http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/07/south_africas_dirty_bomb_myste_1.html

South Africa’s ‘dirty bomb’ mystery

If dirty bombs are such an overblown threat, and radioactive material so easily available, why are people still trying to steal it?

South African police are investigating what the five mokes busted with a Cesium-137 device at a Pretoria gas station last week were up to.
All of them are South African citizens, but not much else is known about them, police said.

Indeed, much about the July 9 incident is a mystery.

Authorities said the “industrial nuclear device” found with the men contained a small amount of radioactive material. The men intended to sell the device to parties unknown for 45 million Rand, the equivalent of$6 million to $7 million. Police said the men were also planning to sell a larger nuclear device, which police are searching for, according to South African reports.

“We don’t know what these suspects’ intentions were, and we need to find the device quickly,” police said, according to Canada’s online Digital Journal.

Likewise, South African authorities told SpyTalk over the weekend that “the origin of the device is still not known.”

South African reporter Graeme Hosken says the substance was of a type of Cesium used in South Africa’s mining industry. Cesium is also used in nuclear medicine and is manufactured in significant quantities at the Pelindaba nuclear plant near Pretoria.

Pelindaba was involved in another mysterious incident in 2007, when its highly guarded operations center was broken into by two armed gangs. One official was shot during the attack, which some believe was aimed at stealing highly enriched uranium. The case remains unsolved.

In last week’s incident, “there are no known linkages of the suspects with any groupings or persons from foreign countries,” according to a South African investigative file made available to SpyTalk. “None of them ever traveled across the SA borders.”

One of the suspects, Andre Le-Sar, 37,“ previously worked at the YSCOR arms factory in Van Der Bijl Park [an industrial zone south of Johannesburg],” according to one of the South African investigators, “but was unemployed at a stage and is now a self-employed plumber.”

No details could be learned about the four others being held, beyond their ages and residences of record.

But that’s just part of a larger mystery.

In 2002, U.S. intelligence sources, backed by Bush administration officials, reported in 2002 that al Qaeda had designs for a “dirty bomb.” Fears mushroomed that Washington and other Western capitals were unprepared to cope with such an attack, which involves salting conventional explosives with radioactive materials.

But the threat was hyped, many believe. The government eventually dropped its dirty-bomb conspiracy charges against American Jose Padilla, the Bush administration’s poster boy for the threat.

“Dirty bombs are very overblown,” says Richard Barlow, who once tracked black-market nuclear materials for the CIA and Defense Department. “There are vast quantities of available material out there if someone wanted to make one.”

The Washington Post’s Joby Warrick reported in 2002 that “U.S. businesses and medical facilities have lost track of nearly 1,500 pieces of equipment with radioactive parts since 1996. …”

Security of the materials has been tightened since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but experts say determined thieves wouldn’t have a hard time obtaining them.

Outside of a couple of Chechen plots against Moscow, and notwithstanding last week’s bust in Pretoria, the question remains: Why hasn’t a credible dirty bomb plot surfaced in the West since 9/11?

Graham Allison, a former assistant secretary of defense, said it may just be a matter of theatrics: al-Qaeda likes things that go boom — big, big boom. “Well, if you look at 9/11, and you look at al-Qaeda and their m.o., and you look at what they said, you know that they like big, spectacular events that kill large numbers of people,” Allison said on the PBS program “Nova” back in 2003.

A cesium plume lofted by dynamite, in other words, is peanuts compared with the real deal — a nuclear bomb.

“The press spokesman for Mr. bin Laden put out a rather chilling statement, which said that they’re required to kill four million Americans, including women and children, in order to balance the scale of the atrocities that we and the Israelis have visited upon the Arab population,” Allison said. “If you are trying to kill a lot of people at one time, you’re at the high end of violence, which is nuclear. There is something almost like the moth to the flame with respect to the nuclear threat.”

Not really comforting.

That leaves the last week’s mystery in Pretoria. With such hot goods virtually falling off trucks, how could even scam artists hope to fence cesium for upwards of $6 million, as the South African police believe?

Maybe the answer lies with P.T. Barnum: “There’s a sucker born every minute.” But who were those suckers in Pretoria?

