The Nuclear Debate by Margie Donde
Climate change is on every one’s lips and rightly so. Our planet is in serious trouble.
I was very excited recently when I noticed a new eco magazine on the shelf and bought it eagerly only to find a pullout inside punting nuclear energy. I was surprised at the bias in this pamphlet (my judgment!) In the pamphlet which was aimed at schools they commented on the advantages and disadvantages of various types of energy.
They mentioned
1. coal power
2. Hydro-electricity
3. Wind power
4. Solar power
5. Ocean energy
6. Biofuels
7. Nuclear
The disadvantages for the first 6 mentioned above included the high cost in just about every case. Surprisingly the ONLY disadvantage mentioned for nuclear energy was negative public perception. One of the advantages mentioned was that it is environmentally friendly and safe and that it is a good option for South Africa as we are rich in Uranium. I was somewhat shocked and here’s why.
Pebble beds are used as fuel for nuclear plants. These are made from uranium kernels about the size of a cricket ball and are coated with a graphite shell. Uranium is a radio active substance actively mined in South Africa, especially in the Rustenburg area. Once the energy from the uranium kernel is spent they are “safely” disposed of in containers on site. Once the nuclear plant is decommissioned the kernels will be stored underground. They are highly radioactive at the end of their useful life.
Thirty nuclear plants are being built world wide with 100 more planned.
The advantages of Nuclear energy is that it does not spew green house gases into the environment on a daily basis like coal does, therefore Nuclear energy is touted as a “clean energy.”
I find this thinking basically flawed and here is why
Firstly when looking at the environmental pollution aspect you have to take into consideration all the aspects of Nuclear energy from cradle to grave. Uranium has to be mined to feed the Nuclear Reactor. If you have been listening to the news in the last couple of months you would have heard of the uranium leak into the water table in the Rustenburg area that contaminated food being grown in this area. Mining is one of the worst polluters of the planet. You may want to check out www.fse.org.za
Secondly I don’t believe that we can put toxic substances into the ground for future generations to deal with. The earth is a closed system and what happens in one part of the system will in the end affect the whole system even if it is “buried” under the ground. It seems that for the nuclear lobbyists out of sight is out of mind.
Thirdly the nuclear proponents state that these reactors are 100% safe but we don’t know what natural disasters may happen in the future. I wonder what would happen should we have a major earth quake near a reactor. What would happen if we have an earth quake where the kernels have been stored underground? If this should happen, the fall out will be felt for thousands of years. Again, no matter where this happens if will affect the whole planet.
In an article entitled Energy by Dr Eureta Janse van Rensburg (The Enviropaedia – World Summit Edition) says
“A cleaner option is nuclear power. Some 5% of South Africa’s electricity is produced by the Koeberg nuclear plant near Cape Town. This plant uses radioactive uranium as fuel, and produces no air pollutants. However, releasing the energy of radioactive substances (which are similar to the material that atom bombs and nuclear weapons are made of) is risky. Some radioactive materials take tens of thousands of years to decay to safe levels. Accidents causing radiation leaks can turn large areas into wasteland and expose thousands of people to a high risk of cancer and genetic abnormalities over several generations.
A meltdown occurred at the Chernobyl plant in Russia in 1986. About 200,000 had to be permanently evacuated from the area; an estimated 10,000 miners and soldier died from exposure to radiation during the clean-up process.
Eskom is currently investigating developing a second nuclear power plant called a pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR) which is said to be based on safer, more efficient technology. But there is still no known way to de-activate high-level radioactive waste…..Earthlife Africa estimates that Koeberg has accumulated 1000 kilograms of plutonium – a substance so lethal that just five kilograms would be enough to kill every person in the world ”
Shortly after reading the pamphlet from the “eco magazine” I received an email from the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE) at www.cane.org.za They state:
“CANE sprung into existence last year when the inevitability of the government’s nuclear expansion plan was confirmed. More and more environmental groups and community organisations woke up to the fact that they are now facing a nuclear power station in their backyards or will be on a radioactive transportation route. With over 15 conventional nuclear reactors and 36 Pebble Bed Modular Reactors (PBMR) being planned for SA, few communities will not be affected.Moreover, the Pelindaba Complex which hosts the National Energy Corporation of SA (NECSA) where there is already a rather secretive nuclear history is also the home of the PBMR fuel factory and soon to be licenses nuclear waste smelter plants, a resurrected Uranium enrichment plant and ironically probably a coal-fired power station to generate the electricity needed for it all. This thus puts the entire PWV region at risk as the attached evacuation map shows”
 |
| Diagram showing the evacuation plan for the Greater Johannesburg area |
Those of us living in and around Johannesburg know that Pelindaba is about 40 minutes drive near the Hartebeestport Dam. So guys, as per the evacuation map above we have between one and four hours should anything untoward happen at Pelindaba! Moreover if nuclear energy is so safe, I ask myself why do we have to have an evacuation map?
