Buried in Earthskin - An Investigative journey into the impact of nuclear power on the environment and peoples of South Africa

Buried in Earthskin has been selected for the Encounters Documentary Film Festival.

It will be screening at the NuMetro Cinema at the Waterfront:  (THE BIG SCREEN)  on Sunday the 16th at 8:15 and Sunday the 22nd of August at 8 pm.

Sunday the 16tth’s screening will have a question and answer section at the end with myself, Helena Kingwill and Muna Lakhani of Earth Life Africa as a guest speaker.

What it’s about:

An Investigative journey into the impact of nuclear power on the environment and peoples of South Africa, and a glimpse into potential alternative solutions.

This film aims to look at the nuclear issue as holistically as possible, and sheds light on the severity of the predicament facing decision makers: energy generation versus the environment.   Alternative solutions are blowing in the wind, but can we access them?  Who pays the ultimate price for our convenient electricity?   Who holds the power and can a critical mass shift the paradigm?

Buried in Earthskin subtly demonstrates how energy and political power go hand in hand, and gives a voice to marginalized indigenous peoples who have paid the ultimate price for decisions made (about where we get our electric power) for the sake of political and financial power.

Reviews:  ”Powerful”-  Director of the Oakland International Film Festival- San Francisco.

“I loved it! It is powerful and very thought provoking. ”  Marie Holms Independent Consultant and Project Advisory, Bath, England.

TO ORDER copies of this documentary, please click here. (R120 per copy plus postage within South Africa)

China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group Co., the nation’s second-biggest builder of atomic plants, received state approval to construct two reactors in the southern province of Guangxi to boost supply of clean energy.

…but you don’t have to look too hard to see how far the infection has spread. When even the US’s Environmental Protection Agency refers to nuclear power as ‘clean’ you can see how deeply the idea is entrenched.

How has this happened and why? Are the journalists writing these pieces pro-nuclear and so smuggling their viewpoint (whether subconsciously or not) into their copy? Or are the words ‘clean energy’ being copied and pasted from nuclear industry PR(opaganda)? We’d genuinely like to know.

Full article

Opposition party member Ali Riza Ozturk shows the 170,000 anti-nuclear signatures in Turkey’s Parliament (© Greenpeace)

As is usual with nuclear deals, the details of the agreement reveal just how ludicrous it is. The reactors will be built, owned and operated by the Russian nuclear industry with Turkish partners. So much for nuclear power providing energy security. Turkey is making itself reliant on Russian expertise and nuclear fuel for its energy needs.

Not only that but, as you would expect, the economics of the deal are pitiful. Tetas, the Turkish grid company, is committed to a 15-year deal to buy electricity from the reactors at a price of US$124 per megawatt hour. That, unbelievably, is more than double the market prices for electricity across the EU right now. So much for nuclear power being affordable and competitive.

Of course, when it comes to projects of this kind -  especially in Turkey where previous attempts to join the nuclear club have been a comedy of legal challenges, rigged bidding processes and record-breaking costs – it isn’t worth raising one’s expectations. There still are many obstacles in the way of four nuclear reactors being built in Turkey on time and on budget, if at all.

Here at Greenpeace we’ll be continuing the fight to make sure it never happens.
read full article

Wind is caused by the uneven heating of the Earth by the sun and the fact that temperatures will always be trying to reach an equilibrium (heat is always moving to a cooler area). With the rising price of energy and the destruction of the environment from non-renewable fuels, it is starting to be equitable to harvest this renewable resource.

The advantages of wind energy are that it’s virtually free (in case you purchase the equipment) and there is no pollution. The disadvantages include the fact it’s not a continuing source (the velocity varies and many times it is insufficient to produce electricity) and it typically requires about one acre of land.

How Wind Energy Works

The amount of power that is available varies by wind speed. The amount available is named it’s power density which is measured in watts per square meter. For that reason, the U.S. Department of Energy has separated wind energy into classes from 1 to 7. The typical wind speed for class 1 is 9.8 mph or less while the average for a class 7 is 21.1 or more. For effective power production, class 2 winds (11.5 mph average speed) are usually required.

Generally, wind speeds increase as you get higher above the Earth. For that reason, the standard wind turbine comes with a tower at least 30 feet above obstructions. That there are two basic different kinds of towers useful for residential wind power systems (free standing and guyed). Free standing towers are self supporting and are usually heavier meaning they take special equipment (cranes) to place them. Guyed towers are supported on a concrete base and anchored by wires for support. They typically are not as heavy and most manufacturer’s produce tilt down models which can be easily raised and lowered for maintenance.

The kinetic (moving energy) from the winds is harnessed by a device called a turbine. This turbine includes airfoils (blades) that capture the energy of the wind and use it to turn the shaft of an alternator (like you have on a car only bigger).

