Document written by: Katja Vinding Petersen, Michelle Wcisel, Brenda Walters, Oliver Jewell, Alison Towner, in cooperation with the Trustees from Dyer Island Conservation Trust.

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

This document outlines the concerns of The Dyer Island Conservation Trust (DICT) with regards to the proposed establishment of a nuclear power station (NPS) at Bantamsklip. It also provides an overview of the research which the DICT deems necessary to be carried out prior to the establishment of an NPS as well as suggested monitoring programs during construction and operational phases.

Insufficient Baseline Data

DICT finds the current baseline data concerning this area and the ecosystem insufficient. In order to protect this area’s unique marine biodiversity, DICT calls for further research prior to the establishment of a NPS. Should the NPS project at Bantamsklip proceed, DICT would like to see more monitoring programs during the construction and operations phases.

Current Lack of Knowledge

The DICT is highly concerned that rare and endangered marine species will experience devastating impacts in relation to the NPS. Since there have been no studies carried out prior to the NPS concerning the marine animals i.e. sharks, fur seals, cetaceans, birds and fish species in the area, it is unknown to which degree the proposed site is of significance to these animals. Also, due of this lack of knowledge, DICT find the conclusions made in the EIA and in the Marine- and the Oceanographic Specialist studies highly questionable.

Consequential Damage to Ecosystem

It is not difficult to find examples from the past where developments have unintentionally destroyed factions of an ecosystem when information about that system was unknown until the damage was done. Any visitor to the Cape Agulhas region can describe a bio-diverse habitat that is as incredible as it is delicate.

That is why the DICT is calling for more research to be conducted in this region before further development occurs. Enabling us to better understand the intricate cycle of life in this region and further assess how future development may impact the area.

DICT calls for a document outlining actual research projects which will be carried out prior to and during the construction phase as well as during the operational phase. This document should also state the aim, the methods, duration of the projects, the expected results and how it is linked to other projects carried out in conjunction with the NPS. Eskom’s degree of commitment to the different research projects should also be stated.

Full document 67 pages available here.

Nuclear Protest at Thyspunt - Jeffrey's Bay

By Melanie Gosling
Environment Writer
Source

Just over 2 000 people marched through Jeffreys Bay on Sunday in protest against the multi-billion rand nuclear power station Eskom plans to build at the nearby Thyspunt.

While marchers converged on the local municipal offices where organisers handed over a memorandum, 14 chokka (squid) fishing boats dropped anchor just behind contestants in the Billabong international surfing championships and switched on their lights in support of the marchers.

The protest was organised by the Thyspunt Alliance, an umbrella body of several local resident, ratepayers, environmental, surfer and other organisations, who were joined by the chokka fishermen and a range of local people.

Allliance spokesperson Trudi Malan said on Sunday: “We thought we would not get many people because we were competing with the surfing and the rugby, but some of the surfers phoned and said please can we wait till the Kelly Slater heat had finished. We did and they all came rushing over. And some rugby fans told us they could always watch rugby again, but they may not have the opportunity to show their support again against a nuclear power station that would affect all their lives.”

Malan said the Alliance had purposely not entered the debate about the pros and cons of nuclear power, but were all opposed to siting a nuclear power station at Thyspunt. The Alliance was heavily critical of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) Eskom had commissioned, saying it had failed to address many biophysical issues of building the power plant at that spot.

Eskom had selected the site in the apartheid era with no input from the public. One of the criteria was that a site for a nuclear power station had to be at least 100km from any of the former “homeland” areas for security reasons.

“The EIA is an atrocious document. The biggest flaw is that it did not consider the chokka industry and there was no public participation in the site selection. During construction they will dump 6.3-million cubic metres of sand into the sea, which will kill the chokka industry. We do not want to jeopardise the development of our country, but we do not believe development should come at the expense of the environment,” Malan said.

Read full article

Say no to Eskom's Proposed Nuclear Reactors

ESKOM – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA: 12/12/20/944)

FOR A PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE

REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD

As previously announced, an opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) commenced on 06 March 2010 with a revised closing date of 31 May 2010.

Please be advised that the comment period has been further extended by an additional 30 days and the closing date for comment is now 30 June 2010 (117 days). You are, therefore, afforded the opportunity to use the extended period to further review the report and submit any additional comments.

Once the comments have been received a Revised Draft EIR, including its specialist studies, will be produced and placed at public venues for a further comment period of 45 days.

