NATIONAL ASSEMBLY From http://www.dpe.gov.za/home.asp?id=449
Question no. 5 for Oral Reply
Replied to on 23 May 2006

Mr Y Wang (ANC) to ask the Minister for Public Enterprises: In view of the pebble bed modular reactor now falling within his area of responsibility,
(a) what strategic advantages flow from using nuclear technology in order to generate energy,
(b) what steps have been taken to address safety concerns with regard to nuclear energy and
(c) what measures have been taken or are envisaged to deal with nuclear waste disposal?
N495E

Reply:

(a) The Strategic advantages flow from using nuclear technology as an energy source to produce electricity has a number of distinct advantages:

It is cleaner: nuclear energy has the lowest impact on the environment, (air, land, water) and wildlife compared to any major energy source. It produces no harmful green house or air pollution.
Bullshit #1: "...lowest impact..." Since the process of dealing with the radioactive waste is not yet established, the impact is unknown. At best this is wishful thinking, at worst, a downright lie.
Bullshit #2: "... no ... air pollution." Nuclear power stations such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have had incidents in which large amounts of radioactive dust and gas were released into the air. Somehow, the minister does not classify this as 'air pollution'. Or then again, perhaps he's just lying.
It is as safe as other forms of electricity generation. Strict government regulation and continuous training of the operating staff that safety of operations remains at
high standards at all times. Security measures at nuclear plants remain at an elevated status at all the times
Bullshit #3: "... as safe as...." It is simply impossible for a coal fired, solar, or wind based power station to make a large area uninhabitable for thousands of years. This can and has happened with nuclear stations such as Chernobyl. How can this possibly add up to 'as safe'?!
Fossil fuels as coal are not readily available across geographic areas of the country and coal fired power stations needs to be located near coal deposits. It is also difficult to transport coal over a long distance. Nuclear plants have the advantage of being able to be built in remote areas.
Bullshit #4: "... remote areas." Yes, like Koeberg just outside Cape Town!! And if its so safe, why the interest in remote areas?!
The cost of nuclear production (fuel) is lower.
Bullshit #5: Again, since the full process of disposing of the nuclear waste has not been planned, the cost cannot be known. Also, the cost of a cleanup which might be needed in response to a leak or accident is unknown.
Bullshit #6: Apparently the minister has not seen a study commissioned by Eskom which reads in part: "The latest cost estimates indicates an equal probability of either making a loss of $122 million or a profit of $399 million. This result is outside the benchmark parameters for projects of this nature." Or perhaps the minister has read it, and that's why that sneakily bracketed "(fuel)" is slipped in there
Bullshit #7: The same report estimates the cost of the PBMR project alone over the next ten years to be $8.7 billion. This is lower than what, you may well ask.

In reply to part (c):
With regard to Koeberg Power Station, as soon as this Agency has been established an application will be made for the acceptance of Koeberg radioactive waste management programme.
In other words, "We have no idea at this stage what we will do with the nuclear waste".

A councilor from Cape Town had the following to say:
"During the life span of the proposed PBMR, nearly 800 tonnes of high level nuclear waste will be produced and stored at Koeberg. The EIA has not addressed this issue and we must take action to protect the health of residents from the long term risks and impacts on the environment."

"The single most pressing issue with regard to the PBMR and the future of nuclear electricity generation in SA, is a national policy on the management of radiological waste," said Cllr Landingwe. " The City is being asked to accept even more nuclear waste for at least the next 80 years, or until a final repository is found. This is simply unacceptable."

VAALPUTS From: http://www.esi-africa.com/last/ESI32000/ESI32000_029_1.htm

Nuclear waste storage sites are situated in remote, geologically stable areas where little seismic activity has been recorded for millions of years.
Bullshit #8: "... millions of years." Is it really possible to know that?
South Africa’s site for the disposal of nuclear waste, belonging to the NECSA, is situated at Vaalputs – 600km north of Cape Town – where the annual evaporation exceeds the annual rainfall. In this way, even if radioactivity should escape, it theoretically could not contaminate ground water which may find its way to the surface.
Bullshit #9: "... theoretically... which may find its way..." This is a really sneaky one! Firstly, we are really more interested in 'practically' than 'theoretically'. Secondly, ground water in streams and aquifers is neatly (sort of) excluded - such water could of course flow to other areas hundreds of kilometers away and 'surface' via boreholes.

From: http://www.eskom.co.za/live/content.php?Item_ID=1062
Eskom is investigating a number of options for the-long term final disposal of high level waste, including the well-documented and understood “deep geological repository” for the spent fuel.
Nicely put! The 'well documented and understood' process consists of digging a hole and dropping the waste into it. Fortuitously, even a fool can understand that! Click here to see the range of nuclear waste disposal options.

Back to the African Potato