pbmr | Coalition Against Nuclear Energy South Africa

Letter to Business Report re thorium reactors

February 2, 2011 8:25 pm ⋅ 2 Comments ⋅ Pelindaba Working Group

2 February 2011

The Editor

Business Report

Per e-mail

Dear Sir

The ill-fated Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) programme will probably go down in history as the most expensive set of CAD drawings ever produced. Despite dire warnings from Eskom’s own internal studies, a never-released PriceWaterhouseCoopers study, and various official thumbs-down signals from investment bankers and government regulators worldwide, the PBMR advocates persisted nevertheless, drawing one Power Point presentation after another, year after year after year, from as early as 1993 to as recently as 2010. During that time they probably siphoned well over R10-billion from the public purse.

Professor Eben Mulder, a past contributor to the PBMR programme and STILL singing its praises (Business Report 1 February 2011) on the eve of the Budget Speech, has the effrontery to want even more money for some redundant project from yesteryear: the thorium reactor.

Talk about throwing good money after bad!

Just so that your readers have some idea of the kind of money we’re talking about, the South African Department of Trade & Industry published their Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP) in February 2010 with the following nugget on pages 88-89:

Nuclear component and equipment manufacturing is highly limited at present due to the lack of local and global demand over the last two decades. A future nuclear programme will cost in excess of R1 trillion. This will place enormous strain on the balance of payment and without an effective localisation programme will have severe consequences for the South African economy.

http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2010/10021909551001.htm

What is even more amazing, however, is the extraordinary use of rhetoric and obfuscation on the part of Mulder in an attempt to hoodwink the unsuspecting reader that a thorium reactor is somehow to be prioritized above all other solutions to the provision of constant bulk electricity for mining and industry (the so-called “baseload” supply).

Already, it seems, the larger mining houses have started to make provision for their own supplies, as have the larger municipalities. Even Coega will not need a nuclear power station for the simple reason that they will build their own station on site, without the problems associated with nuclear energy. The market, it seems, for the private supply of all kinds of large-scale electricity production plants – from combined-cycle gas plants at the coast to inland wind farms and concentrated solar power plants – has never looked rosier. Think only of the massive, unregulated market of diesel generators for small users in 2008 and then scale up a few megawatts.

Rather than addressing the economic facts themselves, however – always a weakness among the PBMR’s advocates – Mulder chooses a long list of mind-numbing detail on the old Armscor principle of “bullshit baffles brains”: nuclear weapons, global warming, finite resources, carbon taxes, nuclear physics, everything except polo entrance fees and pork barrel futures.

And yet, when you actually examine the arguments in favour of thorium as against uranium, one cannot help wondering where these arguments were when Mulder was a keen advocate (and remaining hopeful) of PBMRs? Shortage of uranium? Possibility of core melt? Long-lived nuclear wastes? Weren’t these the very arguments used by the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy and its allies from the early days of Koeberg Alert through the rise of Earthlife Africa to the recent arrival of Greenpeace in Africa?

This last point, however, is the real reason why nuclear energy will never be accepted in South Africa, despite many Government attempts to force it down our throats, from the National Party of BJ Vorster onwards.

We simply don’t want it.

Finish en klaar.

The entire City of Cape Town doesn’t want it, including their own council. The people of the Overberg, Theewaterskloof, Bitou and Kouga don’t want it, as well as the people of Namaqualand, Hartebeespoort, and the Northern Cape NGO coalition. The people of the Khoisan Council don’t want it; nor does the National Union of Mineworkers, nor COSATU, nor even many members of the South African Council of Churches and the South African Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

There’s a wonderful old T-shirt slogan from the days of Rape Crisis, which sums it up.

“What is it about the word ‘NO’ that you don’t understand?

