Tag Archives: Renewable Energy

Government’s plan doubles nukes

AN AMBITIOUS plan to reduce SA’s reliance on coal by almost half by 2030 and to more than double the use of nuclear energy was released by the Department of Energy yesterday.

by SISEKO NJOBENI

8 October 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30 total views, 1 views today

Rate this post

Zuma defies democracy as he sells his country to Russia to make nuclear/uranium deals

function callServer(month,year) { // Создать URL для подключения var url = "/scripts/CalendarUpdate.php?month=" + escape(month) + "&year=" + escape(year);

// Открыть соединение с сервером xmlHttp.open("GET", url, true);

// Установить функцию для сервера, которая выполнится после его ответа xmlHttp.onreadystatechange = update_calendar;

// SПередать запрос xmlHttp.send(null); }

function update_photo() { if (xmlHttp.readyState == 4) { var response = xmlHttp.responseText; document.getElementById("article_photos").innerHTML = response; } }

function callPhotoServer(photo,article) { // Создать URL для подключения var url = "/scripts/PhotoUpdate.php?photo=" + escape(photo) + "&article=" + escape(article);

// Открыть соединение с сервером xmlHttp.open("GET", url, true);

// Установить функцию для сервера, которая выполнится после его ответа xmlHttp.onreadystatechange = update_photo;

// SПередать запрос xmlHttp.send(null); }

function update_counter() { }

function callCounterServer () { // Создать URL для подключения var url = "/scripts/CounterUpdate.php?article=411794";

// Открыть соединение с сервером xmlHttp.open("GET", url, true);

// Установить функцию для сервера, которая выполнится после его ответа xmlHttp.onreadystatechange = update_counter;

// SПередать запрос xmlHttp.send(null); } // ]]>As an act of goodwill to determine the energy plan for the coming 25-35 years South Africans are currently involved in a “participatory & consultative” Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) process – a supposed blueprint for South Africa’s future, in spite of objections that government’s Integrated Energy Process is still far from completion.

Among others the Civil Society Energy Caucus, a coalition of numerous civil society organisations that engage on energy issues, submitted detailed comments on the IRP2 and presented views at stakeholder plenary session of 8th June. They have still not had any response to their submission from the Department of Energy or anyone else.

The deadly legacy of radioactive toxic contamination of water in the Witwatersrand from uranium and chemicals from mining has yet to be adequately addressed.

When you’ve done reading this, please Google “Russian nuclear legacy” showing a litany of horror stories from warheads and decaying submarines to radioactive lakes and rivers, massive nuclear explosions in addition to the Chernobyl accident, growing discoveries of radioactive “hotspots”, over-filled radioactive storage facilites in very bad condition, neglected maintenance and unpaid nuclear workers.  Environmental groups say the Russian nuclear industry has not managed to address the question of nuclear waste disposal in general.

Russia’s nuclear reprocessing facility – Mayak – is described as “the most polluted place on earth” and has seen a series of serious accidents. But Mayak is just one of Russia’s nuke facilities. The country has almost 100, situated in 10 “nuclear cities”, mostly closed and the location for some of Russia’s most dangerous rotting infrastructure. Reports indicate there is still a very low level of safety awareness in that country.

Highlights of Zuma’s deal with Russia:

  • Medvedev, Zuma make deals in metals and nuclear industriesRussia to control almost half of South Africa’s low enriched uranium market
  • Russia to control almost half of South Africa’s low enriched uranium market
  • Deliveries begin this year
  • Russia to provide SA nuclear power stations with uranium until 2017
  • Russians to help build new nuclear plants in SA
  • Eskom confirmed it has already signed contract with Russian U-trader

Maxim Shipenkov / AP

President Dmitry Medvedev welcoming South African leader Jacob Zuma in the plush Kremlin ahead of talks Thursday.

Medvedev, Zuma Oversee Dealmaking

06 August 2010 (which marks the 65th anniversary of the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshma, Japan)

By Maria Antonova

President Dmitry Medvedev met with his South African counterpart, Jacob Zuma, on Thursday in Moscow, where the two oversaw deals in the metals and nuclear industries.

Under the deal, Russian state uranium trader Tenex will sell enriched uranium to Eskom Holdings for use at South Africa’s Koeberg nuclear station, which accounts for 5 percent of South Africa’s energy needs.

