How disappointing that the Mail & Guardian fails to call for change from business as usual in the ”Energy crunch” editorial of May 13.
The editors declared ”we believe the revolutionary nuclear technology used in the pebble bed modular reactor [PBMR] offers a feasible option …” Has the M&G seen new information? No basis is given for disagreeing with the independent review of the feasibility study (South African Journal of Science No 98 — based on the complete report, not the public-release version with key information removed), in which the independent experts ”conclude that the PBMR project is economically hazardous, gambling public funds on a questionable technology and a faltering market”.
Use of the term ”revolutionary” for a technology that was abandoned by the leading nuclear nations more than 20 years ago suggests that the editorial team buys into the advertising claims of PBMR (Pty) Ltd. The M&G has previously run several multi-page adverts presenting speculative claims of national benefits as established facts. The extravagant advertising campaign continues in papers, magazines and international journals, glossing over the impacts of the full nuclear fuel chain, to make spurious claims to being a ”clean” technology. Given the R500-million bail out approved by the Treasury last year — which just increased to R600-million — and consistent failure to attract foreign investment, just what does ”feasible” mean?
Renewable energy technologies offer about 10 times the employment potential and far more opportunities for community empowerment and participation than nuclear power, but are relegated to niche applications even in our national climate-change strategy. Solar water heating is a far more cost-effective option than the ubiquitous electric geyser. Large-scale wind and solar thermal electricity generation will become cheaper than new fossil fuel options as technologies mature — how long this takes will depend on the level of investment and deployment.
A recent research report (Banks and Schäffler, 2005) shows how this could happen within 10 years — around the time when a new coal-fired plant being proposed by Minister of Public Enterprises Alec Erwin is likely to come on line — if we took an aggressive approach to their local development. These projections are based on well-established trends, unlike those for the PBMR. If the same assumptions, such as of production at scale, are made for solar thermal electricity as are made for the PBMR, solar thermal is likely to emerge as the cheaper option.
The most beneficial and cost–effective interventions for dealing with the ”energy crunch”, both in terms of (diminishing spare) electricity generation capacity and the sustained high oil price, are energy conservation and efficiency. They also offer the cheapest climate change mitigation and pollution reduction strategies.
Richard Worthington is a project coordinator at Earthlife Africa