Anyone for a nuclear power station?

If there were any people gearing up for a debate on the pros and cons of nuclear energy, they would have been sorely disappointed. There was no debate to speak of as the audience of about 70 Grahamstown residents was not there to argue in favour of nuclear power.

The Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa, WESSA, advertised its February meeting promising a lecture and a discussion at Rhodes University (for Thursday last week). Gary Koekemoer, spokesperson of an organisation known as noPEnuke, delivered a serious lecture packed with facts and figures, but there were hardly any pros for nuclear energy and certainly no discussion.

The title of his lecture, “Is Nuclear-1 a good fit for SA? Separating fact from fiction”, left no doubt that the organisation believes that the construction of a nuclear power station at Thyspunt near Cape St Francis is a bad idea – a very bad idea. NoPEnuke is a member of the Thyspunt Alliance lobbying against the construction of a nuclear power station at Thuyspunt, and is part of a national coalition with the ominous name of TSUNAMI that is broadly opposed to nuclear power.

Koekemoer kept his arguments specific to the proposals for the Thyspunt power station. He tried not to criticise all aspects of nuclear power, even though he identified himself as an anti-nuclear activist. He said that noPEnuke was focussed on preventing the construction of a nuclear power station that could threaten life in Port Elizabeth.

He showed statistics of the probability of a nuclear accident in the foreseeable future and reminded the audience – as if they needed reminding– of the spectre of Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

He then produced a map showing how the prevailing winds blow almost directly from Cape St Francis to Port Elizabeth only 80km away. This means that if there were any kind of accident, emer- gency services would have roughly four hours to evacuate 1.1 million people from the Nelson Mandela Bay area, he said. Koekemoer said countries that had previously invested heavily in nuclear power were currently scaling back their commitments. He added that experts were raising questions about the Generation III reactors that the South African government was planning to buy.

He raised other questions about whether this country actually needs additional nuclear power; the affordability of purchasing so much expensive technology; the safety factor; is it sustainable; have due processes of good governance been followed and are there better alternatives?

Answering his own questions, Koekemoer argued that no, South Africa does not need additional power generation because nationally, demand for electricity has actually dropped in recent years. Furthermore, the Medupi and Kusile coal-fired power stations will be feeding much more electricity onto the national grid in the coming years.

He had serious questions about the process of choosing contractors and the exorbitant prices that will put South Africa deeply in debt for decades to come.

His final argument against nuclear power was the rich sources of alternative power in this country. He pointed out that Germany has made solar energy a viable alternative to nuclear power even though that country receives far less direct sunlight than South Africa. Therefore the noPEnuke group believes that solar power would be not only a far more cost effective solution to the power needs of this country, but it would also be considerably safer.

Koekemoer also pointed out that South Africa has strong, consistent winds in both coastal and interior regions making this country a prime candidate for large scale wind farms. Nobody in the audience appeared to be surprised by Keokemoer’s arguments and nobody seemed to be ready to contradict his advice.