That there are two basic types of blades (drag style and lifting style). We all have seen pictures of traditional windmills with the large flat blades which are a good example of the drag style of airfoil. Lifting style blades are twisted instead of flat and resemble the propellor of a small airplane.

A turbine is classified as to whether it is designed to be installed with the rotor in a vertical or horizontal position and whether the wind strikes the blades or the tower first. A vertical turbine typically requires less land for it’s installation and is a much better option for the more urban areas around the globe. An upwind turbine is designed for the wind to impact the airfoils before it does the tower.

These units normally have a tail on the turbine which is needed to maintain the unit pointed into the wind. A downwind turbine doesn’t need a tail as the wind acting on the blades tends to keep it oriented properly.

These turbine systems would be damaged if they were to be allowed to turn at excessive speeds. Therefore, units should have automatic over-speed governing systems. Some systems use electrical braking systems while some use mechanical type brakes.

The output electricity from the alternator is sent to a controller which conditions it for use in the home. Using residential wind power systems requires the home to either remain tied to the utility grid or store electricity in a battery for use when the wind will not blow sufficiently.

When the home is linked with the grid, the surplus electricity that is created by the residential wind power system can be sold to the utility company in order to reduce or even eliminate your utility bill. During times with not enough wind, the home is supplied power from the utility company.

The Cost of Wind Energy

Small residential wind power turbines can be an attractive alternative, or addition, to those people needing more than 100-200 watts of power for their home, business, or remote facility. Unlike PV’s, which remain at basically a similar cost per watt independent of array size, wind generators get more affordable with increasing system size. At the 50 watt size level, for instance, a small residential power wind generator would cost about $8.00/watt when compared with approximately $6.00/watt for a Photo voltaic module.

That’s why, everything being equal, Photo voltaic is more affordable for very small loads. As the system size gets larger, however, this “rule-of-thumb” reverses itself.

At 300 watts the wind turbine costs are down to $2.50/watt, while the PV costs are still at $6.00/watt. For a 1,500 watt wind system the cost is down to $2.00/watt and at 10,000 watts the cost of a wind generator (excluding electronics) is down to $1.50/watt.

About the Author – Mary Jones writes for the residential wind power systems web log, her personal hobby blog focused entirely on ideas to reduce Carbon dioxide and lower energy costs using alternative power sources.

If you wish to read my complete Bio

JOIN THE URGENT CALL FOR  BROAD CIVIL SOCIETY TO UNITE NOW

to stop bad energy planning

The comment period for the “consultation process” government’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) to determine our electricity plans – including nuclear power – for the next twenty years has been extended to 11 June.

However, described as “ill-considered, rushed and presumptuous” even before it began,  broad based South African civil society is questioning whether it even makes sense to participate in government’s energy planning.

Those concerned with Sustainable Energy / Electricity are very disturbed by comments made by the Director-General of the DoE at a nuclear forum that were reported in Engineering News (21 May). She told the nuclear forum that the IRP2 process was a “sausage machine”. (http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/nuclear-will-make-up-a-significant-part-of-sa-power-mix—doe-2010-05-21)  This implies bad faith. Also, it is clear from her words that the nuclear project has already been decided.

Government appears to be fast-tracking the process to enable it to order nuclear units later this year – as already planned without bothering to take into account its much vaunted “consultation” process with the South African public which has not yet begun!

Moreover, it has failed to first undertake Energy Planning (IEP) upon which IRP2 electricity planning decisions are meant to be taken and thus IRP2 incorrectly suggests that IRP2 follow the IEP.

The broad South African Energy Caucus –the largest forums of civil society in South Africa – is vehemently opposed to nuclear power. It recently appointed a 3-person representative team which includes CANE’s Rod Gurzynski after resolving to participate as a stakeholder in the IRP2 despite the obvious flaws in the process, but this week asked for government clarity. The Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI) also lobbied the Department of Energy over concerns. Please see their well reasoned letter at the end of this article.  Here is the Energy Caucus letter which awaits response.

27 May 2010

To: Minister Dipuo Peters

Department of Energy
CC       Nelisiswe Magubane
Director-General
Dept of Energy

CC Ompi Aphane

Dear Minister Dipuo Peters

We write to you as representatives of the South African Civil Society Energy Caucus. The Energy Caucus is a coalition of civil society bodies, community-based organizations, labour unions and social movements that engage on energy issues.

We agreed at the recent Civil Society Energy Caucus session to engage in the IRP2 process as a stakeholder. We were assured by Mr Ompi Aphane on 14th of May at the session that the public participation process was in good faith and that all energy planning decisions remained open for the duration of the process. It is on that basis that we agreed to take part.