Update: MSNBC’S Rachel Maddow picks up the story with a shout-out to SpyTalk.

JOIN THE URGENT CALL FOR  BROAD CIVIL SOCIETY TO UNITE NOW

to stop bad energy planning

The comment period for the “consultation process” government’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) to determine our electricity plans – including nuclear power – for the next twenty years has been extended to 11 June.

However, described as “ill-considered, rushed and presumptuous” even before it began,  broad based South African civil society is questioning whether it even makes sense to participate in government’s energy planning.

Those concerned with Sustainable Energy / Electricity are very disturbed by comments made by the Director-General of the DoE at a nuclear forum that were reported in Engineering News (21 May). She told the nuclear forum that the IRP2 process was a “sausage machine”. (http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/nuclear-will-make-up-a-significant-part-of-sa-power-mix—doe-2010-05-21)  This implies bad faith. Also, it is clear from her words that the nuclear project has already been decided.

Government appears to be fast-tracking the process to enable it to order nuclear units later this year – as already planned without bothering to take into account its much vaunted “consultation” process with the South African public which has not yet begun!

Moreover, it has failed to first undertake Energy Planning (IEP) upon which IRP2 electricity planning decisions are meant to be taken and thus IRP2 incorrectly suggests that IRP2 follow the IEP.

The broad South African Energy Caucus –the largest forums of civil society in South Africa – is vehemently opposed to nuclear power. It recently appointed a 3-person representative team which includes CANE’s Rod Gurzynski after resolving to participate as a stakeholder in the IRP2 despite the obvious flaws in the process, but this week asked for government clarity. The Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI) also lobbied the Department of Energy over concerns. Please see their well reasoned letter at the end of this article.  Here is the Energy Caucus letter which awaits response.

27 May 2010

To: Minister Dipuo Peters

Department of Energy
CC       Nelisiswe Magubane
Director-General
Dept of Energy

CC Ompi Aphane

Dear Minister Dipuo Peters

We write to you as representatives of the South African Civil Society Energy Caucus. The Energy Caucus is a coalition of civil society bodies, community-based organizations, labour unions and social movements that engage on energy issues.

We agreed at the recent Civil Society Energy Caucus session to engage in the IRP2 process as a stakeholder. We were assured by Mr Ompi Aphane on 14th of May at the session that the public participation process was in good faith and that all energy planning decisions remained open for the duration of the process. It is on that basis that we agreed to take part.

The Energy Caucus endorses the issues raised by SAFCEI in a letter send through on the 24^th May 2010. (subjoined below-Ed)

It is with great concern therefore that we note your comments to a nuclear forum as reported by Engineering News (21.05.2010) that the IRP2 process can be compared to a “sausage machine”. This makes it appear that the process is not in good faith as far as the DoE is concerned. Please let us know if this is an accurate description of what you said and what you mean by this?

We are also concerned by the report in Engineering News that you encouraged the nuclear industry to “state the case of nuclear”. It would better if you appeared to be neutral at least during the period of the IRP stakeholder process, otherwise it would appear that the process is merely as you say, a “sausage machine”.

If that is really the case, we would have to re-consider our options.

Yours faithfully

Rod Gurzynski
Makoma Lekalakala
Phineas Malapela
for South African Civil Society Energy Caucus

Incidentally, last year’s letter from the Energy Caucus letter to the Speaker of Parliament asking for an urgent Parliamentary debate over South Africa’s future energy planning and mix was this week returned “deleted without being read”!

THE CALL TO SOUTH AFRICANS

Meantime, an urgent call has been sent for feedback by South African Civil Society concerned with Sustainable Energy / Electricity.

Objective: The call for feedback is a quick process to identify issues (areas of interest) and the related positions (or views) of organisations so as to (a) develop,  or (b) support the development of a joint civil society input into formal processes on these issues.

Method: This is an experimental process which is may be shaped by participants willing to contribute and make inputs. It is hoped the method will support (a) the development of joint positions.

Inputs sought: See below for more details. Inputs are sought on issue areas, comments, critiques.

Issue areas are suggested below. These are general descriptions of issues that may lack nuance but are based on clear values that would allow organisations to indicate support for them (recognising that there may be differences at a greater level of detail, which may warrant that organisation making a more detailed substantive input separately).