The contract is an extension of one reached 15 years ago that is about to expire. Under the new contract, deliveries will begin in 2011 and last until 2017 to 2018. Russia hopes eventually to control 45 percent of the low-enriched uranium market in South Africa, Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko told reporters.

Additionally, Norilsk Nickel signed a memorandum with the South African government to create a joint mining venture in South Africa.

“We will be engaged in the exploration and production of minerals in the framework of this venture with the South African government,” Norilsk Nickel head Vladimir Strzhalkovsky said, Interfax reported.

The metals giant is already involved in a joint venture with African Rainbow Minerals, which mines for nickel, zinc, cobalt, chromium and platinum.

On the governmental level, the two countries agreed to cooperate on space issues and may jointly launch satellites using Russian equipment, Federal Space Agency head Anatoly Perminov said, adding that Russia would also build a space data collection center in South Africa.

Among other deals reached in the course of the visit were agreements to cooperate on agricultural trade issues and visa-free diplomatic visits.

Medvedev and Zuma, who led a delegation of 11 ministers (75 officials from 13 departments, including five young people from the newly revamped youth entity, the National Youth Development Agency…and business delegation, which is expected to be led by the chairman of the SA-Russia Business Council, Robert Gumede*) and about 100 businessmen in his first visit to Russia since taking office in May, also discussed South Africa’s potential participation in the BRIC bloc.

Brazil, Russia, India and China, which have been grouped together as “BRICs” because of their fast-growing economies and regional influence, formalized the grouping when they started holding official summits last year.

“South Africa’s participation in discussing various issues in the BRIC format would be very productive” since South Africa is also an emerging economy, Medvedev said, according to the transcript of the conference posted on the Kremlin’s web site.

“Our countries share the commitment to a more fair distribution of power and influence on the global economic scene,” Zuma said, adding that Russia and South Africa were “natural partners.”

Russia has always been “sympathetic to the struggle of African countries for independence” and is “open to developing relations of a new kind,” Medvedev said.

Zuma offered Medvedev his condolences for the Russians who have perished in the wildfires that are currently devouring the central part of the country. He also invited Medvedev to visit South Africa in 2012, the year of Russia’s presidential elections.

© Copyright 1992-2010. The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.

Highlights from other reports:

Business Report reports:

-          South African power utility Eskom on Friday confirmed that it has signed a contract with Russian state uranium trader Techsnapexport (Tenex) for the supply of low enriched uranium to Eskom.

-          Russia’s nuclear regulatory body Rosatom Nuclear Energy State Corporation suggested that Russia was ready to build a nuclear power plant in South Africa.

The Nambian reports:

-          No tenders have been issued yet, but discussions have taken place, according to Trade Minister Rob Davies.

-          A delegation visited Rosatom’s subsidiary Tvel, which makes nuclear fuel, on Monday, Tvel said in a statement Wednesday.

Bloomberg reports:

-          Russia, South Africa Discuss Potential Nuclear, LNG, Titanium Co-Operation

-          Zuma led a delegation of more than 50 politicians, including 11 Ministers and businessmen to Russia this week.

-          Trade Minister Rob Davies  said SA sees mining, energy and transport as areas where ties with Russia can grow.

-          “We see deepening relations with the BRIC countries,” Davies said, referring to Brazil, Russia, India and China, an acronym combining the biggest emerging markets. Trade between Russia and South Africa reached 4 billion rand ($550 million) in 2008, he said.

-          Tenex, a unit of Russian nuclear holding company Rosatom Corp., is in talks over supplying South Africa’s Koeberg power plant, Davies said. Russia is also interested in being involved should South Africa decide to build more plants, he said.

-          Russia may also deliver LNG to Mossel Bay, Davies said, without giving further details. PetroSA, South Africa’s state- owned oil company, needs to secure replacement supplies to feed the Mossel Bay refinery as its natural gas reserves dwindle.

-          South Africa also hopes to use Russian technology to develop a mineral sands deposit that could yield titanium, zirconium and silicon, Davies said. Rare Metals Industries Ltd., a venture with South African, Russian and U.S. investors, said in February it may list shares to fund the $1.5 billion cost of a processing plant needed to turn sands into metal.

RTT News reports:

-          Russia has agreed to provide technological support and uranium in building South African nuclear power stations until at least 2017.

-          A contract to this effect will come into effect next year.

-          Addressing a news conference in the Kremlin after talks with Zuma, Medvdev said the deal was ‘just a beginning’ in developing the immature relations between the two countries.

