is nuclear the way forward?This was forwarded to us by Earthlife Africa and makes for a good argument against nuclear power

Our government is on record as wanting a “fleet” of nuclear reactors in South Africa. Yet, we have abundant resources that we can use to save energy and generate electricity sustainably and safely. In doing so we can create many safe, sustainable and decent work opportunities that will place our country at the cutting edge of progressive energy policy and production. This would keep more money in the country instead of sending it overseas to France, Japan or the USA. Instead, what do we have?

Policy controlled by those who benefit – why is the fox designing the chicken house, and giving the chickens chicken feed? Government is involved in a second policy process called Integrated Resource Plan 2 (IRP2), which will begin to chart our energy future. However, people who are currently benefiting from cheap Eskom prices and more coal fired power stations, are the very people being asked to draft this policy – BHP Billiton, Anglo American, Xstrata, etc.

Do we want policy that continues to benefit multinational companies, or do we want to put our people first? IDASA is right – their report states that policy is vulnerable to “economically and politically powerful interests outside government” – does this not seem like corruption? Certainly, the process is corrupted!

Technology that has never been built – Eskom is carrying out an Environmental Impact Assessment for the first proposed nuclear power plant – but the documentation does not tell us anything about this “4000MW Generation III PWR” reactor, and certainly not where else it has been built. This is because the station they are talking about has not even been built anywhere in the world yet – do you feel like being a guinea pig for an untested and expensive nuclear reactor?

Consider what is being said about other reactors in the world today: A report from www.sortirdunucleaire.org confirms that there are major problems with the EPR type design that is being proposed. Some operating modes could cause the EPR reactor to explode because of a control rod cluster ejection accident (these control rod clusters moderate the nuclear reaction). These operating modes are mainly related to an objective of economic efficiency, requiring the power of the reactor to adapt to electricity demand. Thus, in order to find a hypothetical economic justification for the EPR, its designers chose to take the very real risk of a major nuclear accident. Moreover, most of the arguments given in favour of the EPR (power, efficiency, waste reduction and safety) have been proved to be false.

EDF and Areva (the leader of the French nuclear industry) have tried to find a solution to the problems related to the operating mode of the reactor: these efforts have failed in preventing those kinds of accidents. The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) has apparently been kept in the dark about these issues. Areva is positioning itself in South Africa for the tenders for nuclear power plants that are planned. Do we want more of our money to go to Europe?

Nuclear is safe, right? - We have an electricity crisis, so we need more power stations, and coal is dirty and leads to climate change, so nuclear is ok, right? Wrong. The National Radiological Protection Board in Britain conceded in 1995 that "there is in fact no threshold radiation dose under which one wouldn’t risk growing a cancerous tumor – in other words even small doses can make one ill.” R.M. Sievert after whom the radiation measure is named, says: “There is no known tolerance level for radiation” Radiation kills – no debate.

Isn’t it the economy that decides? 36 industries use 44% of all electricity4, yet their contribution to GDP5 is only half of the total, much worse than other sectors that use far less energy. If they saved 10% of their energy, they would save as much as if every South African cut their use by one-third – what is easier, controlling the lives of 40 million people, or adjusting 36 industries? Yet these energy guzzlers are being asked to draft our future energy policy! (see above) We need to reclaim our power – Amandla!

There is a global nuclear renaissance, right? Wrong. For the second year in a row, global nuclear generating capacity has dropped slightly, reaching 370.9 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2009. Just over 1 GW of capacity was added during the year, as India and Japan each connected a new plant to the grid. At the same time, Japan closed two reactors and Lithuania shut down one, so 2009 witnessed the closure of 2,506 GW worth of shut downs. Read: World Nuclear Generation Stagnates by John Mulrow.

Nuclear will solve climate change, right? Wrong - Using current ore grades, when the entire cycle of production is considered, nuclear energy produces three to four times more carbon dioxide per unit energy than renewable energy sources. Nuclear power is not a cost effective method of reducing GHGs.

The alternatives start providing more energy than was used in making them much earlier – wind pays back in less than a year; gas and oil, dirty as they are, in about a year; solar electricity 1.5 to 3 years, but nuclear only starts adding to the energy balance after 10 to 18 years!!

What solution then? Even the Nuclear Consultants agree that it would be very optimistic to think that it could be built by 2018; and Eskom itself also says that wind and solar power for the Cape can be built in roughly 4 years, at the same cost – and nukes still have fuel, decommissioning and hundreds of thousands of years of “waste management” – Why not Zero Waste?