On behalf of the EIA Project Team, I should like to thank all those who have attended public meetings and Key Stakeholder Feedback Meetings held during the period 23 March – 25 May 2010, those who have already submitted comments on the Draft EIA Report and those who will take further time to review the reports and submit comments.

For additional information, please contact: Bongi Shinga or Dalene Murie at:

E-mail: nuclear1 @ acerafrica.co.za l  P O Box 503, Mtunzini, 3867 l Tel: 086 010 4958  l  Fax: 035 340 2232

Kind regards.

Yours sincerely

Ms Bongi Shinga

Public Participation Team

Say no to Eskom's Proposed Nuclear Reactors

ESKOM – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA: 12/12/20/944) FOR

A PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE

REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD

As previously announced, an opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report commenced on 06 March 2010 with a closing date of 10 May 2010 (a 66-day comment period). During the meetings held as part of the public review, various Interested and Affected Parties requested an extension of the review period.

After due consideration of the requests and legal requirements, it has been decided that the comment period will be extended by an additional 21 days. The closing date for comment is now 31 May 2010. You are, therefore, afforded the opportunity to use the extended period to further review the report and submit any additional comments.

On behalf of the EIA Project Team, I should like to thank all those who have attended public meetings and Key Stakeholder Feedback Meetings held during the period 23 March – 21 April 2010, those who have already submitted comments on the Draft EIA Report and those who will take further time to review the reports and submit comments.

For additional information, please contact: Bongi Shinga or Dalene Murie at:

E-mail: nuclear1@acerafrica.co.za l  PO Box 503, Mtunzini, 3867 l Tel: 086 010 4958  l  Fax: 035 340 2232

Kind regards.

Yours sincerely

Ms Bongi Shinga

Public Participation Team

What kind of South Africa do we want to live in by 2030, and what energy technologies and strategies will get us there? We need to think about these issues:

• What is the most effective way to address climate change?
• What energy path is the safest and simplest?
• How much is it going to cost to build and to run?
• What are the costs to the environment and to future generations?
• Who is going to benefit in terms of jobs and skills?

Nuclear power does not help us

to combat climate change at all

Our planet earth is heating up as a result of the increasing amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.  The CO2 acts like a blanket, trapping the sun’s heat in. This rise in CO2 comes mostly from burning fossil fuels, which contain carbon.

Scientists say that the earth’s  temperature has already risen by 0.7 degrees and will rise by at least another 0.6 degree Centigrade in years to come.[1] The Copenhagen Summit of December 2009 agreed that we must keep the global temperature rise below two degrees. A rise of 2 deg C is enough to cause havoc. If we don’t start now, by 2020 it may no longer be practically feasible to achieve the rate of reductions required.[2]

Most of South Africa’s electricity comes from burning coal. We therefore need to choose the most cost-effective low-carbon strategies and act now.

• The first step costs nothing: users of energy can cut back on wasteful energy use.
• The second step is the best way we can spend money: invest in energy efficiency.[3] This means changing the way we use buildings, lights, all kinds of motors, transport, electronics and – most importantly – the production and distribution of electricity. Factories that use heat can also generate electricity from it: this is called co-generation.
  • We can pay back the cost of investing in energy efficiency in less than 3 years[4] and at 20% of the cost of new generation plant.[5] This is much cheaper than building new centralised generation plant. The South African Government’s energy efficiency strategy says we can save over 4000 MW of capacity by 2025, the same as a very large, coal-fired power station. Now they need to introduce financial incentives and tax breaks.
• The third step is to use renewable energy. Renewable energy is energy that comes from natural sources of power, such as the sun and the wind (but NOT uranium or coal!), and they are nearly free of CO2. South Africa could have as much as 15% renewable energy by 2020 at a reasonable cost.[6]
• Using the sun’s rays to heat water directly (solar water heating) is better than using electricity to heat a geyser and is free of CO2 when used properly. If the Government were to subsidise one million solar water heaters with timers from now until 2020, we would save another 3000 MW of power for electricity production[7] – the same as another, large, coal-fired power station.
• Engineers can build wind farms in two years, and the power of the wind is free – forever. Wind turbines also do not consume any water. South Africa could have up to 12% of carbon-free wind-generated electricity by 2020 and 20% by 2030.[8] Once again, this is the same as another large, coal-fired power station.
  • Some pro-nuclear lobbyists say that the wind is not always available. Yet, if the wind turbines were built all over the country and fed into the grid, the wind would always blow somewhere, so we have built this fact into our calculation.
• Concentrated Solar thermal Plants (CSP) are like giant magnifying glasses that concentrate the sun’s rays on one spot, which becomes very hot and can then be used to make electricity. Engineers can build these plants in 3-4 years, while CSP could generate 13% of our electricity by 2020, and 27% by 2030.[9] Solar thermal plants are expensive but are coming down in price as fast as the price for nuclear power plants is going up.