I received the following comment from Dudley Baylis of Cool Earth. www.coolearth.co.za
“Thus far, purely from a statistical perspective, 2 out of 439 operating plants have had serious failures – or roughly 0.5%
The nuclear lobby claims we need 20 times more nuclear reactors to avoid climate change impact caused by coal and other fossil fuels.
In other words, if this policy is followed, and our history is repeated (and there is absolutely no reason why it should not be – enhanced safety measures notwithstanding), we can expect another 40 nuclear power plants to fail – probably catastrophically – in the next 100 years. Most of these failures will probably be in “third world” countries because we do not have the training or support mechanisms to properly deal with any failure-chain. The last two caused a few hundred thousand deaths and untold more misery in knock-on effects. So perhaps we should understand the nature of the beast we play with. We have a tiger by the tail.
There is a very good reason why God (or whatever you believe created our living space) put the sun nearly 100 million km away. It’s a giant nuclear reactor, and here on Earth, we are not physiologically equipped to deal with close-encounter radiation.
Yet coal is potentially significantly worse from a climate change perspective – with unchecked use, we face Armageddon anyway….But if we covered a mere 5% of the earths land surface with solar collectors, we would easily be able to exceed the total projected generation capacity and energy production of all of the PROPOSED nuclear plants (20 times present day) and the existing ones – with no significant safety or long term side-effects.
The point of all of this is:
The nuclear debate is tricky and fraught with danger.
It has an entirely unproven safety record with fully 60% of scientists who study it not concurring on the way forward “
So it seems that we do have other alternatives that don’t seem to have been fully explored. These alternatives may be more costly initially but long term these costs even out. While nuclear energy may provide the answer to green house gases, the cost to the environment in terms of waste disposal are considerable (and irreversible) for the health of current and future generations. It is important to consider that pebble bed reactors have a limited life span of about 40 years.
Call me a skeptic but it seems money plays a major part in these kinds of issues and I wonder how much money is behind the promotion of nuclear energy.
I urge you to check out the websites above and to be informed about this debate. It is up to us to leave a habitable planet for future generations. If we don’t take action who will?
Sign a petition here http://www.cane.org.za/category/petitions/
Other websites about this issue.
http://www.eepublishers.co.za/view.php?sid=1204
http://davidrobertlewis.wordpress.com/tag/koeberg/
http://www.earthlife.org.za/topic.asp?TopicID=26&Topic=Nuclear%20Energy%20Costs%20the%20Earth
(The views expressed here are the views of Margie Donde and are in no way intended to represent any organisation. As always you are asked to make up your own mind on any issues discussed)
The Nuclear Debate by Margie Donde
Climate change is on every one’s lips and rightly so. Our planet is in serious trouble.
I was very excited recently when I noticed a new eco magazine on the shelf and bought it eagerly only to find a pullout inside punting nuclear energy. I was surprised at the bias in this pamphlet (my judgment!) In the pamphlet which was aimed at schools they commented on the advantages and disadvantages of various types of energy.
They mentioned
1. coal power
2. Hydro-electricity
3. Wind power
4. Solar power
5. Ocean energy
6. Biofuels
7. Nuclear
The disadvantages for the first 6 mentioned above included the high cost in just about every case. Surprisingly the ONLY disadvantage mentioned for nuclear energy was negative public perception. One of the advantages mentioned was that it is environmentally friendly and safe and that it is a good option for South Africa as we are rich in Uranium. I was somewhat shocked and here’s why.
Pebble beds are used as fuel for nuclear plants. These are made from uranium kernels about the size of a cricket ball and are coated with a graphite shell. Uranium is a radio active substance actively mined in South Africa, especially in the Rustenburg area. Once the energy from the uranium kernel is spent they are “safely” disposed of in containers on site. Once the nuclear plant is decommissioned the kernels will be stored underground. They are highly radioactive at the end of their useful life.
Thirty nuclear plants are being built world wide with 100 more planned.
The advantages of Nuclear energy is that it does not spew green house gases into the environment on a daily basis like coal does, therefore Nuclear energy is touted as a “clean energy.”
I find this thinking basically flawed and here is why
Firstly when looking at the environmental pollution aspect you have to take into consideration all the aspects of Nuclear energy from cradle to grave. Uranium has to be mined to feed the Nuclear Reactor. If you have been listening to the news in the last couple of months you would have heard of the uranium leak into the water table in the Rustenburg area that contaminated food being grown in this area. Mining is one of the worst polluters of the planet. You may want to check out www.fse.org.za
Secondly I don’t believe that we can put toxic substances into the ground for future generations to deal with. The earth is a closed system and what happens in one part of the system will in the end affect the whole system even if it is “buried” under the ground. It seems that for the nuclear lobbyists out of sight is out of mind.
Thirdly the nuclear proponents state that these reactors are 100% safe but we don’t know what natural disasters may happen in the future. I wonder what would happen should we have a major earth quake near a reactor. What would happen if we have an earth quake where the kernels have been stored underground? If this should happen, the fall out will be felt for thousands of years. Again, no matter where this happens if will affect the whole planet.
