The government has pulled the plug on its ambitious nuclear energy programme after pumping more than R9-billion into it over more than 11 years. There have been suggestions that this figure is far higher than declared and allegations that PBMR funding resulted in various slush funds. There are also suggestions that the PBMR project may continue to be funded in the US and may yet try to rear its ugly head in South Africa. What we want to know is what will happen with the PBMR “test” fuel factory established at Pelindaba and why were no environmental reports made public from the several years of pebbles experimentation that transpired in the hills of Hartbeespoortdam? And what ever became of the nuclear pebbles produced at Pelindaba that were shipped overseas for testing? – Comment from CANE

In a letter dated July 5, Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan told the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM): “The minister of finance has clearly stated that there will be no further funding for the company, and I would like to reiterate that this position has not changed.

“It is clear that the remainder of the cash on hand is to be utilised solely for the winding down of the company as well as the preservation of the intellectual property.”

One objective was to design, license and build a prototype nuclear reactor plant, which, if successful, would have paved the way for building small power plants to help meet SA’s needs.

The company operates as an independent entity governed by an agreement between founding investors Eskom, the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) and US nuclear giant Westinghouse.

It has spent R5-billion on projects since 1994, including R2.7-billion on a demonstration power plant, which was to have been built at the Western Cape’s Koeberg nuclear power station, but was later scrapped. In the process, the company wasted R268-million on the manufacture of a major component of the demonstration power plant, a 2000-ton reactor pressure vessel.

The vessel, which is due to leave the Spanish port of Santander next Sunday, will be stored at Saldanha Bay for R10000 a month as the company can no longer afford the R1.4-million it will cost to transport it to Pretoria.

Business Times was told that the company decided to have the component shipped to SA as it would have been liable for R34-million in VAT had it remained in Spain. Nuclear experts were unanimous this week that the vessel would have to be scrapped as the PBMR company changed the original design of the demonstration power plant last year to 200MW from 400MW. The vessel can function in a 400MW power plant only.

Although the part is unfinished, as the contract for its construction was cancelled last year, PBMR was forced to pay the Spanish builder R268-million for the incomplete product. The original contract price was R317-million.

Payments to companies that made parts for the demonstration power plant include:

• R503.2-million to Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for a helium turbine for the power plant;
• R256.8-million to German company SGL Carbon for manufacturing carbon reflector blocks; and
• R256-million for graphite for the demonstration power plant.

The company also spent millions of rands manufacturing coated uranium oxide particles encapsulated in graphite fuel spheres, which were sent to Russia for testing.

However, staff say the financial cut-off did not stop the company recently giving golden handshakes of R1.8-million each to some of its general managers.

Last year, the company’s 11 executives were paid a combined R18-million in salaries and other benefits. Other big payments since 1994 include:

• R2-billion to mostly overseas consultants;
• R115.9-million for building rental;
• R707.9-million for the construction of a pilot fuel plant; and
• R172-million for overheads.

Hogan recently turned down a rescue plan proposed by the NUM that included a request for a R262-million government bail-out until March next year. In a detailed submission to Hogan, the union called on the auditor-general’s office to conduct a forensic investigation into the company’s financial affairs.

The union also called on the government to suspend the company’s board and executive officers. It said some engineers and scientists were “inappropriately qualified” for nuclear reactor engineering applications.

“The actions of certain individuals can be treated as sabotage for changing the design almost every second year. It seemed as if they did not want to see the reactor built.”

Union general secretary Frans Baleni deplored the company’s “wasteful expenditure. The closure is marked by serious allegations of corruption and unethical conduct. We would be pleased if it can be investigated thoroughly,” he said.

A nuclear expert employed at PBMR blamed the board and executives for the company’s failure. “The technology in terms of electricity production was good, but the only problem was that it was not well managed. Nothing was ever achieved by the company. It was a waste of taxpayers’ money.”

Eskom said in a short statement that it was a minority investor, and referred queries to PBMR.

PBMR’s acting chief executive Alex Tsela declined to comment, referring all questions to the company’s corporate communications department, which could not be reached for comment.

The chairman, Alistair Ruiters, could not be reached for comment either.

• - govenderp@sundaytimes.co.za

Source: http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article555632.ece/Government-pulls-plug-on-PBMR

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/

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

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

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

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

5 December 2008There is little reason for over optimism about Eskom’s decision today not to invest in foreign companies for the Nuclear-1 project plant while the government remains committed to its nuclear power programme. 

The Board of Eskom Holding Limited announced its decision on December 5 not to proceed with the proposed investment in Nuclear-1 project due to the magnitude of the investment. The proposed Nuclear 1 project would have resulted in the construction of the country’s second pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Koeberg Power Station is South Africa’s first and only nuclear power station. 