-          The deal includes defense and aerospace

-          Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia’s nuclear power corporation ROSATOM, told reporters that the deal enabled Russia to control nearly half of South Africa’s uranium market.

-          Russia, possessing the world’s biggest uranium-enrichment capacities, is planning to set up the world’s first nuclear fuel reserve to ensure uninterrupted supplies for the world’s power reactors.

-          Russia’s critics have accused it of using its energy supplies as a political weapon.

Fin24 reports:

-          Deliveries under the contract will begin in 2011 and last until 2017-2018, Kremlin documents seen by Reuters showed.

-          Bilateral trade between South Africa and Russia remains tiny, totaling just $517m last year, a fraction of a percent of Russia’s total external trade turnover of $469bn, according to Russian statistics. Some investment bankers in Moscow say that Russia has been much slower than China to appreciate the potential benefits of investment in Africa. Zuma, who leads Africa’s biggest economy, is seeking to increase trade with Russia and China, which are forecast to grow about 4% and 10% respectively this year.

EarthTimes.org reports:

-          The South African Space Agency and the Russian Federal Space Agency are also to sign an accord on cooperation in the area of earth observation. Last year, Russia launched South Africa’s first satellite aboard a Soyuz rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

-          Zuma’s visit is part of a diplomatic and trade blitz of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) bloc of four biggest emerging markets. Earlier this year, Zuma visited Brazil and India. Later this month, he will also visit China.

Business Day reports:

-          Russia, in hosting SA, is on a quest to regain lost ground as an influential player on the continent. Its influence has waned significantly since the collapse of the Soviet Union almost two decades ago. During those days, most exiled African leaders who belonged to liberation movements – including the African National Congress – received their tuition, including grounding in economic policy, in the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet Union not only reduced Russia’s influence in Africa politically but also saw its communist economic principles discarded. Russia is now a democracy pursuing a free market economic system, the very system it detested so passionately during its days as the Soviet Union.

-          Also on the agenda will be cooperation in the field of energy affairs. GazProm, a Russian energy enterprise, is looking to explore new natural gas deposits along SA’s western coast.

-          There are also plans to hold further discussions on the proposed Kudu power plant on Namibia’s border with SA. It is estimated the plant will yield 50-billion to 60-billion cubic meters of gas. Energy utility Eskom has reportedly shown interest in acquiring 500MW of the 800MW output from the Kudu power plant to increase its electricity supply to the local market.

-          Mr Zuma and Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev are expected to sign memorandums of understanding in the fields of plant quarantine and visa exemption for diplomatic and official passport holders. Other memorandums of understanding to be discussed or signed include maritime transport, aviation safety and an extradition order between the two nations.

SOURCES:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/medvedev-zuma-oversee-dealmaking/411794.html

ttp://www.fin24.com/Companies/Eskom-signs-Russian-nuclear-deal-20100805

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/338110,russia-trade-talks-medvedev.html

*http://allafrica.com/stories/201008030041.html

_____________________________________________

SOME BACKGROUND TO THE STORY:

By John Helmer in Moscow

Posted On March 18, 2008 In Africa-Russia

Russia has been locked out of the largest nuclear power contract ever prepared in Africa, despite two years of promises from the South African government that it would invite Russia’s nuclear industry to join a competitive tender with the French and American companies, Areva and Westinghouse.

The lockout appears to be regional in scope, blocking a bid by the Russians to build a nuclear reactor in Namibia, that country’s first. It also makes unlikely that ambitious schemes to draw Russian investment into uranium mining, ore concentration, and uranium fuel enrichment will materialize in southern Africa.

According to the SA utility Eskom, the first SA reactor to be commissioned would cost an estimated R120 billion ($15 billion); six power stations to produce an estimated 20,000MW would cost more than R720 billion ($90 billion), Eskom officials have publicly estimated.

The circumstances in which SA officials made their decision to exclude the Russians have been kept secret for weeks, while crisis talks were held by officials of the two governments, first in Moscow on February 12, and then in Pretoria on March 10.

The secret spilled out after SA Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma came to Moscow, along with the acting director-general of her ministry, Gert Gobler. A communiqué issued by Pretoria claimed their meeting was a routine session of the SA-Russia inter-governmental trade and economic committee (ITEC).

The communiqué claimed there was progress on nuclear power issues, although both Dlamini-Zuma, Gobler and their Russian counterparts knew the reason for the meeting was Russian anger at being shut out of both the nuclear power and the aerospace sectors.

