The national electricity utility Eskom is far ahead with its plans to build a so-called Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (a High Temperature Reactor) in the region of Oyster Bay. Although there has been quite some domestic opposition the story hasn't been spread around internationally enough yet.
(512.5036) WISE Amsterdam - There have been many changes in policy since South Africa's first democratic elections in 1994. This is reflected in a "White Paper for an Energy Policy" which is being recognized as progressive by the major environmental groups around the country. The White Paper for instance opens the way for non-utility generation in South Africa. Furthermore, the government plans to include environmental costs into the pricing structure. This all together in principal opens routes to a real sustainable energy-future. At the moment Eskom is the national utility, generating over 80% of the country's electricity, mainly from coal-based generators and the two Koeberg nuclear reactors.
Eskom directly distributes 60% of all electricity and is the only licensed transmitter of electricity. The government is in the process of breaking Eskom into five regional distributors and has the stated intention of separating Eskom into generation and transmission companies. South Africa has seen a steadily growing energy demand in the last six years mainly caused by the government's policy of electrification of households. On the other hand, Eskom's significant excess capacity since 1990 illustrates the severity of economic conditions in South Africa.
All this does not seem to influence the aspirations of the nuclear industry. It is working hard to expand its share of the energy market. More than R200 million (US$32 million) have already been spent and more is being allocated to the development of a new generation of reactors for South Africa. Despite the failure of projects to introduce similar technology in the US, UK and Germany (see WISE News Communique 481.4774: New Generations: The High Temperature Reactor), these proposed PBMRs (or better known as HTRs) are being promoted as a new and local development.
Eskom PBMRs project is based on a technology which has been abandoned in several countries following 30 years of research. The motivation is not to provide power for South Africa at this stage but to market the technology to developing countries. At least this is an honest statement: there has been a huge fall in demand as a result of the international and local economic slump. "In the event that the current low growth in demand continues, Eskom will have to consider additional measures to deal with the overcapacity," Eskom's Allan Morgan stated late April. Analysts now expect that Eskom would need new capacity by 2009 as opposed to an earlier estimate of 2005. In the timetable connected to the PBMR program Eskom's claims that it wants the PBMRs to be online in 2003.
Although there is no evidence at all that there will be any country willing to buy the PBMR from South Africa, the Eskom anticipates in its calculations of possible benefits of the program that 10 reactors would be build for national use and 20 reactors would be sold in the years after. Very recently, however, the Eskom's spokesman, Peter Adams, denied that there would be 10 built for domestic use. Now it is said that only one demonstration model is to be built. It would be good to question Eskom's calculations on the financial benefits....
Unfortunately the situation is quite bad in the sense that the plan has moved forward fast: at the moment the Environmental Impact Assessment is being undertaken for three proposed sites. Eskom's choice for Thyspunt, near Oyster Bay, has been well-known for years: In December 1997, the Eskom-sponsored Kouga Coast Sub-Regional Structure Plan was published. This plan identifies four "imperatives", one of which is to "maintain the viability of Thyspunt as a possible future nuclear power production site". Objections against this Structure Plan were first dismissed as irrelevant because "Eskom was not at this stage proposing to build a plant". But soon it was made clear that Eskom was for sure looking at this site for the PBMR project. In discussions with the Kouga Nuclear Concern Group (KNCG), the Eskom Energy Management manager, Brian Statham, made very clear that they would like to start construction as soon as possible to "remain competitive in the international arena". This led to the decision of the KNCG that it was time to form a larger, more representative body to oppose any nuclear plant at Thyspunt. The Kouga Anti-Nuclear Group (KANG) was formed in February 1999. Members include various organizations, local municipalities and organizations of rate-payers.
One of the biggest problems is that there has been no Environmental Impact Assessment for the project itself; only the identified sites have been assessed for their specific characteristics. The plans for building new reactors have not at all been part of discussions in the run-up for the general elections on June 2. Maybe some international pressure could change the fact that NGOs in South Africa are working too much isolated on this issue. For sure the country itself does not need new capacity, nuclear or not. And the prospectives for selling the PBMR technology is highly over-estimated, leaving Eskom's money being spent in a gamble on technology that is known to be unsustainable and environmentally damaging.
Of course there is the interest of the international nuclear industry, very hard trying to find a country willing to take the risk of new nuclear technology. As they cannot sell the idea in their own region, they now go far abroad; Asea Brown Boveri and Siemens have concluded a licensing and cooperation agreement via their joint venture company, Frankfurt-based HTR GmbH Gesellschaft für Hochtemperaturreaktoren, with Eskom for the transfer of high-temperature reactor technology. ABB and Siemens each have a 50% stake in HTR GmbH, founded in 1988. With this licensing agreement Eskom gains non-exclusive rights for the use of HTR knowhow in the construction of HTRs and in the fabrication and sale of HTR fuel. Seems there is some work for European activists as well..
As the main South African campaign organization, Earthlife, put it in its press release for the action they had on Earth Day, April 22: "Our money should be invested in ways that benefit the most people, pursuing the strategy most appropiate for their needs. Such a stragey would have to include substantial development of renewable energy sources, primarily solar, wind, wave and biomass."
Support the South African NGOs by sending statements opposing the PBMR project to the following people:
Government of South Africa
President Thabo Mbeki
email: president@anc.org.za
Fax: +27-12-323 2573
Duma Nkosi, Chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Mineral and Energy
Affairs,
Fax: +27-21-403 2911
Penuell Maduna, Director-General, Mineral and Energy Affairs
Fax: +27-12-322 8699
Mrs. Martha Olckers, Chairperson, Environmental Affairs Committee, Cape Town Metro Council
Fax: +27-21-483 4584
Eskom:
Mr. Brian Statham
email: brian.statham@eskom.co.za
Fax: +27-11-800 2826
Siemens KWU
Wolfgang Breyer
Fax: +49-9131-18 7039
Asea Brown Boveri
Wolfgang Eberhardt
Fax: +49-621-4381 367
And cheer up the South African environmental movement by sending letters of support.
Sources:
- "The Thyspunt nuclear site grounds for objection"
- Business Day, 29 April 1999
- Press release Earthlife, 22 April 1999
- Joint Press release from ABB and Siemens, 10 May 1999
- Arguments on the Construction of PBMR reactors in South Africa, paper by Steven Thomas, Energy Policy Programme of SPRU, University of Sussex, February 1999
- E-mail-communication with Earthlife activists, May 1999
- Renewable Energy World, May 1999
Contact: Earthlife Africa, PO Box 11383, Johannesburg, 2000, South Africa
E-mail: activist2@earthlife.org.za
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |