Thank you for supporting our previous efforts to build a nuclear-free future for our kids. More than ever, the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy needs your help to make that future a reality.

The disaster in Japan continues to unfold – with authorities now admitting three meltdowns and some reports putting Japan’s nuclear disaster on a par with Chernobyl.

The terrifying reality is the same thing could happen in South Africa. Government has nailed its colours to the mast by promising SIX REACTORS as part of its “nuclear fleet”. In addition, Rob Adam of NECSA has promised us “localization” with uranium enrichment, fuel assembly and spent fuel reprocessing. All this despite the opposition from the Civil Society Energy Caucus, faith- labour- and community-based Organisations.

We must urgently work to prevent that. To that end, leading campaigners & activists from NGOs and civil society organisations associated with C.A.N.E., academics and professionals plan to hold a “summit” on 27 and 28 July to tackle the problem. And our budget is virtually non-existent.  It is called a “summit”, because – this is designed expressly for leadership to discuss ways and means of defending our country against the threat of a “nuclear fleet”, which (according to IPAP2 by the Department of Trade & Industries) will cost us R1.3 trillion.

We aim to discuss strategy and tactics over the next two years, as well as budgets for fund-raising purposes.  We will also seek fresh elections for the National Executive to take us forward with a renewed mandate from the Summit.

We seek to ensure that the lessons learned from the nuclear meltdown in Japan are incorporated into S.A. regulations, and ensure our government will impose a moratorium on new licenses for dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear power plants, and no more secrecy over our nuclear legacy.

Please act now and urge your local politicians and media to support this stand so we can build a safer future for generations of South Africans.

Thanks for taking action. And please also consider making a donation to C.A.N.E. today. It is the only group in South Africa that focuses solely on preventing a nuclear future! Your support will help us build a grassroots movement to close dangerous nuclear plants and create a safe energy future for our children. Your donation will also make it possible for a team to dedicate their time and effort to increase pressure on government and the media, and keep you informed and our website going.

Thank you for working with us for a nuclear-free world.

TOKYO — A special advisor to the Japanese government on radiation safety
resigned Friday, saying that he was dissatisfied with the handling of the
ongoing crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Toshiso Kosako, a professor at the prestigious University of Tokyo, said at
a news conference that the prime minister’s office and agencies within the
government “have ignored the laws and have only dealt with the problem at
the moment.” Holding back tears, he said this approach would only prolong
the crisis.

Following the devastating March 11 earthquake and tsunami, the Dai-ichi
nuclear power plant has become the site of the second-worst nuclear power
plant crisis in history. Three of its six reactors still pose a potential
threat as officials and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. work to
bring the situation under control.

Mr. Kosako was appointed on March 16. In announcing the appointment, chief
government spokesman Yukio Edano described him as someone who
“possesses outstanding insight and expertise in the field of radiation safety.”

Mr. Kosako was one of six special advisers to the administration of Prime
Minister Naoto Kan. According to Mr. Edano’s announcement, Mr. Kosako
was to provide “information and advice to the prime minister on the ongoing
incidents as the nuclear power stations.”

But he said that in the weeks since his appointment, it was difficult to
know who was actually in charge of dealing with the situation.

Diet member Akihisa Nagashima, a senior politician within the ruling
Democratic Party said in a statement that the administration had urged Mr.
Kosako to stay on and that his departure represented a “heavy blow” to the
government. A spokesman for the prime minister’s office had no immediate
comment.

Officials and foreign experts say that the situation at the plant has now
passed its most critical stages, with a much lower threat of a large release
of radiation that could cause widespread health problems.

Write to William Sposato at william.sposato@dowjones.com

This was evidenced in the recently approved Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2010). The IRP 2010 provides for 9600MW of nuclear energy in the energy mix from 2023. The approval of the IRP2010 was a clear indication that government has shown little or no regard for the many civil society objections and submissions to the Department of Energy and the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee. The announcement of cabinet’s approval of South Africa’s nuclear plan was also made less than one week after the world was reeling from the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan and damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear plant. It is hard to believe that government is oblivious to the impacts of nuclear energy.

So is this a case of a government being obstinate or has the government already signed agreements with France to build nuclear power stations?

While the Fukushima Daiichi plant disaster has been attributed to a natural disaster, its impacts are incredibly widespread. As of 12 April 2011, the nuclear accident at Fukushima was rated as a Level 7 ‘major accident’ – the highest level on the international nuclear accident scale, and equivalent to that of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Level 7 is used to describe an event consisting of “a major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures.” The Japanese government is now expected to extend the evacuation zone around the plant and declare the immediate area a no-go zone. About 22 000 residents have fled the area.