South Africa has the best locations for sunshine in the world. By 2030 researchers are sure that solar thermal power will be the most cost-effective source of carbon-free bulk electricity and usable heat. With hot-salt storage, and possibly with gas back-up from the Kudu gas fields, this power supply would be available 24 hours a day.

We do not have time for nuclear

power to make a difference

If we want to make a difference to global warming we need to start now and make the transition before 2020. Although nuclear power does not release much CO2 compared to coal, it is still too expensive, too slow and takes money away from cheaper and quicker options. If we ordered one today, it would not be ready before 2020.[10] Looking at the planet as a whole, we would need 50 years to have enough nuclear power plants to really reduce carbon emissions and by this time it would be far too late to do anything about global warming.

Nuclear power costs too much

No private investors anywhere in the world will take on the capital costs of nuclear power without government loan guarantees or similar public underwriting. The capital costs of nuclear power are so high and so uncertain that it is completely impossible to produce definitive estimates for new nuclear costs at this time.[11] There is evidence that costs have been  rising at about 12% a year in real terms since 2003.[12] At this rate, costs double in 5 years.

No nuclear plant operators anywhere in the world today carry full liability in case of accident.[13] In SA the operator is granted limited liability and regulation is subsidized by the tax payer. Without this, there would no nuclear power.

When we talk about the long-term management of highly radioactive nuclear fuel that has been taken out of a nuclear reactor, we are talking about tens of thousands of years.  We cannot work out the cost because we have no reliable management system for long-term waste management anywhere in the world.[14] Any cost not budgeted for will fall on future generations.

Nuclear power: least jobs for money

South Africa needs the type of skills that workers can learn quickly, so that they can start working as soon as possible, and lift themselves and their families out of poverty and inequality. We also need skills that teach workers to become their own bosses and for them to survive in tough times.

Renewable energy technology and energy efficiency installations, such as solar-water heaters will create many more jobs, much more quickly, and more suited to the job market than nuclear power.[15] These jobs will also be more spread out around the country and not only to be found in one or two places.[16]

Nuclear power: not safe, not simple

The nuclear industry starts with the mining of uranium ore. Then the ore is processed into uranium oxide before being enriched for nuclear fuel. After the fuel is used up it has to be stored and transported, and there has to be an evacuation plan in case of emergency and general security against the theft of nuclear material for use in terrorism or secret nuclear weapons.  All of these activities pose a serious, hazardous risk, some more than others.

• Uranium mining brings up huge masses of radioactive rocks from underground, to be crushed and carried to local people by the wind. It also takes masses of fresh water and leaks radio-active and acidic waste-water into the local water supply, both above and below ground. Acid mine drainage has been described as “second only to global warming in terms of ecological risk”.[17]
• Uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication plants release significant quantities of radioactivity and toxic chemicals into the environment.
• Nuclear power plants are licensed to release radioactive fission products such as cesium and strontium in the normal course of their operation. These waste products are radioactive and chemically similar to elements essential for life. They build up inside plants and animals which we eat.

When the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) allows Eskom to send out these highly dangerous fission products, they only work out the effect on people from exposure outside the body. Yet the real threat comes from fission particles inside the body. This is much more harmful than outside and can cause premature cancers. Women, unborn infants and young children are especially at risk.[18]

• If nuclear plants were inherently safe they would not need any evacuation zone or evacuation plan. In the event of a very bad accident, you would not be insured. Also, all home-owners have radiation damage excluded from their insurance policies. If nuclear power was safe, insurance companies (who understand risk) would insure you.
• As the plants get older, they can become more fragile and more likely to break down.[19]
• The transportation of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste carries a grave risk of accident and is susceptible to terrorist attack. Even ships have to travel with an armed escort.
• The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is a new, experimental reactor planned for the existing Koeberg site, near Cape Town.  Some scientists and engineers have questioned the design safety features. It also does not have a bomb-proof containment structure.[20]
  • The nuclear industry can’t be left to manage itself but requires a complex, centralized state with a militarized, security establishment all of its own. This poses a threat not only to democracy, but also the practice of human rights.

