Comments on Energy Minister Dipuo Peters' speech at the Nuclear Roundtable 1 Dec

On the 1^st December, the Minister of Energy spoke at the nuclear Roundtable.

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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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
1. 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.
1. 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
1. A major, internationally unresolved headache
• Non-proliferation of sensitive nuclear technology
1. Becoming harder and harder to do
• Security of nuclear installations and materials
1. 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
1. 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
1. I think the public perception is right on – it is dangerous
• Skills development for localisation of industry
1. 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