Sincerely

Mike Kantey

National Chairperson

Coalition Against Nuclear Energy

www.cane.org.za

072 628 5131

68 total views, no views today

Rate this post

Posted in: Nuclear Energy ⋅ Tagged: nuclear, nuclear reactors, pbmr, reactors, south africa, technology, thorium

Reply by Barbara Hogan on Questions posed in Parliament regarding PBMR project

October 13, 2010 9:22 am ⋅ Leave a Comment ⋅ admin

Reply by Minister of Public Enterprises, B Hogan, on questions posed in the National Assembly for written reply

27 Aug 2010

Question No.: 2309

Mr M A Nhanha (Congress of the People) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:

Whether the government has decided what to do with all the facilities, materials, goods and equipment procured for the Pebble-Bed Modular Nuclear Reactor (PBMR), including the tank that is being shipped from Spain, in order to recoup part of its massive investment in the project; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

In proposing that PBMR company moves to a care and maintenance mode, consideration was given to ensure protection of valuable intellectual property and assets held by PBMR and the retention of nuclear skills developed by PBMR for the South African nuclear industry.

In terms of the assets, the following has been proposed and approved by Cabinet:

The activities on the fuel development laboratory (FDL) have been suspended. This triggers a decommissioning of the facility in terms of the law. In terms of the back to back agreement with Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa(NECSA) on the decommissioning liability NECSA will call on the provision that PBMR has made for the dismantling and decommissioning of the facility.

PBMR has suspended all operation at the Helium Test Facility (HTF), also on the NECSA premises. This will be mothballed to allow for activities to be restarted in the future.

The HTTF facility at North West University will only be mothballed should that University not wish to continue to utilise the facility.

The Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) was one of the components of the demonstration power plant. The RPV was designed specifically for PBMR needs. The RPV is being imported to South Africa from Spain. NECSA has indicated that they will be willing to store the RPV for PBMR at no charge until it is known if this RPV can be used in future for another purpose.

Source: Department of Public Enterprises

Issued by: Department of Public Enterprises
27 Aug 2010

104 total views, no views today

Rate this post

Posted in: PBMR - Pebble Bed ⋅ Tagged: barbara, decommisioning, failed, fuel, Helium, Hogan, intellectual property, IP, modular, national assembly, necsa, parliament, pbmr, pebble bed reactor, pebbles, project, Uranium

SA officially ends support to PBMR as activists rejoice & call for probes

September 29, 2010 7:13 pm ⋅ Leave a Comment ⋅ Pelindaba Working Group

By: BuaNews, SA government news service

16 Sep 10

Government has decided to no longer invest in the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project, says Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan told the National Assembly on Thursday.

“Without going into too much detail right now, government, after careful deliberation, analysis and review, and mindful of the fiscal constraints in these hard economic times, has had to make a decision to no longer invest in this project,” Minister Hogan said.

Hogan said the scale and size of the company was now being reduced to a few people with the focus now being on the retention of its intellectual property, and of certain skills, and the preservation of its assets.

She said government’s decision had not been taken lightly and that government was mindful of the impact this would have on the future careers and livelihoods of the PBMR employees.

“Nor have we lost sight of the significant investment already made by government in this project and the impressive scientific advances already achieved in pioneering this particular form of nuclear technology,” she explained.

The minister said government had to consider the fact that the PBMR has not been able to secure an anchor customer or another investment partner and that further investment in the project could well be in excess of an additional R30-billion.

The project has been missing deadlines constantly, with the construction of the first demonstration model delayed further and further into the future. Additionally, the opportunity afforded to PBMR to participate in the US’s Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) programme as part of the Westinghouse consortium was lost in May when Westinghouse withdrew from the programme.

Should the country embark on a nuclear build programme in the future it will not be using the PBMR technology, which was still in the research and design phase.

“Finally, the severity of the current economic downturn, and the strains that it has placed on the fiscus, as well as the nature and scale of government’s current developmental priorities, has forced government to reprioritise its spending obligations and therefore, of necessity, to make certain tough decisions – this being one of them.”

Government had commissioned an independent high-level review of the project, and an inter-Departmental Task Team (IDTT) was set up under an Inter-ministerial Committee (IMC) to carefully consider and evaluate various options available.