Nuclear power: no global security

Nuclear bombs need the elements tritium and plutonium, or uranium. Tritium and plutonium come only from nuclear reactors, so countries that want to make nuclear bombs have to have nuclear reactors and nuclear enrichment or fuel reprocessing plants. Nuclear power plants provide reactors that can be used to extract the raw materials of nuclear weapons or they can be used as a cover to hide a nuclear-weapons programme.

The transfer of technology invariably begins with the construction of civil nuclear reactors for power.  USA, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear power and nuclear weapons. South Africa produced nuclear weapons at the same time that Koeberg was being built, but has since dismantled them. North Korea started to build two civilian nuclear power plants in 1994, but the construction was stopped in 2002 due to international sanctions. They nevertheless went on to build and explode 2 nuclear bombs.  Iran has civilian nuclear power plants and is suspected of trying to build nuclear weapons.

All the information in this paper is referenced and can be found on the CANE website at www.cane.org.za.

Further reading:

Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly? Amory Lovins. Dec 2008.

The question is:

What kind of South Africa do we want to live in by 2030, and what energy technologies and strategies will get us there? We need to think about these issues:

• What is the most effective way to address climate change?
• What energy path is the safest and simplest?
• How much is it going to cost to build and to run?
• What are the costs to the environment and to future generations?
• Who is going to benefit in terms of jobs and skills?

Nuclear power does not help us

to combat climate change at all

Our planet earth is heating up as a result of the increasing amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.  The CO2 acts like a blanket, trapping the sun’s heat in. This rise in CO2 comes mostly from burning fossil fuels, which contain carbon.

Scientists say that the earth’s  temperature has already risen by 0.7 degrees and will rise by at least another 0.6 degree Centigrade in years to come.[1] The Copenhagen Summit of December 2009 agreed that we must keep the global temperature rise below two degrees. A rise of 2 deg C is enough to cause havoc. If we don’t start now, by 2020 it may no longer be practically feasible to achieve the rate of reductions required.[2]

Most of South Africa’s electricity comes from burning coal. We therefore need to choose the most cost-effective low-carbon strategies and act now.

• The first step costs nothing: users of energy can cut back on wasteful energy use.
• The second step is the best way we can spend money: invest in energy efficiency.[3] This means changing the way we use buildings, lights, all kinds of motors, transport, electronics and – most importantly – the production and distribution of electricity. Factories that use heat can also generate electricity from it: this is called co-generation.
  • We can pay back the cost of investing in energy efficiency in less than 3 years[4] and at 20% of the cost of new generation plant.[5] This is much cheaper than building new centralised generation plant. The South African Government’s energy efficiency strategy says we can save over 4000 MW of capacity by 2025, the same as a very large, coal-fired power station. Now they need to introduce financial incentives and tax breaks.
• The third step is to use renewable energy. Renewable energy is energy that comes from natural sources of power, such as the sun and the wind (but NOT uranium or coal!), and they are nearly free of CO2. South Africa could have as much as 15% renewable energy by 2020 at a reasonable cost.[6]
• Using the sun’s rays to heat water directly (solar water heating) is better than using electricity to heat a geyser and is free of CO2 when used properly. If the Government were to subsidise one million solar water heaters with timers from now until 2020, we would save another 3000 MW of power for electricity production[7] – the same as another, large, coal-fired power station.
• Engineers can build wind farms in two years, and the power of the wind is free – forever. Wind turbines also do not consume any water. South Africa could have up to 12% of carbon-free wind-generated electricity by 2020 and 20% by 2030.[8] Once again, this is the same as another large, coal-fired power station.
  • Some pro-nuclear lobbyists say that the wind is not always available. Yet, if the wind turbines were built all over the country and fed into the grid, the wind would always blow somewhere, so we have built this fact into our calculation.
• Concentrated Solar thermal Plants (CSP) are like giant magnifying glasses that concentrate the sun’s rays on one spot, which becomes very hot and can then be used to make electricity. Engineers can build these plants in 3-4 years, while CSP could generate 13% of our electricity by 2020, and 27% by 2030.[9] Solar thermal plants are expensive but are coming down in price as fast as the price for nuclear power plants is going up.

