Nuclear power not good option for SA

GOING nuclear isn't "radical transformation", it's short-cut thinking.

If you were President Jacob Zuma, how would you address the challenges of poverty, inequality and unemployment? Decent work, transformation, jump-starting the economy and addressing domestic conditions such as the shortage of energy was his state of the nation address answer (along with frequent use of the word "radical").

Then you'd specifically mention the possibility of more than 9000 megawatts of nuclear energy in the sustainable energy mix as part of "transformation of the energy sector".

What you wouldn't say, is that many consider nuclear the most expensive form of electricity, how dangerous nuclear installations are, that we don't have the local financing and construction capacity to manage the R1-trillion project, that we don't know what to do with its highly toxic waste, that the Thyspunt site is highly unsuitable, that we will need to enrich our own uranium before we can use it and that it will create very few permanent jobs.

You also wouldn't say that Cosatu, your alliance partner, is opposed to nuclear power, nor that your own National Planning Commission believes there's no need for nuclear power until at least 2030, if at all.

NUM too makes it very clear that it doesn't support nuclear energy production because the risks far outweigh any benefit.

With Thyspunt 80km downwind from our doorstep and the first in the proposed fleet of nuclear installations, we should be asking ourselves why the president still maintains it's a good idea.

Perhaps it's because it won't be in his backyard?

The noPEnuke Campaign