There remains a deliberate silence over the ill-conceived experimental Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) which has already cost taxpayers over R16 bn (some estimates put this figure closer to R32 bn), and the nuclear industry’s stated intention to re-launch uranium enrichment plant at Pelindaba and “reprocess” radioactive waste to fund nuclear power projects. 

The country stopped enriching uranium in 1997 following the dismantling of its apartheid-era nuclear weapons programme. 

Nuclear officials have repeatedly said they intend planting up to 36 PBMRs throughout South Africa and elsewhere in Africa and, we fear, intend to trade and traffic in radioactive waste to fund this. 

Already the mechanism exists for an untouchable and virtually privatised State-run business via a Radioactive Waste Management Agency, which was approved this year. 

Officials in the nuclear industry and Minerals & Energy have declared government’s intention to re-launch extremely hazardous and highly energy intensive uranium enrichment & reprocessing plans, and sold the notion by using words like “recycling”, “sustainable” and “renewable”.  The DME’s Nuclear Chief Tseliso Maqubela sold the idea to government last year by announcing that despite the hefty costs of building a uranium enrichment plant, its “profits are big”. 

The approved radioactive waste Smelters at Pelindaba await licensing despite long-standing  opposition for fear that these will be commercialised, leading to nuclear waste dumping by other nuclear countries on South Africa for profit.  

In addition, former Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin announced some time back that old Russian nuclear warheads will be “brought in to fuel the PBMRs”. 

Questions remain unanswered over the brazen “military-styled” attacks by two armed groups last November on the heavily guarded Pelindaba Complex which is stores hundreds of tons of weapons-grade radioactive spent uranium fuel (HEU) enough to build a dozen atomic bombs. International reports claim the attackers were after the HEU and had inside help. South Africa has been implicated in nuclear-trafficking rings in at least three trials in the recent past. 

South Africans can only rest once the nails are hammered into the coffin of the Nuclear Energy Bill, the PBMR and calls for South Africa to hand over its HEU for international safekeeping are heeded. 

(Below you’ll find some of the recent news reports on Eskom’s decision.) 

ISSUED BY: 

Dominique GilbertCoordinatorPELINDABA WORKING GROUP& member of the COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGYhttp://www.cane.org.za 

___________________________________ 

(A reflection of how inane the electricity debate here remains… not even a mention of who is really responsible for guzzling SA electricity, just a stupid prediction of ‘decades of darkness’…) 

SA set for decades of darkness 

December 06, 2008 Edition 1 

 by Thabiso Thakali, www.iol.co.za 

South Africa faces up to two decades of electricity crises after Eskom decided to pull the plug on the construction of a second nuclear power station, experts have warned. 

Eskom announced yesterday that it had decided not to proceed with the proposed building of its second nuclear power station because of the magnitude of the investment. 

Environmentalists called it a “watershed moment” in South Africa’s history of energy supply, but energy experts said it meant the electricity crisis was going to remain in the country for at least the next 15 to 20 years. 

Andrew Kenny, an independent energy expert, said the decision means South Africans will have to keep their candles handy for many more years. 

“We are already struggling with a very low reserve margin and they(Eskom) are basically telling us that we will run out of capacity again in the near future.” 

Kenny said although capital costs for building a nuclear power station were higher than those for a coal-fired power station, it would cost less to run and maintain such a plant considering it would last longer than a coal-fired plant. 

However, Tristen Taylor, a policy officer with Earthlife Africa, said by cancelling its plans to build a new reactor Eskom has saved the country from “economic ruin”. 

Eskom spokesman Tony Stott said the decision did not mean Eskom would no longer consider building nuclear power stations. 

“We now have a downturn in the economy which means we have a leeway of about 12 to 18 months in terms of how quickly we need to build power stations as per the projections made,” he said. 

“And in terms of government’s nuclear policy and commitments to the Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative of SA (AsgiSA) government wanted more local companies to take part in the project.” 

He said the decision would have no implications for the development of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). But he warned that the electricity grid would remain tight going forward unless consumption levels were reduced by the required 10%. 

Stott said the government and Eskom would now review a 4% projection growth on electricity demand given that a lot of manufacturing companies had now indicated they would cut down on their production. 

Eskom had hoped to raise R300 billion for its expansion programme in the next five years but according to Stott, the utility’s balance sheet is not strong enough to handle this scale of spending. 

This is largely because, Stott added, Eskom was unable to get the 60% electricity tariff hikes earlier this year. “Rating agencies downgraded us and therefore we couldn’t get the money we hoped to raise,” he said. 

As part of its long-term plans to double its generation capacity by 2025, Eskom had hoped the first of the proposed nuclear power plants would add about 3 500 megawatts of capacity to its grid. 

Koeberg power station is the only nuclear power station and two groups of companies led by French company Areva and US-based Westinghouse were bidding for the construction of the proposed plant. 

