She said the following: “Nuclear energy is becoming a preferred solution address matters related to energy security and energy independence and in efforts to mitigate the dangers posed by climate change. A number of countries are showing renewed interest in nuclear energy while others are considering the expanding existing programmes, as is the case with our own country.” Preferred? I worry about that.
She also said: “Countries that have successful nuclear programmes have a high percentage of citizens who understand what nuclear energy is, the risks and benefits associated with it and therefore support such programmes.” That is a blatant mistruth. One only has to look at the European rejection of Nuclear Energy.
Below is a question proposed by the media, with a detailed response. I have briefly further critiqued her responses:
1. Why does government believe nuclear is a technology that should be pursued?
Government believes this for several reasons
- Nuclear power is a proven baseload electricity option
- The baseload / peaking load paradigm is changing internationally. The introduction of IT and demand side management systems with dynamic supply/demand pricing structures is changing the game. Distributed energy is the future.
- Nuclear power can effectively reduce our greenhouse gas emissions
- But not within a reasonable timeframe, and not without a massive CO2 footprint during the build phase.
- Nuclear power could be used to improve local beneficiation of our uranium by creating jobs across all aspects of the fuel cycle
- Very few jobs compared to Renewables
- Nuclear power is economically competitive, and is second only to coal power in terms of levelised cost of electricity
- If this is true, why did ESKOM not go ahead with Nuclear 1? Because it was too expensive. So this is simply not true.
- Nuclear power is safe when well managed, and we have proven this for over 25 years at Koeberg.
- Except for “the bolt” issue, and a few others.
Government is also aware that the following key issues that need to be addressed when embarking on a nuclear programme
- Disposal and/storage of long term radioactive waste
- A major, internationally unresolved headache
- Non-proliferation of sensitive nuclear technology
- Becoming harder and harder to do
- Security of nuclear installations and materials
- We have already had scares of Greenpeace activists getting access to facilities and people being caught illegally trading sensitive nuclear materials.
- Safety of people and protection of the environment
- Two words: ‘Black Swan”. A black swan is a highly unlikely high unpredictable catastrophic event. For examples, Chernobyl and the BP Gulf oil spill. There is no reason why this could not happen again.
- Public perception and understanding of nuclear technology
- I think the public perception is right on – it is dangerous
- Skills development for localisation of industry
- Minor compared to the job creation Renewables could have
What Nuclear does do is allow for an arms-deal size amount of money to be managed by a few greedy people, with no care for the real impact on South Africa’s economy and people.
Frank
