South Africa « nuclear-news

Mega Uranium’s losses due to mismanagement

Mega Shareholders
Megames, African September 15, 2009
Are the shareholders aware of the loses incurred by the public officers because of negligence :

1. US$ 35,000 (LOSS) – Legal Fees – Lost court battle in SA and Mega Uranium subsidiary was liquidated

2. US$ 54,000.00 (LOSS) – Cash in bank – Mega Uranium subsidiary was liquidated

3. US$ 246,000.00 (LOSS) – Drilling Machine – Mega Uranium subsidiary was liquidated

This equates to a loss of more than US$ 335,000.00 LOSS which is a lot less than creditors were owed in SA for which Mega Uranium refused to settle.So is this the way shareholders funds should be used?
Megamess: Mega Shareholders

September 16, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1, business and costs, South Africa | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, uranium | Leave a comment

South Africa’s nuclear company Eskom makes huge loss

Corporate Toughest of times for Eskom
World Nuclear News28 August 2009
Eskom, South Africa’s state-owned utility, has reported a record annual loss and has warned of a funding gap for an expansion program needed to prevent a repeat of the blackouts the country experienced in 2008.

The company, which supplies about 95% of South Africa’s electricity and more than 60% of Africa’s, reported a loss of 9.7 billion rand ($1.25 billion) for the year ended 31 March. In the previous year, Eskom made a loss of 210 million rand ($27 million)………….

World Nuclear News

September 2, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1, business and costs, South Africa | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, radioactive, uranium | Leave a comment

Radiation emergency at nuclear reactor near Pretoria

Digital Journal By Adriana Stuijt. 17 March 09 A leak of radiation gases occurred at the Pelindaba nuclear reactors near Pretoria at 10am on Monday, the SA Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) said. “Abnormal levels of gamma radiation associated with xenon and krypton gases were detected.”

These high levels of radiation were detected near the building in which radioisotopes are produced for medical applications,” Necsa said, according to their statement on the South African Press Association website.They didn’t say how these xenon and krypton gases could have escaped. However they did decide to declare an on-site emergency, causing the evacuation of the entire nuclear site by staffers until the radiation levels ‘returned to normal’ readings. The residents of the city of Pretoria were not informed about the radiation leaks until this press statement was issued – after the emergency was all over.

Deep concern
This caused deep worry with Mike Kantey, national chairman for The Coalition Against Nuclear Energy in South Africa, who has expressed ‘deep concern” about Monday’s emergency. Pelindaba ‘s security measures have recently also been breached by armed attack gangs.

………………………….. No civil society for independent verification:
He added that iodine was responsible for illnesses that followed the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Ukraine in 1986. Kantey said it was also a matter of concern that the NNR did not have a civil society representative on its board.

“This is an occasion when we need such a person,” he said, adding that the post had been vacant since June 2008. The NNR could not be reached for comment.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/269315

March 17, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, South Africa | Leave a comment

‘Risky’ nuke ship passes Cape: South Africa: News: News24

‘Risky’ nuke ship passes Cape NEWS 24 07/03/2009 16:12 – (SA) Johannesburg – A massive shipment of plutonium mixed oxide (MOX) is meant to travel via the Cape of Good Hope on Saturday, Greenpeace Africa said in a statement.

“MOX shipments are simply not worth the risk, they are a major terror target and pose an enormous threat to the environment of all countries en route,” said Rianne Teule, nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace International in a statement on Saturday.

The ships, Pacific Pintail and the Pacific Heron, were heavily armed and protected by specially trained British forces, the statement read.

They are to enter South African waters as they make their way from France to Japan.

Poses riskhe shipment left Chebourg port with about 1.8 tonnes of MOX fuel – enough to make 225 nuclear weapons – and will travel via the Cape of Good Hope.

“This MOX transport poses immediate contamination and security risks, and is yet another example of the dangers of nuclear energy… not only is the shipment unnecessary and insecure, there is no evidence that the containers carrying the fuel are safe from accidents,” Teule said.

