of the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, No 2 of 2000 (PAIA).  Please advise me what Mine Waste Solutions’ prescribed format is.

I shall appreciate your response before  the 5^th of September, 2010 since your response will ripen my judgment.

Sincerely,

Mariette Liefferink.

CEO:  FEDERATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

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

In a recent analysis, *The Nuclear Illusion,* Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh put the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant at 14* per kilowatt hour and that from a wind farm at 7* per kilowatt hour. This comparison includes the costs of fuel, capital, operations and maintenance, and transmission and distribution. It does not include the additional costs for nuclear of disposing of waste, insuring plants against an accident, and decommissioning the plants when they wear out. The United States, which leads the world with 101,000 megawatts of nuclear-generating capacity, proposes to store radioactive waste from its 104 reactors in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The cost of this repository, originally estimated at $58 billion in 2001, climbed to $96 billion by 2008. This comes to a staggering $923 million per reactor, assuming no further repository cost increases. (See additional data.)  In the event of a catastrophic accident, every nuclear utility would be required to contribute up to $95.8 million for each licensed reactor to a pool to help cover the accident*s cost. The collective cap on nuclear operator liability is $10.2 billion. Anything above this would be covered by taxpayers.  Another huge cost of nuclear power involves decommissioning the plants when they wear out. Recent estimates show decommissioning costs can reach $1.8 billion per reactor. In addition, the industry must cope with rising construction and fuel expenses. Two years ago, building a 1,500-megawatt nuclear plant was estimated to cost $2-4 billion. As of late 2008, that figure had climbed past $7 billion, reflecting the scarcity of essential engineering and construction skills in a fading industry.  Nuclear fuel costs have risen even more rapidly. At the beginning of this decade uranium cost roughly $10 per pound. Today it costs more than $60 per pound. The higher uranium price reflects the need to move to deeper mines, which increases the energy needed to extract ore, and shift to lower-grade ore. The high cost of nuclear power also explains why so few plants are being built compared with a generation ago. In a Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article, nuclear consultant Mycle Schneider projects an imminent decline in world nuclear generating capacity. He notes there are currently 439 operating reactors worldwide. To date, 119 reactors have been closed, at an average age of 22 years. If we assume a longer average lifespan of 40 years, then 93 reactors will close between 2008 and 2015. Another 192 will close between 2016 and 2025. The remaining 154 will close after 2025.  Only 36 nuclear reactors are currently under construction worldwide-31 of them in Eastern Europe and Asia. Although there is much talk of building new nuclear plants in the United States, there are none under construction.   Despite all the industry hype about a nuclear future, investors are pouring tens of billions of dollars into wind farms each year. And while the world*s nuclear generating capacity is estimated to expand by only 1,000 megawatts this year, wind generating capacity will likely grow by 30,000 megawatts.   For full report visit http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update78.htm.  For information contact: Media & Permissions to Reprint Contact:
Reah Janise Kauffman Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 12 E-mail: rjk (at) earthpolicy.org Research Contact: Janet Larsen Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 14 E-mail: jlarsen (at) earthpolicy.org Earth Policy Institute 1350 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 403Washington, DC 20036Web: www.earthpolicy.org 

Source: http://www.iaia.co.za/News/News_details.asp?art_ID=93  

We believe that the nuclear industry’s complaint is a heavy handed attempt to suppress public debate – a debate that is long overdue. The government proposes a massive expansion of the nuclear industry. Is this a rational response to the current energy crisis? The renewable energy sector has the potential to offer economic development without the high health and environmental risks associated with nuclear.

The Department of Minerals and Energy has invited the public to make written submissions on the Nuclear Energy Policy and Strategy.

Deadline: 17 October 2007

For Attention: The Director-General, Mr T Maqubela

Postal Address:  Private Bag X59, Pretoria, 0001

Or Fax:              012 322 8570

Or Email:  kedibone.theko@dme.gov.za

The document is available at HERE  , HERE   or HERE   (PDF – Adobe Acrobat Format)

Contact Person:

Mr T Maqubela 012 317 8340

Sign an online petition against nuclear power at www.poison-for-profit.co.za and encourage all your friends and family to do the same.