The Energy Caucus endorses the issues raised by SAFCEI in a letter send through on the 24^th May 2010. (subjoined below-Ed)

It is with great concern therefore that we note your comments to a nuclear forum as reported by Engineering News (21.05.2010) that the IRP2 process can be compared to a “sausage machine”. This makes it appear that the process is not in good faith as far as the DoE is concerned. Please let us know if this is an accurate description of what you said and what you mean by this?

We are also concerned by the report in Engineering News that you encouraged the nuclear industry to “state the case of nuclear”. It would better if you appeared to be neutral at least during the period of the IRP stakeholder process, otherwise it would appear that the process is merely as you say, a “sausage machine”.

If that is really the case, we would have to re-consider our options.

Yours faithfully

Rod Gurzynski
Makoma Lekalakala
Phineas Malapela
for South African Civil Society Energy Caucus

Incidentally, last year’s letter from the Energy Caucus letter to the Speaker of Parliament asking for an urgent Parliamentary debate over South Africa’s future energy planning and mix was this week returned “deleted without being read”!

THE CALL TO SOUTH AFRICANS

Meantime, an urgent call has been sent for feedback by South African Civil Society concerned with Sustainable Energy / Electricity.

Objective: The call for feedback is a quick process to identify issues (areas of interest) and the related positions (or views) of organisations so as to (a) develop,  or (b) support the development of a joint civil society input into formal processes on these issues.

Method: This is an experimental process which is may be shaped by participants willing to contribute and make inputs. It is hoped the method will support (a) the development of joint positions.

Inputs sought: See below for more details. Inputs are sought on issue areas, comments, critiques.

Issue areas are suggested below. These are general descriptions of issues that may lack nuance but are based on clear values that would allow organisations to indicate support for them (recognising that there may be differences at a greater level of detail, which may warrant that organisation making a more detailed substantive input separately).

Mandates: Refer to representation issues.

It would suffice for an organisation to indicate that the entity supports the position. Should an organisation be a network, or representing a community or have a mandating process that would contribute to the gravitas of the statement, they are encouraged (but not obliged) to indicate this.

NOTE: This process is NOT intended to get 100% agreement, but rather to begin to work on the areas we do indeed have in common… the rest can follow…
Please cut and paste your responses to the numbered items below and email to muna @ iafrica.com

Indicate  “agree” , “disagree” or “not sure”

Organisational contact details:
Mandate:

1. no more nukes
2. no more coal
3. just transition for workers
4. disconnect as many parts of the economy from massive energy use as possible
5. halt fossil subsidies, and move to SA driven and people-centred solutions
6. price energy correctly, no discounts for volume users
7. 200kWhr free basic electricity for all
8. rapid fossil import replacement programme, not including food for fuel and the like
9. rapid implementation programme for distributed generation and distribution of energy / electricity
10. the future energy path must be people-driven and justice driven, not determined mainly by the interests of conspicuous consumption or business interests
11. Clarity is needed on the role of civil society in the decision making process
12. Energy process (IRP2) needs a transparent, empowered and participatory process with broader civil society
13. technical / social / environmental / economic capacity building needed (by the org responding)
14. waste to energy is a polluting, destructive, harmful and jobs-, materials- and energy-losing process
15. unscrubbed landfill gas to energy releases over 1000 toxics into the air – any landfill gas to energy process must fully scrub the gas prior to use.

It is requested that all organisations respond on or before the 31 May 2010.

Thank you – hopefully, this process will contribute to a more positive energy future for South Africa.

————————————————

SOUTHERN AFRICAN FAITH COMMUNITIES’

ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE (SAFCEI)

SAFCEI is a registered Section 21 Company no 2006/014388/08 053-498-NPO PBO 930024255

“Faith communities committed to cherishing living earth.”

www.safcei.org.za

Executive Director: Bishop Geoff Davies                                                       P O Box 106

Office Tel: (+27) 21 7018145 Fax: (+27) 86 6969666                                  Kalk Bay,

Home Tel: (+27)21 788 6591                                                                         7990

Email: geoff.davies @ safcei.org.za South Africa

__________________________________________________________________________________

24^th May 2010

Attention:

Mr Ompie Aphane

Department of Energy

Email: ompi.aphane@energy.gov.za

Dear Mr Aphane,

Consultative Process for IRP2

SAFCEI has been aware that an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) that will determine our electricity plans for the next twenty years is currently underway.

From our interactions with government officials, particularly at the energy caucus on the 14^th May 2010, it is disappointing to hear that while government professes to value and be committed to public participation in the IRP process, its actions undermine such statements.

