nuclear-news

Urgent need for transparency on South Africa’s Integrated Energy Plan (IEP)

IEP 2015 must be tabled urgently: DA   http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/iep-2015-must-be-tabled-urgently-da-1.1938828#.Vjab-dIrLGg November 1 2015  By ANA Reporter Cape Town – The Democratic Alliance on Sunday urged Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Petterson to urgently table the integrated energy plan (IEP) 2015 so that it can be scrutinised in Parliament.

The IEP 2015 presently before Cabinet indicated that government planned not one but up to three R1 trillion nuclear deals by 2050, all the while acknowledging that procurement of nuclear could in fact be delayed until at least 2020, if not later, DA spokesman Gordon Mackay said in a statement.

“The DA therefore calls on Energy Minister Joemat-Petterson to table this IEP as a matter of urgency and allow Parliament to scrutinise this document and address the key issues within this plan.”

According to reports in the Sunday Times on Sunday morning, the proposed IEP nuclear-generating capacity would be expanded to between 12 and 20 times South Africa’s current installed nuclear capacity of 1830 MW, he said.

This effectively meant the energy department envisioned a series of large-scale nuclear deals over the next 20 years, despite ongoing and significant concerns on affordability by National Treasury and uncertainty as to the impact on the cost of electricity for ordinary South Africans, particularly the poor.

The purpose of the IEP was to provide a roadmap of the future energy landscape for South Africa to guide future energy infrastructure investments and policy development by providing a thorough analysis of competing technologies for the provision of sustainable and cost-effective electricity.

“Far from being a thorough assessment of competing technologies however, the IEP is nothing more than a slavish confirmation of the inevitability of the nuclear new build program and is the product of political interference by the ANC government into the terrain of energy planning,” Mackay said.

The IEP therefore failed to provide an assessment of a potential energy mix which excluded nuclear, despite the international energy landscape where major nuclear nations, such as Germany, France, and the US, were all reducing their reliance on nuclear in favour of cleaner and cheaper renewables and gas.

Further, the IEP argued for an energy mix biased towards a combination of large scale nuclear and large scale decentralised renewables, despite general international consensus that the two technologies were largely incompatible due to the variable nature of renewables electricity generation. “Furthermore, the scope for gas in the IEP has deliberately been limited in order to produce a ‘nuclear heavy’ energy roadmap. The IEP is way too conservative on the scope of gas within in the energy mix. Internationally, a number of gas producers are coming online and numerous new gas finds are being made across Africa. This will result in an increased availability of natural gas and the subsequent decrease in the price of natural gas,” he said.

Government should have used the IEP to aggressively pursue gas as an alternative energy form, which was far safer, cleaner, cheaper, and more job friendly compared to the use of the potentially politically motivated and unaffordable nuclear build programme.

“The DA remains fundamentally opposed to costly, secretive nuclear deals which have the real potential to destroy any prospects of future economic growth and job creation, and as such will not support government’s latest and unimpressive solution to the energy crisis in the form of the integrated energy plan,” Mackay said.

November 2, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

South Africa’s flawed and problematic Nuclear Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

New nuke build: EIA problematic and flawed http://gctca.org.za/new-nuke-build-eia-problematic-and-flawed/BY GAVIN, ON OCTOBER 28TH, 2015 As South Africa contemplates building nuclear power stations along the coast, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) consultants, GIBB, are holding public meetings to discuss their recently released draft report. The proposed nuclear builds are in Thyspunt (80 km outside Port Elizabeth) and Duynefontein (next to Koeberg, 30 km outside Cape Town).

“Thyspunt is the preferred site for Nuclear 1,” says Gary Koekemoer from NoPEnuke, “and no public meetings were scheduled for the Nelson Mandela Bay area thereby excluding 1.1-million citizens from this process. Further, it is our view that the current EIA process is fundamentally flawed with key information excluded.”

This EIA is the third draft published over eight years and was made available for scrutiny by GIBB consultants at the end of September. “The draft is a 40,000 page document and a quick count of words in the appendices making up the specialists’ reports alone showed that one would have to read around 90,000 words a day just to skim read it all before the public meetings were held,” says Peter Becker from the Koeberg Alert Alliance.

Widespread dissatisfaction has been expressed from many stakeholders around the limited time period allowed for public participation.

At the meetings, GIBB condensed their findings into a simplified scoring system for risks with ratings of Low, Moderate, High, or Fatally Flawed. “The scoring system is inadequate,” says Dr. Piet Human, project leader at the Bantamsklip Organisation. “The scores do not have a scientific or quantitative basis; what is ‘high’ for one may be ‘medium’ for another scientist. This subjectivity is then further compounded by the scores given by GIBBS.”

