Nuclear Power Must Lead the Mix

by Admin · February 4, 2016

From Frans van Neerijnen, Johannesburg

The bishops� Justice & Peace Commission has called for a costly referendum on nuclear reactors (January 13), but such a poll is effectively happening this year in the form of local elections.

A crucifix is pictured in front of a cooling tower of a nuclear power plant near the northern Swiss town of Leibstadt Nov. 18. (CNS photo/Arnd Wiegmann, Reuters)

Let this matter, if it is important enough, be widely used as the basis, among other things, for the people�s votes.

But first allow me to also make some comments after my research about some statements made:

From a safety perspective, there have been only three noteworthy incidents, of which even the most severe (Chernobyl unit 4 only), was not so severe as to directly cause huge numbers of casualties and deaths. The Soviet government acted on it immediately by evacuating people, thereby avoiding long-term radiation effects.

In fact, the generation 1 technology used there was from the 1960s. Technology has advanced to generation 3, and even generation 4 if we were to use fast-breeder reactors, which is highly recommended, since they do not produce any spent radioactive fuel elements which need to be stored safely for many years .

Renewable (solar and wind) energy is an excellent idea that I support strongly, but it can only be up to a maximum 25% of total capacity, since at night and when the wind does not blow there will be no power. Are you happy with that?

The alternative is to store the power in huge batteries for use during such times, which then makes it even more expensive than nuclear.

Coal power is out of the question due to the huge amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted. This invisible environmental pollution is causing global warming, and we are, after all, a signatory to COP21, saying we will reduce emissions to levels even below those 100 years ago. Gas power emits almost the same amount of invisible GHG.

Coal power can be generated more cleanly, with carbon capture and storage (CCS)�but there is an additional cost to doing this, again pushing the price near nuclear�s.

The cost of not doing anything is even more expensive, as we have seen since 2008, with huge projects being cancelled as there is no power available for them, steadily reducing GDP and hence employment.

We have actually seen the increase in unemployment due to the government�s slow pace of building new power stations.

One suggestion is that we could rotate the limited electricity supply to the various people who support the various technologies. Those who waste electricity should pay a premium.

In this way there will be enough electric power for the wheels of industry to keep turning, increase GDP, and create the employment we so desperately need.

We need plenty plus excess reserves of electricity to grow our economy reliably, and to do it responsibly without the damaging emissions from coal and gas.

The optimal base load is nuclear for say 50%, then 25% for coal with CCS, renewables with batteries for 25%, plus gas for peak loads, and then a 20% extra for reserves, for planned shutdown maintenance and unplanned breakdowns.

The inflated price of R1500 billion given in the article for new nuclear plants already seems to have a large slice of the cake included for the negotiators. Corruption money is effectively stolen from the people of South Africa.

Corruption must be stopped, whatever the electric power source is, and it is here that the J&P Commission should focus its efforts, since large procurement projects should be acquired in a clean manner.