Earthlife Anti-Nuclear In Energy Debate

IT is laudable that Namibians engage in public debates on nuclear energy, triggered off by the statement recently made by the Permanent Secretary of Mines and Energy, Mr Joseph Iitha, that nuclear energy is considered as one of the many options to generate power.

It is of course right to make a decision after all options have been investigated. I for my part am quite sure that Government will come up with a responsible choice and this will not be generation of nuclear power in Namibia.The article “Namibia opts for nuclear power” featured in The Namibian on 11th January 2007 challenged Earthlife Namibia to start an e-mail discussion encouraging Namibians to express their view on the issue.We received very interesting comments which I want to share with the interested reader.This letter is a compilation of the debate.For easier reading I separate the comments with bullets, whereby the order is purely by chance.However, some comments we received don’t feature here because of repetition.Especially renewable energy and the unsolved problem of nuclear waste disposal was mentioned many times.* Having uranium ore is hardly an argument in favour of nuclear energy production.It would probably damage Namibia’s “pristine” environmental image too which would have to be incorporated into any cost benefit analysis.* From a perspective of human’s lack of commitment into renewable energy, the only alternative to fossil fuels will be nuclear.Considering greed etc.I do not foresee humans living on re-energy before all (including uranium) the earth has is depleted.Would it not be in everybody’s interest to do as much research into nuclear energy and safety as possible? Just imagine that we run out of fossil fuels and then all the industrial nations switch over to the old unsafe nuclear power stations.* The raw material uranium is mined in Namibia by foreign mining companies having contracts of delivery with foreign customers.In general the calculated lifetime of local uranium mines is 15 years.It takes long to get the infrastructure for uranium enrichment in place, build the nuclear power plant and train the right people.By the time all this has been achieved Namibia needs to import uranium oxide for a high price.* What would be worse: nuclear power generation or Epupa? * Namibia needs an energy strategic plan into which role players can feed their input.It seems as if the decision makers are handling things a bit ad hoc at the moment.* The uranium boom is temporary.When all the new production starts up globally, there will be an excess in the market, prices will start dropping and the marginal mines will start closing again.Namibia has a chance of becoming an African leader in wave, wind and solar, which it can never do with nuclear, because even if it imports a reactor it will become dependent on foreign technicians, loans and companies like Eskom – which means that the problem complained of, dependency on SA, will not necessary go away.* It’s scary but I’m not surprised given what is happening in South Africa and the assumption about expanded markets for uranium.We have to keep reminding the government that Namibia has abundant sun and wind!…and keep educating the public and publishing the figures on costs and benefits of renewable energy and the dangers of nuclear energy.* Nuclear power requires such high technological capacity and skills that it is extremely doubtful if Namibia would ever be in a position to mobilize the manpower to operate and maintain a nuclear power plant.I am of the opinion that the decision by Government is indeed a long term vision, but the decision at least creates the opportunity for Namibia to start developing its assets towards achieving such a vision.The decision is therefore a step in the right direction, provided that the thrust to create human capacity is directed properly.* The bottom line for all these options is the economy of scale and the cost of the energy.It is a pity the article does not state what power is costing the Namibian consumer at present in order to compare costs.Any power supplied at 35c/kWh plus is very expensive and not really affordable.The Namibian demand is small and the units cost is therefore understandable very high.To produce and sell more units, the unit cost can be reduced, but Namibia would need a large anchor consumer like the RSA that requires thousands of MW (presently 40 000 MW in the RSA) and not a measly 500 MW like Namibia.Economics and capacity would therefore dictate any future outcomes of whatever is contemplated.* All forms of power generation and distribution create environmental problems to a greater or lesser extent.Many of the forms of power generation that seem to cause the lowest impact are unreliable, inefficient, expensive and new – the technologies have not yet been fully tested under production conditions.One of the worst forms of power generation under present global conditions is the suite of generators that contribute to climate change – undoubtedly one of the most serious environmental issues that this planet has ever faced.I don’t believe that it is in the interests of the environment for environmental organizations to adopt positions of being either pro or anti nuclear energy.I believe that the situation will differ from country to country, depending on the options that different countries have.Within this context, I further believe that a rational assessment of the pros and cons of all the available options should be carried out in Namibia, in an open and transparent way, taking into account all the important variables, both socio-economic and environmental.* Great – despite the refuse it is still one of the environmentally cleanest sources of high-output power, with no contribution to global warming, which affects especially our rangelands and thus farmers and thousands of poor rural people as well! Look at the broader picture and its benefits! * Technological expertise is the most important issue in nuclear energy production.Namibia could deal with the technology of renewable energy, a good example is Gobabeb.But technology for a nuclear power plant is a different story.