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”

Tanzanian Uranium mining plans under spotlight

0 comments

Posted on 12th November 2009 by Pelindaba Working Group in Agriculture |DME - Minerals and Energy |Mining |Nuclear Waste |Pollution |Radiation |Uranium

 This week controversial plans for mining Uranium in Tanzania are being examined critically by a visiting group of international experts invited by Tanzanian NGO FEMAPO (Foundation for Environmental Management and Campaign Against Poverty).

Many licences have already been issued for exploration. The delegation, consisting of academics and experts from Australia, Cameroon, Germany, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Zambia, has surveyed exploration sites and has met with concerned local communities.

Uranium mining poses a direct threat to the livelihoods of local communities as well as to ecotourism. Community members were outspoken in their opposition to the planned mining.

The group of experts is part of an international conference on the impact of Uranium mining which takes place 10th-11th November in Dar es Salaam.

UK-based Professor Chris Busby, a recognised expert in the health effects of Uranium, will present new scientific evidence of its radio-toxicity and the shortcomings of existing international safety standards. He will say: “New scientific discoveries in the last few years have opened a new era in the understanding of radiation risk. These discoveries significantly impact the regulations governing the mining and processing of Uranium which threaten the health of people and animals in Tanzania.”

FEMAPO is increasing its efforts to highlight the Uranium issue with a series of meetings and consultations in cities and towns in Tanzania, and is gaining national and international support for this work.

“Uranium mining is a new development in Tanzania and one with very serious long-term consequences. Citizens of Tanzania need to be fully informed and involved as stakeholders in any decisions about the future of this industry,” said FEMAPO Director Mathias Paul Boniface.

 A media conference will be held at 13:00 Tuesday 10th November at the Rombo Greenview Hotel, Shikilango Road, Dar es Salaam.

For further information contact FEMAPO at +255 787 876 997 Pr. Busby is on +44 7989 828833.

ISSUED BY: Low Level Radiation Campaign     http://www.llrc.org/

Related posts:

  1. Poisonous legacy of Gold and Uranium Mining
  2. Areva plans $750m Namibian uranium mine
  3. FARMERS STILL SUFFER THE POLLUTED LEGACY OF MINING
  4. Mass protest march against Uranium One & The mystery behind “Low Level Radiation”
  5. DME grants uranium prospecting rights

Keep nuclear ships away from South Africa – call from CANE & Greenpeace

0 comments

Posted on 12th March 2009 by Pelindaba Working Group in Eskom |NECSA - Nuclear Corporation of SA |Nuclear Energy |Nuclear Waste |PBMR - Pebble Bed |Pollution |Radiation

As South Africa continues to embrace the sham of the “nuclear renaissance” we are seeing an increasing number of ships carrying nuclear cargo pass our shores. Unless nuclear expansion is stopped in this country, many radioactive cargos could be destined for dumping or  nuclear waste smelting & reprocessing in this country –  an immense health and safety risk ….
‘Keep out nuclear ships’
4 March 2009

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

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

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

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

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

‘No capacity to deal with accident’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poses risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

  1. Russia Seeks Investment in South Africa Nuclear Power
  2. Greenpeace Supports Historic Launch of CANE
  3. Urgent call to Parliament to debate nuclear policy before Nuke Bill is gazetted
  4. Nuclear Disaster for South Africa
  5. Securing the Bomb 2008

PBMR Fuel Factory at Pelindaba ROD to be amended yet again – register now

0 comments

Posted on 13th February 2009 by Pelindaba Working Group in Blogroll |Letters |NECSA - Nuclear Corporation of SA |Nuclear Energy |Nuclear Waste |PBMR - Pebble Bed |Petitions |Pollution |Press Releases |Radiation


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 13th 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 16th FEB closes 18th 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

Related posts:

  1. Van Schalkwyk rejects appeals against PBMR pilot fuel plant
  2. 300+ NGOS SAY NO TO MICKEY MOUSE CLIMATE “SOLUTIONS”
  3. Former Pelindaba nuclear plant worker sues over cancer
  4. Urgent call to Parliament to debate nuclear policy before Nuke Bill is gazetted
  5. Nuclear Power Has No Place in the Kyoto Protocol – NIRS petition

SAs future energy policy needs greater public scrutiny, input

0 comments

Posted on 16th December 2008 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 |Uranium


15 December 2008

By Derek Luyt

 

ESKOM might have decided to shelve its R700billion nuclear energy expansion programme, but there remain lots of good reasons why the public should be more actively involved in deciding energy policy in South Africa.

 

For a start, the Eskom load-shedding fiasco, which still hangs over the country, should remind us that the mandarins can get it wrong. Despite knowing more than a decade ago that SA was heading towards an energy shortage, government could not avert a crisis.

