Publications
Partners
Cape Town - If SA is going to embark on an enormous project like nuclear, it must first try to get an idea about a “ball-park” figure to make sure that it is worthwhile, says a Fin24 user.
Fin24 user Arnoud Madlener writes:
I am neither anti, nor pro-nuclear. My personal major concern is the economic affordability for South Africa. This concern is based on all kinds of capital costs flying around, of which the latest figure is as low as R250bn mentioned in The City Press for 9 600 MWe installed.
This made me write my first response about this issue (the estimated cost about the nuclear project), because, I believe, if one wants to embark on an enormous project like this one, one must first try to get an idea about a “ball-park” figure to make sure that it is worthwhile the effort before one embarks on a tendering process.
The City Press figure is obviously a fallacy, because the overnight construction costs alone might be five times higher or more. Furthermore, I cannot recall having seen any assumptions from the government itself.
With reference to the below Fin24 article, I take exception to Dr Kelvin Kemm’s viewpoint.
READ: Nuclear adviser respond to his critics
His statement such as, “As far as I recall, nobody flew with Mary Poppins, she did it all by herself. It seems that the rest of the folks preferred to have the assurance of solid reality under their feet”, puts all these people in the category of dreamers and fantasisers.
Additionally, he seems to have found “some anti-nuclear people that seem disappointed to hear that no people died or were injured from nuclear radiation at Fukushima”. They even “seemed visibly upset when told that Fukushima was not a nuclear disaster”.
It seems unlikely to me, in my opinion, that there actually are such people, but in the event that he has actually met them, there will always be a small number of unstable people in the world, but they are by no means a representative sample, and should therefore never be used to try to back up his pro-nuclear position.
I, firmly believe that a representative sample of people that are concerned about this nuclear project have genuine concerns about issues such as (nuclear) safety, economics, etc are stable.
His article is therefore paternalistic, and has in my opinion a too strong a pro-nuclear bias, although, everybody is allowed an opinion. My concern is that he is a nuclear physicist and CEO of the Pretoria based nuclear project management company, Nuclear Africa, and might therefore have self-interest in the government’s nuclear program. His opinion is therefore, an opinion only, and one should prevent this opinion becoming what is called in psychology “groupthink” (I know it all, leave it up to me) which often results in the wrong decisions.
Some other more specific comments:
Dr Kemm stated that “the Fukushima reactors did absolutely nothing to the people or property of the area. Repeat absolutely nothing”. From the article from Kemm I get the impression that he tries to belittle the Fukusima disaster. I, in this regard would like to highlight a couple of issues.
Nuclear safety
The Fukushima Medical University (FMU) screening campaign showed a “massive increase in thyroid cancer". Nevertheless, other scientists do not agree with the accuracy of this study. However, this is not the platform to debate the relevance of these studies; nevertheless it is “food for thought”.
A large number of people have been displaced for safety reasons and his statement that it did absolutely nothing to the people or property of the area is therefore a (fantasy) of himself. As far as the seriousness of the Fukushima accident is concerned, I would like to mention that the severity of the nuclear event (total release) at Fukushima Daiichi has been rated 7 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES), which is the highest level and the same as the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident. His statement “absolutely nothing” seems to me an absolute yoke.
In South Africa, a nuclear plant’s operating licence is based on the probabilities of nuclear accidents called the probabilistic safety (risk) assessment (PSA). This assessment considers the “conceivable” accidents. These conceivable accidents are taken from the USA nuclear regulatory commission (NRC). The plant’s perceived safety is therefore influenced by what is conceived to be probable. There might therefore be accidents which have not been conceived by the engineers and/scientist involved in the construction of the plant. The Fukushima accident was such an accident.
This accident was never conceived in Japan and the world in general. This accident therefore suddenly became part of a conceivable nuclear accident, and led to (expensive) upgrades of nuclear reactors in the (Western) world, including Koeberg. The point I want to make is that nuclear might not be as safe as is perceived, and concerned stakeholders should not be swept aside by the article of Dr Kemm. The stakeholders concerns must always be considered.
Economics
Dr Kemm states “A nuclear plant costs more to build initially, but then costs become less to run later. Overall the consumer wins. That is why we are building more nuclear. That is good, sound planning for the economy”. I, believe this statement is an insult to the intelligence of the people that are genuinely concerned about affordability.
If you go to the bank and you need money to finance your business, the bank wants to make sure your get your figures right, and understand your repayment schedule, and the risk that money will not be paid back. We have now a situation of large variance in capital costs, and a bleak outlook of South Africa’s economic future. Without showing figures such a statement is useless. This type of talk, if taken over by government, has the potential to make South Africa bankrupt.
I have made an effort to write this commentary, in order to make my contribution to the nuclear debate. This debate is very important for South Africa, because of the enormity of this project. Its size has the potential to bankrupt the South African economy and/or ensure that we become economically enslaved, to whoever will provide South Africa with the necessary resources to initiate this enormous project. It is not pro –nor anti-nuclear.
The nuclear debate must be based on figures and facts, the acceptance or rejection of the associated risks, the viable alternatives (technologies) and considering the state of the SA economy. If you want a Mercedes-Benz, but you can’t afford it, even if you know that in the long run it might be more economical, you might have to scale your demands down to a KIA (nothing wrong with a KIA) to prevent bankruptcy.
I don’t have the “warm feeling” that the current government is on top of all of this, after seeing the information available in the press, and specifically the recent maneuvering within the finance ministry. Furthermore, decisions made because of self-interest must be prevented at all costs, because this is partly to blame for South Africa’s current economic problems. In this regard, I would like to refer to the book “How Long Will South Africa Survive” from RW Johnson, which I recommend to read, at least from chapter 8 "The View of the IMF" (about South African economy).
ADD YOUR VOICE: Send your views now.
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on Fin24 have been independently written by members of the Fin24 community. The views of users published on Fin24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent those of Fin24.
