Cape Town – South Africa’s decision to move ahead with its nuclear procurement programme makes the subject of nuclear energy very topical, which is possibly why Fin24 has received such an impressive response on the subject.
Many Fin24 users responded to an opinion piece by Dr Kelvin Kemm, who expressed optimism around the possible sign-off of the environmental impact assessment at Thyspunt in the Eastern Cape.
Fin24's inbox was inundated with comments on nuclear energy. Click here to read all the comments.
Fin24 user Wihan Louw disagrees with Kemm’s assessment that the tsunami which hit the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan proved that nuclear power is safe.
“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,” he said.
Read his full critique: Don't be fooled by nuclear lobbyists
Fin24 user Martin Albert, who worked at Koeberg nuclear power station while it was being built and when it started operations, said he believed the nuclear procurement programme will be the “death of South Africa”.
The need to build nuclear power stations “is driven by an archaic need to be relevant and only enjoys the support of everybody involved in nuclear, be it a scientist, engineer, project manager, BEE beneficiary and tenderpreneur, as well as a government that is encouraging it for all the wrong reasons,” he said.
Read his full critique: Ex-Koeberg nuclear plant worker lashes out at SA plans
Fin24 user Sterrenberg Bester says the nuclear build programme may bring jobs to the Port Elizabeth region, but will be suicidal to the SA economy.
“Maybe SA needs a referendum on not only ZumaMustFall# but also NuclearMustFall# and EskomMustTransform once and for all to give the next generation a chance to create a better future for all,” he said.
Read his full critique: IPP entrepreneur slams nuclear plans
Fin24 user Judith Taylor (a member of EarthLife) questions why South Africans have been asked to approve the purchase of nuclear power plants for which no clear specifications exist.
“The cost of the mining and beneficiation of uranium is never factored into the cost of nuclear power,” she said. “If it were to be, nuclear power generated electricity would go out of sight compared with sustainable energy power producers.”
Read her full critique: Looking beyond nuclear energy
Fin24 user Dion Wilmans says some points made by Kemm about nuclear energy appear to be “well-orchestrated propaganda without the disclosure of the long-term impacts”.
Wilmans, who is involved in the successful independent power producer programme run by the Department of Energy, gave four points to ponder.
Read his full critique: Four issues of concern over nuclear energy
Moving to cost assumptions by energy analyst Ted Blom, who said that the nuclear programme will cost R250bn as opposed to R1trn, one Fin24 user came up with some very different figures.
Fin24 user Arnoud Madlener has made some interesting sums of his own, and arrived at a total closer to R2trn.
“The capital cost including decommissioning for 9 600 MW will rather be R 1.9trn (most likely to be higher) for the 9 600 MW nuclear installed capacity, although R0.7trn can be capitalised over the life of the station,” he concluded.
Read his full critique: Adding up nuclear costs reveals scary possibility
Kemm responded to the anti-nuclear community, who criticised his update on the process to recommend Thyspunt as the site to build a nuclear power station.
Read his response: Nuclear adviser responds to his critics
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.