The company will be downsized by 75% and approximately 600 employees have already left the employ of the company in terms of prescribed procedures. The retrenchment of the remaining staff will also continue while the Fuel Development Laboratory (FDL) on the NECSA premises will be decommissioned under the auspices of NECSA and the Helium Test Facility (HTF) while it will also be mothballed.

Several recommendations of the IMC have been approved by Cabinet including that the PBMR will be placed in a ‘care and maintenance mode’ to protect the intellectual property and the assets in PBMR.

The HTTF facility at Northwest University will only be mothballed should the university not wish to continue to utilise the facility.

The Department of Higher Education and the Department of Energy will seek to ensure that nuclear graduate programmes at universities such as the University of the North West are maintained and supported. A review and audit will be done of the PBMR project, which will also assist in capturing the lessons learnt from such an undertaking. It will also identify any outstanding course of action still needed to be undertaken, with a particular focus on corporate governance aspects.

Over the last years a total R9,244-billion has been invested in the PBMR project, government having contributed an amount R7,419-billion or 80,3% of that amount. Eskom also contributed 8,8% with Westinghouse and the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) accounting for 4,9% each.

A feasibility study on the project started in 2000 and in 2003 the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) reported a positive view on the possibility of the licensing thereof. In 2005 PBMR’s focus shifted to work needed for the licensing of a Demonstration Power Plant and the detailed design work required for manufacturing long lead-time items of plant for PBMR.

The funding given by government was intended to ensure the continuation of the project while providing a firm foundation for the acquisition of additional private sector investment into the project and an anchor customer.

Originally, it was envisaged that Eskom would be the PBMR’s anchor customer, with a possible purchase of up to 24 reactors as part of the country’s expansion of its electricity generation capacity to meet increasing demand with a first demonstration PBMR to be constructed on the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station site in the Western Cape.

“However, between 2005 and 2009, it became increasingly clear that, based on the direct-cycle electricity design, PBMR’s potential investor and customer market was severely restricted and it was unable to acquire either; hence government has been constrained to make decisions about the future of the project.

“It is absolutely clear from all the high-level reviews that have been undertaken that there is no doubt about the validity of Pebble Bed Technology itself. The main feature of the Pebble Bed Reactor is that its safety features are inherent in the physics of the design, as opposed to add-on engineered safety features as found on current Light Water Reactor (LWR) nuclear plants,” said the minister.

Hogan said that some of the universities had benefitted from this investment and were able to offer courses related to nuclear research and training that would not have been possible without such an investment.

However, the closing of the project will result in a leakage of skills, which is regrettable but unavoidable. “We do envisage the further up-skilling and training of a younger generation of scientists and technicians who have benefitted from our investments in PBMR.” – BuaNews

PELINDABA WORKING GROUP calls for audits on PBMR legacy

MEDIA STATEMENT:

Pelindaba Working Group joins thousands of unseen South Africans who stood together as “interested and affected parties” to oppose the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor over the past decade and now welcomes the announcement that government will shut it down.

We call for a full, transparent audit and investigation on the PBMR Company and its allies at the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA), as well as an environmental audit into whatever emissions and radioactive or chemical releases this discredited project may have caused. The nuclear industry is notorious for putting the public at risk during nuclear experimental work and then covering up the truth.

In particular, the National Nuclear Regulator should be brought to book for giving the PBMR a clean bill of health despite repeated warnings that the technology is not safe. It was eventually the US Regulator that failed the PBMR for safety reasons after well over R9 billion taxpayer funds were squandered. Warnings were also made in thousands of pages of submissions to the Department of Environment (DoE).

It is inconceivable that South Africa should consider a nuclear future when it cannot rely on its regulator for protection. Now that the law has been changed, the DoE has fobbed the issue of radiological safety to the NNR alone. Pelindaba Working Group insists that whatever emissions and environmental contamination was caused by the years of experimentation on the PBMR – especially at the Pelindaba site – be fully investigated and disclosed to the public. NECSA must disclose the various stacks still currently spewing emissions from its Pelindaba site.

