Nuclear Energy ~ The 'Anti' Position

Author: Olivia Andrews ~ Earthlife Africa

www.enviropaedia.com

The nuclear industry wants a new lease of life in South Africa. Currently there is one nuclear power reactor, Koeberg, situated near Cape Town, which contributes about 6% to South Africa’s total energy supply. Low-level waste from Koeberg is dumped at Vaalputs in the Northern Cape; waste from the weapons programme is stored at Pelindaba, near Pretoria. Eskom plans to build a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), a version of a reactor that was abandoned overseas and has never been successfully commercialised. The demonstration plant will be built at Koeberg, and if this is successful at least another 10 reactors will be built around South Africa. Eskom plans to build, use and sell over 200 reactors to create a potential export business. This will mean more waste buried at Vaalputs and hundreds of trucks carrying radioactive materials on our roads.

What follows are 10 reasons why nuclear power is not a solution for our country.

1. Health impacts
There is no such thing as a ‘safe’ dose of radiation. There is a growing body of evidence that low doses may actually be more dangerous, as they may mutate cells more easily than high doses, which can kill the cell. There is no debate as to whether radiation kills, maims, causes mutations, is cumulative, causes leukaemia cancers and respiratory illness, and attacks the immune system (with children, pregnant women and the elderly the most vulnerable).

The only disagreement is about what is legally considered an allowable dose. Between 1940 and 1950 the American, British and Canadian scientists who developed the atomic bomb laid down the first ‘safe’ levels of radiation: 150mSv per annum. The ‘safe’ level of exposure has been continually adjusted downwards as more research into the dangers is done. By 1990 the annual acceptable level of exposure in South Africa was reduced to 20mSv for occupational exposure and 1mSv for the general public. (This limit is 10 times higher than the limit laid down by the European Committee on Radiation Risk.)

Even if all fossil-fuel-generated electricity was replaced with nuclear power, there would only be enough economically viable uranium to fuel reactors for three to four years. To run one reactor, 440 000 tons of rock need to be mined, yielding 33 tons of uranium. Uranium mining is responsible for the greatest proportion of healthrelated damages of nuclear power. There seems little doubt that communities living near nuclear plants are at risk. Before South Africa begins to build new reactors, epidemiological studies of communities around Koeberg, Vaalputs and Pelindaba need to be carried out. In the USA, the numbers of radiation induced illnesses dropped after some plants were closed down.

2. Waste
There is no responsible way to ‘dispose’ of radioactive waste and it remains the biggest problem of the nuclear industry worldwide, remaining dangerous for at least 240 000 years (equivalent to 10 000 generations). There is no plan in place for the long-term storage or any final disposal site for radioactive waste anywhere in the world. How, then, is the expansion of the nuclear industry going ahead without addressing the current problems of waste storage? In the USA, the costs for locating a suitable site for the storage of high-level waste are running at $8 billion and no solution has been found.

The proposed PBMR uses fuel in the form of balls made from uranium coated with graphite as opposed to the rods used in the present reactor at Koeberg. The reactor will create about 35 tons of radioactive waste per year, a much larger volume than other designs. Over the 40-year life span of one PBMR, 4.7 million balls will be used and will need to be disposed of.

Low-level nuclear-waste storage sites are built in rural areas far way from densely populated areas. Can it be justified to expose someone to risk because they are living in a rural area? At Vaalputs, there is a community living within 24 kilometres of the site. Nuclear waste is a responsibility for hundreds of thousands of years and it will be future generations who will bear the health and financial costs. The best solution is not to produce any in the first place.

3. Economics
The proposed PBMR has cost R2 billion for the development stage; the demonstration phase is expected to cost another R11.3 billion. This could rise to as much as R25 billion if one were to include decommissioning costs. It is the South African taxpayers and electricity consumers who will bear the costs. The demonstration phase will make a loss rather than aprofit. The cost of electricity will only be brought down to competitive levels once 32 reactors have been built – a very unlikely scenario, given that not a single order has been placed to date. The PBMR business plan is based around large economies of scale requiring many customers and reactors. Estimated costs of the demonstration plant increased fivefold from R2 billion in 1999 to R10 billion in 2004. Media reports now estimate the costs to be R14 billion.

Nuclear power is expensive electricity. All states in the USA with nuclear power charge, on average, 25% more for their electricity. The economics are speculative and costs are escalating.

The cost of nuclear power doesn’t stop once plant construction is completed. Nuclear plants need to be decommissioned after their (approximate) 40-year life span. Toxic spent fuel produced from nuclear reactors needs to be stored safely for thousands of years before it is harmless, which has enormous cost, health and social implications. Nuclear power takes money away from clean alternatives and soaks up funding that should be used to develop proven clean, renewable sources of energy – wind, water and solar energy – which are all suitable for bulk baseload industrial generation.

