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

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

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

Or

Tristen Taylor

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

–

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

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

Given the central importance of energy policy in South Africa, it is more important than ever that projects like the PBMR are evaluated for their necessity, viability, affordability, sustainability, and contribution to the country’s development path. While the government appears to have dropped the PBMR for the present, recent media rhetoric suggests that it is still committed to adding substantial amounts of nuclear power to its future energy mix. This effort seems to being made without first addressing problems relating to democratic governance, public policy making and promoting the special interests of lobby groups. This paper, by Dr David Fig,  seeks to raise such issues within an appraisal of the country’s checkered nuclear history and its development aspirations.

It is not surprising therefore that the new paper titled: “Nuclear energy rethink?  The rise and demise of South Africa’s Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, ISS Paper No 210, David Fig, April 2010″  is produced by  the Institute for Security Studies’  “publications on corruption “.

It can be downloaded as a PDF (803KB) from       http:///www.issafrica.org/uploads/210.pdf

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

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

per e-mail

Your correspendent Brian Sandberg, “The Truth about the PBMR” (Business Day, 27 November 2009) refers. As a self-confessed layman, it is commendable that he is so enthusiastic about the possibilities posed by the Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project, but perhaps he was blinded by the apparent science and economic benefits.

The truth of the matter is that this technology failed spectacularly in May 1986 when there was a major release of radiotoxic isotopes into the environment in Germany. An attempt was made to cover this up as spillover from the catastrophe at Chernobyl in the Ukraine (April 1986), but some astute — and less sanguine — scientists identified the source correctly.

Despite the arms boycott, the technology was then sold forward to Armscor as a potential nuclear submarine reactor and survived the transition to democracy, reappearing in 1993 as the current choice for “Generation IV” reactors. This was the bais of the agreement signed recently between Energy Minister Dipuo Peters and US Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu.

While the “spin-offs” and “knock-on” effects of ANY investment in ANY technology are always welcome, the challenge for any open-minded industrial policy wonk is whether THIS technology is worthy of the R16-billion already squandered on a doubtful boondoggle for bomb-happy veterans of the nuclear arms trade.

As for global acceptance, it is still doubtful whether — in a truly democratic and participatory society — nuclear power will survive 2010 intact at all. The market certainly has no appetite for nuclear power, but is rather ploughing — like Venfin and Google — all their  money into truly renewable and power-saving technologies.

The respect your correspondent speaks about is probably within a tightly controlled circle of embedded scientists and governemt favourites, NOT among private investors and energy analysts. Even the World Bank refuses to fund nuclear power stations.

If there is such a fantastic market for the PBMR, where is the order book? Even Eskom has turned its back on the project, after its former political boss, Public Enterprises Minister Alec “Wingnut” Erwin promised an order of 24-30 reactors. Another enthusiastic backer, Exelon of the USA (currently struggling with another problem at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania) withdrew when it was clear that the US NRC was not rolling over a nuclear licence.

With regard to “containment”, the 1986 accident proved that there no such thing. As Edward Lyman pointed out to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission long ago, the inside of the reactor wall is coated in graphite and it only takes a little air to get inside for a Chernobyl-type fire to ensue. Moreover, even the renowned precision engineering of the German engineers could not guarantee the perfect sphericality of every single pebble, which ultimately lead to the balls becoming stuck in the outlet flue. We may be very rightly proud of our engineering expertise, but we are not less fallible than the best that Europe has to offer, surely!

Mistakes may be made, absolutely, but the costs are too high and the risks too uncertain. We cannot afford a nuclear programme any more than we can afford sleek limousines and six-star hotel accommodation. We are definitely NOT Europeans, as any stroll through your local squatter camp will reveal.

You may be able to afford international, high-flying standards of excellence, Mr Sandberg, but we can’t. If all the basic services have been met — clean water, sanitation, affordable basic energy, transport, a reduction in the impossibly high levels of crime and HIV/AIDS, yes, then perhaps, but not before.

Even if we were living at a European standard, my choice would be for a heavy investment in energy efficiency, Concentrated Solar Power, wind farms, thin-film solar technology, micro-hydro, and wave power around Cape Columbine to Cape Agulhas.

THAT would be innovative and job-creating and much could be achieved in two years, not twenty.

Sincerely

Mike Kantey
National Chairperson
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE
www.cane.org.za