SAFCEI is deeply disappointed in the proposed current government consultation plan for IRP2. The schedule pays lip service to public participation, the deadlines put forward for the consideration of government documents do not enable any meaningful participation and we would submit that this process appears to be not only inadequate but unlawful.

The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) provides for reasonable time- periods for public input with a minimum of 30 days, depending on the complexity of the information. . The novelty and complexity of electricity planning clearly warrants a longer period for adequate consultation, particularly in view of the fact that most citizens (educated and uneducated, rich and poor alike) have been excluded from these decision-making processes until now.

The Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) suggests that in order for stakeholders to participate meaningfully, they need access to sufficient information to enable them to understand and critique the information put out by Eskom and Government.

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) that applies to all environmental decisions by state bodies states that public participation must be promoted so that all interested parties can participate in a meaningful manner.

It is clear that sending out via email a set of documents, in excess of 30 documents, with a response time of initially 7, extended now to the minimum 30  days is not reasonable.

At the Energy Caucus meeting, held in Gauteng on 14^th May 2010, you indicated that DoE would welcome suggestions and ideas for a process of consultation.

SAFCEI therefore submits the following as a constructive input towards strengthening the democratic decision-making process around electricity planning for the next twenty years.

Firstly, SAFCEI believes that electricity planning is a subset of energy planning which in turn should be informed by our national response to climate change, the nature of our commitment to renewable energy, and future economic plans. We therefore believe that the review of the Renewable Energy White Paper, the finalization of our response to climate change and our Integrated Energy Plan should be informants into the IRP2 process.  Any IRP2 should therefore remain in draft form until the other planning processes have been completed.

In order to avert “energy crises”, SAFCEI submits that IRP1 can be amended (as has already happened) in order to accommodate any increased commitments to renewable energy and/or energy efficiency that may arise over the next year or two. No reason advanced by DoE for its inability to extend the final deadline for completing IRP2 has been found to be compelling and SAFCEI believes that the IRP2 process is of extreme importance and cannot be rushed through.  SAFCEI would also like to point out that despite commitment from government that the public participation process for IRP2 would start in January 2010, the public process has been delayed 5 months and it seems unreasonable to expect that the public consultation must suffer because of government ineffectiveness.

We would also like to point out that at the energy caucus meeting, a number of issues were raised. As a representative of DoE, you promised to provide responses in writing by Wednesday 19^th May 2010.  It is now 25^th May and no responses have been forthcoming.  No explanation for the delay has been communicated and we must express extreme disappointment with this failure to adhere to timeframes on government’s part.

It is also of concern to read in the recent media that senior government officials are quoted as categorically committing South Africa to building future nuclear energy power plants.  The implication of such statements is that the IRP2 consultation process is a farce, a public relations exercise and that the decisions have already been made.  Such undermining of PAJA and other related laws makes a mockery of our democracy and we seek assurance that this is not the case.

The public consultation process put forward by DoE has a number of serious limitations. It presumes that all stakeholders have access to the internet, and are fluent in English.  It also assumes that one or two adverts placed in mostly business press or Gauteng newspapers are sufficient to inform the nation and alert any potential interested and affected parties.  SAFCEI does not feel that this is in any way adequate, and that in order to ensure that quality inputs are solicited from the communities of South Africa, an awareness campaign to alert the public about IRP2 should be conducted.

The views of interested and affected parties who may not be able to prepare written submissions will also need to be accommodated. (Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000, Regulations on Fair Administrative Procedures, 2002, Chapter 1 section 5. See also section 3 of the Act)

We understand the budgetary constraints faced by Government but government has a duty to consult and in the case of energy and electricity planning, this is something that underpins and impacts on all livelihoods, could affect the quality of life for all citizens and cannot be reduced to a plan for supplying bulk electricity to industry.

We believe that a radio advertisement campaign, much less costly than TV, and conducted over a number of weeks at specific times in the consultative process would be useful, as would posters placed in local government offices, libraries and community spaces.

Given the accuracy of the saying “garbage in equals garbage out”, it seems that careful attention needs to be paid to the first phase of stakeholder consultation, discussion around the assumptions and parameters that inform the modeling.  In a confusing array of emails, distributed by Eskom, on behalf of DoE, the first stage comment period has now been extended to the legal 30 days.  While, we welcome DoE’s commitment to the letter of the law, we do not believe that this is sufficient.

The DoE has also suggested a process of a “stakeholder workshop”, where a limited elite of stakeholders (who can afford to travel to the venue and are able to produce ppt presentations) are given 15 minutes to make a few points.  SAFCEI believes that this is totally inadequate and fails to provide space for dialogue and meaningful engagement.