Mandates: Refer to representation issues.

It would suffice for an organisation to indicate that the entity supports the position. Should an organisation be a network, or representing a community or have a mandating process that would contribute to the gravitas of the statement, they are encouraged (but not obliged) to indicate this.

NOTE: This process is NOT intended to get 100% agreement, but rather to begin to work on the areas we do indeed have in common… the rest can follow…
Please cut and paste your responses to the numbered items below and email to muna @ iafrica.com

Indicate  “agree” , “disagree” or “not sure”

Organisational contact details:
Mandate:

1. no more nukes
2. no more coal
3. just transition for workers
4. disconnect as many parts of the economy from massive energy use as possible
5. halt fossil subsidies, and move to SA driven and people-centred solutions
6. price energy correctly, no discounts for volume users
7. 200kWhr free basic electricity for all
8. rapid fossil import replacement programme, not including food for fuel and the like
9. rapid implementation programme for distributed generation and distribution of energy / electricity
10. the future energy path must be people-driven and justice driven, not determined mainly by the interests of conspicuous consumption or business interests
11. Clarity is needed on the role of civil society in the decision making process
12. Energy process (IRP2) needs a transparent, empowered and participatory process with broader civil society
13. technical / social / environmental / economic capacity building needed (by the org responding)
14. waste to energy is a polluting, destructive, harmful and jobs-, materials- and energy-losing process
15. unscrubbed landfill gas to energy releases over 1000 toxics into the air – any landfill gas to energy process must fully scrub the gas prior to use.

It is requested that all organisations respond on or before the 31 May 2010.

Thank you – hopefully, this process will contribute to a more positive energy future for South Africa.

————————————————

SOUTHERN AFRICAN FAITH COMMUNITIES’

ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE (SAFCEI)

SAFCEI is a registered Section 21 Company no 2006/014388/08 053-498-NPO PBO 930024255

“Faith communities committed to cherishing living earth.”

www.safcei.org.za

Executive Director: Bishop Geoff Davies                                                       P O Box 106

Office Tel: (+27) 21 7018145 Fax: (+27) 86 6969666                                  Kalk Bay,

Home Tel: (+27)21 788 6591                                                                         7990

Email: geoff.davies @ safcei.org.za South Africa

__________________________________________________________________________________

24^th May 2010

Attention:

Mr Ompie Aphane

Department of Energy

Email: ompi.aphane@energy.gov.za

Dear Mr Aphane,

Consultative Process for IRP2

SAFCEI has been aware that an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) that will determine our electricity plans for the next twenty years is currently underway.

From our interactions with government officials, particularly at the energy caucus on the 14^th May 2010, it is disappointing to hear that while government professes to value and be committed to public participation in the IRP process, its actions undermine such statements.

SAFCEI is deeply disappointed in the proposed current government consultation plan for IRP2. The schedule pays lip service to public participation, the deadlines put forward for the consideration of government documents do not enable any meaningful participation and we would submit that this process appears to be not only inadequate but unlawful.

The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) provides for reasonable time- periods for public input with a minimum of 30 days, depending on the complexity of the information. . The novelty and complexity of electricity planning clearly warrants a longer period for adequate consultation, particularly in view of the fact that most citizens (educated and uneducated, rich and poor alike) have been excluded from these decision-making processes until now.

The Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) suggests that in order for stakeholders to participate meaningfully, they need access to sufficient information to enable them to understand and critique the information put out by Eskom and Government.

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) that applies to all environmental decisions by state bodies states that public participation must be promoted so that all interested parties can participate in a meaningful manner.

It is clear that sending out via email a set of documents, in excess of 30 documents, with a response time of initially 7, extended now to the minimum 30  days is not reasonable.

At the Energy Caucus meeting, held in Gauteng on 14^th May 2010, you indicated that DoE would welcome suggestions and ideas for a process of consultation.

SAFCEI therefore submits the following as a constructive input towards strengthening the democratic decision-making process around electricity planning for the next twenty years.