Ironically, this year is the 25th “anniversary” of the Chernobyl nuclear accident – the only other Level 7 accident in history. After 25 years, the area around Chernobyl remains uninhabitable with an exclusion zone of 30km still in place. Almost 200 000 people lived in the zone – which is now desolate. Radiation levels around the plant remain so high that authorities do not expect the area to be inhabitable for between 180 and 320 years. The Ukrainian government is still heavily burdened by the costs of this disaster, a quarter of a century later.

Given these impacts, one would have expected a responsible government to exercise some caution with nuclear energy plans. In many countries the nuclear debate has been re-opened as a result of Japan’s nuclear troubles and Austria, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Germany called for a review of the safety of their nuclear reactors. Germany has since shut down seven of its old reactors.

Governments will continue to ignore their citizens until they remember that it is these same citizens who put them into power. The South African government may be confident of its support but this will not go on for as long as people are ignored. In Germany, the power of the voters has demonstrated that no government will be safe in power if they continue to endorse nuclear power. On the 28th of March 2011, Germany’s anti-nuclear Green Party won the Baden-Wuerttemberg state election and managed to beat Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which had been in power for almost 60 years.

Merkel’s duplicitous position on nuclear power was one of the main reasons for the defeat of the CDU. In 2010, Merkel’s government passed a law extending the life-span of nuclear plants by an average 12 years – a decision that toppled the previous German administration’s pledge of a gradual phase-out of nuclear energy. Then in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster, the Chancellor made an abrupt turnaround and ordered a temporary shutdown of seven of the country’s older reactors. This quick change raised doubts about her credibility and was viewed as a mere election ploy.

The nuclear energy debate may not have grown enough yet to sway voters in South Africa’s upcoming local government elections. Government has not listened to its citizens’ objections to nuclear power and may well get away with it for now. However, the tide is turning and government will have to listen to the needs of the South African people. The objections to nuclear energy are growing, with not only environmental organisations raising their voices, but also the labour movement with both the National Union of Mineworkers and Congress of South African Trade Unions raising concerns about nuclear energy in South Africa. However, the big challenge for civil society is the cloud of secrecy surrounding nuclear energy. There are numerous and complex problems of nuclear energy that are often hidden, including radioactive waste, untested new designs [PBMR comes to mind], phenomenal cost overruns, government loan guarantees, possible tax subsidies for the industry, and the general downplaying of potential hazards.

For decades South Africa has developed its nuclear industry, but what do we really know about it? It is time to ask the questions of the people we have put into power and demand honest answers. How is radioactive waste being dealt with in uranium mine dumps – Pelindaba and Koeberg? Where would South Africa source the fuel for its six new nuclear stations? Government‘s commitment to the future of nuclear energy is very strong, but where would it obtain funds for six nuclear stations?

Since the South African government is going to take decisions with pseudo-consultative processes, it is up to civil society to start asking the right questions. And if we don’t get answers to our questions, these decisions must be challenged to the full extent of the law so as to put a stop to nuclear energy in South Africa.

Our future is in our hands, and it is up to us to hold the government accountable.

- Makoma Lekalakala is a programme officer at Earthlife Africa Johannesburg.

Source:

http://www.ngopulse.org/article/nuclear-energy-sa-government-sticks-its-head-sand



by SISEKO NJOBENI

8 October 2010

AN AMBITIOUS plan to reduce SA’s reliance on coal by almost half by 2030 and to more than double the use of nuclear energy was released by the Department of Energy yesterday, while the contribution of renewable energy technologies is poised for a significant increase.

The proposals, which are part of the department’s draft integrated electricity resource plan, show the government’s preferred energy mix for the next 20 years.

They provide prospective investors with an indication of the shape of SA’s future energy industry. The integrated resource plan is a 20-year electricity capacity plan that gives an outcome of projected future electricity demand, how the demand would be met and at what cost.

The interministerial committee on energy, set up to consider energy policy issues, has approved the integrated resource plan.

The committee’s approval paves the way for a second round of a public consultation process. The department held the first round of consultations in June.

In the draft integrated resource plan, the department is proposing that coal contribute 48% to the energy mix by 2030, followed by renewable energy (16%), nuclear (14%), peaking open cycle gas turbine (9%), peaking pump storage (6%), mid-merit gas (5%) and baseload import hydro (2%). These point to a window of investment opportunity mainly in renewable energy and nuclear technologies. The draft plan envisages 52248MW of new capacity in the next 20 years.

While coal will still be the biggest contributor to electricity generation, the department’s proposals represent a significant reduction in its contribution.

Coal currently accounts for over 90% of electricity generation. Eskom’s two nuclear reactors at the Koeberg power station supply 1800MW or 6% of SA’s electricity needs. The renewable energy industry is yet to take off in SA.

