[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"South Africa looks to next-generation nuclear power"
RADSAFER's may be interested in the attached story from the "Christian
Science Monitor."
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Headline: South Africa looks to next-generation nuclear power
Byline: Nicole Itano Special to The Christian Science Monitor
Date: 09/23/2003
(DUYNEFONTEIN, SOUTH AFRICA)On a sandy shore whipped by fierce winds and
punishing waves, sits
Africa's only nuclear power plant. The two reactors here at Koeberg,
which came online in the last days of apartheid, pump out 6.5 percent
of South Africa's electricity and light most of Cape Town, 12 miles
down the coast.
This could become ground zero of a revolution in the way Africa - and
the world - are powered.
South Africa's state energy provider, Eskom, is leading a $1 billion
project to develop a new technology that it says will give nuclear
power new life, both here and abroad. Eskom plans to build the world's
first commercial pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR), which replaces
traditional uranium rods with fist-sized balls containing tiny
particles of uranium surrounded by graphite and silicon carbide. The
design of such a reactor, proponents say, would make meltdown
impossible.
But while environmentalists see the plant as a relic of a previous
generation's flirtation with a dangerous source of energy, developers
say that in an era of global warming and spiking energy needs,
next-generation nuclear power is the world's best hope.
"Nuclear power is clean from an emissions point of view," says Carin de
Villiers, a spokeswoman for Eskom. "It's not a case of having no impact
on the environment. That's not possible. I think it's a case of doing
what you can to minimize that impact."
For South Africa, the appeal of nuclear power is twofold. First, the
country itself is experiencing a sharp increase in demand, fueled by
industrial growth and a program to bring electricity to formerly
underserved communities. In 1993, only about 30 percent of South
Africans had access to power; today that figure is above 60 percent and
growing.
Sustainable energy like wind and hydroelectricity can meet some of that
need, but Eskom says such methods are limited. And coal, which provides
90 percent of South Africa's electricity needs, is highly polluting.
But South Africa's vision for PBMR extends far beyond its own borders.
Ultimately, it plans to export the technology and hopes to build 10 to
20 such plants around the world each year, creating an industry that
would employ 57,000 people and bring important investment here.
"Ten years ago, when Eskom started investigating this technology,
nuclear [power] was not the flavor of the month," says Tom Ferreira,
director of communications for Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, a company
created by Eskom and international investors to develop the technology.
"But there are 30 new nuclear reactors being built at the moment
[worldwide] and there is certainly a trend toward nuclear that did not
exist 10, 15 years ago."
Germany and China have both produced small experimental pebble-bed
reactors, but South Africa's would be the first and largest commercial
example of the technology. In pebble-bed reactors, each tiny grain of
uranium essentially has its own protective casing able to withstand
extreme heat. Proponents say this should silence meltdown concerns.
They also say that pebble-bed reactors produce much less waste than
traditional ones.
South Africa is gambling that countries that are already investing in
new nuclear facilities, particularly in Asia, will start building
pebble-bed reactors once the technology is proven - in seven to 10
years, if all goes according to plan.
Whatever the potential benefits, however, critics say the project has
been a big financial gamble for a country struggling to provide basic
services to its people. (Developers say the project will break even
only after 30 plants are built.)
In June, an environmental- impact assessment gave Eskom the go-ahead,
but last week environmental groups filed papers to challenge that
decision in court. The Cape Town city government has also put its
weight behind the opposition, as have civic groups.
"Any type of nuclear energy is obviously, for a whole range of reasons,
not good," says Liz McDaid, a spokeswoman for the South African
environmental group Earthlife. "But this particular one is very, very
expensive and untested, and we think that it has all the problems of
old nuclear technology, and that any claims to be better and brighter
are only on paper."
Opponents say they don't want such a new technology tested so close to
a major urban population. They say that even if it's safer - which they
contest - there's still the problem of nuclear waste, which is
currently stored on site or buried in a desolate area in the country's
northwest. Ms. McDaid and others say that South Africa should invest in
developing renewable energy sources like tidal, wind, and
hydroelectricity.
(c) Copyright 2003 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
Click here to email this story to a friend:
http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/send-story?2003/0923/p07s01-woaf.txt
The Christian Science Monitor-- an independent daily newspaper providing
context and clarity on national and international news, peoples and
cultures, and social trends. Online at http://www.csmonitor.com
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/