Firstly, SAFCEI believes that electricity planning is a subset of energy planning which in turn should be informed by our national response to climate change, the nature of our commitment to renewable energy, and future economic plans. We therefore believe that the review of the Renewable Energy White Paper, the finalization of our response to climate change and our Integrated Energy Plan should be informants into the IRP2 process.  Any IRP2 should therefore remain in draft form until the other planning processes have been completed.

In order to avert “energy crises”, SAFCEI submits that IRP1 can be amended (as has already happened) in order to accommodate any increased commitments to renewable energy and/or energy efficiency that may arise over the next year or two. No reason advanced by DoE for its inability to extend the final deadline for completing IRP2 has been found to be compelling and SAFCEI believes that the IRP2 process is of extreme importance and cannot be rushed through.  SAFCEI would also like to point out that despite commitment from government that the public participation process for IRP2 would start in January 2010, the public process has been delayed 5 months and it seems unreasonable to expect that the public consultation must suffer because of government ineffectiveness.

We would also like to point out that at the energy caucus meeting, a number of issues were raised. As a representative of DoE, you promised to provide responses in writing by Wednesday 19^th May 2010.  It is now 25^th May and no responses have been forthcoming.  No explanation for the delay has been communicated and we must express extreme disappointment with this failure to adhere to timeframes on government’s part.

It is also of concern to read in the recent media that senior government officials are quoted as categorically committing South Africa to building future nuclear energy power plants.  The implication of such statements is that the IRP2 consultation process is a farce, a public relations exercise and that the decisions have already been made.  Such undermining of PAJA and other related laws makes a mockery of our democracy and we seek assurance that this is not the case.

The public consultation process put forward by DoE has a number of serious limitations. It presumes that all stakeholders have access to the internet, and are fluent in English.  It also assumes that one or two adverts placed in mostly business press or Gauteng newspapers are sufficient to inform the nation and alert any potential interested and affected parties.  SAFCEI does not feel that this is in any way adequate, and that in order to ensure that quality inputs are solicited from the communities of South Africa, an awareness campaign to alert the public about IRP2 should be conducted.

The views of interested and affected parties who may not be able to prepare written submissions will also need to be accommodated. (Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000, Regulations on Fair Administrative Procedures, 2002, Chapter 1 section 5. See also section 3 of the Act)

We understand the budgetary constraints faced by Government but government has a duty to consult and in the case of energy and electricity planning, this is something that underpins and impacts on all livelihoods, could affect the quality of life for all citizens and cannot be reduced to a plan for supplying bulk electricity to industry.

We believe that a radio advertisement campaign, much less costly than TV, and conducted over a number of weeks at specific times in the consultative process would be useful, as would posters placed in local government offices, libraries and community spaces.

Given the accuracy of the saying “garbage in equals garbage out”, it seems that careful attention needs to be paid to the first phase of stakeholder consultation, discussion around the assumptions and parameters that inform the modeling.  In a confusing array of emails, distributed by Eskom, on behalf of DoE, the first stage comment period has now been extended to the legal 30 days.  While, we welcome DoE’s commitment to the letter of the law, we do not believe that this is sufficient.

The DoE has also suggested a process of a “stakeholder workshop”, where a limited elite of stakeholders (who can afford to travel to the venue and are able to produce ppt presentations) are given 15 minutes to make a few points.  SAFCEI believes that this is totally inadequate and fails to provide space for dialogue and meaningful engagement.

We propose that the first stage comment period be extended to at least 60 days.   During this time, DoE officials should make themselves available to attend civil society meetings when invited in order to explain the assumptions/parameters and enable those stakeholders interested in participating further to make informed inputs into this stage of the process.

Such meetings would necessarily take place where stakeholder groups are located.  SAFCEI would therefore request that a government person familiar with the modeling attend a SAFCEI meeting in three provincial workshops.  We would be happy for our constituency to combine with other civil society groupings that would also support such an approach.  Furthermore, given the delay in government releasing the assumptions documents for comment, it seems that an unavoidable delay will take place over the World Cup period when most people’s attention will be focused away from electricity planning!

It is also important that government publicises, via its awareness campaign, the various methods of consultation that it will use to reach those without access to internet and those whose preferred language is not English.

