Zuma told dead end nuclear not an option for SA
Fin24

Zuma told dead end nuclear not an option for SA

2015-02-13 09:46

Cape Town - In reaction to the State of the Nation address, Greenpeace Africa strongly condemned President Jacob Zuma's announcement in his State of the Nation address on Thursday evening that the government will continue to pursue "dead end nuclear investments at a time when South Africa requires immediate solutions and a new approach to electricity supply".

"The reality is that nuclear energy delivers far too little, far too late and at too high a cost. Nuclear projects take at least 15 years to build and it is clear from the President’s continued commitment to nuclear power that the current government does not actually care about the state of the nation," Greenpeace Africa said in a statement.

"Greenpeace urges the president to seriously rethink the government’s position on nuclear power - which would take at least 15 years to deliver - and to urgently prioritise renewable energy investments which can quickly take South Africa out of the current electricity crisis."

Greenpeace Africa said South Africa’s electricity security lies in a commitment to removing the barriers to renewable energy, which would enable ordinary South Africans to generate their own power and contribute to energy sufficiency for all.

"Greenpeace urges the government to step away from dodgy nuclear deals, and choose renewable energy opportunities instead," it said.

Comments
  • Dwaine van Vuuren - 2015-02-13 10:08

    Its very much clean until the first ANC cadre drops a bolt in a reactor. Tragic incompetence such as the Majuba silo collapse are at least isolated but a similar tragic event on a nuclear scale will be widespread and the effects felt for hundreds of years. There may not be much that goes wrong with nuclear but when it does go wrong it goes wrong big. Just ask the Japanese who thought nuclear was "very much clean". They had to evacuate entire cities and declare them no go zones for decades and now have to import fish as their seas are polluted for decades. I am not against nuclear but I am against the ANC led government going nuclear on a large scale as standards will inevitably drop to more "bolt dropping" and "scaffolding touching" and generations after us will pay the price.

      Craig King - 2015-02-13 11:24

      When you resort to hyperbole and absolute lies you damage your case.

      Richard Cypher - 2015-02-13 12:17

      "Just ask the Japanese who thought nuclear was "very much clean". They had to evacuate entire cities and declare them no go zones for decades " References please. FYI, Chernobyl is not in Japan.

      Jaycee Bezuidenhout - 2015-02-13 12:56

      @Richard.. Yes we all know that Chernobyl isn't in Japan but Japan had nuclear problems before.. Do you remember the recent problems also when the earth quake and Tsunamis belted the Japanese coast line? They again had to evacuate as some nuclear stations threatened overheat and blow up.. Retarded much ?

      Paul Michael Mitchell - 2015-02-13 12:59

      LOL, Richard. He isn't talking about Chernobyl, he is talking about Fukishima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Shows how much you know. Don't you watch the news?

      fransvisserdsb - 2015-02-13 13:17

      One of the major concerns is one of the terms of the Russian nuclear deal, where they have no liability if anything goes wrong...

      Richard Cypher - 2015-02-13 14:37

      And declare them no-go zones for decades? Once again, references please. Which entire cities were evacuated and declared no-go zones for decades? You do know that none of the deaths related to Fukishima were radiation related? All attributable to earthquake, tsunami or living conditions in the temporary housing areas.

  • Lynn Hugo - 2015-02-13 10:09

    " Communism is Soviet Power and the electrification of the whole country " - LENIN, Vlad a.k.a.'John' " Nkandlaism is Cronyism, Incompetence, Polygamy and the de-electrification of the whole country " - KING, Cassius

  • RDynasty LaFamilia - 2015-02-13 10:12

    Urging bo zuma to rethink is like tryin to baptise a cat =;, the dude has absolute zero care for just an ordinary south African

      William MacFarlane - 2015-02-13 10:54

      The criminal enterprise known as the cANCer party, is only interested in how it can make money . It does not care or think beyond the present .

  • Steven Francisco - 2015-02-13 10:13

    France Modise when the nuclear plant reaches the end of its lifespan what happens to all the materials in the plant? What about water temperature as nuclear plants require vast amounts of water heating the surrounding water up to such a degree that it changes the ecosystem around it. What about the land where the plant is actually built on. Compare that to solar or hydro electricity and maybe next time you will have some something intelligent to say instead of just saying something for the sake of it.

