Climate shift smogs up the nuclear discussion
July 31, 2008
By INGI SALGADO
What does Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the environmental affairs and tourism minister, have in common with nuclear power? The public renaissance of both the man and the industry is based almost entirely on climate change.
Van Schalkwyk's notable role - globally, to help secure a climate change pact and at home, to place global warming at the centre of policy making - will likely save his legacy from one associated exclusively with a dead political party.
Climate change has also been a godsend to the image of the nuclear power industry, enabling it to divert the public imagination away from an association with the Cold War and safety concerns following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident.
Nuclear's newfound favour lies in its claim of clean energy status, based on the absence of greenhouse gas emissions in generating nuclear energy.
The comparison crossed my mind when Van Schalkwyk, announcing a far-reaching framework for South African policy on climate change this week, was asked by a Radio 702 journalist whether climate change was a useful tool for governments to stampede populations into nuclear futures.
The question comes amid fears from anti-nuclear lobbyists that the state may be attempting to short-circuit the kind of public consultation required in a 1998 white paper on energy ahead of decisions to construct new nuclear power stations.
A recent Sapa report said Eskom and the departments of public enterprises and minerals and energy had enlisted the help of a brand consulting firm to boost the image of nuclear power. They apparently hope to employ prominent "nuclear ambassadors" ahead of Eskom's massive nuclear programme, which aims to generate a quarter of electricity from nuclear by 2025.
Van Schalkwyk's response to the question toed the official line: nuclear power is part of government policy and has potential to help deal with global warming. "We understand that there are challenges with regard to nuclear, but it is clear that the trend globally is back to nuclear," he said, to murmurs of dissent from some in the audience.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are 35 nuclear power plants under construction - more than half of which are in China, India and Russia - while several more are being conceptualised.
So what was the murmur of dissent about? It probably relates to the massive cost overruns that have become the norm for nuclear power plants, causing concern among decision makers at a time when the cost of renewable sources of energy are declining.
It's unclear what Eskom's nuclear ambitions may end up costing taxpayers and electricity users, but last year University of Greenwich energy policy professor Steve Thomas put the bill at R400 billion - excluding decommissioning costs, which are generally estimated at about three-quarters of capital costs.
Haziness also surrounds the costs of the experimental pebble bed modular reactor project. According to the Democratic Alliance, one 165-megawatt unit will cost R20 billion, of which R8 billion has already been paid. This could easily cover the costs of Eskom's proposed R6 billion, 100MW solar demonstration plant (for which it has not yet secured funding).
If nuclear power is such a financially feasible option to combat climate change, the government must be fully transparent about the costs, so that a meaningful comparison can be made between the price of nuclear versus renewable energy. To do otherwise suggests there is something to hide.
Van Schalkwyk would create a truly lasting legacy were he to champion this kind of transparency.
|
|