Expensive - Even the World Bank is sceptical: “Nuclear plants are thus uneconomic because at present and projected costs they are unlikely to be the least-cost alternative. There is also evidence that the cost figures usually cited by suppliers are substantially underestimated and often fail to take adequately into account waste disposal, de commissioning and other environmental costs.” If you thought the recent price increases for coal fired power stations was high, wait until you see nuclear power stations that are being quoted at R170 billion, and expected to double. Earthlife Africa recently handed a document to the Minister of Finance, that outlines the current state of economics around the provision of energy – the full Nuclear Costs document is available upon request earthlifeafricact@gmail.com or write to: ELA CT, PO Box 13828 Mowbray 7705.

Who is benefiting? The Energy Intensive Users Group (the 36 electricity guzzlers mentioned above) pay an average of 17c per kWhr, yet you and I will be paying up to 80c in the short term, for using far less! Eskom lost nearly R10 billion last year alone because of “sweetheart” deals with this group. Is this fair? Or just? Or sustainable?

What about the workers? COSATU is against nuclear power for pretty much every reason contained in this document, and more. The level of sacrifice that South Africans are willing to make, include the National Union of Metalworkers, who are even prepared to consider the shutting down of aluminium smelters which will relieve the pressure on electricity demand immediately. Nothing other than a “Just Transition” for all workers, and more decent and dignified work for more South Africans, must be part of the underpinning of the new energy economy. The sustainable alternatives will create more work for South Africans, stimulate the South African industrial economy, and be set up to take advantage of massive proven export opportunities in renewable energy, growing at tens of percent per year!

No solution for waste – after spending some R70 billion in the USA, the Yucca Mountain site idea had to be abandoned. We are never told what the decommissioning and waste handling costs for 500,000 years will be. At the time of the first nuclear reactor over 50 years ago, we were told that by the time it is needed, there will be a solution for radioactive waste – no such “solution” has yet appeared. Shall we trust them again?

Chernobyl only killed less than 50 people, right? Wrong - One report by two independent radiation scientists, Ian Fairlie and David Sumner, said the global death toll from cancers was actually going to be between 30,000 and 60,000. A series of other studies since have come up with similarly high, or higher, numbers. The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, published a study which put the cancer death toll in Europe at "about 6,000". Allowing for the uncertainties of estimating deaths caused by exposure to low-level radiation, the figure could range from 6,700 to 38,000, it said. The Northern environmental group, Greenpeace, released a report quoting Russian scientists who suggested that radiation from Chernobyl could kill as many as 90,000. And the European Committee of Radiation Risk published a book by Chris Busby & Alexey Yablokov claiming "millions" of cancer deaths. The latest publication (2010) claims 900,000 lives. “Chernobyl Radiation Killed Nearly One Million People – information available at www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/26.

There are still farms in the UK that are not allowed to sell their products in the marketplace due to radioactive contamination. An accident at Koeberg will leave us about an hour to evacuate the City of Cape Town – an impossible task, which has never been attempted nor proven possible.

Who is most vulnerable to radiation? Children – from daily emissions of Caesium, Strontium and Tritium, as well as Iodine and radioactivity from the plant. Between 1987 and 1998, operations ceased at 12 U.S. nuclear power reactors. One of these, Rancho Seco, is located in a densely populated area. After the reactor closed in 1989, significant decreases in mortality (all causes and from congenital anomalies) and cancer incidence were observed for fetuses, infants, and small children. These trends contrast with a worsening of infant health status after the plant opened in 1974. The data suggest that a relationship between nuclear emissions and adverse health effects exists, especially since fetuses and newborns are most sensitive to radiation. Removing the cause and seeing a reduction in the impacts, is a sure-fire way to prove the cause. Why will the industry not “allow” baseline studies in South Africa – are our lives not worth it?

Are you insured for nuclear damage? No – all insurance companies in South Africa now refuse to cover you for nuclear damage – wonder why? There are no alternatives, right? Wrong – If wind and solar and other renewable energies were not practical,then why has China built 25,000 MW (more than half SA total generation capacity) of wind power so far? and why is Europe planning 100 000 MW (more than double ours) of offshore wind alone? And why is the global total for wind alone over 121,000 MW so far? The global market for solar will be worth R210 billion this year alone and generate 5,3000 MW in the process.10 The Renewable alternatives create far more jobs. 40% of Spain’s power comes from wind TODAY! Large scale wave power has been installed 5 kms off the coast of Portugal – why can’t we? The South African wind potential would more than double the total electricity generated today, yet we are planning to spend R850,000,000,000 on nuclear power.

TAKE BACK YOUR POWER! NO MORE NUKES! NUCLEAR IS NONSENSE! What you can do: write to the media; ask Earthlife Africa activists to come and speak at your meeting or function; tell everyone; say ‘no nuclear’

Contacts: Muna Lakhani muna@iafrica.com; earthlifeafricact@gmail.com; or write to ELA CT, PO Box 13828 Mowbray 7705.