Ecological Day - No to Nukes

Ecological day is a monthly feature started by Sonia at Leaves of Grass , to give bloggers the opportunity to post articles on any ecological matters, on the first Tueday of every month.

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.

Nuclear power - “Consultation, what consultation?”

Thuyspunt, the middle penninsular is one of the proposed sites for a nuclear power station.

It is within an stone's throw of Oyster Bay and spitting distance from St Francis Bay, when the South Westerly wind blows.

Do we want a nuclear power station on our doorstep? Definitely not!

I am beginning to get the distinct impression that the term “consultation” in South Africa means different things to different people.

When Eskom and the politicians announce that they are going to consult on important issues, it in fact means they are going to tell you what they are going to do. Yes, you can have your say and you can even voice your opposition, but that is all irrelevant – they are going to do it anyway.

Early last year Eskom announced that the price we pay for electricity was cheap, in comparison with the rest of the world and needed to be adjusted accordingly. The reality is that the revenue from the increased tariff was needed to fund capital projects, like pebble bed nuclear reactors. They said they would be initiating a process of consultation with the public to increase the rates by 18%. They have recently announced that the increase will now be 14% - so much for consultation.

Given the fact that Eskom’s appeal to consumers to achieve a 10% reduction in power consumption, has been exceeded, it means that income wise they will be back to square one – do the maths. So where will the money for capital projects come from now? What will the next surprise be?

Now let’s take this principle to the nuclear power station debate.

I have in front of me a document from Acer (Africa) the environmental consultants headed “ESKOM – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA: 12/12/20/944) FOR A PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE”, “DRAFT SCOPING REPORT” for “PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT” dates 28 January 2008. The project documentation can be obtained on the Eskom web site – www.eskom.co.za/eia.

When you read this documentation you can only get the impression that the process is far from complete and still requires in depth consultation before a final decision is made.

When you hear the politicians and bureaucrats talking, it is as though the decision has already been made. The CEO of Eskom announced last week that the second nuclear power plant will probably be built at Atlantis near Cape Town, but does not rule out some of the other sites.

One could even be excused of coming up with conspiracy theories about deliberate black outs, with the vested interests and the amount of money involved in this development. Inconvenience the public enough and any alternative will become palatable.

Nuclear fuel processing is "sacrosanct" to South Africa, and it "will happen",
Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica said in November last year, while
addressing media after government and private institutions from South Africa and
Japan signed a range of memorandum of understandings (MoUs), dealing with
technology transfer and the supply of precious metals.

She stated
that "I would think that the involvement of Toshiba [Power Systems], which has
the technology that would be required, is an indication that there will be a
partnership" Toshiba Power Systems has nuclear fuel production technology, as
well as nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies, both of which the South African
government has expressed interest in.Sonjica also spoke firmly of South Africa's
nuclear fuel production ambitions. "We are going to beneficiate uranium in South
Africa," she stressed. "That is sacrosanct."

She said that
the agreements would result in investment in South Africa, but did not give a
figure.

South Africa was planning on building at least five
nuclear power stations by 2025, to produce 20 000 MW.
Government wanted to
ensure that the country had enough feedstock to fuel these plants. The country
had traditionally been one of the biggest uranium producers in the world, and
was looking to start enriching uranium. South Africa had before enriched
uranium, while the apartheid government was in power . (Source:
Engineering News and Mining Weekly from an email circulated by CANE)

By the way this is the same minister who when presenting her ten point plan to Parliament to save electricity suggested, “Go to sleep earlier so you can grow and be cleverer”. She subsequently denied this saying her comment was taken out of context, but Hansard, the official Parliamentary records exposed the lie.

What of costs and vested interests. The following is an extract from the Wall Street Journal of Tuesday November 13 circulated by Pelindaba Working Group a member of the national Coalition Against Nuclear Energy.

The U.S. in principle supports South Africa's effort to become a nuclear-fuel
provider and sees promise in its new reactor, said U.S. Assistant Secretary for
Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon. Its efforts highlight Washington's calls for an
international agreement to limit enrichment and reprocessing technologies to a
select group of nations in return for help in developing nuclear power
elsewhere, he said. He added the U.S. expects South Africa, which has been
plagued by rolling blackouts, plans to add 40,000 megawatts of capacity in the
next 25 years and half ofthat is expected to come from nuclear-power plants.
South Africa's state-owned power utility Eskom Holdings Ltd. at present has two
aging nuclear generators, the only such commercial facilities in Africa.

