Before approval for a nuclear plant can be granted, by law an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has to be done and submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA).
The EIA for the so called ‘Nuclear-1’ project has been in progress for over six years, and the fourth and final draft of the resulting report was eventually submitted to the DEA in early 2016.
This report is of a low scientific standard, and should be rejected by the DEA.
We have made submissions on each draft to the EIA consultants, GIBB, which have been largely ignored, and have not resulted in the changes to the EIA report we hoped for.
We have therefore written to the DEA giving reasons why we believe they should reject this report.
To see our submission, including a short summary, click here: KAA Submission to DEA
by Keith Gottschalk
Intelligent people often hold a range of views on complex issues, especially where more than one criterion is involved, and where some criteria may not be easily quantified.
Newspaper editorials have criticized the Government’s abuse of secrecy – what democracy classifies its future electricity plans as secret? – as it proceeds with its programme to build six to nine extra atomic power reactors totalling 9600 MW of electricity. The reason for secrecy is defensive: these plans cannot stand up to scrutiny for economic rationality.
The Koeberg Alert Alliance (KAA) first requested a copy of the emergency and evacuation plan for for the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station via a Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) request in 2010. This was formally refused on 2 June 2010 by Steve Lennon, the co-ordinating Deputy Information Officer for Eskom Holdings, for convoluted legal reasons.
A second PAIA application was made by the KAA in 2011. This was initially refused on 22 November 2011 by Eddie Laubscher, the National Deputy Information Officer for Eskom Holdings. The CEO of the NNR (National Nuclear Regulator), Adv Boyce Mkhize also formally refused access to the plan on 23 November 2011, claiming it was classified as confidential. Continue reading
During a recent trip to Fukushima, there was the opportunity to see first hand the effects of the nuclear disaster on the surrounding areas, and to speak to people living there whose daily lives have been affected, and will continue to be affected. With the one anniversary approaching, its an appropriate time to look back over the year and consider what actually happened. Continue reading
The nuclear era can be divided into BF and AF – before and after Fukushima. The disaster in Japan was a watershed moment, even prompting the normally up beat International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) to issue a statement in September 2011 downgrading their predictions for the growth in the nuclear industry. The CEO of one of Germany’s power companies said the industry would face ‘extraordinary costs’ due to the resulting market shifts.
Areva’s future uncertain
Hermanus talkHermanus talk November 2011
In November 2011, the Save Bantamsklip campaign arranged a public meeting at the Hermanus Town Hall. There was a good turnout, which included the Executive Mayor of the Overstrand municipality, Nicolette Botha-Guthrie. Continue reading
Hanging around at COP17 is a place to meet many people, and hear many different versions of what is going on inside the negotiations. One version I have heard is that the world may well be on the brink of a new age of climate negotiations. Continue reading