* The Wildlife Society of Namibia (WLSN) supports sustainable development and the sustainable utilisation of resources, including the sustainable generation and use of energy.The WLSN can not support either uranium mining or nuclear power generation, because the environmental damages and inherent risks involved (some of which are extremely long-lasting) outweigh the short-term benefits of power supply.Most especially the created nuclear waste poses an extremely high risk which remains undiminished for periods of time far beyond human planning capabilities.The only other major use of uranium, for the creation of weapons, can not be supported in any way either.The WLSN therefore does not support any utilisation of uranium.I do not want to comment on the above, it speaks for itself.Only one small remark: please dear reader, while making up your own opinion regarding nuclear power generation in Namibia (YES or NO), weigh up the short-term benefits against the long-term consequences and think about the many future generations burdened with the nuclear waste.Bertchen Kohrs Earthlife NamibiaI for my part am quite sure that Government will come up with a responsible choice and this will not be generation of nuclear power in Namibia.The article “Namibia opts for nuclear power” featured in The Namibian on 11th January 2007 challenged Earthlife Namibia to start an e-mail discussion encouraging Namibians to express their view on the issue.We received very interesting comments which I want to share with the interested reader.This letter is a compilation of the debate.For easier reading I separate the comments with bullets, whereby the order is purely by chance.However, some comments we received don’t feature here because of repetition.Especially renewable energy and the unsolved problem of nuclear waste disposal was mentioned many times. * Having uranium ore is hardly an argument in favour of nuclear energy production.It would probably damage Namibia’s “pristine” environmental image too which would have to be incorporated into any cost benefit analysis.* From a perspective of human’s lack of commitment into renewable energy, the only alternative to fossil fuels will be nuclear.Considering greed etc.I do not foresee humans living on re-energy before all (including uranium) the earth has is depleted.Would it not be in everybody’s interest to do as much research into nuclear energy and safety as possible? Just imagine that we run out of fossil fuels and then all the industrial nations switch over to the old unsafe nuclear power stations.* The raw material uranium is mined in Namibia by foreign mining companies having contracts of delivery with foreign customers.In general the calculated lifetime of local uranium mines is 15 years.It takes long to get the infrastructure for uranium enrichment in place, build the nuclear power plant and train the right people.By the time all this has been achieved Namibia needs to import uranium oxide for a high price. * What would be worse: nuclear power generation or Epupa? * Namibia needs an energy strategic plan into which role players can feed their input.It seems as if the decision makers are handling things a bit ad hoc at the moment.* The uranium boom is temporary.When all the new production starts up globally, there will be an excess in the market, prices will start dropping and the marginal mines will start closing again.Namibia has a chance of becoming an African leader in wave, wind and solar, which it can never do with nuclear, because even if it imports a reactor it will become dependent on foreign technicians, loans and companies like Eskom – which means that the problem complained of, dependency on SA, will not necessary go away.* It’s scary but I’m not surprised given what is happening in South Africa and the assumption about expanded markets for uranium.We have to keep reminding the government that Namibia has abundant sun and wind!…and keep educating the public and publishing the figures on costs and benefits of renewable energy and the dangers of nuclear energy.* Nuclear power requires such high technological capacity and skills that it is extremely doubtful if Namibia would ever be in a position to mobilize the manpower to operate and maintain a nuclear power plant.I am of the opinion that the decision by Government is indeed a long term vision, but the decision at least creates the opportunity for Namibia to start developing its assets towards achieving such a vision.The decision is therefore a step in the right direction, provided that the thrust to create human capacity is directed properly.* The bottom line for all these options is the economy of scale and the cost of the energy.It is a pity the article does not state what power is costing the Namibian consumer at present in order to compare costs.Any power supplied at 35c/kWh plus is very expensive and not really affordable.The Namibian demand is small and the units cost is therefore understandable very high.To produce and sell more units, the unit cost can be reduced, but Namibia would need a large anchor consumer like the RSA that requires thousands of MW (presently 40 000 MW in the RSA) and not a measly 500 MW like Namibia.Economics and capacity would therefore dictate any future outcomes of whatever is contemplated.* All forms of power generation and distribution create environmental problems to a greater or lesser extent.Many of the forms of power generation that seem to cause the lowest impact are unreliable, inefficient, expensive and new – the technologies have not yet been fully tested under production conditions.One of the worst forms of power generation under present global conditions is the suite of generators that contribute to climate change – undoubtedly one of the most serious environmental issues that this planet has ever faced.I don’t believe that it is in the interests of the environment for environmental organizations to adopt positions of being either pro or anti nuclear energy.I believe that the situation will differ from country to country, depending on the options that different countries have.Within this context, I further believe that a rational assessment of the pros and cons of all the available options should be carried out in Namibia, in an open and transparent way, taking into account all the important variables, both socio-economic and environmental.* Great – despite the refuse it is still one of the environmentally cleanest sources of high-output power, with no contribution to global warming, which affects especially our rangelands and thus farmers and thousands of poor rural people as well! Look at the broader picture and its benefits! * Technological expertise is the most important issue in nuclear energy production.Namibia could deal with the technology of renewable energy, a good example is Gobabeb.But technology for a nuclear power plant is a different story.* The Wildlife Society of Namibia (WLSN) supports sustainable development and the sustainable utilisation of resources, including the sustainable generation and use of energy.The WLSN can not support either uranium mining or nuclear power generation, because the environmental damages and inherent risks involved (some of which are extremely long-lasting) outweigh the short-term benefits of power supply.Most especially the created nuclear waste poses an extremely high risk which remains undiminished for periods of time far beyond human planning capabilities.The only other major use of uranium, for the creation of weapons, can not be supported in any way either.The WLSN therefore does not support any utilisation of uranium.I do not want to comment on the above, it speaks for itself.Only one small remark: please dear reader, while making up your own opinion regarding nuclear power generation in Namibia (YES or NO), weigh up the short-term benefits against the long-term consequences and think about the many future generations burdened with the nuclear waste. Bertchen Kohrs Earthlife Namibia