Coalition Against Nuclear Energy » Thyspunt

CANE calls on all Cape residents to oppose nuclear plant at Thyspunt

Pelindaba Working Group — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:31:09 +0000

Apr 11 2011

by Max Matavire

A provincial anti-nuclear energy organisation has intensified its opposition to the proposed construction of a reactor at Thyspunt, Oyster Bay, on fears of repercussions of a nuclear accident.

Japan’nuclear disaster has bolstered the opposition to the use of this type of energy. Reactors at Fukushima plant in Japan have been leaking harmful radioactive materials into the environment following an earthquake and a tsunami there on March 11.

South Africa is faced with an energy crunch and identified increased use of nuclear power as one of the possible solutions. Power utulity Eskom has earmarked Thyspunt as a site for the construction of a nuclear reactor.

Activists and residents are vehemently opposed to the plan. Mike Kantey, the chairperson of the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (Cane), said his organisation wanted to change the country’s energy policy away from nuclear power plants.

Kantey vowed to oppose the development of a nuclear plant all the way, promising to take the fight to the Constitutional Court.

Cane is now calling on all residents of the province – and the Garden Route – to rally behind the call to stop the construction of the nuclear reactor.

Kantey said the nuclear emissions and waste along the N2 national road posed serious health risks and could irrevocably damage tourism in the region. The government has said it hoped to break ground in 2013, but the plant has to first receive environmental approval and undergo a public participation process before any construction work can begin.

Kantey said he was busy preparing for “battle” against the up-coming environmental approval of the nuclear facility.

Numerous organisations of nuclear activists, environmentalists, dairy farmers, chokka fishermen and ordinary residents have been mobilised to fight against the construction of the nuclear facility.

Some of the organisations involved are the Thyspunt Alliance, the Supertubes Foundation in Jeffreys Bay, Gamtoos community, dairy farmers, residents and the fishing community. The concerns raised include the risk of winds carrying radioactive emissions from Thyspunt to neighbouring areas and the effect on the agriculture and dairy industries.

The opponents of the plant further wanted detailed information on the safety measures and disaster management plans that were in place for the towns along the N2 highway in case of an accident.

Kantey called for substantial support. “I am calling on residents of Knysna and Plettenberg Bay to put their money and support behind the Thyspunt Alliance so that we can take this matter to the Constitutional Court.”

http://www.thenewage.co.za/15163-1016-53-Opposition_to_nuclear_reactor_mounts

Government’s plan doubles nukes

Pelindaba Working Group — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 06:50:49 +0000

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

Nuclear waste will last longer than civilisation

Pelindaba Working Group — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:00:56 +0000

October 4, 2010

by Judith Taylor

Amid the rather futile discussion about South Africa’s nuclear power generation policy and programme the most important aspect of all seems lately to have dropped off the list of factors to be considered. I refer to the radioactive longevity of nuclear fuel residue. For its radioactivity to decay to just half its initial intensity takes about 25 times longer than the entire recorded history of man.

It is no solution to encase the stuff in concrete then drop it down a mine shaft or push it inside a mountain tunnel. A quarter of a million years is ample time for unpredictable chemical and geological processes to re-expose this deadly material. Nuclear power generation on a global scale would produce enough radioactive leftovers to occupy a great deal of no-go land and require costly guarding virtually for ever, a period that would see the end of our civilisation and the rise and fall of several more.

Theoretically, nuclear waste could be recklessly shot off into space or by some yet-to-be-invented marvel of nuclear physics changed into something less lethal. In the meantime it would be more realistic to persevere with developing wind and solar power networks to succeed Eskom’s present coal-fired generation programme. However, in the interests of time and expense the government should facilitate this development work being carried out by private industry.

Meanwhile Eskom should incentivise the government to pursue diplomatically the agreement to bring hydropower from the Congo River, a sensible idea but discarded because of political and military instability on the route. This threat could be overcome if the need is pressing enough.

True costs of nuclear power are ignored

The problem with nuclear power is the total lack of transparency. People such as Dr Kemm can never give cradle to grave costs of the projects. Let’s look at what is involved if nuclear power goes ahead:

Nuclear power is not only a substantial threat to our water resources, but also to the biodiversity of the Cape.

At Thyspunt, 5 000 jobs and a R500 million industry will be replaced with a polluting reactor and 750 jobs.

Uranium mining, the birthplace of the fuel, is highly polluting of miners themselves, water and surrounding land.

Nuclear waste is also highly polluting. Nuclear power’s real carbon footprint has never been acknowledged nor has the full cost of nuclear been computed.

