To nuclear or not nuclear?
In a country besieged by rolling blackouts and an aging power infrastructure what option do we have? In South Africa’s case apparently only one. We have increased the price of unit-power to bridge finance a few coal power stations that will only be on line, according to Eskom, in 2016.
But we need power now.
As urban areas continue to grow, these new power stations will still not cater for the future demand. We are back to square one.
It seems that if this is our only considered option, the headline should read, “I regret to inform you that some of you will be reading this with a candle in 2016.”
So why not nuclear? With reference to 14 March 2011 page 10 opinions & analysis: Quakes and Power “Do we still have an appetite for nuclear generated power” is the kind of one-sided journalism that is epidemic and is gripping newspaper headlines worldwide post “Japa-Nami 2011”.
It creates the deliberate impression that nuclear is bad. It asks the all-important question and then answers it with bunny-hugger bias, “Capetonians look at Koeberg tower across Table Bay with some trepidation.”
Well the answer it would seem amongst the headline creators is emphatically NO. So have we lost our appetite for nuclear power? I too prefer hunting and gathering and telling stories around a candle flame.
These headline stir the naysayers into a frenzy. References to Chernobyl and images of 2-headed chickens become the defense. The louder they scream their incredulous opinions, the more they fail to see their light bulbs glowing dimmer.
Before we discount whether there is place for nuclear in our future, South Africa should look at the hundreds of reactors working safely and efficiently in dozens of countries. Excluding force majeure, the chances for a melt down, and its negative effects, are far outweighed by the pros. It’s the same odds we chance when we drive in peak traffic or fly in a commercial jetliner. If we applied the same logic, we should ban cars, and relegate airline travel to the annals of time.
What ever happened to the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) Project?
In February 2010 the South African government stopped funding of the PBMR because of a lack of customers and investors. On 17 September 2010, the South African Minister of Public Enterprises announced the closure of the PBMR.
In the hysteria of the World Cup and the Toll Road scheme, this multi-billion Rand project was conveniently forgotten about and swept under the rug. In much the same way that hydrogen and Tesla Cars never made it much past the starting line due to pressure from oil producers and car manufacturers, it would appear that coal mines and the employment they provide in coal-generated power have won the day - for now. Japa-Nami is just the propaganda Eskom and the government needs to line its pockets and perpetuate the demise of nuclear. You will probably hear statements like this in high level cabinet meetings. “We have enough coal reserves to last 200 years, and to hell with the environment. Lets sell them the usual anti-nuclear dribble to keep the mines alive”
My condolences to the people of Japan. I cannot ignore that there is a real threat to human life and the environment with the melt down of its nuclear plants. I run the risk of being callous, and perhaps this remark should best be left a year down the line, but why build nuclear reactors on fault lines or historically geographically unstable locations? It is unfortunate that human error once again removes the option for clean power for the rest of us.
And to the nuclear naysayers, your anti-nuclear sentiment is merely propoganda-regurgitatate you parade around as fact.
Pro-nuclear, pro-light, pro-Mpumalanga-that-is-not-raped-by-coal-mines!
In a country besieged by rolling blackouts and an aging power infrastructure what option do we have? In South Africa’s case apparently only one. We have increased the price of unit-power to bridge finance a few coal power stations that will only be on line, according to Eskom, in 2016.
But we need power now.
As urban areas continue to grow, these new power stations will still not cater for the future demand. We are back to square one.
It seems that if this is our only considered option, the headline should read, “I regret to inform you that some of you will be reading this with a candle in 2016.”
So why not nuclear? With reference to 14 March 2011 page 10 opinions & analysis: Quakes and Power “Do we still have an appetite for nuclear generated power” is the kind of one-sided journalism that is epidemic and is gripping newspaper headlines worldwide post “Japa-Nami 2011”.
It creates the deliberate impression that nuclear is bad. It asks the all-important question and then answers it with bunny-hugger bias, “Capetonians look at Koeberg tower across Table Bay with some trepidation.”
Well the answer it would seem amongst the headline creators is emphatically NO. So have we lost our appetite for nuclear power? I too prefer hunting and gathering and telling stories around a candle flame.
These headline stir the naysayers into a frenzy. References to Chernobyl and images of 2-headed chickens become the defense. The louder they scream their incredulous opinions, the more they fail to see their light bulbs glowing dimmer.
Before we discount whether there is place for nuclear in our future, South Africa should look at the hundreds of reactors working safely and efficiently in dozens of countries. Excluding force majeure, the chances for a melt down, and its negative effects, are far outweighed by the pros. It’s the same odds we chance when we drive in peak traffic or fly in a commercial jetliner. If we applied the same logic, we should ban cars, and relegate airline travel to the annals of time.
What ever happened to the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) Project?
In February 2010 the South African government stopped funding of the PBMR because of a lack of customers and investors. On 17 September 2010, the South African Minister of Public Enterprises announced the closure of the PBMR.
In the hysteria of the World Cup and the Toll Road scheme, this multi-billion Rand project was conveniently forgotten about and swept under the rug. In much the same way that hydrogen and Tesla Cars never made it much past the starting line due to pressure from oil producers and car manufacturers, it would appear that coal mines and the employment they provide in coal-generated power have won the day - for now. Japa-Nami is just the propaganda Eskom and the government needs to line its pockets and perpetuate the demise of nuclear. You will probably hear statements like this in high level cabinet meetings. “We have enough coal reserves to last 200 years, and to hell with the environment. Lets sell them the usual anti-nuclear dribble to keep the mines alive”
My condolences to the people of Japan. I cannot ignore that there is a real threat to human life and the environment with the melt down of its nuclear plants. I run the risk of being callous, and perhaps this remark should best be left a year down the line, but why build nuclear reactors on fault lines or historically geographically unstable locations? It is unfortunate that human error once again removes the option for clean power for the rest of us.
And to the nuclear naysayers, your anti-nuclear sentiment is merely propoganda-regurgitatate you parade around as fact.
Pro-nuclear, pro-light, pro-Mpumalanga-that-is-not-raped-by-coal-mines!