      Paul Lucio - 2015-02-13 10:22

      we have Koeberg for decades and the surrounding eco system seems to be fine. No reports of ecological damange in that area were released unless you have some info about that.

      William MacFarlane - 2015-02-13 10:59

      @paul . Wake up and smell the roses , the dropped bolt incident ,the latest one concerning scaffolding . On the question of water for the reactor , I'm assuming ( not a nuclear expert ) that it needs to be clean water ,free of any contaminants . If so ,where are we going to get clean water from ? Gauteng is looking at a major problem with acid water from the mines .

      Chris Nash - 2015-02-13 11:50

      Steven Francisco - When a nuclear plant reaches the end of its life, the radioactive part of the plant remains where it is, within the nuclear containment area. There is nowhere else for it to go & that is the safest place for it. The balance of plant can be removed, it doesn't matter, but no way will Koeberg ever be returned to its original state. As for the ecosystem around it, that has already been affected by the thirty years of operation, but only within the bounds of the intensive environmental study that was performed before the site was adopted. It will change again when the station stops operating, but this effect was also studied. Similarly, to build a hydro plant you have to build a dam, and if the plant stops operating you would not want to remove the dam wall & return the region to its original state, would you.

      Chris Nash - 2015-02-13 12:06

      @ William MacFarlane - both the dropped bolt & the scaffold incident happened in the "non-nuclear" area of the power station. The dropped bolt was in the generator & the scaffold incident in the substation, both of which are far from the nuclear containment. Both could just as easily happened in a conventional power station with the same result. The fact that it was Koeberg has no bearing on the issue. Yes, a nuc of this type requires lots of cooling water which is why they are generally situated on the coast. A certain amount of water is de-salinated for use in the steam generator, but the "cooling" as such is on the outer areas & sea water is fine. A nuc basically does far less contaminating than a mine or a conventional power station - providing you dont have any severe nuclear incidences. From this aspect I would have no fear from a French or American plant, but the Russian ones scare me silly.

      Johan D du Toit - 2015-02-15 06:07

      William MacFarlane- You guys must just realize that the nuclear part of the plant is a closed/sealed plant and is separate from the steam/power generating section! At no stage the nuclear material gets into contact with the water/steam that is used for generating electricity or the cooling water, only the heat from the reaction is used! That said, any mishap within the confines of the plant is seen as an accident, even the bolt that was supposedly dropped in the turbine as well as the scaffolding although it was not in confines of the reactor ! No danger of leaking!

  • Ceba Mlandu - 2015-02-13 10:20

    fracking is the solution.

      Gluteus Maximus - 2015-02-13 10:34

      That gas will be sold to us at international dollar prices, the man in the street will not benefit. Rather it stay in the ground.

      Myrti Viridis - 2015-02-13 11:03

      With so much gas coming out of your and your president's openings we don't even have to frack. We should just drill there and Africa's problems will be solved.

      Marius Kritzinger - 2015-02-13 20:24

      You dont know what you are talking about. Do you know the whole process and how it affects everything? Please contribute elsewhere if you know nothing.

      Johan D du Toit - 2015-02-15 06:12

      Ceba Mlandu- No to fracking! It sounds as if you do not know about the pollution it causes or you are not worried about the effects of fracking!

  • melvyn.haai.1 - 2015-02-13 10:21

    even if they get nuclear energy the same incompetent fools that is running eskom will probably be running that as well.so what difference does it make what kind of energy we get except with nuclear they will blow the half of S A moer toe. and who is willing to bet me that with all that money eskom is getting soon all the managers at eskom will get biiiiggg bonusses

  • coenraad.vaneeden.5 - 2015-02-13 10:22

    Civil war on us , this the beginning off he end

      Jaapie Bopape - 2015-02-13 14:37

      I see this as a plausible outcome, or there will be an assassination.