Serge Lafont, Areva South Africa chairman, said the company was disappointed by Eskom’s decision even though he said they remained committed to being Eskom’s partner in the future. 

“You must understand that when we put up the bid we did so with intent to win,” he said. “So this is like a loss to us but that is the nature of life. Government has said it is still willing to continue with nuclear as part of its energy mix therefore we remain hopeful that we will still be Eskom’s partner.”………………………………………… 

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fSetId=262&fArticleId=4747885 

Nuclear powers on without Eskom
December 5, 2008

Johannesburg – South Africa remains committed to its nuclear power programme despite Eskom’s decision not to proceed with the construction of a second nuclear power plant, a government official said on Friday.

“The South African government remains committed to introducing nuclear because we have to deal with our carbon footprint and we have to diversify our energy mix,” Portia Molefe, director general at the Department of Public Enterprises told Reuters and other reporters present at the announcement.

Sapa reported that Eskom will not proceed with its proposed investment in the Nuclear-1 project due to the magnitude of the sum involved, the parastatal said on Friday.

The proposed Nuclear 1 project would have resulted in the construction of the country’s second pressurised water reactor nuclear power plant.
Koeberg Power Station is South Africa’s first and only nuclear power station.

Eskom said that, as a result, it has also terminated the tender process to select the preferred bidder for the construction of the Nuclear-1 project.

The two bidders, the EPR consortium led by Areva of France and the N-Powerment consortium led by Westinghouse of the USA, have been informed of Eskom’s decision.

“The board has expressed its appreciation to the two bidders for their interest in the Eskom build programme, and in particular their desire to participate in the nuclear industry in South Africa,” said Eskom chief executive Jacob Maroga.

“We were impressed by their professionalism throughout the bid process.” – Sapa and Reuters 

ESKOM NOT IN A POSITION TO INVEST IN NUCLEAR 

The Board of Eskom Holding Limited announced today its decision not to proceed with the proposed investment in Nuclear-1 project due to the magnitude of the investment. The proposed Nuclear 1 project would have resulted in the construction of the country’s second pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Koeberg Power Station is South Africa’s first and only nuclear power station. 

The proposed Nuclear 1 project would have resulted in the construction of the country’s second pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Koeberg Power Station is South Africa’s first and only nuclear power station. 

The Eskom Board has, as a result, terminated the commercial procurement process to select the preferred bidder for the construction of the Nuclear-1 project. The two bidders, the EPR consortium led by Areva of France and the N-Powerment consortium led by Westinghouse of the USA, have been informed of this decision of the Eskom Board. 

“The Board has expressed its appreciation to the two bidders for their interest in the Eskom build programme, and in particular their desire to participate in the nuclear industry in South Africa. We were impressed by their professionalism throughout the bid process. We thank them for their patience and understanding during the past few months”, says Mr Jacob Maroga, Chief Executive of Eskom Holdings Limited.ENDS 

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

We are pleased to alert you to this week’s public release of Securing the Bomb 2008.

The report, commissioned annually by NTI, finds that the world still faces a “very real” risk that terrorists could get a nuclear bomb. The Obama Administration must make reducing that risk a top priority of U.S. security policy and diplomacy, according to the report, which is accompanied by a paper offering a specific agenda for the presidential transition and the opening weeks of the new administration.The report was written by Matthew Bunn of the Belfer Center at Harvard University. This is the seventh edition of Dr. Bunn’s annual report, which has the most up-to-date information regarding the security of nuclear weapons and materials around the globe. The report details a broad range of progress in efforts to reduce the danger, including programs that have eliminated potential nuclear bomb material entirely from dozens of buildings and have substantially beefed up security for scores of sites. But it warns that major gaps in these efforts remain, and the risk of nuclear terrorism is still unacceptably high. The study provides a frightening survey of incidents around the world, from an armed break-in at a South African site with hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU), to a Russian colonel arrested for soliciting bribes to overlook violations of nuclear security rules, to increasing terrorist threats amid Pakistan’s ongoing strife, to weak security at many of the roughly 130 research reactors worldwide still using HEU fuel.Securing the Bomb 2008 is available on-line at www.nti.org/securingthebomb. Yesterday, The Washington Post published a feature article on the report which you can read here. Printed copies of Securing the Bomb 2008 will be available in December 2008. Please fill out an online form and we will mail you a copy as soon as it is available.A number of recommendations for the incoming Obama Administration and new Congress are outlined in the report. We hope you will continue to support efforts to reduce nuclear dangers and make a safer and more secure world. Sincerely,Charles Curtis
President
Nuclear Threat Initiative

To visit the Securing the Bomb web section,  click here

Nuclear Threat Initiative1747 Pennsylvania Ave., NW7^th FloorWashington, DC 20006www.nti.org