Once the first phase of stakeholder inputs has taken place, there needs to be a transparent manner of responding to all the comments received.  We suggest a comments and responses document is published (as takes place in other government processes) so that all stakeholders can see how their inputs have been considered and addressed.  Such a document could be published within 30 days of the closing date for comments. This would be an important opportunity for government to both educate and empower citizens with deeper understanding of the intricacies and nuances of electricity planning, enabling them to make more substantial contributions to the decision-making process.

Once the modeling has been complete, the scenarios are then released for public comment. It would appear that a second round of consultative workshops would then be in order, further enhancing stakeholders’ ability to understand the rationale for the scenarios etc. These workshops would need to be attended by those people responsible for, and familiar with the detailed modeling, rather than government officials performing some sort of PR role.

Depending on the density and complexity of the scenarios, the comment period would be minimally 60 days but possibly extended to 90 on request.

The final comments and responses document would then be issued so that stakeholders could check how their inputs had been considered and addressed.

The IRP2 could then be finalized.

Another important point is the need for transparency in the decision-making.  Currently, there appears to be an advisory committee assisting government with decision-making around IRP2.  The process for the selection of such an advisory group is extremely opaque and the lack of transparency leads to the fear that vested interests or a small group of like-minded individuals will have a disproportionate influence over our energy future.  This is clearly inequitable.

SAFCEI therefore requests an explanation of how this group arose, its terms of reference, its constituents, and what steps are to be taken to address the transparency and governance issues that arise due to its existence.

Such a reference or advisory group should ensure that civil society is represented but it should also be made totally transparent.  The meetings of such an advisory group should be open to observers, from broader civil society and from the press.  In the age of high technology, such deliberations could be recorded and publicized through the web-site for those with access.  Minutes of the meetings can be distributed to those without web-access.

Should government embark on a consultative process as outlined above, and assuming that government responses can take place within a 30-60 day period (the modeling and responses to inputs), the IRP2 might be finalized by early 2011 .

Given the importance of such a twenty year electricity plan, the current DoE process appears  to undermine the value of public input, rendering it susceptible to legal challenge.  Such an approach seems short-sighted and likely to result in a poor product.  Committing to a meaningful public participation, as required by law, seems to justify a delay and it does not seem to be unreasonable to finalise the IRP2 in February 2011 instead of September 2010.

SAFCEI offers this input as part of a constructive engagement towards sustainable development, environmental justice and peace.

We look forward to your response,

Bishop Geoff Davies Liz McDaid

Executive Director Climate Change Programme Director

Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute

An official website has been set up by the Dept of Energy for the IRP2 process: http://www.doe-irp.co.za/ and useful information can also be obtained from IDASA’s blog at http://irp2.wordpress.com/

Coordinator

PELINDABA WORKING GROUP

& member of the national

COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY

Email: pelindabanonukes @ gmail.com

www.cane.org.za

The Department of Energy has finally issued the invitation for the much touted “broad consultation process” concerning its “IRP2” – basically the electricity / energy plan for this country for the next 20 years – a day BEFORE their deadline. This invitation arrived yesterday but that will not deter us from registering as stakeholders yet again to voice our opposition and reasons for opposition to the proposed inclusion of nuclear in the proposed energy mix for South Africa. But, WE NEED TO ACT QUICKLY.

For those who don’t know much about IRP2, there are web-links to articles on the IRP2 listed below to fill you in. But please ensure you register on the database of stakeholders ASAP for the pattern of recent times has shown that leaving it up to the next person or organisation, results in government turning its back on enlightened views to the detriment of this country’s future.

Over the past number of years we have relentlessly participated in all processes – EIAs, submissions to government or Parliament, presentations to energy regulators and policy makers, public hearings on energy policy etc only to find that pre-determined policies are riding rough-shod over democratic processes. Our petitions to the Speaker for Parliamentary debate over energy mix and nuclear policy have remained unheeded and indeed legislation enabling this lethal energy option has been Gazetted in spite of this. More recently the Energy Minister held a “nuclear stakeholders’” meeting in Cape Town to which she invited only ONE PERSON to represent the growing thousands of people in this country opposed to nuclear expansion while renewable alternative solutions remain the Cinderella option. Needless to say, his objections were dismissed and he was kicked out of the meeting.