In an article entitled Energy by Dr Eureta Janse van Rensburg (The Enviropaedia – World Summit Edition) says
“A cleaner option is nuclear power. Some 5% of South Africa’s electricity is produced by the Koeberg nuclear plant near Cape Town. This plant uses radioactive uranium as fuel, and produces no air pollutants. However, releasing the energy of radioactive substances (which are similar to the material that atom bombs and nuclear weapons are made of) is risky. Some radioactive materials take tens of thousands of years to decay to safe levels. Accidents causing radiation leaks can turn large areas into wasteland and expose thousands of people to a high risk of cancer and genetic abnormalities over several generations.
A meltdown occurred at the Chernobyl plant in Russia in 1986. About 200,000 had to be permanently evacuated from the area; an estimated 10,000 miners and soldier died from exposure to radiation during the clean-up process.
Eskom is currently investigating developing a second nuclear power plant called a pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR) which is said to be based on safer, more efficient technology. But there is still no known way to de-activate high-level radioactive waste…..Earthlife Africa estimates that Koeberg has accumulated 1000 kilograms of plutonium – a substance so lethal that just five kilograms would be enough to kill every person in the world ”
Shortly after reading the pamphlet from the “eco magazine” I received an email from the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE) at www.cane.org.za They state:
“CANE sprung into existence last year when the inevitability of the government’s nuclear expansion plan was confirmed. More and more environmental groups and community organisations woke up to the fact that they are now facing a nuclear power station in their backyards or will be on a radioactive transportation route. With over 15 conventional nuclear reactors and 36 Pebble Bed Modular Reactors (PBMR) being planned for SA, few communities will not be affected.Moreover, the Pelindaba Complex which hosts the National Energy Corporation of SA (NECSA) where there is already a rather secretive nuclear history is also the home of the PBMR fuel factory and soon to be licenses nuclear waste smelter plants, a resurrected Uranium enrichment plant and ironically probably a coal-fired power station to generate the electricity needed for it all. This thus puts the entire PWV region at risk as the attached evacuation map shows”
|
| Diagram showing the evacuation plan for the Greater Johannesburg area |
Those of us living in and around Johannesburg know that Pelindaba is about 40 minutes drive near the Hartebeestport Dam. So guys, as per the evacuation map above we have between one and four hours should anything untoward happen at Pelindaba! Moreover if nuclear energy is so safe, I ask myself why do we have to have an evacuation map?
I received the following comment from Dudley Baylis of Cool Earth. www.coolearth.co.za
“Thus far, purely from a statistical perspective, 2 out of 439 operating plants have had serious failures – or roughly 0.5%
The nuclear lobby claims we need 20 times more nuclear reactors to avoid climate change impact caused by coal and other fossil fuels.
In other words, if this policy is followed, and our history is repeated (and there is absolutely no reason why it should not be – enhanced safety measures notwithstanding), we can expect another 40 nuclear power plants to fail – probably catastrophically – in the next 100 years. Most of these failures will probably be in “third world” countries because we do not have the training or support mechanisms to properly deal with any failure-chain. The last two caused a few hundred thousand deaths and untold more misery in knock-on effects. So perhaps we should understand the nature of the beast we play with. We have a tiger by the tail.
There is a very good reason why God (or whatever you believe created our living space) put the sun nearly 100 million km away. It’s a giant nuclear reactor, and here on Earth, we are not physiologically equipped to deal with close-encounter radiation.
Yet coal is potentially significantly worse from a climate change perspective – with unchecked use, we face Armageddon anyway….But if we covered a mere 5% of the earths land surface with solar collectors, we would easily be able to exceed the total projected generation capacity and energy production of all of the PROPOSED nuclear plants (20 times present day) and the existing ones – with no significant safety or long term side-effects.
The point of all of this is:
The nuclear debate is tricky and fraught with danger.
It has an entirely unproven safety record with fully 60% of scientists who study it not concurring on the way forward “
So it seems that we do have other alternatives that don’t seem to have been fully explored. These alternatives may be more costly initially but long term these costs even out. While nuclear energy may provide the answer to green house gases, the cost to the environment in terms of waste disposal are considerable (and irreversible) for the health of current and future generations. It is important to consider that pebble bed reactors have a limited life span of about 40 years.
Call me a skeptic but it seems money plays a major part in these kinds of issues and I wonder how much money is behind the promotion of nuclear energy.
I urge you to check out the websites above and to be informed about this debate. It is up to us to leave a habitable planet for future generations. If we don’t take action who will?
Sign a petition here http://www.cane.org.za/category/petitions/
Other websites about this issue.
http://www.eepublishers.co.za/view.php?sid=1204
http://davidrobertlewis.wordpress.com/tag/koeberg/
http://www.earthlife.org.za/topic.asp?TopicID=26&Topic=Nuclear%20Energy%20Costs%20the%20Earth
(The views expressed here are the views of Margie Donde and are in no way intended to represent any organisation. As always you are asked to make up your own mind on any issues discussed)