It is high time to check nuclear reality

AN ILL-INFORMED opinion. Having spent some 30 years studying the nuclear industry in some depth, it comes as a surprise to read that only a degree in nuclear science allows anyone the right to comment on the nuclear industry. (Kelvin Kemm: “Nuclear energy misunderstood by vast majority”, Business Report, July 14). If this assertion is scientifically accurate (which I doubt), then he has no business commenting on psychological and sociological matters either.

Significantly, however (and with no qualifications in media studies), the former Armscor employee and nuclear apologist, alludes to the Memorandum of Understanding with the Russian nuclear company, Rosatom, which provides for “public awareness and public understanding of nuclear energy”.

Without a shred of scientific evidence, Kemm alleges that: “People around the world are woefully misguided about nuclear science and nuclear reactor operations” and that “the mere mention of the word ‘nuclear’ can spook the public to an amazing degree”. One can’t help wondering if this ill-considered “opinion piece” is not another one of the salvos in a war of public disinformation that attempts to distort the “Nuclear-1” process.

Kemm brings out that old 1980s Koeberg chestnut of “long lines of distribution from the coal-fields to the Cape” as a justification for the coastal nuclear build. Yet everyone knows that the bulk of mining and mineral processing plants are in the north of the country, so the bulk of future coastal electricity (more than 60 percent) will be exported north along the same distribution lines.

Kemm states that: “Current calculations done by (lecturer Dawid Serfontein) of the North-West University show that nuclear should actually come out cheaper than coal. It is far better to believe the opinions of the team of local design engineers than those of an anti-nuclear activist in the UK.” Given the close involvement among Kemm and these same engineers with the ill-fated R10 billion to R14 billion Pebble Bed Modular Reactor catastrophe (itself a failed Armscor nuclear submarine reactor project involving the usual gang of suspects), can we believe anything they say ever again?

The costs of R1.2 trillion for the fullscale nuclear build come not only from some foreign anti-nuclear activist, but from the Industrial Policy Action Plan-2 published by our very own Department of Trade and Industry. Until such time as the government and the nuclear industry “specialists” and advisers give us a concrete, testable figure for the nuclear build, we will remain sceptical as to the true costs, especially when they require massive increases in electricity prices to be exported as loan repayments to Russia (or some other foreign country) over 30 years or more.

As for the mythical “localisation” and “job creation” – the sure-fire propaganda phrases for attracting mass support under false pretenses – a report by the Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa (Niasa) indicated that “both the skills and educational requirements of providing South Africa and surrounds with 9 600 megawatt of nuclear power by 2029 were researched by Niasa’s skills and education sub-committee.” (Mike Loewe, Daily Dispatch, June 10, 2013).

The report states that the educational readiness of the nation, especially the Eastern Cape, was at a very low level. It said R5.2bn would have to be spent on higher education over the next 20 years to serve the newly fledged nuclear industry…

It estimates that Nuclear-1 will need 270 project managers at the start, and a further 380 if Nuclear-2 is also built at Thyspunt – giving an Eastern Cape total of 650 incoming project managers. The committee said the nuclear programme would need 1 200 project managers across all three plants. Nuclear-1 will also need 300 engineers (excluding architect engineers).

The report stated that “localised numbers” of jobs were being confirmed by Niasa’s manufacturing sub-committee, but it calculated that each reactor would require a total workforce of 5 630 personnel. The committee broke down the peak on-site construction labour requirements for one Generation III reactor adjusted for South Africa, to 150 boilermakers; 410 carpenters; 750 electricians, 750 iron workers, fitters and welders, 80 thermal insulators, 410 general labourer, 80 masons; 130 millwrights, 340 operating engineers and crane operators, 80 painters, 700 pipe fitters, 130 sheet-metal workers and 130 Code 14 truck drivers and teamsters.

Despite Kemm’s “can-do” optimism, the stringent skills requirement for a nuclear reactor have nothing to do with football stadiums (the subject of massive collusion, anyway).

When Kemm follows the global trend of minimising the deaths from Fukushima, however, he shows where his global loyalties really lie. He writes: “The total people killed or injured by nuclear radiation at Fukushima was zero. Yes, zero.” This is an oft-repeated mantra, which a cursory search of the internet will see everywhere. Yet a recent report on the disaster states that in 2014 the number of deaths increased by 18 percent more than the year before.

According to data collected by the Fukushima Prefecture (the official, local government agency in the affected area), 2014 saw 1 232 nuclear-related deaths. The two towns with the greatest number of deaths were both near the Fukushima plant: Namie, with 359 dead; and Tomioka, with 291 dead.

(David Gutierrez “Fukushima Disaster Caused at Least 1 232 Fatalities in 2014 as Radiation Death Rate Accelerates”, Global Research, April 7, 2015.)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-disaster-caused-at-least-1232-fatalities-in-2014-as-radiation-death-rate-accelerates/5441390

As unrepentant anti-nuclear activists, our biggest fear has nothing to do with nuclear disasters and man-made ionising radiation, however – whether from localised Armscor warheads or flaky Russian WWER nuclear power stations on pristine coastal sites near major populations. Our biggest fear is that flaky Armscor scientists like Kelvin Kemm get to dominate unaccountable “advisory committees” in a democratically elected central government. MIKE KANTEY, A DIRECTOR OF WATERCOURSE, PLETTENBERG