South Africa’s incorrect environmental assessments for proposed nuclear power stations

Nuclear deal environmental assessments don’t match proposed plants: DA http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2015/08/16/Nuclear-deal-environmental-assessments-dont-match-proposed-plants-DA RDM News Wire | 16 August, 2015

The Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) conducted to assess and predict the environmental consequences of chosen nuclear build sites – and which are necessary by law – are outdated and obsolete‚ and cannot be used in support of the proposed trillion rand nuclear build programme, the Democratic Alliance says.

The DA said on Sunday that this is yet another reason why Minister of Energy Tina Joematt-Pettersson must “move to scrap this secretive and unaffordable nuclear deal once and for all”.

In a statement‚ DA spokesman on energy Gordon MacKay said this information had come to light in a reply to a DA parliamentary question in which the Minister of Energy revealed that the EIAs – which are needed before construction can begin – were carried out for only three of the proposed sites by Eskom between 2007 and 2008.

“The DA has reviewed the existing EIAs and we have noted deficiencies in at least two respects.

“Firstly‚ the EIA’s have only assessed the suitability and environmental impact of High Pressurized Water Reactors‚ a technology currently being used at South Africa’s sole nuclear site at Koeberg.

“The EIA’s have not considered technology being offered by other bid vendors such as Rossatom’s AES 2006 reactor. This reactor‚ the VVER‚ is a water to water pressurised rector and differs materially from the design evaluated by the EIA. Adoption of technology from vendor nations with designs deviating from Koeberg’s would therefore be ill advised and invalid.

“Secondly‚ the EIA was conducted when the power utility was planning on expanding its nuclear generating fleet through the nuclear-1 project – a much smaller‚ single site project which does not compare to the current proposed build programme‚” Mr MacKay asserted.

“Indeed‚ the Environmental Consultants who did carry out the EIA indicated that the evaluation was only for a single nuclear power station of a maximum of 4‚000 MW‚” he added.

He quoted the consultants as making clear in their report that “In spite of the above-mentioned broad recommendations regarding the number of power stations that could potentially be constructed at each site‚ it must be emphasized that the current application is for a single nuclear power station of a maximum of 4‚000 MW. The cumulative impacts of any additional nuclear power stations on a particular site (if authorised) would have to be confirmed in a new EIA process prior to any further development”.

“This‚” stated MacKay‚ “is significantly less than the current nuclear build programme‚ which is estimated at 9600MW‚ more than double the maximum of 4000 MW stipulated in the EIA. The report also makes it quite clear – anything above 4000MW would have to be confirmed in a new EIA process prior to any further development.

“The fact that the Minister is trying to distort South Africa’s legislative processes‚ in this way‚ is deeply concerning.

“It is now increasingly clear that the proposed trillion rand nuclear deal is ill-thought out‚ and rushed‚ and should not be pursued. The Minister must now put her pride aside‚ and do what is right: scrap the deal‚ once and for all.”

August 17, 2015 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, South Africa

1 Comment »

Regarding the cost of Energy:

In the UK, the Hinkley C project is now mired down in lawsuits and that is a great thing for all the UK ratepayers that will have to “pay” for too high priced Nuclear Energy for decades to come, plus that is before they have to decommission it and try and store the ☢ Waste someplace.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/09/planned-hinkley-point-nuclear-power-station-energy-industry#comment-57322727

Nuclear IS TOO Expensive for everyone except those that profit from Nuclear!

Here is another example from the US for the operating cost of a new reactor:

http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2014/05/27/france-s-state-auditor-says-edf-s-nuclear-costs-are-increasing

That’s about $0.08/kWh for electricity from paid off reactors.

US onshore wind is now about 4 c/kWh unsubsidized. US PV solar is now about 6.5 c/kWh unsubsidized. That for new capacity and their costs will fall to about 1 c/kWh upon payoff. Compare both the new and paid off wind and solar prices to France’s 8 c/kWh for paid off nuclear.

If new Vogtel energy costs 18 c/kWh who is going to profit from using it?

Ratepayers will be held in Energy Slavery as long as Vogtel operates figure 20 to 40+ years as regulators force them to buy Energy instead of installing their own residential Solar.

Click to access Georgia-nuclear-fact-sheet.pdf

It is no surprise that ever more people are starting to question the cost of their Energy and/or their reliance upon Big Utilities to supply that Energy, since they continually raise prices keeping ratepayers in “Energy Slavery”. Solar (of all flavors) provides a pathway toward “Energy Freedom” (once the loan is paid off) with little to no Utility bills for decades to come, which is why Big US Corp.s (like Apple, Google and Walmart) are now installing their own Solar farms.

Solar also can provide charging for eVehicles which again offer a path toward no more buying gas or fuel at the pump. BTW: Electric Motorcycles that can be driven on the highway cost about a penny a mile to operate* and require little to no maintenance as compared to an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Motorcycles.

* http://www.zeromotorcycles.com…

Comment by CaptD | August 17, 2015 | Reply

nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope