nuclear power to get a caning

Submitted by turbosprout on Wed, 2007-09-05 17:50

I wish the above read "nuclear power to get a canning", but it seems the government's nuclear plans will not be abandoned without a fight from concerned citizens, NGO's and community groups. Enter CANE - the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy, a group that is banding together to do something about Eskom's intended rollout of 10 new conventional nuclear reactors and its long-term plan to rollout 24 Pebble Bed Modular reactors on several sites around the country.

Those in the coalition are concerned about the unnecessary and heavily subsidised costs, nuclear safety and the unsolved problem of long-term spent fuel storage.

Seven sites have been chosen for new nuclear reactors in the Northern, Western and Eastern Cape, while Pelindaba in the North West Province has been offered nuclear enrichment facilities, nuclear fuel fabrication and nuclear smelter plants. Various areas around the country have been identified for... uranium prospecting and mining, including vast tracts of the Karoo and the Magaliesburg.

"We believe we have to oppose this unilateral decision on the part of the Cabinet to determine a radioactive future for us all. Ordinary communities need to be heard and our Constitutional rights -- especially our right to an environment free of radioactive pollution - must be respected – not eroded", said a statement by CANE.

"We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power."

Add your voice to those mentioned below by visiting the CANE website and join together against a nuclear future for South Africa.

BANG - Bantamsklip Anti-Nuclear Group - spokesman Mike Duerr dm3877@gmail.com
KANG - Kouga Anti-Nuclear Group
FAST - For A Safer Tomorrow (Thyspunt area) + Ryan Donnelly Tel: 042 2941176 and Daniel Reinecke Tel: 0844 0844 08
NAGO - Namkwaland Organisasie vir die Gemeenskap en die Omgewing spokesman Andy Pienaar Tel: 027 821 1546 / 084 460 1490.
Northern Cape SANGOCO - coordinator Charmaine van der Heever charmainesangoconc@telkomsa.net
NiMBLE - Nelson Mandela Bay Local Environmentalists chairman Greg Smith Tel: 074 116 5509
Pelindaba Working Group – spokesperson Dominique Gilbert Tel: 083 740 4676
Eastern Cape Environmental Network – spokesperson Ingela Richardson Tel: 043 740 3776
Public Environmental Arbiters - spokesperson Mariette Leifferink Tel: 011 781 6152
Koesterfontein Action Group (Magaliesburg) - spokesperson Mitchell Krog Tel: 072 495 7257
Sustainable Energy Africa - Director Leila Mohamed Tel: 027-217023622 / 083-789 2923
East Coast, KZN North Residents - Malcolm Molver Tel: 079 189 7143
Institute for Zero Waste in Africa - Muna Lakhani Tel: 031 202-4576
Biophile Magazine – Anthea Torr

Source: Sangonet

( categories: )

Hi, Why the fear of nuclear

Submitted by David (not verified) on Wed, 2007-09-05 20:11.

Hi,

Why the fear of nuclear power?

Pebble bed reactors (PBMR) are extremely safe, and it's impossible for them to "blow up" basically. They are inherently-safe.

I think there's too much FUD spread about nuclear by people who really don't know what it involves.
It's the unknown that scares people.

Really, nuclear is MUCH cleaner than coal.
And you can't say it takes coal to create nuclear (1x coal). Because it takes coal to create coal power too (2x coal).
And 2 is bigger than 1.

Also, how does creating carbon dioxide emissions outweigh nuclear waste? Carbon dioxide goes everywhere and affects the whole world. Nuclear is localized and doesn't "travel". Also, coal emissions contain radioactive materials too, which are breathed in.

A nuclear power plant doesn't pollute the place it is located at.
There is more radioactivity in Paarl because of the mountains than there will ever be at a modern nuclear plant.

The radioactive waste left over is the biggest problem, as this has to be stored safely somewhere.

Instead of making more power, we should use less power! Only when there are electricity limits will people start appreciating the unsustainable energy production by coal.
Or make electricity so expensive above a certain quota (exponential scale), that people are forced to use it conservatively.

I think wind power farms would be the best solution.
Or if someone can come up with a solar panel that works well.

I'm sure all these things exist already, but sometimes they just don't get the exposure they need.

Sincerely,

David

nuclear fuddy goes duddy

Submitted by mike kantey (not verified) on Thu, 2007-09-06 13:05.

Your correspondent "David" (name withheld for obvious reasons) is FUDdled.

Pebble Beds (and other nuclear power stations) are not as safe as he and his fuddy-buddies proclaim -- certainly not "inherently".

