Gas emerges as winner……
In what appeared to be a listening platform for anti-nuclear lobbyists, an energy stakeholders meeting, organised by the portfolio committee on energy on nuclear energy with the subject of nuclear energy as a component of South Africa’s future energy mix, was billed as a debate as such. However it turned out to be a platform for speakers and not a debate at all.
This was primarily because there were so many submissions and questions had to be cut down to one minute, most of the earlier time having been taken by the department of energy, NECSA and proponents of the nuclear build programme using the day for presentations, already seen in Parliament and by parliamentarians.
Nuclear platform not provided
Opposition members expressed their anger at their inability to listen to any serious opposition to the use or deployment of nuclear facilities but a number of interesting points did emerge that may give value to whether or not it was worth having had a meeting at all.
Much of what emerged was the seriousness of the costs of any nuclear programme; safety matters and job creation ability, particularly in the relationship between nuclear versus solar and wind and other clean energy projects.
Govt. seems fixed on nuclear
Whilst the chair, Sisa Njikelana, said the meeting was not about trying to change government plans on its nuclear ambitions which clearly included nuclear energy in its planning, or debate the extent to which whether or not nuclear will or will not be part of the energy mix, he nullified arguments put forward by stating that a revised integrated resources plan was to be available in the coming weeks.
Most presenters expressed surprise that government policy was so fixed on the matter.
What did emerge that detractors were quoting the high costs of Finnish nuclear re-actors but the subject of low-cost Chinese or Korean re-actors did not emerge, as stated by one commentator.
Plans for waste in hand
Furthermore, DEO negated all complainants on the issue of nuclear waste by saying that plans were in process to handle long term nuclear waste with a scientific solution by government and the main problem was a misinformed public at this stage.
DEO also responded that hydro power could be a lot more dangerous and threatening to a massive number of communities downstream than any nuclear re-actor and that nobody had died in the Fukushima accident, which was the result of an earthquake not nuclear mishandling.
From results tabled it appeared that wind power was more expensive on a consumer cost basis.
Shell says gas cost effective
A major input came from Shell SA who pointed out that whilst they were not against building nuclear plants but for cost of building one nuclear plant, three national gas pipelines could be built, enough to handle all South Africa’s gas field requirements and include also the cost of gas to fuel technology.
The result of the stakeholders meeting in fact resulted in a determination of parliamentarians to insist upon DEO that gas should be focussed upon to a far greater extent when determining South Africa’s future energy mix and needs.
Refer to articles in this category
http://parlyreportsa.co.za//energy/integrated-energy-plan-iep-around-corner/ http://parlyreportsa.co.za//cabinetpresidential/nuclear-goes-ahead-maybe-strategic-partner/ http://parlyreportsa.co.za//energy/national-nuclear-control-centre-now-in-place/
