The national electricity utility Eskom is far ahead with its plans to build a so-called Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (a High Temperature Reactor) in the region of Oyster Bay. Although there has been quite some domestic opposition the story hasn’t been spread around internationally enough yet.

More than R200 million (US$32 million) have already been spent and more is being allocated to the development of a new generation of reactors for South Africa. Despite the failure of projects to introduce similar technology in the US, UK and Germany (see WISE News Communique 481.4774: New Generations: The High Temperature Reactor), these proposed PBMRs (or better known as HTRs) are being promoted as a new and local development.

Eskom PBMRs project is based on a technology which has been abandoned in several countries following 30 years of research. The motivation is not to provide power for South Africa at this stage but to market the technology to developing countries. At least this is an honest statement: there has been a huge fall in demand as a result of the international and local economic slump.

Unfortunately the situation is quite bad in the sense that the plan has moved forward fast: at the moment the Environmental Impact Assessment is being undertaken for three proposed sites. Eskom’s choice for Thyspunt, near Oyster Bay, has been well-known for years: In December 1997, the Eskom-sponsored Kouga Coast Sub-Regional Structure Plan was published.

This plan identifies four “imperatives”, one of which is to “maintain the viability of Thyspunt as a possible future nuclear power production site”. Objections against this Structure Plan were first dismissed as irrelevant because “Eskom was not at this stage proposing to build a plant”. But soon it was made clear that Eskom was for sure looking at this site for the PBMR project.

In discussions with the Kouga Nuclear Concern Group (KNCG), the Eskom Energy Management manager, Brian Statham, made very clear that they would like to start construction as soon as possible to “remain competitive in the international arena”. This led to the decision of the KNCG that it was time to form a larger, more representative body to oppose any nuclear plant at Thyspunt.

The Kouga Anti-Nuclear Group (KANG) was formed in February 1999. Members include various organizations, local municipalities and organizations of rate-payers.

One of the biggest problems is that there has been no Environmental Impact Assessment for the project itself; only the identified sites have been assessed for their specific characteristics. The plans for building new reactors have not at all been part of discussions in the run-up for the general elections on June 2. Maybe some international pressure could change the fact that NGOs in South Africa are working too much isolated on this issue. For sure the country itself does not need new capacity, nuclear or not. And the prospectives for selling the PBMR technology is highly over-estimated, leaving Eskom’s money being spent in a gamble on technology that is known to be unsustainable and environmentally damaging.

Of course there is the interest of the international nuclear industry, very hard trying to find a country willing to take the risk of new nuclear technology. As they cannot sell the idea in their own region, they now go far abroad; Asea Brown Boveri and Siemens have concluded a licensing and cooperation agreement via their joint venture company, Frankfurt-based HTR GmbH Gesellschaft für Hochtemperaturreaktoren, with Eskom for the transfer of high-temperature reactor technology. ABB and Siemens each have a 50% stake in HTR GmbH, founded in 1988. With this licensing agreement Eskom gains non-exclusive rights for the use of HTR knowhow in the construction of HTRs and in the fabrication and sale of HTR fuel. Seems there is some work for European activists as well..

As the main South African campaign organization, Earthlife, put it in its press release for the action they had on Earth Day, April 22: “Our money should be invested in ways that benefit the most people, pursuing the strategy most appropiate for their needs. Such a stragey would have to include substantial development of renewable energy sources, primarily solar, wind, wave and biomass.”

Support the South African NGOs by sending statements opposing the PBMR project to the following people:

Government of South Africa
President Thabo Mbeki
email: president@anc.org.za
Fax: +27-12-323 2573

Duma Nkosi, Chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs,
Fax: +27-21-403 2911
Penuell Maduna, Director-General, Mineral and Energy Affairs
Fax: +27-12-322 8699
Mrs. Martha Olckers, Chairperson, Environmental Affairs Committee, Cape Town Metro Council
Fax: +27-21-483 4584

Eskom:
Mr. Brian Statham
email: brian.statham@eskom.co.za
Fax: +27-11-800 2826
Siemens KWU
Wolfgang Breyer
Fax: +49-9131-18 7039
Asea Brown Boveri
Wolfgang Eberhardt
Fax: +49-621-4381 367

And cheer up the South African environmental movement by sending letters of support.