4. Climate change
Global climate change poses a serious crisis. In South Africa, 74% of energy comes from coal so finding cleaner energy sources is a big challenge. Nuclear industries are exploiting concerns over global warming by misrepresenting nuclear power as a carbon-free electricity source and global climate saviour. However, the entire fuel chain of nuclear energy is extremely energy intensive and dirty. The nuclear fuel cycle releases CO2 during mining, fuel production, transport, plant construction and decommissioning, as well as for waste management far into the future. Uranium enrichment is one of the most energy-intensive industrial operations and, as demand for uranium grows and lower-grade ores are used, so CO2 emissions are expected to rise. Some debated research even shows that nuclear power generates less energy than it uses in the entire fuel chain over its lifetime. Climate change may change the market for nuclear energy, but it will not make uneconomic technology economic. Promoting one environmental disaster to solve another catastrophe is illogical.

5. World Market
The PBMR business plan is based on large economies of scale and requires high volumes of export. Who is going to buy this technology? Internationally respected analysts have shown that the worldwide market for nuclear power grew at less than 1% per annum over the last 10 years. The market for Renewable Energy is growing in leaps and bounds, between 25% and 45% per annum. It is strange that such supposed cutting-edge technology as the PBMR is failing to attract foreign investment. Since Excelon and Areva have pulled out there have been no new investors. British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) is the only remaining investor and is in debt for £48 billion to the UK government for costly clean-up operations. The South African Industrial Development Corporation has diluted its shareholding from 25% to 12.5%, and Eskom is on record as saying that they, too, will be diluting their share in PBMR Pty Ltd, and wait to see if they wish to purchase.

6. Public input
Public money is being spent without any public accountability. The High Court found the Environmental Impact Assessment process to be fatally flawed when Earthlife Africa took the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to court. The submissions made by Earthlife and other appellants were not even looked at by the decision-maker. The PBMR is being substantially funded by public money, yet the economic feasibility study is not in the public domain. Why should tax payers be funding the project but not have a chance to comment on the feasibility report? Even the World Bank will no longer fund nuclear programmes of any kind.

7. Transporting radioactive materials
Just for the proposed 10 PBMRs (as opposed to the proposed 216 units) there will be approximately one vehicle carrying radioactive materials every second day and approximately seven carrying chemicals every working day for 40 years between Durban, Cape Town and Pelindaba. This could grow to nine radioactive and 145 chemical trucks every day at full production. The container carrying the enriched uranium would cause a catastrophic radioactive incident if it fell more than nine metres into water. The impact will last for generations. Enriched uranium will be transported as a fine black powder, which is both difficult to manage and has similar toxicity (besides radiation) to heavy metals.

8. Jobs
Renewable Energy can create up to 27 times more jobs than the proposed PBMR and requires less imported expertise. Eskom’s job estimates for the PBMR are based on achieving a substantial number of export sales – about 20 per year – and are highly speculative. However, a detailed examination of the world market shows that few nations are likely to order new nuclear plants. Currently, the only local content of the proposed reactor would be some steel tanks and construction work. Renewable Energy, such as wind, is already at about 60% local content, and increasing.

9. Renewable Energy (RE)
South Africa is rich in wind, solar and ocean RE resources. In the USA, wind is already cheaper than coal, especially when the health impacts are included. In addition to wind, there are many other RE options, including wave (a few kilometres of coastline could supply Cape Town), photovoltaic, solar thermal, bio-mass, microhydro, etc. A mix of these technologies can easily provide all of the energy requirements for South Africa. Studies have shown clear evidence that there are sufficient RE resources in South Africa to provide for 13% of electrical demand by 2020, and easily 70% or more by 2050. RE is clean, sustainable, efficient and safe. Energy Efficiency (EE) provides/releases more capacity for serving new customers while cutting overall costs. Estimates are that we could easily save up to 30% of current capacity (about 12 900 MW, about 100 PBMRs) and utilise it for development, be it for communities or for business. This will also allow us time to grow our local RE-manufacturing capabilities. South Africa’s short-term electricity needs cannot be fulfilled by the PBMR due to time delays – the first commercial unit will only be completed by 2014.

10. Nuclear weapons proliferation
Any extension of the nuclear industry increases risks of nuclear weapons proliferation, particularly when involving international movement of materials. Spent fuel can contain weapons-grade plutonium, which is simple to extract. The documentation provided by the proponents shows that all that would be needed would be a crushing device, and boiling it in nitric acid to retrieve the uranium. Enriched uranium is already being traded illegally. Furthermore, nuclear power stations and spent-fuel facilities are vulnerable to terrorist attack.

Conclusion
Immediate action is needed to address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector. Demand-side management, RE and energy-efficient technologies – not nuclear – are proven and viable solutions. Africa is not a dumping site for nuclear waste or a testing ground for unsafe nuclear technology. It is unjustifiable to use public funds to sponsor nuclear plants that are a threat to the environment and people. South Africa needs environmentally responsible development that will lead to an improvement in the quality of people’s lives and will lead to truly sustainable development – economically, socially and environmentally.