Nice approach, but how do you put anti-abortionists into the same category as environmental and ecological activists? (emphasis on logical)

The problems, symptoms and solutions are far more complex, and when it comes to power the problem is not over population so much as an intellectual malaise and myopic opportunism that plays to the monotonous marching tune of the demagogic populists.

If South Africa made a concerted effort to roll out the equivalent solar power as Germany already has, we could shortly be covering about 20% of our overall requirements… However, allowing the creation of a national power feedback grid or independent power suppliers is about as likely as DoC (Ivy Katsepi-Masaburri, and co) and ICASA allowing the rollout of independent last-mile un-licensed WiFi mesh networks, with free VOIP; and thereby losing the associated revenue from their “economic engine”. See, the technology exists, but the immediate cash cow has too much milk to slaughter for the cause of education, ubiquitous communications, and ultimately, crossing the digital divide.

The hilarious reality is that many smelters could be offsetting their power consumption by installing electricity turbines in their heat dissipation units – but it has been seen to be near impossible to negotiate with Eskom over the power feedback revenue split. Farmers with hydro capacity and other free enterprisers cannot provide power, in much the same way that WiFi networks are not allowed to cross cadastral boundaries: state controlled conflicting interest.

Personally I am ambivalent about nuclear power and also, perhaps superstitiously, consign it to demonic roots; but that is hardly even the issue, really. There is an insidious short-sightedness prevailing to finance the welfare state (and political cronies) at all costs, rather than pursue the myriad of ecologically and economically feasible options available.

Incidentally, dropping private consumer power consumption by solar water heating is only going to drop national usage by a small fraction – when one considers that over 60% of overall usage is by heavy industry (largely vested in offshore consortiums) at hugely discounted prices at the expense of the average citizen and the environment.

Thank you for the response. I look forward to your next article and I am very interested in learning more about alternative energy sources so I hope you write that article too.

Re: Geothermal power

I’ve heard of that but know nothing about it. Can you recommend a good website or sites I could go to for more information?

@Ivo – I have thought about whether it is my fear that makes me take this position on nuclear and I am certain that it is not. If we look at all the issues around nuclear – resources available, economic, waste etc – I am just not convinced that this is the best way.

@and thanks – I agree.

@Stephen Lynch – With regards to Chernobyl – it has become an almost uninhabited place with checkpoints and a huge zone of alienation. So just telling me that only 57 or so people died is missing the point of a sustainable planet – it is more than just people dying.

@Odette – Thanks. I do agree with you – the responses have been thought provoking and have created quite a bit of debate. And perhaps I do need to write a more detailed article and not just respond to the comments. I have deadlines at the moment and should post it next week – so i look forward to the review then.

One more thing – I think I’ve said it before – I am not advocating for a business as usual situation. Yes – Coal powered stations are polluting the atmosphere. I do believe that science and technology have been able to develop fabulous alternative ways of producing energy. And perhaps I need to do something on alternative energy and what is feasible in South Africa

2. There is however a risk that the enrichment process will be prone to terrorists and corruption. We saw in the news the case where technology was sold to the Pakistanis and that a South African company was the one making the parts they needed. This is risky considering the evidence we’ve seen of large-scale corruption in the country. We’d need ElBaradei to live here to keep an eye on things when he’s finished with Iran.

3. There’s also geothermal power which people keep ignoring. Ie., using the earth’s heat to boil water to turn turbines, instead of using nuclear heat to do the same. Of course Warmbaths isn’t hot enough to power the nation, but people seem to keep forgetting about it.

4. Says who (page, article) that we’re going to run out of uranium? Isn’t South Africa the world’s biggest or second-biggest producer?

Lack of CO2 emissions is not the only argument for nuclear (not by a long shot). Fossil power plants cause hundreds of thousands of premature deaths, worldwide, every single year. Western nuclear power plants have never killed a member of the public or had any measurable impact on public health, over their entire ~40-year history. It is also true that nuclear waste, from Western reactors, has never killed anyone or affected anyone’s health. Even the worst conceivable accident event at a nuclear plant or waste repository would have an impact that is negligible compared to the ANNUAL impact from fossil fuels.

Since nuclear power yields about a million times as much energy per gram of fuel, the volume/mass of nuclear waste is roughly a million times smaller than that produced by coal plants. The nuclear waste stream is also millions of times smaller than other waste streams like chemical toxic wastes, petrochemical industry wastes, and ordinary garbage. In large part due to the tiny volume, nuclear power plant waste has always been completely contained and has had no measurable health or environmental impact. Furthermore, the industry is required to show that the waste will remain contained until it decays to harmlessness. No other industry or waste stream is held to nearly the same standard. Thus, the reference to nuclear power “dumping poisons into earth’s soil and water” is a gross mischaracterization. It is the one industry that does NOT do that!

Nuclear waste IS more manageable than other waste streams (e.g., chemicals, etc..). It is generated in tiny volumes, in the form of a leach/corrosion resistant ceramic solid, and it decays away. Other waste streams are generated in vastly larger volumes, in highly dispersible (hard to contain) forms like liquids, gases, or sludges, and many of the toxins never decay away. That nuclear waste is unique in terms of longevity is a myth. It’s not that the other waste streams don’t remain toxic/risky over long periods. It’s just that we’ve arbitrarily decided not to care about the long term risks from those other waste streams, and therefore do not make any long term requirements. A million years from now, just about all other waste streams will have pose a greater risk to the environment than nuclear waste will.

One example would be the toxic components of solar cells (e.g., arsenic). These toxic elements are harder to contain and never decay away, and the solar cells would be used/generated in much larger volumes. It’s possible that the waste stream from solar cells would actually be a greater long term threat, per unit energy produced.