The conflict between Moscow and Pretoria in aerospace follows the recent breakdown of agreements for the Russian space agency Roskosmos to launch SA satellites, one of them the civilian Sumbandila satellite; and another, a South African military communications and reconnaissance satellite.

According to Dlamini-Zuma last month: “the two sides welcomed the establishment of the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy with a view to ensuring a proper and structured implementation of the agreement signed during the visit of President Vladimir Putin to South Africa in September 2006.”

This is a reference to agreements reached, not only during Putin’s visit to Cape Town, but to subsequent reiteration of SA promises to Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov in March 2007, and at meetings in Sochi with Putin and other Russian officials in mid-2007.

Dlamini-Zuma also claimed there was no problem in the aerospace sector. She reported on February 13, after her Moscow talks, that “the two sides considered enhanced South Africa – Russia co-operation in the sphere of space research and the finalisation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between South Africa and Russia in this regard. “

On February 26, Gobler briefed reporters ahead of the visit of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Leaks in the French press had earlier reported that Areva believed it was SA’s preferred bidder for the first nuclear contract.

Gobler referred to a paper leaked to his ministry in February, which disclosed the crisis that had erupted in Russian-SA relations over the cancellation of the invitation to Atomstroyexport (ASE), the Russian reactor builder, and thetit-for-tat cancellation by the Russian space agency Rosatom over agreements to launch SA satellites.

“Many of those allegations are totally unfounded, if not simply untrue,” Gobler said. “The real fact is the insinuations that there are major problems between Russia and South Africa is [sic] simply also not true.”

But Gobler admitted that the nuclear reactor bid was one “of the issues that were raised in that article [and] were up for discussion between the two governments.” The discussion, he added, had been “in a constructive and amicable spirit”, and “that issue is being currently discussed on a government to government level.”

The report on crisis between the SA and Russian governments, Grobler said, was a “list of questions, allegations and insinuations that obviously… involves a number of government departments and that I would not like to comment on this at that point because it needs further consultation with these departments who are accused or allegations are made.”

Although Gobler insisted on February 26that “the relations between Russia and South Africa are in fact very good,” he did not mention that First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov was expected to visit Mbeki shortly after Sarkozy had departed.

Ivanov arrived on March 10, accompanied by two ministers:Yury Trutnev, Minister of Natural Resources, is co-chairman with Dlamini-Zuma of ITEC; and Yury Levitin, the Minister of Transport.

An announcement was issued in Pretoria by Vice President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka just ahead of Ivanov’s arrival. This claimed the visit was “within the context of South Africa’s priority to strengthen bilateral political, economic and trade relations with the Russian Federation. In this regard, relations between Russia and South Africa are driven through the Inter–sessional Intergovernmental Trade and Economic Committee (ITEC)”. The SA statement added that Ivanov was expected to discuss “the status of bilateral political, economic and trade relations between the two countries…[and] preparations for the ITEC that will be hosted by Russia in May 2008.”

Ivanov’s spokesman told Mineweb that the visit to the SA capital, where he met President Mbeki, was not decided until the week before their March 10 meeting. Trutnev said through a spokesman that he had no agenda for the visit, but was there to accompany Ivanov. Levitin told Mineweb, also through his spokesman, that he was accompanying Ivanov, and had no discussion bearing on the satellite controversy.

A newspaper report in Moscow, published immediately after Ivanov’s meetings with Mbeki and Mlambo-Ngcuka, cited a Trutnev deputy, Igor Maidanov, as saying”the supply of energy is top on the agenda.” Maidanov is the director of the Natural Resource Ministry’s international cooperation department. “Russia is aware of South Africa’s present energy problems. I believe that the delegation will discuss this issue in order to find ways to help.”

Russia’s nuclear assistance was the cat Maidanov let slip from the bag SA officials were determined to keep shut.

As co-chairman of ITEC, Trutnev has been a public promoter of deals in the uranium mining, fuel processing, and reactor building segments of the nuclear market. Russia “would invest as much as needed” in new nuclear power stations and joint uranium mining ventures, he told the SA audience last year; a sentiment repeated in SA communiqués on the progress of ITEC.

A source close to Atomstroyexport (ASE) has revealed that early in March, just before Ivanov decided on his SA visit, officials from the SA Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) and the SA Embassy in Moscow had conveyed Pretoria’s message — the decision had been taken at the highest level not to include ASE in the nuclear tender.