We propose that the first stage comment period be extended to at least 60 days.   During this time, DoE officials should make themselves available to attend civil society meetings when invited in order to explain the assumptions/parameters and enable those stakeholders interested in participating further to make informed inputs into this stage of the process.

Such meetings would necessarily take place where stakeholder groups are located.  SAFCEI would therefore request that a government person familiar with the modeling attend a SAFCEI meeting in three provincial workshops.  We would be happy for our constituency to combine with other civil society groupings that would also support such an approach.  Furthermore, given the delay in government releasing the assumptions documents for comment, it seems that an unavoidable delay will take place over the World Cup period when most people’s attention will be focused away from electricity planning!

It is also important that government publicises, via its awareness campaign, the various methods of consultation that it will use to reach those without access to internet and those whose preferred language is not English.

Once the first phase of stakeholder inputs has taken place, there needs to be a transparent manner of responding to all the comments received.  We suggest a comments and responses document is published (as takes place in other government processes) so that all stakeholders can see how their inputs have been considered and addressed.  Such a document could be published within 30 days of the closing date for comments. This would be an important opportunity for government to both educate and empower citizens with deeper understanding of the intricacies and nuances of electricity planning, enabling them to make more substantial contributions to the decision-making process.

Once the modeling has been complete, the scenarios are then released for public comment. It would appear that a second round of consultative workshops would then be in order, further enhancing stakeholders’ ability to understand the rationale for the scenarios etc. These workshops would need to be attended by those people responsible for, and familiar with the detailed modeling, rather than government officials performing some sort of PR role.

Depending on the density and complexity of the scenarios, the comment period would be minimally 60 days but possibly extended to 90 on request.

The final comments and responses document would then be issued so that stakeholders could check how their inputs had been considered and addressed.

The IRP2 could then be finalized.

Another important point is the need for transparency in the decision-making.  Currently, there appears to be an advisory committee assisting government with decision-making around IRP2.  The process for the selection of such an advisory group is extremely opaque and the lack of transparency leads to the fear that vested interests or a small group of like-minded individuals will have a disproportionate influence over our energy future.  This is clearly inequitable.

SAFCEI therefore requests an explanation of how this group arose, its terms of reference, its constituents, and what steps are to be taken to address the transparency and governance issues that arise due to its existence.

Such a reference or advisory group should ensure that civil society is represented but it should also be made totally transparent.  The meetings of such an advisory group should be open to observers, from broader civil society and from the press.  In the age of high technology, such deliberations could be recorded and publicized through the web-site for those with access.  Minutes of the meetings can be distributed to those without web-access.

Should government embark on a consultative process as outlined above, and assuming that government responses can take place within a 30-60 day period (the modeling and responses to inputs), the IRP2 might be finalized by early 2011 .

Given the importance of such a twenty year electricity plan, the current DoE process appears  to undermine the value of public input, rendering it susceptible to legal challenge.  Such an approach seems short-sighted and likely to result in a poor product.  Committing to a meaningful public participation, as required by law, seems to justify a delay and it does not seem to be unreasonable to finalise the IRP2 in February 2011 instead of September 2010.

SAFCEI offers this input as part of a constructive engagement towards sustainable development, environmental justice and peace.

We look forward to your response,

Bishop Geoff Davies Liz McDaid

Executive Director Climate Change Programme Director

Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute

An official website has been set up by the Dept of Energy for the IRP2 process: http://www.doe-irp.co.za/ and useful information can also be obtained from IDASA’s blog at http://irp2.wordpress.com/

Coordinator

PELINDABA WORKING GROUP

& member of the national

COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY

Email: pelindabanonukes @ gmail.com

www.cane.org.za

The Department of Energy has finally issued the invitation for the much touted “broad consultation process” concerning its “IRP2” – basically the electricity / energy plan for this country for the next 20 years – a day BEFORE their deadline. This invitation arrived yesterday but that will not deter us from registering as stakeholders yet again to voice our opposition and reasons for opposition to the proposed inclusion of nuclear in the proposed energy mix for South Africa. But, WE NEED TO ACT QUICKLY.

For those who don’t know much about IRP2, there are web-links to articles on the IRP2 listed below to fill you in. But please ensure you register on the database of stakeholders ASAP for the pattern of recent times has shown that leaving it up to the next person or organisation, results in government turning its back on enlightened views to the detriment of this country’s future.

Over the past number of years we have relentlessly participated in all processes – EIAs, submissions to government or Parliament, presentations to energy regulators and policy makers, public hearings on energy policy etc only to find that pre-determined policies are riding rough-shod over democratic processes. Our petitions to the Speaker for Parliamentary debate over energy mix and nuclear policy have remained unheeded and indeed legislation enabling this lethal energy option has been Gazetted in spite of this. More recently the Energy Minister held a “nuclear stakeholders’” meeting in Cape Town to which she invited only ONE PERSON to represent the growing thousands of people in this country opposed to nuclear expansion while renewable alternative solutions remain the Cinderella option. Needless to say, his objections were dismissed and he was kicked out of the meeting.