In the reactor core, the Uranium atom is bombarded by neutrons and splits into two common daughter products: Strontium-90 and Cesium-137. Both have a half-life approaching 30 years. Since it takes an average of seven years to decay until they are not so radioactive, Strontium-90 and Cesium-137 will be in the landscape for roughly 200 years.

So how do they get out?

Cesium-137 escapes with the steam that is normally released during everyday operation. It was the biggest contaminant after the massive release from Chernobyl on 26 April 1986. Its main side-effects are soft-tissue cancers, such as breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and testicular cancer, to name a few. So you would have to look at breast cancer rates before and after start-up to see the impact from a conventional plant.

Strontium-90 goes out with the laundry and drain flushing and usually travels through the liquid waste stream to end up in the marine outfall -- such as the one at Melkbosstrand near Koeberg. The Strontium-90 (and other radioactive isotopes) often appears in mussels, because they are filter feeders and tend to concentrate radioactivity in the marine environment.

Strontium-90 likes to work its way to the bone marrow structure, which produces white blood cells, so the results are normally elevated levels of leukemias and lymphomas -- often among children 0-14, because their cell replacement rate is so much faster than adults. Thus the pathetic young victims of Chernobyl, while Strontium-90 in children's milk teeth was studied near Indian Point reactor in New York by Dr Ernest Sternglass.

For a full understanding of the dangerous side-effects of nuclear power, see Elizabeth Cardis's monumental study for the European Union in Brussels.

Sorry, Dave -- you've been CANED!

In defense of Urban Sprout

Submitted by Carl (not verified) on Sat, 2007-09-08 10:59.

Mike, I'm not sure who you're talking about when you refer to David as "your correspondent", but David is merely a reader of this blog who commented on the article. So, I hope you're not saying he's Urban Sprout's correspondent.

correspondence will be entered into

Submitted by turbosprout on Sat, 2007-09-08 19:43.

I can see how this could be confusing: "correspondent" can have a few different meanings (around 5 according to dictionary.com!).
I think Mike used the term in the sense that David was contributing his view to our blog. David's view is in no way associated with the view of urban sprout.
If, however, anyone reading this would like to be a correspondent for urban sprout, we are looking ;-)

Nuclear makes economic and ecological sense

Submitted by Langa (not verified) on Sat, 2007-11-03 00:10.

I totally agree with you David - nuclear is probably the best option we have for energy right now. Dams do untold ecological damage, in Germany wind farms have been very harmful to birdlife.The materials required to construct solar panels are highly toxic, and don't get me started on the food security threats posed by biofuels.
Since it's inception, Koeberg has produced a minimal amount of nuclear waste - most of it no longer radioactive. Compare that with the amount of carbon produced by coal plants in the same period, and the debate begins to dissipate.
PLUS, South Africa controls just about a third of the world's uranium - enough to power this country for centuries - imagine what we could achieve if we harnessed some of that energy for the rest of Africa as well.

nuclear makes no sense at all

Submitted by Mike Kantey (not verified) on Wed, 2008-01-02 13:03.

just came across the reply by "Langa"

comparing nukes with other sources of power is a RED HERRING!

It's the old Maggie Thatcher bullshit line: TINA (There Is No Alternative).

so now we can focus on the rest of Langa's reply:

it's not the quantity of waste that matters: it's the QUALITY. a small speck of nuclear waste can cause a KAK load of damage for a HECKUVA long time!

A transuranic isotope, such as Plutonium-239, for example is continually emitting neutron. If ONLY ONE ATOM is inhaled or swallowed, it can lodge anywhere INSIDE the body and bombard the nucleus of the cells with neutrons. Eventually the cellular reproductive system goes wonky-ponky and the person dies a nasty prolonged death from cancer.

The problem with Plutonium-239 is that it pushes out neutrons ALL OF THE TIME for 240 000 years! By that time it is only half as strong as when we started. So how can we look after the waste for 240 000 years?

WHAT'S THE SOLUTION, Langa?!!!

Secondly, uranium reserves are not forever AND only a tiny percentage of uranium ore can get us the right isotope for fission, so there's a KAK load of highly radioactive uranium mine tailings left over, as we saw at Wonderfontein, not to mention the HUGE explosion at Khyshtym in the Soviet Union which left a giant hole where the map used to be. Not to mention the leaking tanks at Hanford, Washington.

So -- if there's a HUGE demand for uranium, we get a HUGE mess in South Africa, which NO-ONE in the industry will take responsibility for, and ALL the uranium will be used up completely in about 100 years, if that.

Did anyone say SUSTAINABLE development?

Did anyone ask the opinion of the National Union of Mineworkers or the Namaqualand community (where the waste is dumped) whether they want this KAK or not?

You've just been CANEd