nuclear-news

No economic justification for nuclear power   http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/no-economic-justification-for-nuclear-power-1965054   CAPE TIMES / 29 Dec ’15 By: Mike Kantey Thanks to the mysterious M Price (Cape Times, 28 December) for alerting us to the new improved plan for exporting our hard-earned wages to foreign climes. First we gave money to Germany for the ill-fated PBMR; then it was nearly France’s turn for the EPR; and President Zuma clearly refers roubles to rubble.

Who knows if the Indian chiefs are currying favour with the promise of thorium and the mysterious “M” will supply it at the right price? Steenkampskraal will be happy to provide that all-important discount and become Stampskraal. You go, Gupta!

On a more sober note before new year, M provides a handy reference to the ERC’s Energy Journal (26:2 of May 2015), in which the following assumptions are given:

“1: Uranium resources are expected to deplete, being the sole resource for supplying fuel to about 435 nuclear power reactors currently in operation and 71 under construction worldwide, which will bring up the prominence of thorium (WNA, 2014).”

Of course, if uranium resources “deplete”, then the sustainability of nuclear power itself is thrown into question. Uranium, after all, is a finite resource.

“2: The reactor construction duration is assumed to be four years (Koomey & Hultman, 2007).”

This has never been achieved in the history of the industry.

“5. The used UO2 fuel in PWRs is cooled for five years before it is chemically reprocessed to recover useful plutonium and uranium (Rose et al, 2011).”

Fuel reprocessing is hellishly expensive and dirty.

“8. It is assumed the lifetime of the two PWRs currently operating in Koeberg, SA, will be extended from 40 years to 60 years.”

Given the regular breakdowns and mishaps at Koeberg, this seems a little more risky. International, peer-reviewed studies have shown that neutron bombardment leads to the embrittlement of all metals in contact with the pressure vessel and the primary coolant loop, causing the entire reactor to be classifiable as nuclear waste. How is this embrittlement to be averted over the proposed 60-year lifespan and what NNR licensing programme has been introduced to manage this application?

“9. A new Accelerator Driven System (ADS), envisaged to incinerate nuclear waste and to produce electricity, needs a minimum of 40 years to be designed, built and reach commercial maturity (Hesketh & Worall, 2010). It is assumed that the first ADS will operate 45 years from now.”

And pigs can fly.

“10. The annual discharge of recyclable plutonium from a standard PWR is about 250kg (Galperin et al, 1997).”

If Koeberg has two reactors and has been operating for 30 years, this amounts to 2 x30 x 250kg = 15 000 kg of plutonium, with a half-life of 24 400 years. Where is this weapons-grade plutonium being stored?

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

As the priestess proclaimed on sighting the Trojan Horse: “I fear the Greeks, especially when they bring gifts.”

There has never been any economic justification for any form of nuclear power production and there never will be. It has always been a cover-up for nuclear weapons production and the sooner we abandon taxpayer and electricity consumer support for nuclear power, the sooner we will see the end of nuclear weapons.

This is the position of the World Council of Churches and every self-respecting believer ought to stand firm in telling truth to power.

l Kantey is a media and development consultant based in Plettenberg Bay