My first venture is into the spectre of nuclear power.
When you look out on this vista, it is hard to believe that a nuclear power station could be build on the second point, not too far in the future. Yes, Thuyspunt has been identified as one of the sites for a pebble bed nuclear reactor. All indications are that the Governmant and Eskom are intent on building on this site.
The Government is firmly commited to its programme of building nuclear power stations and the powers that be are going through the motions of the environmental impact assessments (EIA). The assumption is that as long as one goes through the legal motions, it justifies the end.
The EIA is now being conducted on the route of the power lines, which can only lead one to conclude that someone in high places has already made up their mind.
The reality is that we do not want a nuclear power station on our door step.
- Nuclear power is not safe despite what the experts say. Yes, you can take precautions, but the inherent risks are big.
- Pebble bed technology is as yet untested.
- The site is alongside the ecologically sensitive sand river system.
- This site is in the heart of one of the country's prime tourist and dairy farming areas.
- 20,000 people will have to be evacuated from Cape St Francis in 12 minutes, on a single access road, if there is a nuclear leak. It is even closer to Oyster Bay
As country we need to do something about about our electricity demand, but I believe we should be looking for better sustainable alternatives such as wind.
For more Ecological Day posts visit Sonia at Leaves of Grass.
15 comments:
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
We do not need a nuclear plant at Thuyspunt and the sooner Eskom and the government realises it the better.
Unless we change our strategy and take a more concerted and vociferous stand I think that this could be thrust on us
Thanks for this informative post. 'No to nuclear plants.'
Paz
Environment. Where are we going to?
Very important post, Max! I agree with you, nuclear power is not safe and I also fear it.
I am so glad you join Ecological Day! Thank you for the link to Leaves of Grass.
Have a nice week ahead.
Very significant post: I fully agree.
Happy Ecological Day!
O que poderímos fazer para evitar tal barbaridade? As feitas em Angra dos Reis são uma amostra tão próxima de nós..é angustiante olhar para ela em tal proximidade.Pena que o progresso precise agredir a natureza e eco sitema deste jeito.Quem sabe para o futuro tenhamos mais consciência !Espero que sim!
A criatividade da Sonia fez-nos conhecer novos blogs maravilhosos.
Abraços. Ótimo dia.
Nuclear power is PERFECTLY safe. Jeeze, there are hundreds of nuclear power stations in the world and we've had ONE disaster - and that was in communist russia, where everything is built to crappy standards and the crew was untrained and probably drunk on vodka.
It's retarded scaremongering like this which is holding nations back from being independent from foriegn energy. 'Sustainable' alternatives are pipe dreams at this point in time.
Roland Hulme, I would rather go for “retarded scaremongering” than blindly accept the pronouncements of the so-called “experts”, where the use of nuclear power concerned.
There is far too much evidence of nuclear contamination around the world, to blindly accept the myth that nuclear power is PERFECTLY safe.
Chernobyl was the worst, but not the only one. Our own power station was out of action for months because some dropped a screw where it was not supposed to be. My question is how many people who support of nuclear power would be happy to have one on their doorstep.
Anyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they support the contention that nuclear power is perfectly safe, I can only assume that their heads are so firmly inserted in the nether regions of their anatomy that they are blinded to the reality of the situation.
Max-e, I do to believe that nucler power is not safe, look what happened in Chernobyl, may be it is safe, but how about human errors. Great photo, so peaceful. Anna :)
Hi Max,
I'd actually be fine with a nuclear power station on our doorstep (more so than hundreds of ugly, noisy wind turbines.)
The fact is, far more damage is being done by big coal generators and other fossil fuel systems - and no replacement is coming any time soon.
Oh, and sorry about use of the word 'retarded.' I've been in America so long (where everybody uses it) that I'd forgotten how offensive and unnessecary it is!
Those that want to use Nuclear Energy are not looking at the bigger picture....wind and solar is a much more ecological choice.....we as a planet really need to be brighter about our planet. I can not imagine how to evacuate that many people in 12 minutes...like that'll work....I hope this does not happen for you.
The problem with wind is that it only works when it's windy - and you have to build hundreds of those ugly windmills.
Solar power only works when it's sunny, and you have to build enormous, expensive solar panels.
Pound for pound, nuclear energy is cheaper AND more efficient and would plug the gap until sustainable energy is available.
the whole argument against it is retarded.
"We need to move away from fossil fuels!" they yell.
Sustainable wind and solar might (might) be around in twenty years.
And in between? Is it better to use clean, safe nuclear power, or continue to 'bridge the gap' with dirty, expensive fossil fuels?
Or just 'go without.'
Because that's our choice. We're not going to be able to move to sustainable fuels any time soon. We CAN switch to nuclear quickly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty-vH42H_7k&eurl=http://failblog.org/page/2/
Post a Comment