Uninformed fuelling unjustified concerns about nuclear
written by Cobus , October 21, 2009

It is sad that the uninformed are the ones fueling the resistance to nuclear power, thereby depriving the country of a source of clean and relatively cheap energy. I dare anyone to go and look at a coal fired station, the tons of coal entering and the tons of ash exiting the station. I much rather live next to a nuclear station than a coal station. The amount of Uranium used by a nuclear plant is minute compared to coal usage. People get on planes every day, they drive on dangerous roads, they smoke themselves to death, yet they are not prepared to accept nuclear power which is probably the most regulated and closely watched business in the world.

People complain bitterly when they cannot watch TV or have hot water, but they shout against nuclear as soon as it is mentioned, while they happily accept dirty coal plants and the excessive carbon emissions from such plants. What's wrong with you? Take the time to really look at nuclear, the costs, the designs, the safety measures and the training of the people that run and maintain these plants and get the real facts before you simply join the crowd of brainless protesters who are against anything that contains the word nuclear.

National Chairperson, Coalition Against Nuclear Energy
written by mike kantey , June 10, 2009

Such a pity that pro-nuclear guys hide behind anonymity: what's the agenda?

I did research for Earthlife Africa -- based on Eskom's own ESL Reports to the National Nuclear Regulator -- to show that normal operations of a nuclear power plant produce excessive amounts of Cesium-137 and Strontium, both with half-lives of around 30 years, meaning it will take 200 years to get out of the environment.

Studies by Elizabeth Cardis and others in Europe show a correlation between cancers and the opening and closing of nuclear power stations: when they open the stations cancers go up and when they close the stations, the cancers go down.

But Christine is on the button with regard to costs. We cannot afford nuclear power in South Africa. Already Eskom wants us to pay in advance by jacking up the electricity prices twice this year, because they themselves cannot afford to pay the R1-3 trillion required.

There are cleaner and cheaper alternatives, and they are NOT nuclear!

Nuclear power will never fix the climate change problem, by the way, because we cannot build them fast enough. Our responsibility kicks in during 2012, and we still won't have a new nuclear power station by then. CSP and OCGT can be up and running in two years' time at a far less cost. Fifty percent electricity consumption can be saved by more efficient end-use and conservation, but try tell THAT to Eskom! All they want is more sales at a higher price (and profit), so their take-home bonuses can go over the million mark.

...
written by Lauren Hofmeyr , June 03, 2009

Can someone please send Christine's letter to 'guy in charge' at Eskom?! It is a wonder that Nuclear is even considered with info like this available considering the dire need for making truly sustainable choices at this time; and considering that there are so many reliable alternative options available, and even more being created and refined daily!

Nuclear Folly
written by Christine T Garbett , June 02, 2009

Nuclear power is exceedingly expensive unless the most significant costs are externalised, as they are in South Africa and around the world. Not one Nuclear Energy Provider insures its own liability risks because they couldn't stay in business if they did – so taxpayers pick up the bill. For the same reason, not one Nuclear Energy Provider pays to safeguard the pollution it creates, either during the mining stages or afterwards in dealing with toxic radioactive waste for a few hundred thousand years. Not one Nuclear Energy Provider creates “clean” energy as they falsely claim, not just in CO2 emissions (which are almost as bad as coal when the full cycle is analysed) but also in the release of many other routine but dangerous emissions. Nuclear energy will contribute very little to resolving the problems that cause climate change but will perpetuate the most dangerous technology known to humankind atomic weapons emanates from nuclear power –it all starts with so called “benign safe nuclear energy” and ends by becoming a threat to our entire planet.

There are significant & powerful vested interests keeping the nuclear industry alive, which is why so much is spent on propaganda and misinformation and trying to make critics look foolish.

Eskom should realise that it serves the people not the nuclear industry or government officials with hidden agendas. South Africa needs the hundreds of thousands of jobs that RE technologies can provide; it has the very best climate worldwide to capitalise from various proven and developing technologies available – let nuclear die a natural death and let our nuclear scientists move into the 21 century and develop an energy that will be truly safe and relieve our planet from the grips of cumulative impacts of nuclear emissions and waste. The alternatives are cheaper, equally efficient, naturally inflation proofed and safe in the real sense of the word. The downside of renewable energy is that it is labour intensive - but that is the best news our millions of job seekers could ask for.

just a guy
written by the dog , June 02, 2009

Thank God we are finely again starting to catch up to the Nuclear age. We need these plants so bad, and the old paranoia is so old and lame it tiring.
Finely we are getting started with a far far less polluting way of getting our power.
People are starting to realize up from down.