The background is that simply nuclear is too expensive as a future option (see http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nuclear-power-too-costly-to-revive). The claim is that nuclear can be a massive help in terms or reducing carbon emissions, but in reality there are two reasons why this is not true:
- By the time a nuclear power plant is built, it is too late for any carbon benefits that they may have to accrue – we need climate change action now.
- By the time a nuclear power plant is built (without the overruns that always happen), solar will be a cheaper option, creating more jobs, with far less risks.
- Even now a combination of gas turbines + investments in carbon sequestration is cheaper and reduces carbon more per dollar invested than nuclear (see http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion).
So it’s no surprise that Ontario just cancelled their nuclear plans due to price reasons: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/ontario-puts-nuclear-expansion-plans-on-ice/
Yet in South Africa the nuclear lobby has setup an Industry Association (NIASA). R900,000 has been raised from the “sponsors” (including Eskom, Necsa, PBMR, Areva and Westinghouse) to promote Manufacturing, Education and Training, Communications and Regulation around Nuclear in South Africa. Due to this, it is likely that all major universities will have a curriculum in nuclear science and engineering by 2011. In addition, a 1 hour documentary is being produced for TV to promote Nuclear. (See http://www.eepublishers.co.za/view.php?sid=19842)
This is all, of course, backwards. Venture Capital in clean energy hit USD155.4 billion in 2008 in continues to grow, and the rest of the world is focusing on Clean Tech as the big next job creating space.
But here in South Africa it seems we are to continue on the risky, low jobs, capital intensive, big corporate profits Nuclear Path and ignore the obvious – that solar is our future.
Frank
No comments:
Post a Comment