  • Laurence Weyers - 2015-02-13 10:22

    France (very colonial settler type first name) , we have a nuclear power station that barely runs, only at 50% output at the moment due to deferred maintenance, and you want more? What about wind turbines? In the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany etc ( yes my ancestors domain) almost 50% of their energy is from renewable resources. We have an abundance of electro magnetic radiation ( confused you didn't I) and wind in this country. Why not use it? Why not build additional damn walls in front of existing dams and use them for hydroelectric generation? additional dam wall with power power generating capacity would only take 6 years to build. If we built 6 damn walls by ourselves ( yes we do have the skills and manpower) by my estimation that would require between 60 000 to 80 000 people to be employed for at least 8 years. If the French, Russians and Chinese build nuclear reactors here, they only use our labourers. They bring their own skilled engineers, technicians and artisans with them.

      Paul Lucio - 2015-02-13 10:25

      South Africa is still a medium sized developing country and cannot be copared to advanced daveloped countries like Germany or France.

      Craig King - 2015-02-13 11:26

      There is no deferred maintenance. The work on Koeberg is mandated by international rules and regulations and monitored by international agencies. You don't help your argument by lying, ever.

      Myrti Viridis - 2015-02-13 13:19

      Oh, and Africa abides SO well with international rules and regulations! You really don't help your argument by being naive (ignorant?), ever.

      Johan D du Toit - 2015-02-15 06:14

      Paul Lucio- "South Africa is still a medium sized developing country and cannot be copared to advanced daveloped countries like Germany or France." Yes, it started in 1994!

  • Jaco Du Plessis - 2015-02-13 10:26

    They can't run and maintain a coal plant, things are constantly collapsing and breaking down. It makes me very uncomfortable that these people want to run a nuclear plant.

  • Celeste Kong - 2015-02-13 10:26

    They should chat to Germany about solar power! They generate more than ten times the electricity that SA needs, just with solar power. And Germany has nowhere near as much sunlight as we do. And all that at a fraction of what we pay now for electricity.

      Jaycee Bezuidenhout - 2015-02-13 10:33

      Please try and explain that to someone that drops the national IQ level by 2% every time he opens his mouth.. The only reason he is opting for nuclear energy is to receive cash payments in a brown envelope and a Swiss bank account loaded with American dollars

  • Jaycee Bezuidenhout - 2015-02-13 10:36

    How on earth would they maintain nuclear plants if they can't even maintain common anthracite energy plants? Nuclear radio active plants are not for the faint hearted, unqualified cadre employment.. That is surely heading for a national disaster.

  • Gerald Raath - 2015-02-13 10:42

    Of course nuclear power is the best way forward for SA. Who's stupid enough to believe we could've done without Koeberg? GreenIdiots need to understand we're a small African country with limited real other options

      Myrti Viridis - 2015-02-13 12:56

      This country's only limitation is in the area of common sense. Your posts are glaring examples that common sense is not all that common. Standard idiots like yourself should rather be quiet. We are in all this trouble because too many standard idiots are in charge of important decisions.

      Jonathan Woods - 2015-02-13 21:25

      As Myrti says Gerald try using your obviously limited brain. We have a multitude of other options, but most of them don't favour the big wigs pockets or the big corporates. The days of large scale power production units miles away from where the energy is actually required are near the end of the life. And much like the global spread of the internet and use of smaller millions of smaller servers, I predict that global energy will go a very similar route. from necessity. Unfortunately we have to deal with people who are decades behind the rest of the world in their thinking and are at the same time easy targets for the unscrupulous wanting to get rid off and find ignorant buyers for their outdated technology !

  • Made Inthe South - 2015-02-13 10:45

    There was no open tender process. Zuma went to see Putin alone and in secret recently,without any witnesses present. Everything points to one of the biggest bribe jobs that has happened in the history of bribes. A Trillion rand is R1000 000 000 000.A R Million times a Million. So if Zuma only negotiated a 1% bribe,his bribe will be R10 Billion.My maths correct? This can not stand. We can not afford to pay up front.So the Russians will build.Then they will be payed out of the electricity sold to consumers. Each and every bill payer will be affected. It is a new e-tolls. E-lectric

  • William MacFarlane - 2015-02-13 10:48

    When are these liberal westerners going to realise the present government does not give a toss about anything but themselves . Living in and outside south africa ,u become amazed at the complete lack of understanding of the south african situation. The western media very rarely prints or even comments on south africa (crime is the exception ) .