 

It may well be that there were vested interests involved, coupled with a belief that investors would be found to bring nuclear energy on stream in time to alleviate the looming crunch. We may never know for sure what led to the crisis, but what is quite clear is that government failed to respect the right of the South African public to participate meaningfully in the critical issue of our country’s future energy policy.

 

The public simply cannot afford to allow this situation to continue. We need to insist on the right to participate in the formulation of energy policy in our country because whatever policy gets adopted and implemented will have profound effects on all South Africans for decades to come.

 

The energy policy implemented in SA will have a major impact, for example, on efforts to eradicate the poverty which currently blights the lives of far too many citizens. It is imperative that such policy maximizes job creation and enhances opportunities for the improvement of the quality of life of the poor majority.

 

The issue of nuclear power is central to any consideration of future energy policy. Nuclear power is enormously expensive and there are coherent arguments that it is not cost effective, does not create the kind and number of jobs that our country desperately needs and that it poses unacceptable environmental risks.

 

Renewable energy, in the considered opinion of some, offers better prospects for job creation than conventional or nuclear energy. For a country with unemployment rates so high, this alone makes renewable energy worthy of far greater investment. But, as Liz McDaid points out, the main obstacle to developing renewable energy in SA is the “lack of political will to transform Eskom”. Hence civil society must “play a major role in lobbying government for change in the energy sector”.

 

The deputy director-general of the Department of Public Enterprise (DPE), Nelly Magubane, last week stated that “renewable energy is definitely on the cards … we are actually looking at ways of making sure that we get even more renewable energy in the system”. While this is encouraging, and although Eskom has postponed immediate plans for Nuclear One procurement – because, according to Portia Molefe, DPE director-general, “it is not affordable to Eskom” – it has made it clear that nuclear power remains firmly on its long-term agenda. According to Molefe, government “remains committed to introducing nuclear”.

 

This commitment has been made without any meaningful public participation, and none of the 26 comments recently submitted on the Nuclear Energy Bill have been made public.

 

Vast amounts of money – about R345bn – will be ploughed into developing energy infrastructure in SA over the next five years. While government has committed about R60bn towards these costs, Eskom is currently negotiating a 5bn (about R50bn) loan from the World Bank to help fund its expansion. It has already secured a 500 million (about R5bn) loan from the African Development Bank.

 

ANC leader Jacob Zuma, who last week said he and the ANC “are very concerned about the level of corruption in government and we must do something radical about it”, would presumably understand public concern that the amounts of money being pumped into energy development in SA provide fertile grounds for corruption.

 

The public would rightfully be even more concerned were Eskom to implement an offset based nuclear procurement policy, which seems, finances allowing, probable.

 

Despite such concerns, nothing especially radical is needed to ensure that SA’s energy policy does not degenerate into a carnival of elite enrichment. A healthy dose of public participation, coupled with legislated oversight and accountability, will be enough.

 

The public should therefore insist that both Eskom and the World Bank conduct its negotiations openly and transparently. After all, what is being considered is essentially a loan to the people of SA, and we have a right to know what the conditions of the loan are, since we will be repaying it.

 

The public should also insist that the World Bank, which is committed to promoting transparent and accountable governance, and the government of SA, which is constitutionally obliged to promote transparent and participatory policy-making, make any loan to Eskom conditional on guarantees of meaningful public participation in the formulation of SA’s future energy policy.

 

Finally, the public should also insist that both parties ensure that the terms and conditions of any loan are transparent, allowing both Parliament and the public to hold Eskom accountable for its use of such funds.

 

The arms deal may have taken the public by surprise. We still don’t know the extent of corruption involved in the procurement of the weapons involved. Nor do we have accurate information on the offsets which apparently persuaded our government that the deal was good for the country. We are not even sure that we needed the arms in the first place.

 

What we do know is that the public was not involved in deciding any of these matters. Vested interests took these costly decisions on our behalf. We dare not let our future energy policy become a hugely expanded repeat of the arms deal. There is a lot more at stake than keeping the pool pumps running.

 

Derek Luyt is media and advocacy head for the Public Service Accountability Monitor

Source: Daily Despatch Insight

http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=279738

Related posts:

  1. Civic group urges greater public involvement in energy policy
  2. Urgent call to Parliament to debate nuclear policy before Nuke Bill is gazetted
  3. NECTEC Comment on Nuclear Energy Policy
  4. ESKOM’s NUCLEAR DECISION IS NO CAUSE FOR OPTIMISM
  5. Nuclear Power Has No Place in the Kyoto Protocol – NIRS petition
lazy-submarginal
Afrigator