South Africa has the best locations for sunshine in the world. By 2030 researchers are sure that solar thermal power will be the most cost-effective source of carbon-free bulk electricity and usable heat. With hot-salt storage, and possibly with gas back-up from the Kudu gas fields, this power supply would be available 24 hours a day.

We do not have time for nuclear

power to make a difference

If we want to make a difference to global warming we need to start now and make the transition before 2020. Although nuclear power does not release much CO2 compared to coal, it is still too expensive, too slow and takes money away from cheaper and quicker options. If we ordered one today, it would not be ready before 2020.[10] Looking at the planet as a whole, we would need 50 years to have enough nuclear power plants to really reduce carbon emissions and by this time it would be far too late to do anything about global warming.

Nuclear power costs too much

No private investors anywhere in the world will take on the capital costs of nuclear power without government loan guarantees or similar public underwriting. The capital costs of nuclear power are so high and so uncertain that it is completely impossible to produce definitive estimates for new nuclear costs at this time.[11] There is evidence that costs have been  rising at about 12% a year in real terms since 2003.[12] At this rate, costs double in 5 years.

No nuclear plant operators anywhere in the world today carry full liability in case of accident.[13] In SA the operator is granted limited liability and regulation is subsidized by the tax payer. Without this, there would no nuclear power.

When we talk about the long-term management of highly radioactive nuclear fuel that has been taken out of a nuclear reactor, we are talking about tens of thousands of years.  We cannot work out the cost because we have no reliable management system for long-term waste management anywhere in the world.[14] Any cost not budgeted for will fall on future generations.

Nuclear power: least jobs for money

South Africa needs the type of skills that workers can learn quickly, so that they can start working as soon as possible, and lift themselves and their families out of poverty and inequality. We also need skills that teach workers to become their own bosses and for them to survive in tough times.

Renewable energy technology and energy efficiency installations, such as solar-water heaters will create many more jobs, much more quickly, and more suited to the job market than nuclear power.[15] These jobs will also be more spread out around the country and not only to be found in one or two places.[16]

Nuclear power: not safe, not simple

The nuclear industry starts with the mining of uranium ore. Then the ore is processed into uranium oxide before being enriched for nuclear fuel. After the fuel is used up it has to be stored and transported, and there has to be an evacuation plan in case of emergency and general security against the theft of nuclear material for use in terrorism or secret nuclear weapons.  All of these activities pose a serious, hazardous risk, some more than others.

• Uranium mining brings up huge masses of radioactive rocks from underground, to be crushed and carried to local people by the wind. It also takes masses of fresh water and leaks radio-active and acidic waste-water into the local water supply, both above and below ground. Acid mine drainage has been described as “second only to global warming in terms of ecological risk”.[17]
• Uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication plants release significant quantities of radioactivity and toxic chemicals into the environment.
• Nuclear power plants are licensed to release radioactive fission products such as cesium and strontium in the normal course of their operation. These waste products are radioactive and chemically similar to elements essential for life. They build up inside plants and animals which we eat.

When the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) allows Eskom to send out these highly dangerous fission products, they only work out the effect on people from exposure outside the body. Yet the real threat comes from fission particles inside the body. This is much more harmful than outside and can cause premature cancers. Women, unborn infants and young children are especially at risk.[18]

• If nuclear plants were inherently safe they would not need any evacuation zone or evacuation plan. In the event of a very bad accident, you would not be insured. Also, all home-owners have radiation damage excluded from their insurance policies. If nuclear power was safe, insurance companies (who understand risk) would insure you.
• As the plants get older, they can become more fragile and more likely to break down.[19]
• The transportation of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste carries a grave risk of accident and is susceptible to terrorist attack. Even ships have to travel with an armed escort.
• The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is a new, experimental reactor planned for the existing Koeberg site, near Cape Town.  Some scientists and engineers have questioned the design safety features. It also does not have a bomb-proof containment structure.[20]
  • The nuclear industry can’t be left to manage itself but requires a complex, centralized state with a militarized, security establishment all of its own. This poses a threat not only to democracy, but also the practice of human rights.