      Craig King - 2015-02-13 15:25

      Therefore we shouldn't have electricity? Is that your point?

  • sam.e.scapes - 2015-02-13 10:52

    We all know this, and we all know it's not going to help us with our current power problem, yet through pure selfishness he pushes this agenda for his own self enrichment not giving a thought to the good of the country as a whole.

  • Prudence @Pru2014 - 2015-02-13 10:55

    The EFF believed that the ANC government was abusing their powers. " so do I. Whatever No1 says... is tainted. How can No.1 talk about fighting corruption? or blaming apartheid for Eskom's woes.

  • Charl Wessels - 2015-02-13 11:12

    ANC are breaking the coal power stations. What will happen when they break nuclear power stations? They have already dropped a bolt in the Koeberg reactor. Eish.

  • Mukanya - 2015-02-13 11:16

    Green peace have "personal issues" with nuclear energy. Kusile and Madupi coal fired power stations are actually match worse projects but Green peace never voiced concern. Yes, nuclear will have a long lead time just as the other power stations I mentioned because it is South Africa.

  • Laurence Weyers - 2015-02-13 11:19

    At least when the nuclear power stations do breakdown, we will glow in the dark

  • Drick Zaal - 2015-02-13 11:33

    Greenpeace why don't you supply posters, banners and sweaters to the SA'n population. I would buy a would buy a Greenpeace if its not to expensive. Then the concern citizens can march against this Nuclear crazy Government.

  • Drick Zaal - 2015-02-13 11:37

    Sorry I interruption.

  • Maven Punk - 2015-02-13 11:47

    Stop spreading lies Greenpiece

      Russel Hatfield - 2015-02-13 12:09

      Punk! Appropriate name!

      Myrti Viridis - 2015-02-13 13:07

      A real punk "piece" of a comment.

  • Antony Sithole - 2015-02-13 11:49

    nuclear energy is the way to go..this propaganda of denouncing nuclear energy is bad...In as much as you think African are not capable development is inevitable and we have to embrace that in time we should start investing in nuclear energy...its more powerful and can solve the energy crisis...America and Europe have nuclear energy ..why cant South Africa have it...South Africa has capable people who are well educated..I see in the next 25-50 Africa embracing the capabilities of managing nuclear energy...

      Adams Apple - 2015-02-13 12:15

      that would be fine but given their track record with eskom i see disaster...you are stupid if u cant see the facts

      Jaapie Bopape - 2015-02-13 14:40

      With our current education system denying children of school books, I wonder who will be educated enough to run the plants?

      Marius Kritzinger - 2015-02-13 20:17

      Just by reading your comment I grew an extra testical. You clearly have no idea what happens when nuclear containment fails. Our people are capable yes, but we traditionally employ by colour and not by capability. We will regret it for hundreds of years if these fools build nuclear plants in South Africa.

      Sino Msane - 2015-02-14 13:02

      Hydro thermal may also be another revenue to explore with unlimited uninterrupted power supply. But also nuclear is not such a bad idea i will support this idea

  • Lawrence Robert Atkinson - 2015-02-13 11:53

    I believe that in 15 to 20 years clean power generation (and the proposed R1 trillion nuclear power stations can never be called clean) will be so advanced with new technology that these power stations will be outdated. More glowing white elephants. Just be careful where you put your scaffolding and bolt substances.

  • Russel Hatfield - 2015-02-13 12:07

    Dead end government too!

  • ivan.kraemer - 2015-02-13 12:09

    Zuma won't listen to reason. He and his corrupt cronies have already planned to line their pockets on this deal.

  • André Botes - 2015-02-13 12:52

    Wave energy and ocean currents. Develop the technology to generate power from that and problem solved.

  • Hanri Potgieter - 2015-02-13 15:22

    Being a "small African country" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Wat the Green does not seem to understand is that renewables of the same capacity will be even more expensive and the technologies are still not mature. Go and look at the area that you need for a solar power plant that will have an output equal to Koeberg and the impact thát will have on the environment...

  • Martin Tait - 2015-02-15 06:40

    Standard 3 bush education, counting 10 goats

  • pages:
  • 1