The citizens of Niger have recently instituted action in the US against Areva, which is mining for uranium in that country, for damage undergone by the state as well as the inhabitants of the area where Areva works. This suit is claiming several million euros in compensation.

Currently, there is not one proven, operating nuclear plant of the “new generation”. In addition, the safety issues have been omitted from the environmental impact assessments.

However, do we wish to see our water supplies, our land and our people so polluted by uranium, caesium, lead and so on that there is no quality of life and we all die a slow and painful death? Is it a logical path to follow, given the experiences of native Indians in the US who mined uranium and have died of radiation sickness?

Renewables can come on line right now and provide more than 10 times the number of jobs that nuclear or coal can. South Africa’s ingenuity in pioneering new technology can grasp the renewables revolution and bring us true wealth and health.

The cost of Chernobyl was 985 000 lives. In the UK the Sellafield plant’s decommissioning has failed, leaving a radioactive waste land for generations to come. Koeberg’s decommissioning could do the same.

Source:

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=553&fArticleId=5672085

Stop the Proposed Nuclear Power Plant Site at Thyspunt

admin — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:32:03 +0000

Residents Protest Nuclear Proposal at Thyspunt

admin — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:13:44 +0000

Nuclear Protest at Thyspunt - Jeffrey's Bay

By Melanie Gosling
Environment Writer
Source

Just over 2 000 people marched through Jeffreys Bay on Sunday in protest against the multi-billion rand nuclear power station Eskom plans to build at the nearby Thyspunt.

While marchers converged on the local municipal offices where organisers handed over a memorandum, 14 chokka (squid) fishing boats dropped anchor just behind contestants in the Billabong international surfing championships and switched on their lights in support of the marchers.

The protest was organised by the Thyspunt Alliance, an umbrella body of several local resident, ratepayers, environmental, surfer and other organisations, who were joined by the chokka fishermen and a range of local people.

Allliance spokesperson Trudi Malan said on Sunday: “We thought we would not get many people because we were competing with the surfing and the rugby, but some of the surfers phoned and said please can we wait till the Kelly Slater heat had finished. We did and they all came rushing over. And some rugby fans told us they could always watch rugby again, but they may not have the opportunity to show their support again against a nuclear power station that would affect all their lives.”

Malan said the Alliance had purposely not entered the debate about the pros and cons of nuclear power, but were all opposed to siting a nuclear power station at Thyspunt. The Alliance was heavily critical of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) Eskom had commissioned, saying it had failed to address many biophysical issues of building the power plant at that spot.

Eskom had selected the site in the apartheid era with no input from the public. One of the criteria was that a site for a nuclear power station had to be at least 100km from any of the former “homeland” areas for security reasons.

“The EIA is an atrocious document. The biggest flaw is that it did not consider the chokka industry and there was no public participation in the site selection. During construction they will dump 6.3-million cubic metres of sand into the sea, which will kill the chokka industry. We do not want to jeopardise the development of our country, but we do not believe development should come at the expense of the environment,” Malan said.

Read full article

Eskom Nuclear Draft EIA Report Review – Comment Extension Period

admin — Thu, 06 May 2010 10:48:32 +0000

Say no to Eskom's Proposed Nuclear Reactors

ESKOM – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA: 12/12/20/944) FOR

A PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE

REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD

As previously announced, an opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report commenced on 06 March 2010 with a closing date of 10 May 2010 (a 66-day comment period). During the meetings held as part of the public review, various Interested and Affected Parties requested an extension of the review period.

After due consideration of the requests and legal requirements, it has been decided that the comment period will be extended by an additional 21 days. The closing date for comment is now 31 May 2010. You are, therefore, afforded the opportunity to use the extended period to further review the report and submit any additional comments.

On behalf of the EIA Project Team, I should like to thank all those who have attended public meetings and Key Stakeholder Feedback Meetings held during the period 23 March – 21 April 2010, those who have already submitted comments on the Draft EIA Report and those who will take further time to review the reports and submit comments.

For additional information, please contact: Bongi Shinga or Dalene Murie at:

E-mail: nuclear1@acerafrica.co.za l PO Box 503, Mtunzini, 3867 l Tel: 086 010 4958 l Fax: 035 340 2232

Kind regards.

Yours sincerely

Ms Bongi Shinga

Public Participation Team

Nuclear Power Does NOT Help to Combat Climate Change

admin — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:54:12 +0000

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.

Eskom Nuclear 1 EIA – Fatally Flawed and Designed To Confuse

admin — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:01:24 +0000

SAVE BANTAMSKLIP CAMPAIGN

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