More about Mapungubwe National Park and what’s at risk from mining activities
June 20, 2010
DoE’s Attempt to define the next 50 years: IRP2
July 1, 2010

Published by earthlife at

A response to the Nuke EIA

Eskom is doing an Environmental Impact Assessment for a new nuclear power station. Read Earthlife Africa Jhb’s response to this latest bout of insanity here. From the conclusion of our submission:

Page 3-1 of the ESKOM NUCEAR 1 FEIA admits that the proposed nuclear power plant would not commence generating electricity until 2018.   Energy conservation and wind power are both measures that can fill South Africa’s energy needs in a matter of months, not years.  Therefore, the EIA needs to inform South African authorities and its citizens whether the staggering cost of building a new nuclear power plant (taking commissioning, decommissioning and storage of waste into account) is a better way forward than investing limited public funds in initiating energy conservation measures or certain new energy generating projects that close the gap between energy needs and energy availability over a much shorter time period.

In conclusion, it is therefore submitted it is incumbent on the FEIR to consider the alternatives mentioned above and to provide a cost benefit analysis of the various options indicated above (especially the option of concentrated solar energy) against the cost of producing nuclear power, since in terms of the NEMA it is imperative to pursue the selection of the “best practical environmental option”.  This option is defined in NEMA as:

“the option that provides the most benefit  or causes the least damage  to the environment as a whole , at a cost acceptable to society in the long term as well as in the short term”

The failure to conduct such analysis, in particular with regard to concentrated solar energy constitutes a violation of the duty to place relevant information before the decision maker as well as a violation of NEMA Principle 2(4) (b), and any decision flowing from the FEIR  which is devoid of such analysis will be fatally flawed.

Read the entire submission: ELA Jhb EIA submission on Nuclear 1

Antinukegraphic

More about Mapungubwe National Park and what’s at risk from mining activities
June 20, 2010
DoE’s Attempt to define the next 50 years: IRP2
July 1, 2010

Comments are closed.

Archives