You cannot allow the government to continue to be dismissive of whom it consults & recognise as stakeholders. Indeed the entire South African public is the biggest stakeholder!!

YOUR VOICE COUNTS. Please register! Help to drive the message that WE DO NOT WANT NUCLEAR ENERGY IN SOUTH AFRICA!

* * *

Herewith the invitation:

INVITATION TO REGISTER ON THE DATABASE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: IRP2

The Department of Energy hereby calls on all interested parties to register on its database of stakeholders for inclusion in the consultation process for the development of the IRP2 for Electricity 2010.

All interested residents, businesses, groups and sectors are requested to:

1.    Indicate their institution;

2.    Core business;

3.    Area of interest in the IRP;

4.    Preliminary position in their areas of interest; and

5.    Contact person/s and contact details

Interested parties are requested to submit the above-mentioned information to the office of the Director-General by the 20th April 2010. Such information may be faxed, emailed or posted.

Contact Person:

Ms Yolisa Mapekula

Department of Energy

Private Bag X 19

Arcadia

0007

Tel: 012- 444 4063

Fax: 012- 444 4505

Email: yolisa.mapekula@energy.gov.za

_____________________________________________________________________________

Some reading matter on the IRP2 and why your involvement is so important:

Cloud over power plan -Mar 19 2010

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-03-19-cloud-over-power-plan

Energy Department to publish IRP2 by June

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/maqubela-2010-02-24

Inter-Ministerial Committee gives nod to IRP2 consultation plan – 31 March 2010

http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2010/10040110051002.htm

Minister reassures business IRP2 will include broad consultation
April 7, 2010

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=552&fArticleId=5419352

Nuclear deal back on track-Mar 05 2010

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-03-05-nuclear-deal-back-on-track

SA outlines consultation process for 20-year energy plan

http://www.polity.org.za/print-version/sa-outlines-consultation-process-for-20-year-energy-plan-2010-04-01-1

GENERAL PRESS RELEASE

Immediate release

9 March 2010

“NUCLEAR 1”

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:

FATALLY FLAWED AND DESIGNED TO CONFUSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Williams

Chairman

Save Bantamsklip Association

082 923 1839

john @ savebantamsklip.org

www.savebantamsklip.org

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

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

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

0741813197

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

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

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

0741813197

21 January 2010

CANE is a coalition of organizations and individuals opposed to the use of nuclear power in South Africa.

CANE opposes Eskom’s proposed electricity tariff increases based on the information and policy given in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2009 Preliminary Report. The National Energy Act (2008) requires the Minister of Energy “to provide “any data and information reasonably required for the purposes of conducting analysis required for energy planning from any person”. A small extract from the IRP was gazetted on 31 December 2009 and covers the period 2009-2013. It is clear from the Preliminary Report that almost all of the analysis and planning was done by Eskom. This is explicitly stated: “in the absence of a…state-driven governance process for the development of the IRP, the IRP was developed predominantly by Eskom…”[1]. This raises a conflict of interest. Eskom should contribute to the IRP but should not be driving it. The Department of Energy has undertaken to initiate a process of reviewing IRP 1 to allow for consultation with stakeholders, due to commence in January 2010[2], so we trust that we and other organizations and individuals will be consulted in the drafting of a more balanced, policy-driven IRP 2.

IRP 1 is based on the assumption that “[electricity] demand growth is expected to…average 3.2% a year over the 20-year planning horizon.”[3] 3.2% compounded annually implies a doubling of capacity over the 20-year period. The assumption that demand grows relentlessly and that the response is to provide ever more capacity is like putting the demand cart before the policy horse and this is going to be economically and environmentally unsustainable whether it is funded by price increases, borrowing or taxes. The limits to growth set by resource depletion and environmental destruction are already upon us. Cheap fossil fuel, which has powered industrial growth from the start of the industrial revolution up to now, is coming to an end, if it has not done so already. The idea of supplying ever increasing quantities of electricity is completely at odds with what is required now, a policy of energy efficiency and the elimination of all forms of wasteful use of energy. If Eskom has to charge much more for electricity in order to pay for new generation capacity then an equally ambitious energy efficiency strategy needs to be in place as well. This is not the natural function of of Eskom, a power supply monopoly. It is the function of government. Energy efficiency, energy productivity and a strategy to achieve this needs to be at the heart of IRP 2.