MOX fuel is an alternative nuclear fuel made up of a mixture of uranium and plutonium.

“This shipment is a reminder to the South African government that the health and environment risks associated with nuclear power are real, and that taking the nuclear route in power generation is not the solution to reducing climate change emissions.

“Nuclear power will provide too little, too late to address climate change and it is a dangerous distraction, sucking billions of rands in funding, away from the real solutions which could already be implemented today,” said Brad Smith, programme director for Greenpeace Africa.

In a bid to stop this shipment, Greenpeace Africa has sent a warning letter to several African environmental ministers including South Africa’s environmental affairs and tourism Minister, Marthinus Van Schalkwyk, urging them to take immediate action against the two ships.

– SAPA

‘Risky’ nuke ship passes Cape: South Africa: News: News24

March 8, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, South Africa | Leave a comment

The Pebble Bed Modular Nuclear Reactor – a black hole for public funds

No Amount of Redesign Will Save the PBMR

Earthlife Africa Tristen Taylor
18th of Feb. 2009 nuclear-costs1

With the PBMR Company seeking to redesign the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor
(PBMR) to focus more on heat applications, it is imperative to note that
disadvantages of continuing with the PBMR remain.

The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor has become a black hole for public funds. The
costs involved in the PBMR saga are illustrative of the financial risks
inherent in nuclear power in general.

In 1999, the PMBR (165MW capacity) construction costs were budgeted at R2
billion. By 2005, these construction costs had risen by a factor of seven,
to R14 billion without a single PBMR being constructed. These costs do not
include the decommissioning costs, which will be considerable.

Based upon the 2008 Environmental Impact Assessment for the PBMR
Demonstration Reactor and the decommissioning costs for of the predecessor
to the PBMR-the German AVR-the costs to decommission a single PBMR range
from R1.5 billion to R70 billion. It is nearly impossible, due to the
lifespan of the reactor and the variable rates of contamination, to be more
exact than this. Hence, the decommissioning costs of the PBMR are uncertain
and could incur a heavy burden on future generations, absorbing funds for
vital social programmes.

An additional expense will be the waste storage costs, which are impossible
to calculate due to the long-term nature of storing waste; for example,
uranium-235 has a half-life of 704 million years, plutonium-239 a half-life
of 24,110 years, and caesium a half-life of 30.2 years. These kinds of
timeframes defy economic planning, and, given our pressing social needs,
should not be entertained.

The costs for the PBMR are not efficient in terms of power generation. For
example, Eskom is seeking finance of R5 billion to build a concentrated
solar plant (100MW) in the Northern Cape; R14 billion for 165MW or R5
billion for 100MW capacity, economic sense favours the solar plant. This
also excludes the costs associated with the security apparatus necessary for
the PMBR.

Nuclear materials and equipment need to be protected and highly regulated,
due to the threat of contamination and theft. The consequences of
radioactive material in the hands on malicious organisations could have
profoundly negative consequences and has to be avoided at all costs. While
currently unquantifiable at this stage, these security costs will be passed
onto the state and are unique to nuclear power. Other forms of energy
generation (including heat generation) do not require these increased
security costs.

No matter how much the PBMR Company and the Department of Minerals and
Energy seek to spin the matter, the PBMR has been a waste of vital public
funds and will continue to be so until abandoned.

February 20, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, South Africa | Leave a comment

The Times – Tenants evicted for nuclear plants

Tenants evicted for nuclear plants The Times.co.za Bobby Jordan Feb 01, 2009Eskom is evicting tenants from pristine coastal land earmarked for nuclear power stations — despite the official postponement of the country’s nuclear expansion programme.

But some tenants and landowners are refusing to budge, claiming the right to stay on until government decides when, where or even if any new nuclear reactors will be built.

Eskom announced its decision in December to postpone the commercial bid procurement process for the construction of two new conventional nuclear power stations on the coast, citing economic constraints as the reason. But it said this week that, despite the delay, it wanted all tenants off its property,

The Times – Tenants evicted for nuclear plants

February 2, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

Next Entries »