Nuclear power: no global security

Nuclear bombs need the elements tritium and plutonium, or uranium. Tritium and plutonium come only from nuclear reactors, so countries that want to make nuclear bombs have to have nuclear reactors and nuclear enrichment or fuel reprocessing plants. Nuclear power plants provide reactors that can be used to extract the raw materials of nuclear weapons or they can be used as a cover to hide a nuclear-weapons programme.

The transfer of technology invariably begins with the construction of civil nuclear reactors for power.  USA, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear power and nuclear weapons. South Africa produced nuclear weapons at the same time that Koeberg was being built, but has since dismantled them. North Korea started to build two civilian nuclear power plants in 1994, but the construction was stopped in 2002 due to international sanctions. They nevertheless went on to build and explode 2 nuclear bombs.  Iran has civilian nuclear power plants and is suspected of trying to build nuclear weapons.

All the information in this paper is referenced and can be found on the CANE website at www.cane.org.za.

Further reading:

Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly? Amory Lovins. Dec 2008.

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly

energy [r]evolution: A Sustainable South Africa Energy Outlook. Greenpeace. Oct 2008.

http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/national/2009/ER-final-south_africa_lr.pdf

[2] Twenty six Questions and Answers in regard to the study “Greenhouse gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 deg C”. Meinshausen et al. 2009 in 30th April issue of Nature. Q8 Pg 6 and Q12 Pg 8.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/qanda_meinshausen_etal_2009_ghgtargets

[3] McKinsey Global Energy + Materials. Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the US Economy. July 2009. http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/electricpowernaturalgas/downloads/US_energy_efficiency_exc_summary.pdf

[4] Dept of Minerals and Energy. Energy Efficiency Strategy of the Republic of South Africa. March 2005.  Pg 11.  http://www.dme.gov.za/pdfs/energy/efficiency/ee_strategy_05.pdf

[5] 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

[6] Energy Research Centre, UCT. Costing a 2020 Target of 15% Renewable Electricity for South Africa. October 2008.

http://www.erc.uct.ac.za/Research/publications/08-Marquardetal-costing_a_2020_target.pdf

[7] Eskom: Solar water heating FAQ’s. http://www.eskomdsm.co.za/?q=Solar_water_heating_FAQs#crisis

[8] Energy Research Centre, UCT. Costing a 2020 Target of 15% Renewable Electricity for South Africa. October 2008.

[9] Energy Research Centre, UCT. Large-scale roll out of concentrating solar power in South Africa. Edkins, Winkler, Marquard. August 2009. Table 2 Pg 6.

http://www.erc.uct.ac.za/Research/publications/09Edkins-etal-Rollout_of_CSP.pdf

[10] The planning, design and construction of a nuclear power plant takes at least 10 years from inception.

[11] Steve Kidd, Director of Strategy and Research at the World Nuclear Association.  Escalating costs of new build: what does it mean? Nuclear Engineering International. Aug 22 2008.
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2050690

[12] 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

[13] International Institute for Sustainable Development: Global Subsidies Initiative. Gambling on nuclear power: how public money fuels the industry.

http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/commentary/gambling-nuclear-power-how-public-money-fuels-industry

[14] Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Study. 2009. Pg. 11. Quote: “There is no plan for high level wastes…the progress on high level waste disposal has not been positive”

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf

[15] AGAMA Energy. Employment Potential of Renewable Energy in South Africa. Nov 2003. Fig 5 Pg ix.

http://www.eskom.co.za/content/Employment%20Potential%20of%20renewable%20resources%20in%20SA.pdf

[16] Renewable Energy Briefing Paper. Potential of Renewable Energy to contribute to National Electricity Emergency Response and Sustainable Development. Holm, Banks, Schaffler, Worthington, Afrane-Okese. March 2008. Table 6 pg 22.

[17] Dept of Environment and Tourism. Emerging Issues Paper: Mine Water Pollution. March 2008. Pg. 1.  http://soer.deat.gov.za/dm_documents/Mine_Water_Pollution_fPA1A.pdf

[18] 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

[19] Union of Concerned Scientists. Safety of old and new nuclear reactors. David Lochbaum. May 2001.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/safety-of-old-and-new-nuclear.html

[20] PBMR. Safety Q & A’s.: “total containment of radioactivity was deemed unnecessary” http://www.pbmr.co.za/index.asp?Content=237

energy [r]evolution: A Sustainable South Africa Energy Outlook. Greenpeace. Oct 2008.

http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/national/2009/ER-final-south_africa_lr.pdf

GENERAL PRESS RELEASE

Immediate release

9 March 2010

“NUCLEAR 1”

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:

FATALLY FLAWED AND DESIGNED TO CONFUSE

The draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a nuclear power station at the Bantamsklip site has been released for public comment, with a closing date set for 10 May 2010. Bantamsklip is situated near the Pearly Beach resort, 50 km east of Hermanus.