Energy productivity is a win-win option. Improvements in energy productivity are far more cost-effective than expansion of power generation. It is entirely possible for energy productivity to substitute for new generation capacity over the period 2010 to 2030 at 20% of the cost of new generation plant.[4] Energy productivity which uses existing energy for more output has no negative impact on the environment, climate change or water supply. On the contrary it has a positive impact and frees up financial resources for other uses. Energy productivity could create many more sustainable jobs than building and operating new centralised generation plant. The IRP commits to 1 million solar water heating installations over the 20 year period. this might save the capacity of one coal-fired power station. This is a start, but much more can be done: like replacing inefficient motors and machines with much more efficient ones, environmentally upgrading buildings, and changing to combined heat and power at large factories and intensive energy users. What is required is a practical strategy and the political will to carry it out.

Eskom plans to meet the projected increased demand over the period by building new coal-fired power stations and the returning to service of out of use power stations. It is intended to save only 3225MW of capacity by 2020 through demand side management[5] out of a total projected peak demand range of 60 000 MW – 66 000 MW. This gives a very low target of 5% for demand side management. The low target is a result of Eskom’s weak incentive and constrained ability, as a supply monopoly, to stamp out wastage and implement energy productivity strategies. The total generation capacity required by 2020 is then calculated from this weak demand-side target.

IRP1 states that “the independent power producer[s] are expected to provide additional capacity in the medium term” and also that “the IRP is developed on the basis that the country builds capacity to meet expected growth at minimum cost (inclusive of externality impacts).”[6] If these statements were translated into action then there would be a much greater amount of generation capacity supplied by Independent Power Producers using renewable energy and micro-generation.

UCT’s Energy Research Centre has shown in a recent study[7] that we can reach a 15% renewable target by 2020 and “combined with an energy efficiency programme, average electricity costs will be lower than the baseline for most of the 2015-2020 period.”  Yet the presently committed capacity of renewable energy from independent power producers under the REFIT (Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff) scheme is only 725MW (400MW from wind and 325MW from “other”).[8] This present commitment is just 1% of total capacity projected for 2020 and only 4% of new build over the period. There are proven wind resources in South Africa[9] to provide constant wind energy when spread across various locations.  There is a proposal in the IRP to introduce Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), but only starting in 2021. This is too late and we need to kick-start CSP now. South Africa has the best solar resources in the world, so this is an opportunity not to be missed: South Africa could become a world leader in this technology. The  Energy Research Centre study has shown  the cost of electricity from concentrated solar power coming down year by year due to ‘technology learning’ until it becomes the cheapest form of electricity from about 2025. This is also good for jobs. Our motor car production lines could easily be converted to solar and wind turbine technology. The IRP does not even go into the socio-economic impact of the IRP and the opportunity costs of the various decisions. The economic impact is “still outstanding”.[10]

Up to 2020 the bulk of new generation capacity according to the IRP is to be coal. From 2020 to  2027 Eskom plans to build a ‘fleet’ of nuclear power stations of 11 500 MW in total. The best most recent cost estimate for nuclear plant construction is a nominal (2008) overnight capital cost of R33 million/MW[11] and a real cost of capital of 14.5%[12] reflecting nuclear’s high risk. But the cost of new nuclear build is not standing still, rather it has been rising by about 12% a year in real terms over the period 2003-2010.[13] At this rate, real costs over and above inflation double every 6 years, so if this continues the overnight cost of each MW of the nuclear ‘fleet’ after 2020 is likely to reach well over R66 million giving a total of R380 billion in 2008 Rands and then calculate 14.5% cost of capital compounded on top of that. I can’t do the sum but the real figure must be heading towards the R1 trillion level in today’s Rands. Such a level of debt would sink Eskom into a debt black hole. Is this the real reason for the huge price increases asked for? From the tables of capacities and costs (Appendix C) it is impossible to determine what costs are attributed to nuclear power out of the cumulative totals, as case by case costs are not given. The ‘moderate’ level of confidence for cost for nuclear of +1 given in the Risk Rating[14] is pure whistling in the wind. Even the Director for Strategy and Research at the World Nuclear Association cannot work out or predict the cost of a nuclear power plant.[15]

What we do know for sure is that costs of nuclear plant are escalating while the costs of renewable energy technologies are coming down and the costs of energy efficiency and energy productivity are negative because they release funds towards other projects.