We welcome the Minister’s announcement that the so-called “Fuel Development Laboratory” which went up at NECSA’s Pelindaba complex will be decommissioned and the Helium Test Facility will also be mothballed. Nuclear pebbles had indeed been manufactured on site and sent to Russia for testing despite no official license for the Fuel Factory ever being granted. This is scandalous.

Residents in this area should be warned not to trust the nuclear industry and to become more involved to force it out of our area. They persist with plans for uranium enrichment plants, radioactive waste smelter plants, and a new research nuclear reactor. A full Environmental Impact Assessment was NEVER conducted on the site before it was established in the 1960s.

Tragic is the waste of taxpayers’ money, the 12 years wasted that could rather have produced viable and safe alternative energy projects, and still untold are the damaging effects this shameful project has had on the health and lives of people.

For more information contact:

Dominique Gilbert

083 740 4676

ID calls for probe into government’s nuclear project

Chantall Presence |

The Independent Democrats on Friday called for a forensic audit to get to the bottom of what it called the squandering of taxpayers’ money on the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor.

Public enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan on Thursday told MPs cabinet approved the winding down of the PBMR as government could not afford further investments.

“The scale and size of the company is being drastically reduced to a handful of people, with the focus being on the attention if it’s intellectual property and the attention of certain skills, in the preservation of its assets,” she said.

Lance Greyling criticised the nuclear project and called for government to invest in alternative energy sources.

Greyling said he has been vindicated through the decision.

“I was ridiculed for my stance from that side of the house but today it is clear that this was a momentous waste of government’s resources. That money could have been far better used to position South Africa as a leader in solar energy,” he said.

Democratic Alliance spokesperson Pieter van Dalan added, “The R10 billion it has cost the tax payer would have been better spent to have built 200,000 much needed RDP houses, which would have gone a long way in addressing the housing shortage that currently exists.”
http://www.ewn.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=48774

PRESS RELEASE

PBMR TO SHUT DOWN!

16 SEPTEMBER 2010

Earthlife Africa – Johannesburg welcomes the announcement by the Minister of Public Enterprises, Ms Barbara Hogan, to the National Assembly on 16 September 2010, on the shutting down of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor.

The Minister added that government has spent almost R7.419 billion (80.3% of the total amount of R9.244 billion). We call on the Minister to conduct a full audit of the PBMR company by the auditor general. Furthermore, Parliament should conduct a full and transparent investigation.

We hope that government will learn from this tragic and wasteful experieince. The money spent on the PBMR could have been better utilised in the health and education sectors. Such waste of taxpayers’ money must not be experienced again. We therefore urge government to refrain from building any other nuclear reactors in the future.

Government must increase its investment and commitment to renewable energy technologies to ensure a clean and sustainable energy supply for South Africa.

For more information contact:

Ferrial Adam

Tel: +27 11 339 3662
Fax: +27 11 339 3270
Cell: +2774-181 3197

Email: seccp@earthlife.org.za

Tristen Taylor

Tel: +27 11 339 3662
Fax: +27 11 339 3270
Cell: +27842502434

–

62 total views, 2 views today

Rate this post

Posted in: PBMR - Pebble Bed ⋅ Tagged: environmental pollution, Hogan, National Nuclear Regulator, nuclear energy, pbmr, Radiation, south africa

Government Secrecy Around PBMR Closure

September 5, 2010 12:06 am ⋅ Leave a Comment ⋅ Pelindaba Working Group

Press Release:

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

99 total views, no views today

Rate this post

Posted in: Nuclear Energy ⋅ Tagged: government, nuclear, pbmr, reactor, secrecy, south africa

Zuma adds China to his secret deals on Nuclear cooperation despite incomplete IRP2 process

September 5, 2010 12:01 am ⋅ 1 Comment ⋅ Pelindaba Working Group

4 September 2010

BEIJING – China National Nuclear Corp. is in talks over building a nuclear power plant in South Africa, a CNNC official said Tuesday, in the latest sign that China is gearing up to export nuclear technology at the same time as it rapidly expands its domestic reactor fleet.

Negotiations involve the potential transfer of nuclear technology to South Africa, during the visit of South African President Jacob Zuma to China, the official, who declined to be named, told Dow Jones Newswires.