Becker describes a hypothetical scenario: “If the consultants found that there was a 51% chance that the new nuclear plant would explode catastrophically in the first year of operation, this would not result in a scoring of Fatally Flawed. Their recommendation in this case would be ‘Project can be authorised but with strict conditions and high levels of compliance and enforcement’.”

Bantamsklip was one of the three proposed nuclear sites alongside Thyspunt and Duynefontein but has now been excluded from this Nuclear 1 EIA. However, it remains a viable site for subsequent nuclear builds. A petition of over 10,000 signatures opposing the nuclear build was handed to the GIBB consultants at the Gansbaai meeting.

“We have only had time to look at one specialist report thus far,” continues Dr. Human, “and we reviewed the Social Impact Assessment which is problematic. The technical, scientific and professional credibility of the report is questionable as it uses outdated data, excludes HIV and Gender Related Issues (a new requirement for all large-scale EIA’s in South Africa), and does no comparative analysis of the three sites nor uses recent experiences with large projects such as Medupi.”

The biggest concerns of those in attendance at the meetings included the risk of a catastrophic nuclear accident and the evacuation plan, the environmental impact of radiation leaks into the sea, land or groundwater, the economic impact to the regions concerned owing to the negative perceptions of a nuclear facility in proximity to large-scale business concerns, costs (and the accompanying corruption), political instability and the risk of terrorism, and the massive problem of accumulating high level nuclear waste.

“The decision to build a nuclear plant must be taken with extreme care,” says Koekemoer. “We are concerned that in the gold rush of unsubstantiated promises of development and jobs we have been blinded to Thyspunt’s true value and potential as a significant local and global heritage area.

“Nuclear is not necessary,” he continues. “Renewables are making a significant contribution to our region. In our haste we are only servicing vested interests and it is a decision our grandchildren would shake their heads at.”

Becker concludes, “The GIBB consultants have a legal responsibility to put all the pertinent facts before the decision makers in a complete, unbiased and quantified way in the EIA report. Failing to do so can lead to criminal prosecution in their personal capacities.” There is concern from stakeholders that GIBB is trying to push through this flawed EIA with only token public participation.

The Sea Vista meeting for public participation in St Francis Bay will take place in early November, dates are not yet finalised. The Humansdorp meeting has been rescheduled due to public demand for more time needed and meetings in Nelson Mandela Bay have also been requested but are unconfirmed at this stage.

Submissions may be emailed to nuclear1@gibb.co.za. The full draft EIA report can be found at http://projects.gibb.co.za/en-us/projects/eskomnuclear1reviseddrafteirversion2 and more information can be found at http://koebergalert.org, http://bantamsklip.org andhttp://noPEnuke.co.za.

November 2, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

South Africa’s govt questioned on costs of nuclear power programme

Nuclear build programme under fire  http://www.iol.co.za/business/news/nuclear-build-programme-under-fire-1.1936163#.Vi_xstIrLGg   October 27 2015  By Siyabonga Mkhwanazi Johannesburg – Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson faces another round of tough questions in Parliament today on the nuclear build programme.

Joemat-Pettersson has hardly escaped questions on the nuclear build programme in Parliament since it was announced by President Jacob Zuma three years ago.

She will be part of the economics cluster of ministers responding to questions on a range of issues, including nuclear, in the National Council of Provinces in the next two days.

Tomorrow Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel will also answer questions on South Africa’s controversial nuclear programme.

The opposition parties have been asking Joemat-Pettersson to come clean on the project.

One of the key questions has been on the funding for nuclear power when the government has not given an indication where the money will come from.

In his medium-term budget policy statement last week, Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene was non-committal on the funding for nuclear energy.

However, he told journalists ahead of the statement that preparatory work had started, but did not indicate the detailed work that had been undertaken.

He said R200 million had been committed to the preparatory work.

A few weeks ago the Department of Energy said the procurement process had been postponed to the end of this financial year. This was due to outstanding work, including the funding model for nuclear.

The shifting of the deadline for the procurement process came after Joemat-Pettersson said in her budget vote speech in May that procurement would start during the second half of this year.

She also said the winning company would be announced before the end of the year.

It has been said the nuclear build programme will cost between R500 billion and R1 trillion. But the government has been coy on costs, saying this would disrupt the bidding process.

It said it would wait for the bidders to reveal their prices first, in the bidding phase, before any figure could be made public.

The department also said despite the delay in the procurement process, it would stick to the deadline of 2030 to complete the construction of the nuclear reactors.

Joemat-Pettersson has also been accused of keeping the information on the nuclear build programme out of Parliament.

Opposition parties have warned that they could not afford to have such a massive programme kept under wraps.

Today it will be their turn to turn up the heat on Joemat-Pettersson on the programme.

The government has insisted that it will build nuclear power plants that will be within its means and easy to afford.

One of the key questions to Patel is on job creation, localisation and long-term benefits of the reactors to the country.

October 28, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, South Africa | Leave a comment