CANE rejects nuclear power as a source of energy in South Africa now or in the future. Apart from the cost, the other negating factors include the proven health risk[16],the unsolved long-term high level waste problem, the pollution of ground water through uranium mining and the very poor fit with the type of skills available and the small number of jobs relative what could be achieved from renewable energy technology and energy efficiency and energy productivity strategies. The other intractable problem with nuclear power is the risk of nuclear proliferation, and the undesirable type of security state that would have to be reconstructed to try to safeguard the entire nuclear fuel cycle from beginning to end (and for high level radioactive waste there is no “end”). For all these reasons, nuclear power is not the answer to coal and carbon emissions. Funds diverted to nuclear power means less funds available to quicker and cheaper options, which is the huge opportunity cost when one excessively large project is chosen over multiple smaller ones.

While it is accepted that electricity prices must rise to allow for improved capital infrastructure and for energy productivity strategies, we do not accept any increase based on the present Integrated Resource Plan. There should be a much greater commitment to energy efficiency and energy productivity and a commitment to at least 15% renewable energy by 2020. As this can be supplied by the IPP’s, the capital invested would be at no up-front cost to Eskom. Rather, Eskom should commit their funds to upgrading their distribution infrastructure, expanding up to the solar fields of the N Cape and employing smart grid technology in order to manage the various energy supplies. Another 15% of capacity should be saved by energy productivity. Renewable energy, energy productivity and simply eliminating waste are the real answers to carbon emissions. Eskom cannot be allowed to write its own terms of reference and base its price hikes on that. The IRP needs to be re-drafted, to include policy for energy efficiency and for jobs and skills, to actively encourage independent power producers, and to eliminate the nuclear power financial black hole.

Written by:

Rod Gurzynski. For the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy

BA (Economics) B. Arch (UCT)

rod@boma.co.za

Tel: 021 789 2023.

[2] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Government Gazette 31 Dec 2009. Pg 10.

[3] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report Sept 2009. Pg iv.

[4] McKinsey Global Institute. The Case for Investing in Energy Productivity. Feb 2008. Pg 12. http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/reports/pdfs/Investing_Energy_Productivity/Investing_Energy_Productivity.pdf

[5] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report Sept 2009. Table 14 – Expected DSM outcomes. Pg 45.

[6] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report. Sept 2009. Pg 4.

[7] Costing a 2020 Target of 15% Renewable Electricity for South Africa. Marquard et al. Final Draft. Energy Research Centre UCT. Oct 2008

[8] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report Sept 2009. Committed new capacity. Table 3 Pg 9.

[9] Costing a 2020 Target of 15% Renewable Electricity for South Africa. Marquard et al. Final Draft. Energy Research Centre UCT. Oct 2008.

[10] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report. Sept 2009. pg 29.

[11] Business Risks and Cost of Nuclear Power. Craig Severance. Jan 2009. Appendix A: Most Likely case. The most likely overnight cost is $4 070/kW before escalations and excluding cost of capital. $4 070 x exchange rate  $1-R7.29 = R29 670 x CPIX adjuster 167.3/150.3 = R33 026/kW.

[12] Business Risks and Cost of Nuclear Power. Craig Severance. Jan 2009. Appendix A: Most Likely case.

[13] Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. Update on the cost of nuclear power. May 2009.  Pg17. http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2009-004.pdf

[14] Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity. Preliminary Report. Sept 2009. Pg 58.

[15] Escalating costs of new build: what does it mean? Nuclear Engineering International. Aug 2008.

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2050690

[16] International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2009. Article: Very low dose fetal exposure to Chernobyl contamination resulted in increases in infant leukemia in Europe and raises questions about current radiation risk models.  Christopher Busby.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/6/12/3105/pdf

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