The department said in drawing up the draft integrated resource plan the inter- ministerial committee considered various scenarios. These included cancelling the Kusile power station, or delaying the building of Medupi and Kusile power stations.

Eskom MD for systems operations and planning Kannan Lakmeeharan yesterday repeated the utility’s commitment to completing Kusile.

‘These are just scenarios. In fact, the final proposal includes both Kusile and Medupi.

‘The department also says we should not delay the two projects because they are important for security of supply,’ Mr Lakmeeharan said.

The department has also warned of looming power supply constraints. In a report on the medium-term risk mitigation plan for electricity in the period between this year and 2016, the department said latest forecasts indicate a worsening of electricity supply constraints from next year until 2016.

‘This situation poses a real risk of rolling blackouts, similar to those experienced in 2008, and a serious threat to government’s objectives for growth and job creation,’ the department said.

Mr Lakmeeharan said Eskom had in the past alluded to the looming supply constraints ‘because the rate of capacity addition will be less than the (electricity) demand reduction. The report says we must do something. Options include energy efficiency, independent power producers (contribution) and the energy conservation scheme’ .

Frost & Sullivan energy programme manager Cornelis van der Waal yesterday applauded the department ‘for coming up with something that portrays the real scenario as we see it. Urgent action is needed.’ The required action includes commissioning power from independent
suppliers, Mr van der Waal said.

The committee had asked the team drawing up the plan to do more work on the possibility of incorporating carbon capture and storage capability on all future coal-fired power stations.

njobenis@bdfm.co.za
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=123180

3rd of September 2010

On the First of September 2010, Cabinet held a “secret” session on the closure of the PMBR company. Earthlife Africa Jhb has learnt that all may not be as it seems, and that issues such as conflicts of interests, accounting for taxpayer money spent, and rehabilitation of PBMR staff are being swept under the carpet.

The PBMR company has bled the taxpayers of this country of a staggering R10bn. This money has come from the wages of workers, and represents R10bn not spent on social services. Furthermore, there has been nothing of substance to show for this expenditure, and the question must be asked what were the citizens of South Africa paying for? Is it for retrenchment packages for PBMR board members in excess of R2 million each?

While Earthlife Africa Jhb regards the closure of the PBMR company and the ending of the nuclear project to be the correct course of action—and has advocated for such for over ten years—it is extremely concerned that no proper accounting of this expenditure will take place. If R10bn of taxpayer funds has been spent on a project that failed, then an open, transparent audit should be undertaken. Citizens of South Africa have a right to know on what their money has been spent, and the appropriate vehicle for this is an open investigation in Parliament and an audit by the Auditor General.

The rumours of conflict of interests, poor governance and management, and improper use of funds within the PBMR Company can only be dispelled through an open and transparent investigation. The Department of Public Enterprise, Eskom and the PBMR Company must put their books out in the public domain for examination.

Further, the issue of PBMR staff has been largely ignored. South Africa needs to retain many of those staff members and use their skills to right South Africa’s social ills; rather than have nuclear scientists, engineers, clerks, etc. selling their skills to the highest bidder on the global market. While Earthlife Africa Jhb does not believe that nuclear power is an appropriate choice for South Africa, there are other, more socially friendly areas in which these skills can be applied. For example, the National Nuclear Regulator is currently struggling to deal, due to lack of capacity, with uranium being leached into South Africa’s waterways from gold mines. We also have to deal with the legacy of nuclear power in South Africa; Koeberg will need to be decommissioned (an expensive process that will likely take a 135 years to complete) and the high-level waste will need to be stored. At the moment, there are no concrete plans to deal with this waste anywhere in the world, let alone South Africa.

Secrecy within the nuclear sector is contrary to the public interest, and the closure of the PBMR is no exception. If this process is being kept away from the public gaze, what will the situation be if the government’s information and media bills (which Earthlife Africa Jhb is opposed to) are passed? Already, the energy sector is littered with secret agreements and confidential pricing arrangements, those misguided, regressive and reactionary pieces of legislation will only make an already bad situation even worse.

As Tristen Taylor, Project Coordinator for Earthlife Africa Jhb states, “There is only one honourable and democratic path open to the government; a full, complete, honest and transparent examination of what happened at the PBMR Company, who benefited from it, and how ten billion rand of our money was spent. Anything less will only raise suspicion for years to come and be festering sore within the energy sector.”

For more information, please contact:

Tristen Taylor
Project Coordinator
Earthlife Africa Jhb
Tel: +27 11 339 3662
Cell: +27 84 250 2434
Email: tristen@earthlife.org.za
Website: www.earthlife.org.za

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• - govenderp@sundaytimes.co.za

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

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