You cannot allow the government to continue to be dismissive of whom it consults & recognise as stakeholders. Indeed the entire South African public is the biggest stakeholder!!

YOUR VOICE COUNTS. Please register! Help to drive the message that WE DO NOT WANT NUCLEAR ENERGY IN SOUTH AFRICA!

* * *

Herewith the invitation:

INVITATION TO REGISTER ON THE DATABASE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: IRP2

The Department of Energy hereby calls on all interested parties to register on its database of stakeholders for inclusion in the consultation process for the development of the IRP2 for Electricity 2010.

All interested residents, businesses, groups and sectors are requested to:

1.    Indicate their institution;

2.    Core business;

3.    Area of interest in the IRP;

4.    Preliminary position in their areas of interest; and

5.    Contact person/s and contact details

Interested parties are requested to submit the above-mentioned information to the office of the Director-General by the 20th April 2010. Such information may be faxed, emailed or posted.

Contact Person:

Ms Yolisa Mapekula

Department of Energy

Private Bag X 19

Arcadia

0007

Tel: 012- 444 4063

Fax: 012- 444 4505

Email: yolisa.mapekula@energy.gov.za

_____________________________________________________________________________

Some reading matter on the IRP2 and why your involvement is so important:

Cloud over power plan -Mar 19 2010

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-03-19-cloud-over-power-plan

Energy Department to publish IRP2 by June

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/maqubela-2010-02-24

Inter-Ministerial Committee gives nod to IRP2 consultation plan – 31 March 2010

http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2010/10040110051002.htm

Minister reassures business IRP2 will include broad consultation
April 7, 2010

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=552&fArticleId=5419352

Nuclear deal back on track-Mar 05 2010

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-03-05-nuclear-deal-back-on-track

SA outlines consultation process for 20-year energy plan

http://www.polity.org.za/print-version/sa-outlines-consultation-process-for-20-year-energy-plan-2010-04-01-1

Why nuclear power is not the answer to Climate Change

The Development and Demise of South Africa’s Nuclear Industry

By

Mr Mojalefa Murphy

Profile
Mojalefa Murphy is a scientist currently engaged in a research and development attachment at Areva’s CANBERRA Company in Toronto, Canada. He has postgraduate education from Canada (in physics and in nuclear engineering and science) and UK (in medical radiation physics) and has occupied senior management and scientist positions at the former Atomic Energy Corporation and iThemba LABS. He has briefly worked as an independent consultant providing science and technology management services before he relocated to Canada, where he also taught at University of Toronto.

Abstract
From the Nubian through the Roman to the British and lately the US empires, the development and maintenance of a sound technology edge to enable the sustainable provision of energy, national security (military defence) and food security for growing populations have been key governmental activities of the ruling elite. The rise of the Afrikaner ruling elite coincided with a rapid acquisition of energy, military and agricultural technological edge. Within a period of 17 years of assuming power in 1948, the then Nationalist Party government had commissioned the production of liquid fuels from coal in 1955, and developed a nuclear science and technology platform to support the development of a full nuclear fuel cycle for dual purposes of energy and advanced weaponry provision. In this consideration, a timeline account of the development and decommissioning of South Africa’s nuclear technology capability is discussed. The key driving forces of these developments are also explained as are the dire consequences of any failure to curb the post#8208;1990 lack of a sound nuclear vision.

Date: 16 February 2010
09:30 for 10:00 – 12:00
Africa Institute of South Africa
One Embassy House
Cnr Bailey Lane & Edmond Street, Tshwane

For more info:

Tel.: 012 304 9753
Cell: 073 334 3104
Fax: 086 510 0408
email: slekala@ai.org.za

21 January 2010

CANE is a coalition of organizations and individuals opposed to the use of nuclear power in South Africa.

CANE opposes Eskom’s proposed electricity tariff increases based on the information and policy given in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2009 Preliminary Report. The National Energy Act (2008) requires the Minister of Energy “to provide “any data and information reasonably required for the purposes of conducting analysis required for energy planning from any person”. A small extract from the IRP was gazetted on 31 December 2009 and covers the period 2009-2013. It is clear from the Preliminary Report that almost all of the analysis and planning was done by Eskom. This is explicitly stated: “in the absence of a…state-driven governance process for the development of the IRP, the IRP was developed predominantly by Eskom…”[1]. This raises a conflict of interest. Eskom should contribute to the IRP but should not be driving it. The Department of Energy has undertaken to initiate a process of reviewing IRP 1 to allow for consultation with stakeholders, due to commence in January 2010[2], so we trust that we and other organizations and individuals will be consulted in the drafting of a more balanced, policy-driven IRP 2.

