In the past countries went coal as it was the only option, but in the future it will be about finding the 'right mix' of energy producers. Guenon's solution is to include nuclear power in that mix.
The argument was a fair one - nuclear does have financial benefits to it. The cost might be a bit hefty in the beginning; but most (if not all) energy providers are. The one thing about nuclear is that the price of energy thereafter doesn't change. What you pay today for your electricity will stay that way for the next 50 - 60 years.
In his presentation he included a diagram that showed nuclear was the least in greenhouse gases. Europe doesn't have many options for energy development but here in South Africa, where we are blessed with sun and the south-easter wind, we have a variety. Even though we can include renewable in our mix, Guenon showed that solar costs 10 times more than coal and wind was four times more.
Guenon's main purpose of his presentation was also the job development and therefore economy improvement, that comes from nuclear power. As nuclear involvers building an entire plant consisting of a variety of technologies and includes a variety of industries there is huge potential in employment and expansion in industries. Other energy producers, such as solar or wind, involve a slice of professions and specific exclusive industries. Nuclear touches on engineers, technicians, welders, management and a wide variety of workers.
When asked about the chances of an accident, Guenon simple answer was "about the same chance of a meteorite landing in your lounge."
It creates abundant energy at a fraction of the price, while creating job opportunities and improving the economy; all of this and to top it off - no coal. On the outside it seems to provide the answer to all our problems. So what's the catch?
"Dr Guenon!"
A hand shot up in the audience.
"What about waste?"
While only a small percentage of employees at a nuclear power plant are nuclear physics, the fact is that it is still a nuclear power plant. So while on the outside it looks like a wonderful idea, the real question is what is going on in the inside.
Guenon that in France they have chosen to repossess the fuel, reduce the toxicity level as much a possible by running it through a chemical process (twice) and then putting it into a storage container which can hold it up to 300 years.
The concept is that the technology currently is only a few decades old. Hopefully in a few more decades, or longer, research and technology improvements will find a solution to how to completely deal with the built up waste.
It wasn't mentioned if that was the case for the proposal in South Africa, nor was it mentioned what would happen if the container had a leak.
If nuclear believe that if countries invested in their product, they would be able to solve waste issue, then surely if countries invested in wind, solar and water energies then improvements would be made in those technologies to solve issues such as cost and consistency.
Here in South Africa there is another side to the plant. One proposed site for building the nuclear plant is only a few kilometres outside Cape Town in Bantamsklip
Location, location, location
Bantamsklip is within 50km of one of Cape Town's biggest 'holiday' towns; Hermanus. Known for its unspoilt natural beauty, the area is the biodiversity core area of the Cape Floral Kingdom and is one of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The proposed site contains 800 plant species and 22 red data species, 6 of which grow no where else in the world.
The nuclear power plant will be right by Agulhas National Park, and on the edge of a threatened marine ecosystem. Due to the beauty of the area, it is a high tourist attraction.
In another article [Age of Stupid] a woman from the U.K. refused to have wind plants built on her neighbours farm as it 'spoilt the view,' which frustrated a lot of the environmentalists in the audience, as if we don't start investing in renewable energy there won't be much of a view to enjoy.
In this case, however, 'spoiling the view' with a nuclear power plant doesn't only mean damaging the tourism in the area, but also threatening protected species like Blue Cranes, due to the overhead power line collisions; also threatening the marine sanctuaries of the Southern Right Whales and Great White Sharks.
According to Barry Clark who did a review of the Marine Impact Study for the Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] for the proposed nuclear power station; continuous low level dosing with chlorine is proposed as a means of reducing biofouling on the seawater intake pipes. Clark questions "the impacts of this are dismissed as being 'very localised and are considered unlikely to have a significant negative impact on the receiving environment' the source of which is the previous EIA for the Koeberg Power Station.
A dosing level of 2mg/kg is cited in the introductory sections of the report. Is this the same as or less than that used for the Koeberg Plant? If not this statement has no validity whatsoever. No information is provided on the toxicity of chlorine to marine biota and the breakdown rates of chlorine in the environment. The reason it is used as an antifouling agent is because it is toxic to marine organisms."
Prof Richard Cowling from the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University writes in his 'statement of concern: nuclear facility at Bantamsklip' "Locating a nuclear facility anywhere on the Agulhas Plain coastline, but especially at Bantamsklip-Hagelkraal is a preposterously silly idea... Keeping Bantamsklip as a site for nuclear facility in this 'Year of Biodiversity' is a damning indictment of a country that has signed numerous conventions pledging concerns about nature and the service it renders for South Africans."
Celeste is the director for South African Biodiveristy Media which is media company focusing on biodiversity and the