Much of South Africa's effort is focused on a tiny, low-cost reactor being developed on
the coastline just north of Cape Town. The design has drawn the attention of the
U.S. Department of Energy, which has awarded a $3.7 million grant to study its
potential in other areas. Mr. Spurgeon said the technology is one of a dozen
designs being considered by a $250 million U.S. initiative that aims to bring
small-scale nuclear reactors to developing countries.

The technology is being developed by Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Ltd., which is 15% owned by Westinghouse and the remainder by the South African government and state-owned Eskom.

Proponents said the pebble bed, once commercialized, can be built more
quickly and inexpensively -- in two years for about $500 million. Others are
more dubious about its prospects. Critics cite significant delays and a run-up
in costs since plans for the pilot reactor were first made in 1998.

What we are seeing, I believe, is bigger than just a solution to resolve the rolling black outs in South Africa.

The development of the pebble bed modular reactors has the interest and backing of the developed nations and the large multinationals, who have already made big financial investments in the process. This is new and as yet untested technology, which I am sure the citizens of developed nations will not want on their doorstep and would resist with great vigour. So why not make Africa the “guinea pig” – if it’s a success here will be a lot of money to be made, if not who cares its only Africa.

All this begs the question, are we going through a legitimate process of consultation or are we just through the motions?

Going Green

Well I am now officially a "green" if that is the right terminology.

After a quick investigation into nuclear power (the internet has so much information on the subject), I decided I definitely don't want to live with a nuclear power station on my door step.

So I have now officially joined the anti-nuclear lobby, albeit as a lone ranger. I am registered as an interested party on the Eskom (electricity supply authority) database, I have signed onto an Environmental website and have submitted my first comments (which has already been acknowledged).
What I wrote is probably a lot of frothy drivel, because it was done in a hurry, to meet 28 August deadline and quite frankly is not my area of expertise. But that is the beauty of our new democracy, "those in power" take the time to listen.

In a previous job I spent 12 years of my life lobbying the former government and fighting them on many issues and have come to realise that I have been missing the the cut and thrust of fighting for a good cause. I am back.

If you can't join them beat them

The construction of a nuclear power station in the Oyster Bay/ Cape St Francis is, I believe, a certainty in the eyes of the Government. Though the politicians are doing their usual ducking and diving, the reality is that the land was expropriated in the 1980's and the Environmental Impact Assessment's are under way. According to comments by the officials concerned, in the news media, it will happen.

I have tried to keep an open mind about nuclear power and the new safety measures and technology etc, but I cannot continue to do so. The body of evidence is largely negative, so I have joined the anti-nuclear lobby as I said I would in my post The Nuclear Spectre.

A recent article in The Herald gives some background on the issue and the seriousness with which some lobbyists are taking this. There is a lot of debate on the internet as well.

Time is short and interested Individuals and Groups wishing to comment on the subject of Nuclear Energy have until 28 August 2007 to make submissions.

All correspondence should be addressed to:
Mr Langa Zita (Chairperson) and marked for the Attention of Ms Albertina Kakaza, Box 15, Parliament,Cape Town 8000
Tel: (021) 403-3749/65, Fax: (021) 403-2808, E-mail: akakaza@parliament.gov.za

Copies of submissions can be sent to: nuclear@environment.co.za

The Nuclear Spectre

I have just had a horrible gut wrenching moment.

I posted a similar picture to this one recently, called Misty Seas, just to be able to share the beauty of the Cape coastline. I never gave it another thought until now.

There has been a lot of talk recently about building a series of nuclear power stations along our coast. South Africa is experiencing increasing power outages, as the power authority (Eskom) has grossly underestimated our power requirements and now needs to urgently build several power stations, to cope with demand.

And yes, you have guessed it. If the government has its way this scene may soon be blighted with a nuclear power station and the country side festooned with electricity cables.

This one was planned way back in the early 1980’s and has never been well received. To fund these developments, Eskom now plans to increase electricity tariffs by 18% in 2008 and 17% in 2009.

I am a skeptic where nuclear power is concerned and do not fancy the idea of living in the shadow of a nuclear power station. Unless any one can give me any compelling reasons to accept it, I have made a vow tonight to be at the forefront of the anti nuclear lobby.

Today I also learnt that the Congo River has the capacity to generate enough hydro-electric power to supply the whole of Africa. Maybe that is the way to go?