IRP 1 is based on the assumption that “[electricity] demand growth is expected to…average 3.2% a year over the 20-year planning horizon.”[3] 3.2% compounded annually implies a doubling of capacity over the 20-year period. The assumption that demand grows relentlessly and that the response is to provide ever more capacity is like putting the demand cart before the policy horse and this is going to be economically and environmentally unsustainable whether it is funded by price increases, borrowing or taxes. The limits to growth set by resource depletion and environmental destruction are already upon us. Cheap fossil fuel, which has powered industrial growth from the start of the industrial revolution up to now, is coming to an end, if it has not done so already. The idea of supplying ever increasing quantities of electricity is completely at odds with what is required now, a policy of energy efficiency and the elimination of all forms of wasteful use of energy. If Eskom has to charge much more for electricity in order to pay for new generation capacity then an equally ambitious energy efficiency strategy needs to be in place as well. This is not the natural function of of Eskom, a power supply monopoly. It is the function of government. Energy efficiency, energy productivity and a strategy to achieve this needs to be at the heart of IRP 2.

Energy productivity is a win-win option. Improvements in energy productivity are far more cost-effective than expansion of power generation. It is entirely possible for energy productivity to substitute for new generation capacity over the period 2010 to 2030 at 20% of the cost of new generation plant.[4] Energy productivity which uses existing energy for more output has no negative impact on the environment, climate change or water supply. On the contrary it has a positive impact and frees up financial resources for other uses. Energy productivity could create many more sustainable jobs than building and operating new centralised generation plant. The IRP commits to 1 million solar water heating installations over the 20 year period. this might save the capacity of one coal-fired power station. This is a start, but much more can be done: like replacing inefficient motors and machines with much more efficient ones, environmentally upgrading buildings, and changing to combined heat and power at large factories and intensive energy users. What is required is a practical strategy and the political will to carry it out.

Eskom plans to meet the projected increased demand over the period by building new coal-fired power stations and the returning to service of out of use power stations. It is intended to save only 3225MW of capacity by 2020 through demand side management[5] out of a total projected peak demand range of 60 000 MW – 66 000 MW. This gives a very low target of 5% for demand side management. The low target is a result of Eskom’s weak incentive and constrained ability, as a supply monopoly, to stamp out wastage and implement energy productivity strategies. The total generation capacity required by 2020 is then calculated from this weak demand-side target.

IRP1 states that “the independent power producer[s] are expected to provide additional capacity in the medium term” and also that “the IRP is developed on the basis that the country builds capacity to meet expected growth at minimum cost (inclusive of externality impacts).”[6] If these statements were translated into action then there would be a much greater amount of generation capacity supplied by Independent Power Producers using renewable energy and micro-generation.

UCT’s Energy Research Centre has shown in a recent study[7] that we can reach a 15% renewable target by 2020 and “combined with an energy efficiency programme, average electricity costs will be lower than the baseline for most of the 2015-2020 period.”  Yet the presently committed capacity of renewable energy from independent power producers under the REFIT (Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff) scheme is only 725MW (400MW from wind and 325MW from “other”).[8] This present commitment is just 1% of total capacity projected for 2020 and only 4% of new build over the period. There are proven wind resources in South Africa[9] to provide constant wind energy when spread across various locations.  There is a proposal in the IRP to introduce Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), but only starting in 2021. This is too late and we need to kick-start CSP now. South Africa has the best solar resources in the world, so this is an opportunity not to be missed: South Africa could become a world leader in this technology. The  Energy Research Centre study has shown  the cost of electricity from concentrated solar power coming down year by year due to ‘technology learning’ until it becomes the cheapest form of electricity from about 2025. This is also good for jobs. Our motor car production lines could easily be converted to solar and wind turbine technology. The IRP does not even go into the socio-economic impact of the IRP and the opportunity costs of the various decisions. The economic impact is “still outstanding”.[10]