China has its own CPR 1000 nuclear technology and its own operating Pebble Bed Modular Reactors (PBMR). South Africa and China signed a nuclear cooperation agreement over the PBMR in 2009.

Environmental activists in China have reportedly been jailed, disappeared or sentenced to years of “Re-education Through Labour” for endangering state security after following attempts to petition officials over severe radiation poisoning affecting local residents”, focussing on “nuclear pollution” and “human rights violations” relating to uranium mining. http://www.wise-uranium.org/udasi.html

Chinese President Hu Jintao (L) and South African President Jacob Zuma inspect a guard of honor during a welcoming ceremony held for Zuma in Beijing, capital of China, Aug. 24, 2010. (Xinhua/Rao Aimin)

However, China and South Africa signed a raft of commercial deals in mining, finance, nuclear energy and other sectors during a visit by South African President Jacob Zuma end of August, hot on the heels of his visit to Russia during which he also signed deals involving mining and nuclear technology. China and Russia are both nuclear weapons states.

None of the details of these deals have officially been made known to South Africans.

However in an interview with Reuters, it emerges that Standard Bank has agreed with China Guangdong Nuclear Power Company to work on nuclear power opportunities in South Africa, the chief executive of Africa’s biggest bank said last Friday.

Jacko Maree, who had just returned from China, told Reuters on 27 August the deal was reached during the visit this week to Beijing by South African President Jacob Zuma and more than 300 business representatives.

The Chinese firm operates over 40 percent of China’s nuclear power generating capacity.

“We are working with Guangdong Nuclear Power Company on cooperation in nuclear power projects with South Africa,” Maree said. He did not say there were any specific deals on the horizon or give any indication of how big such deals might be.

The decision on how many nuclear plants to build and who would run them is to be decided in a new electricity plan which is still in the works. Chinese firms believe they are well placed given the growing political ties between Pretoria and Beijing.

The electricity plan which aims to map out the energy future for South Africa over the next 50 years is, however, currently subject of a consultative process with stakeholders and is not completed. Civil society is fighting tooth and nail to ensure that nuclear power is excluded from the plan, in favour of clean and less risky renewable energy options.

The agreement between Standard Bank and the Chinese nuclear firm also involves Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, the world’s biggest bank by market capitalisation. It has a 20 percent stake in Standard Bank, Reuters said.

The list of more than 10 deals, the total value of which wasn’t announced, reflects China’s focus on expanding its resources and energy reach in South Africa to fuel continued growth in China’s booming economy.

Separately, an official at China National Nuclear Corp. said it is in talks to build a nuclear-power plant in South Africa. A deal on that would mark the latest sign that China is gearing up to export nuclear technology at the same time as it rapidly expands its domestic reactor fleet. The talks involve the potential transfer of nuclear technology to South Africa, although nothing concrete was expected to be signed during President Zuma’s visit, the official said.

China is working to become self-sufficient in advanced nuclear technology so that it doesn’t need to award multibillion-dollar contracts to foreign companies to build domestic plants in the future. It is also looking at selling nuclear technology overseas in countries such as Vietnam, Belarus and Argentina.

Meanwhile, in another report, Standard Bank Group Ltd. announced a memorandum of understanding with Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd., China’s largest lender, which owns a minority stake in Standard Bank, to promote nuclear cooperation between the countries, according to a South African government statement. The two banks are working with China Guangdong Nuclear Power Co. to engage with the Chinese and South African governments, the statement said.

According to Abdullah Verachia, a director at consultancy Frontier Advisory and a faculty member at the Gordon Institute of Business Science, the deals were done in the mining, power transmission, finance and nuclear energy sectors, among others.

Zuma visited China with 13 cabinet ministers and a 370-strong business delegation to strengthen ties between South Africa and what has become the world’s second-largest economy, with gross domestic product (GDP) worth $1.3 trillion (R9.5 trillion) in the second quarter.

A comprehensive strategic partnership agreement was also concluded during the trip.