The Save Bantamsklip Campaign and its affiliates and associated organisations are happy to have been placed third on the list of priority sites, but the battle to have the Bantamsklip site removed entirely from the list is far from over. We assert that the Government has already confirmed their whole-hearted support for a “nuclear fleet” with all the ancillary nuclear fuel-chain components. Unless this commitment is opposed, we expect to see construction begin at Bantamsklip in ten year’s time, at the latest.

Like the Trojan House outside the gates of Troy, we believe that the wording of the Executive Summary of the draft EIR for “Nuclear-1″ has been designed deliberately to counter the highly visible and successful advance of the Save Bantamsklip Campaign. The idea behind the proponent’s propaganda is to sow discord and confusion in the ranks of the campaign by appearing to shift focus away to Thyspunt in the Eastern Cape as the first site.

Furthermore, the draft EIR suffers from a number of fatal flaws, such as the failure to specify the type of reactor envisaged for the site. How can we determine scientifically and accurately the environmental impact of a nuclear fission reactor when we don’t know what it is? It is rather like ordering a fleet of motor vehicles at an exorbitant cost, knowing absolutely nothing about the brand, its performance, nor its safety features!

We therefore call on all our supporters to redouble their efforts to defend and consolidate our position to have Bantamsklip and Groot Hagelkraal entirely removed from the list of potential sites.

We support and endorse the positive campaign of strengthening and deepening the drive for a World Heritage Site status and for the site to be taken away from Eskom and incorporated into the Agulhas National Park.

We ask all our supporters to study carefully the EIR and to register their objections to the report, available at www.savebantamsklip.org and to join us in a march in opposition to this proposal on Monday 26 April 2010. Further details will be released closer to the time.

John Williams

Chairman

Save Bantamsklip Association

082 923 1839

john @ savebantamsklip.org

www.savebantamsklip.org

All charges against the three activists from the APF and Earthlife who were assaulted, arrested and subsequently charged with public violence and resisting arrest at yesterday’s NERSA hearings, have been unconditionally dropped by the state prosecutor. The dropping of the charges came after the activists were kept locked up in police custody for over eight hours.

None of this comes as a surprise to either the APF or Earthlife since there was no ‘case’ against the activists in the first place. Indeed, the only case to answer is that emanating from the completely outrageous conduct of the SA Police Services, which has unfortunately become a hallmark of many police actions at events and protests involving community organisations. The APF and Earthlife – alongside other community organisations and social movements – will continue to vigorously oppose ESKOM’s application for multiple electricity tariff increases. We will not be silenced!

For further comment/information contact: Ferrial Adam of Earthlife on

0741813197

This morning, the NERSA public hearing into ESKOM’s application for tariff increases got underway at Gallagher Estate in Midrand. Both Earthlife and the APF were present, having made written submissions and requests for presentations in opposition to ESKOM’s application. Not long after proceedings began, a small group of Earthlife activists silently placed several posters on the walls inside the venue. Almost immediately, Gallagher Estate’s private security personnel arrived and tore down all the posters, whilst forcibly escorting those activists identified as the ‘perpetrators’, outside the venue. They then locked the doors and when a larger group of APF activists arrived, refused them (alongside the Earthlife activists already outside) entry.

Despite repeated attempts by these activists to point out the public nature of the hearing, and thus their right to attend, the private security personnel continued to lock them out. When the gathered activists then started toyi-toying, the SA Police Services were called. Three of the APF/Earthlife activists tried to reason with the police and to inform them of their democratic right to participate in the public hearing going on inside the building. The police then assaulted, arrested and hauled them off to the Midrand police station where they were charged with public violence and resisting arrest. The names of the three activists are Makoma Lekalakala, Mashao Chauke and Nomaliza Xhoma. At present they are being held at the Midrand police station while a lawyer engaged by Earthlife and the APF continues attempts to get the charges dropped.

For further comment/information contact: Ferrial Adam of Earthlife on

0741813197

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