nuclear-news

South Africa’s govt quietly confirms nuclear power deal

Cabinet quietly endorses nuclear deal http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2015/12/15/cabinet-quietly-endorses-nuclear-deal  BY NATASHA MARRIAN, 15 DECEMBER 2015, FINANCE MINISTER PRAVIN GORDHAN CONFIRMED ON MONDAY THAT A DECISION WAS TAKEN BY THE CABINET IN ITS MEETING LAST WEEK TO START THE NUCLEAR PROCUREMENT PROGRAMME.

This opens the path for the Department of Energy to call for proposals to provide 9.6GW of nuclear power without first doing a cost-benefit analysis.  But Mr Gordhan was adamant on Monday the procurement would go head only if it was “affordable”. Mr Gordhan confirmed that the decision had been made, yet in a post-Cabinet statement and a media briefing last week, no mention was made of the procurement decision.

On Monday, Business Day reported on the decision and that was the first time it was mentioned in public.

Acting Cabinet spokeswoman Nebo Legoabe said on Monday she did not know why the information was not contained in the Cabinet statement. She had not been in the Cabinet meeting and was unaware of what was discussed.

Mr Gordhan said he was not in the Cabinet meeting either last week as he had been unwell, but confirmed the decision.

“There is, I think, a decision on Wednesday that we are going to move in that direction. Part of that decision … is that there will be a formal procurement process in accordance with South African law.’’

He reiterated that the Treasury would only proceed with plans that were affordable. We can’t spend money that we don’t have and we can’t make commitments when we know we are not going to get the money that is required to be spent in this particular regard,” the minister said.

Mr Gordhan added, however, that this did not mean it would never happen, just that it may have to wait.

Former finance minister Nhlanhla Nene has said repeatedly that nuclear energy would not be procured if SA could not afford it. The African National Congress has also expressed caution, passing a resolution at its national general council in October, calling for ‘‘a full, transparent and thorough cost-benefit analysis of nuclear power’’.

With Carol Paton

December 18, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

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