Some thoughts on coal and uranium

My apologies Nossie, but I can't help the long posts.

Coal is a major source for the narrowly defined Black Economic Empowerment Programme through which the politically connected elite, the so called “Black Diamonds” will enrich itself. Thus the Business Report of 20 November writes, “The expansion of export capacity at Richards Bay Coal Teminal at Richards Bay Coal Terminal and increasing demand for coal from Eskom, independent power producers and industrial users, as well as the emergence of empowerment companies are causing an expansion in the number of junior coal mining companies” (Brown, 2007, p. 8).
Yet the government constantly makes itself guilty of double speak, the DME, DEAT etc. constantly tell us that they consider nuclear energy to be a safe alternative to coal. Despite this government has committed itself to another 49 years of coal power stations.

But is nuclear energy really the clean alternative it is made out to be? Or, is it being introduced for other reasons?

Interestingly, the demand for coal from the National Nuclear Commission is also increasing. Coal is used to fire the boilers of nuclear reactors in the uranium enrichment process (Hill M. , 2007). Nuclear will not aid global warming either. It is not a lot better than the carbon footprint of coal when the full cycle is considered. The use of nearly 3,000 tons of coal annually by NECSA is only a very minor part of the nuclear mess; the rest is far more hazardous (Gilbert, 2007).

This fact is seldom mentioned by those who tout nuclear power as a greenhouse gas free alternative to coal. While nuclear power is immanently cleaner in terms of green house gas emissions than coal, carbon dioxide is still emitted during plant construction, the heating of boilers and the mining of uranium, this besides the immense problems associated with nuclear waste and nuclear meltdown disasters (Morris, 2006, pp. 77-97).

So, if the massive drive towards the re-introduction of nuclear power to South Africa is not to reduce our carbon emissions, then why are we hurtling down the uncertain route of uranium mining, uranium processing, and nuclear power? There are several answers to this question:
• Uranium is a very “sexy” mineral at the moment. From Wall Street to London, Paris and Johannesburg bourses it is being touted as “a good investment”! (The Economist, 2007, pp. 66-68).
• What makes uranium so sexy is the very high demand from three of the world’s fastest growing economies, China, Russia and India. These are also three of the least environmentally and militarily responsible countries. Safety and environmental standards in Russia and China are questionable (remember Chernobyl) while India is engaged in a nuclear arms ace with Pakistan.
• Being the mineral of the moment, uranium must therefore be a crown jewel in South Africa’s elitist BEE strategy, and not surprisingly ESKOM has convinced the ANC government to dust off an old Apartheid technological concept of the pebble bed modular nuclear reactor (PBMNR) – as a stepping stone for some prominent civil servants into the Minerals Energy Complex and fantastic wealth! Thus, no less than Alistar Ruiters, former Director General of the Department of Trade and Industry, was appointed to head the Pebble Bed Modular Nuclear Reactor Company.
• Despite South Africa wishing to export this pocket sized nuclear reactor, it has appointed two US companies, Westinghouse and Areva to build South Africa’s nuclear power stations to offset the current power shortages (Creamer, 2007).
• The South African government is spending more on the development of the PBMNR than on the development of all other energy alternatives put together. Yet, no one globally has placed any orders for this technology. It is reported that the PBMNR has failed Environmental Impact Assessments.