Publications
Partners
Cape Town – Fin24 user Wihan Louw disagrees with Dr Kelvin Kemm’s assessment that the tsunami which hit the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan proved that nuclear power is safe.
READ: Fin24 readers speak out against nuclear energy
READ: Nuclear adviser responds to his critics
Louw responds to Kemm:
The most shocking comment in your article was the fact that you claim Fukushima proved nuclear power is safe.
At least three workers suffered from radiation burns during the clean-up on March 25 2011 and a further 160 workers will have to be monitored for life. The United Nations report you cited concluded that the cancer risk for the exposed children would be higher than normal.
There is currently a 20km exclusion zone around the site, and over 100 000 people have been displaced and will probably never be able to return to their homes, or even to collect their belongings.
True, no private property was damaged, the buildings are all still there, but it is uninhabitable due to the radiation levels. Claiming that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was harmless and proved how safe nuclear energy is, is a gross insult to the thousands of people still suffering the aftermath and shows a degree of callousness.
It also seems you are trying to convey the impression that Koeberg is not located in an earthquake zone. Well, consider the earthquakes of 1809 and 1969.
Furthermore, you are throwing around some confusing facts about Germany. Germany is planning to reduce electricity consumption, yes, by becoming more energy efficient. It also plans to have 80% of electricity generation from renewable energy in 2050. So contrary to what you are insinuating, Germany will not stagnate. It will have to do a lot of new renewable energy installations to reach this target.
Furthermore, in 2050 60% of total energy consumption is planned to be renewable. Already 40 000 MW of PV are installed, that is four times the size of the planned nuclear power stations in South Africa. It should also be noted that solar power is two to three times more efficient in South Africa compared to Germany, i.e. you get two to three times as much energy generation per year out of every installed panel.
Wind energy currently accounts for about 12% of electrical energy generation in Germany, so I don't understand what your problem is?
Maybe you could also enlighten us as to the name of the "first new German coal plant" from "a couple of years ago". As to the second plant mentioned, Moorburg, there has been a power plant at that site since 1974, but they just built a new one. It is something that needs to be done sometimes in developed countries.
The claim that South Africa has a very competent nuclear industry is a bit arrogant, don't you think? "Jakkals prys sy eie stert" (Blowing your own trumpet). I just have to refer to what happened at Koeberg on Christmas Day 2005 to put some doubt on that claim.
As to your claim regarding renewable availability, you should please be more specific. You only get solar generation during daylight; the availability of this generated electricity could well be stretched into the night time by storing it. The same principle applies to wind generation. Therefore, research is currently concentrating on storing renewable energy.
As to your explanation about the electricity grid, you made a very valid argument, thank you. A decentralised generating grid is the way forward, so go for PV on your roof.
The cost of PV is also about one-tenth of the price of the planned nuclear stations in South Africa. Currently, you can get PV installed for less than €1/w for a complete system, while the nuclear is estimated at €10/w. And that is before running costs for nuclear fuel, spent fuel recycling, and decommissioning the plant at life cycle end.
Financing this folly will be up to the six million taxpayers in South Africa. In 2013, tax revenue was about R800bn. The current estimated cost for nuclear is $100bn (R1.5trn). Again with simple maths, take a look at how much tax you paid that year, and multiply it with 1.85. This is more or less the amount that you, the taxpayer, will have to pay extra over the next few years to finance nuclear.
So I can only appeal to my fellow South Africans, maybe you should take a look at Europe and rethink about where you are going. You have a big opportunity to change the way electricity is generated and move to a modern era, or start where Europe and North America were 50 years ago, and go through the same learning curve.
Please don't be fooled by nuclear lobbyists.
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.