Zuma’s visit to China is part of a push to be part of the BRIC grouping of countries, which includes Brazil, Russia, India and China, and follows trips to the other three countries.

Zuma last week called for China to import value-added goods as well as raw materials and to invest in the manufacturing sector instead of focussing solely on projects involving commodities.

Financial Times reported Rob Davies, South Africa’s trade minister, “revealed some frustration by saying it wanted China to do more than just import its raw materials” and suggested that he wants China to help South Africa to do some more sophisticated (and profitable) minerals processing and manufacturing itself.

South Africa’s current plans to expand its nuclear programme include its announcements to enrich uranium. The Y-plant and Z-plant were South Africa’s working uranium enrichment facilities. The facilities were decommissioned during the 1990s and South Africa now meets its fuel requirement through the world market. The Y-plant was pivotal in South Africa’s weapons programme.

Zuma himself told a forum of business executives from China and South Africa: “We envisage meaningful future cooperation in infrastructure, the benefaction of minerals, engineering, energy, information and communications technology and electronics. There are also opportunities to be explored in manufacturing.”

Africa is a prime hunting ground for China’s future energy security. China has established a strong foothold in the Sudan for petroleum. But, Africa is rich in uranium deposits.

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703447004575448911926722310.html

Dow Jones Newswires

Wall Street Journal

http://www.france24.com/en/20100824-safricas-zuma-china-talks-growing-ties

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/08/24/china-south-africa-talks-nuclear-power-cooperation/

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=5624822

http://af.reuters.com/article/southAfricaNews/idAFWEA592020100827

http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/08/24/88906/

_________________________________________________________

For background information on SA, China, Westinghouse & the PBMR it is worthwhile to glance over some of the articles featured in the pro-nuclear Idaho Samizdat:Nuke Notes. Here is the link to the briefs below:

http://nuclearstreet.com/blogs/idaho_samizdat_nuke_notes/archive/tags/PBMR/default.aspx

PBMR joins forces with China on pebble bed technology

It’s a quantum leap in overcoming the “not invented here” paradigm Hat tip to Rod Adams at South Africa and China have agreed to joint development of pebble bed reactor technology A press release from Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (Pty) Ltd ( PBMR ) of South Africa indicates that firm has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in Beijing on 26 March 2009 between the Chinese and the South…

Posted Mar 30 2009, 10:08 AM by Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes

Filed under: PBMR, China, pebble bed

• Pebble bed fuel fabricated in South Africa

Target application is Idaho’s Next Generation Nuclear Plant World Nuclear News reports that PBMR in South Africa has successfully manufactured nuclear fuel “pebbles” at 9.6% enrichment for use in a planned high temperature gas cooled reactor (HTGR). The company said the fuel design and fabrication milestone is linked to work on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Next Generation Nuclear…

Posted Jan 18 2009, 02:50 PM by Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes

Filed under: PBMR, South Africa

• China launches Pebble Bed at Shandong

High temperature gas cooled reactor design is being developed at Tsinghua University China’s Huaneng Group has launched a demonstration of its PBMR nuclear power project, at a plant in Shandong Province according to an English language report on CCTV. Parties involved in the project signed agreements in Beijing on Oct 7. The HTR-PM project, which stands for “”High Temperature Gas-cooled…

Posted Oct 11 2008, 12:24 PM by Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes

Filed under: PBMR, China

• For Mitsubishi size doesn’t matter

Firm will start making large forgings and may invest in Pebble Bed Reuters reports that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) plans to get into the business of manufacturing large forgings for nuclear reactors including its own 1,700 MWe PWR . It joins firms in Korea, France, and the U.K. who are seeking to gain market share in this field. The only firm making the components now is Japan Steel…

Posted May 27 2008, 11:03 PM by Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes

Filed under: PBMR, Mitsubishi

• Westinghouse moves out on four reactors for China

Plus staking its claims to PBMR reactor technologies and for NGNP The ink is dry on a contract between Westinghouse and the State Nuclear Power Technology Company of China (SNPTC) to build four AP1000 nuclear plants in that country. The announcement comes one day after Westinghouse announced its acquisition of IST Nuclear (ISTN), a provider of services to South Africa’s Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Read…