An announcement from Levitin and the Russian Transport Ministry claimed the object of their visit to SA this month was to check on the operation of a Russian satellite navigation system, GLONASS; to inspect Russian aircraft modification and flight operating plans for the Antarctic; and to call at Novolazarevskaya, the 47-year old Russian scientific station on Queen Maud Land.

Roskosmos was also represented in Ivanov’s delegation. But asked to say if Ivanov had discussed the satellite problem, Roskosmos spokesman, Alexander Ryadinskiy, replied: “nothing extraordinary happened”.

Ivanov has not commented publicly on the substance or outcome of his SA talks. But a source close to him denied the purpose of his trip had been to visit SA. The source told Mineweb that Ivanov was intending to visit Russian operations in the Antarctic. He had stopped off in Pretoria on his way south, the source now says. Ivanov’s spokesman, Pavel Zinovich, told Mineweb that Ivanov’s talks had “nothing to do with the intergovernmental commission”.

Before he visited SA, Ivanov was on record as urging Roskosmos to do more for the GLONASS system and for Russian satellite launches.

Tseliso Maqubela, who heads the nuclear division of the DME, and Bheki Langa, the SA Ambassador, refuse to answer questions about the crisis triggered by the nuclear power exclusion, and the satellite launching spat.

In Moscow in March, junior SA officials told the Russians they may be invited to bid for the second round of reactor contracts; these are scheduled to be tendered at the end of the 5-year construction period for the first reactors.

This is a sop. Nuclear sector experts in SA and Russia acknowledge that, on account of the differences in technology, training protocols, site and fuel specifications between the French, American, and Russian nuclear reactor systems, it is very rare for a country to buy and operate more than one type of system. South Korea is the exception, however.

In a report this week on Russian marketing efforts for its nuclear power exports, Moscow analyst Yury Humber suggested that outside of China and India, where ASE reactors are dominant, “the competition for nuclear-plant sales may broadly play out along Cold War lines, with Russia grabbing contracts among former Soviet satellites such as Bulgaria and the Czech Republic and African allies including Namibia.”

He quoted US sources as confirming that “Russia is likely to be shut out of U.S. and Western European markets partly because of historical ties to local manufacturers, said Gene Clark, chief executive of U.S. consulting firm TradeTech. ‘The markets that Russia’s going for, I’m not too worried about,’ said Dan Lipman, senior vice president for nuclear power plants at Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse. ‘Myanmar’s not on my list.’”

A source close to ASE told Mineweb that Namibia, a major international mine source for uranium, has made no firm commitment to a reactor tender, or to inviting the Russians to bid.

A visit to Windhoek a year ago by Mikhail Fradkov, then Russia’s Prime Minister, proposed a variety of options for launching nuclear power generation for Namibia. One of the options reported by Mineweb at the time as discussed with Namibian President Hifikepunya Pohamba was a low-capacity floating nuclear power plant. “We want our own power plant utilising our own (uranium) resources… We are pleased the Russian Federation wants to assist Namibia in this field,” Pohamba was quoted as saying.

Last month, the Namibian government repeated its policy target to develop nuclear power generation, and the beneficiation technology to convert locally mined uranium for fuel.

Article printed from Dances With Bears: http://johnhelmer.net

URL to article: http://johnhelmer.net/?p=356



654 total views, no views today

Rate this post

120,000+ Say NO to Nuclear Energy in Germany – Massive Protest

Anti Nuclear Demonstration in Germany - Copyright http://www.anti-atom-aktuell.de/

A major demonstration – a “chain” of people between three nuclear power plants in Northern part of Germany – took place yesterday … BRINGING OUT approx. 120.000 PEOPLE to demonstrate for a phase-out of nuc energy and a change towards renewable energies.

The following links lead to a number of galeries / fotos, video footage and coverage in the media.

http://www.anti-atom-aktuell.de/fotos/20100424_ahaus-demo/index.html

http://www.wdr.de/mediathek/html/regional/2010/04/24/aktuelle-stunde-anti-atomkraft.xml

http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/atomproteste106.html

http://www.hr-online.de/website/fernsehen/sendungen/index.jsp?rubrik=54467&key=standard_document_39035535

46 total views, 1 views today

Rate this post

Nuclear Power Does NOT Help to Combat Climate Change

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.

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


[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007. Synthesis Report. Table 3.1  Pg 45.  http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.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


215 total views, no views today

Rate this post
lazy-submarginal