Up to 2020 the bulk of new generation capacity according to the IRP is to be coal. From 2020 to  2027 Eskom plans to build a ‘fleet’ of nuclear power stations of 11 500 MW in total. The best most recent cost estimate for nuclear plant construction is a nominal (2008) overnight capital cost of R33 million/MW[11] and a real cost of capital of 14.5%[12] reflecting nuclear’s high risk. But the cost of new nuclear build is not standing still, rather it has been rising by about 12% a year in real terms over the period 2003-2010.[13] At this rate, real costs over and above inflation double every 6 years, so if this continues the overnight cost of each MW of the nuclear ‘fleet’ after 2020 is likely to reach well over R66 million giving a total of R380 billion in 2008 Rands and then calculate 14.5% cost of capital compounded on top of that. I can’t do the sum but the real figure must be heading towards the R1 trillion level in today’s Rands. Such a level of debt would sink Eskom into a debt black hole. Is this the real reason for the huge price increases asked for? From the tables of capacities and costs (Appendix C) it is impossible to determine what costs are attributed to nuclear power out of the cumulative totals, as case by case costs are not given. The ‘moderate’ level of confidence for cost for nuclear of +1 given in the Risk Rating[14] is pure whistling in the wind. Even the Director for Strategy and Research at the World Nuclear Association cannot work out or predict the cost of a nuclear power plant.[15]

What we do know for sure is that costs of nuclear plant are escalating while the costs of renewable energy technologies are coming down and the costs of energy efficiency and energy productivity are negative because they release funds towards other projects.

CANE rejects nuclear power as a source of energy in South Africa now or in the future. Apart from the cost, the other negating factors include the proven health risk[16],the unsolved long-term high level waste problem, the pollution of ground water through uranium mining and the very poor fit with the type of skills available and the small number of jobs relative what could be achieved from renewable energy technology and energy efficiency and energy productivity strategies. The other intractable problem with nuclear power is the risk of nuclear proliferation, and the undesirable type of security state that would have to be reconstructed to try to safeguard the entire nuclear fuel cycle from beginning to end (and for high level radioactive waste there is no “end”). For all these reasons, nuclear power is not the answer to coal and carbon emissions. Funds diverted to nuclear power means less funds available to quicker and cheaper options, which is the huge opportunity cost when one excessively large project is chosen over multiple smaller ones.

While it is accepted that electricity prices must rise to allow for improved capital infrastructure and for energy productivity strategies, we do not accept any increase based on the present Integrated Resource Plan. There should be a much greater commitment to energy efficiency and energy productivity and a commitment to at least 15% renewable energy by 2020. As this can be supplied by the IPP’s, the capital invested would be at no up-front cost to Eskom. Rather, Eskom should commit their funds to upgrading their distribution infrastructure, expanding up to the solar fields of the N Cape and employing smart grid technology in order to manage the various energy supplies. Another 15% of capacity should be saved by energy productivity. Renewable energy, energy productivity and simply eliminating waste are the real answers to carbon emissions. Eskom cannot be allowed to write its own terms of reference and base its price hikes on that. The IRP needs to be re-drafted, to include policy for energy efficiency and for jobs and skills, to actively encourage independent power producers, and to eliminate the nuclear power financial black hole.

Written by:

Rod Gurzynski. For the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy

BA (Economics) B. Arch (UCT)

rod@boma.co.za

Tel: 021 789 2023.

[2] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Government Gazette 31 Dec 2009. Pg 10.

[3] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report Sept 2009. Pg iv.

[4] McKinsey Global Institute. The Case for Investing in Energy Productivity. Feb 2008. Pg 12. http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/reports/pdfs/Investing_Energy_Productivity/Investing_Energy_Productivity.pdf

[5] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report Sept 2009. Table 14 – Expected DSM outcomes. Pg 45.

[6] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report. Sept 2009. Pg 4.

[7] Costing a 2020 Target of 15% Renewable Electricity for South Africa. Marquard et al. Final Draft. Energy Research Centre UCT. Oct 2008

[8] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report Sept 2009. Committed new capacity. Table 3 Pg 9.

[9] Costing a 2020 Target of 15% Renewable Electricity for South Africa. Marquard et al. Final Draft. Energy Research Centre UCT. Oct 2008.

[10] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report. Sept 2009. pg 29.

[11] Business Risks and Cost of Nuclear Power. Craig Severance. Jan 2009. Appendix A: Most Likely case. The most likely overnight cost is $4 070/kW before escalations and excluding cost of capital. $4 070 x exchange rate  $1-R7.29 = R29 670 x CPIX adjuster 167.3/150.3 = R33 026/kW.

[12] Business Risks and Cost of Nuclear Power. Craig Severance. Jan 2009. Appendix A: Most Likely case.

[13] Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. Update on the cost of nuclear power. May 2009.  Pg17. http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2009-004.pdf

[14] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report. Sept 2009. Pg 58.

[15] Escalating costs of new build: what does it mean? Nuclear Engineering International. Aug 2008.

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2050690

[16] International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2009. Article: Very low dose fetal exposure to Chernobyl contamination resulted in increases in infant leukemia in Europe and raises questions about current radiation risk models.  Christopher Busby.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/6/12/3105/pdf