Posted Aug 10 2007, 04:30 PM by Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes

Filed under: PBMR, AP100, China, hydrogen, Westinghouse

• SA, China unveil PBMR cooperation agreement

10 Apr 2009 … Its shareholders are China Nuclear Engineering and Construction … PILOT PBMR: China’s research PBMR/MHTGR building at INET in Beijing …

www.engineeringnews.co.za/…/south-africa-china-pbmr-projects-to-cooperate-2009-04-10 – Cached – Similar

• NRC: Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)

Protecting People and the EnvironmentUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION secondary … Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). Reactor Power: 400 MWt …

www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/pbmr.html – Cached – Similar

Westinghouse signs Chinese contracts, buys into PBMR

Westinghouse signs Chinese contracts, buys into PBMR. 24 July 2007. Westinghouse has signed definitive … Indian cabinet changes nuclear liability bill …

www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=13762 – Cached – Similar

Green Car Congress: Mitsubishi Heavy Signs MOU with PBMR Pty on …

7 Feb 2010 … With the newly concluded MOU, PBMR development will now move forward …. Therefore I suggest sending used nuclear fuel to China and paying …

www.greencarcongress.com/2010/…/mhi-pbmr-20100207.html – Cached – Similar

AECL Chinergy PBMR SNC-Lavalin Nuclear Washington Group …

14 Apr 2006 … state-owned China Nuclear Engineering and. Construction Corporation. ….. software systems manager for PBMR. “The nuclear …

www.intergraph.com/…/NuclearIndustrySpotlight.pdf – United States – Similar

PBMR Contract – 4th Generation Nuclear Power Plant by 2014 – Red …

25 Aug 2008 … PBMR Contract – 4th Generation Nuclear Power Plant by 2014 … reactor operating in China – the 10 MWth HTR-10 at Tsinghua University. …

redgreenandblue.org/…/pbmr-contract-4th-generation-nuclear-power-plant-by-2014/ – Cached – Similar

US support for PBMR intensifies Areva, Westinghouse contest

2 Oct 2009… to research the pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR) nuclear technology, … by 2020 – the others being China, the US, the UK and Italy. …

www.polity.org.za/…/us-support-for-pbmr-intensifies-areva-westinghouse-contest-2009-10-02 – Cached – Similar

Nuclear Fuel Pellets Offer the Future of Energy that is Clean and …

For now, at least, that leaves nuclear power. The PBMR’s small size and relative simplicity … PBMR technology is also being pursued in China and at MIT. …

www.hightech-edge.com/future-nuclear-energy-power/1283/ – Cached

Atomic Insights Blog: Pebble Bed Reactor MOU Between China and …

30 Mar 2009 … PBMR CEO Jaco Kriek welcomed the collaboration with China. … It is joint investment by China Nuclear Engineering & Construction …

atomicinsights.blogspot.com/…/pebble-bed-reactor-mou-between-china.html – Cached – Similar

120 total views, no views today

Rate this post

Posted in: Nuclear Energy ⋅ Tagged: activists, China, energy, nuclear, pbmr, reactor, south africa, Standard Bank, Uranium, Zuma

1 2 Next »

Tag Archives: Pbmr

Reply by Barbara Hogan on Questions posed in Parliament regarding PBMR project

SA officially ends support to PBMR as activists rejoice & call for probes

Post Navigation

Sponsored Links

Menu

Archives

Join CANE

Quote

Categories

Blogroll

Latest News from Environment.co.za

Spam Blocked

Tag Archives: Pbmr

Letter to Business Report re thorium reactors

Reply by Barbara Hogan on Questions posed in Parliament regarding PBMR project

SA officially ends support to PBMR as activists rejoice & call for probes

Government Secrecy Around PBMR Closure

Zuma adds China to his secret deals on Nuclear cooperation despite incomplete IRP2 process

Post Navigation

Sponsored Links

Menu

Archives

Join CANE

Quote

Categories

Tags

Blogroll

Latest News from Environment.co.za

Spam Blocked