The other day, I had email correspondence with a person who would fall into the category of ‘environmentalist’.

Besides other things, he contended that the Koeberg nuclear power station could not ope- rate at its full design electrical power output. He wrote: “Koeberg is rated at 69% of rated capa- city (although Mr Kenny disagrees with me on that figure). And that is a far cry from 100% all the time. That is a major misrepresentation and if both you and I wish to get the energy mix right, it needs to be based on considered and real facts, not public opinion based on half truths . . .” (The Mr Kenny he referred to is Andrew Kenny, probably South Africa’s leading authority on this country’s energy supplies).

This particular exchange of views highlights one of the major problems that engineers worldwide encounter when dealing with the lay public. Engineers are trained to think, analyse, conclude and discuss. They spend at least four years at university and three years before they become professionally registered. Thus, they Know Stuff. Many people in the environmental movement do not know stuff but, worse than this, do not know that they do not know.

To assert that the Koeberg power station cannot deliver its rated capacity of 2 × 900 MW is, to an engineer, profoundly unreasonable. Why would Eskom lie about it? It may well be that, owing to maintenance and refuelling, Koeberg will not deliver 100% of rated capacity all the time, but this normal. The fact is that, when not refuelling or undergoing maintenance, Koeberg can, and does, supply 100% of its rated capacity.

This sort of discussion with environ- mentalists becomes increasingly tedious when they make assertions which are so patently wrong that they border on the ludicrous. How- ever, when an engineer points out the wrongness of their thinking, they just shout louder and assert harder, ignoring the facts. Consider the following (from the Cape Times edition of November 18): “Durban – What kind of world will our children wake up to just a few decades from now? For starters, they could be swelter- ing in temperatures up to 8 ºC hotter, according to a new series of governmental fact sheets . . .”

The article goes on to assert that bird species will disappear, there will be a reduction in sun- flower and maize production, farm workers will be “scampering to the shade to avoid heat stroke”, and “yellow fever, cholera and malaria will spread to more areas”. It goes on: “Rivers will become more polluted with sewage as flash floods and regional flooding burst open blocked sewer pipes or force sewage to overflow . . .” And there will be a great earthquake and the sun will become black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon will become like blood. Or not. The bit about the earthquake, the sun and the moon is from the Bible, not the Cape Times.

Now consider: Is the world warming? According to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, the global temperature in 1990 was one fifth of a degree Celsius more than the average from 1961 to 1990. In 2005, the global temperature was two-fifths of a degree more. But guess what? There has been no change since – no warming, for the last seven years. Fact. And even if there was, one-fifth of a degree rise in 29 years is hardly going to send farm workers “scampering to the shade to avoid heat stroke”.

Now either you believe the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change or the Cape Times correspondent. As an engineer, it is clear to me that the whole article, citing “governmental fact sheets”, is complete rubbish, starting with the prediction of temperature increase.

The difficulty is that there are many who will not see the gross flaws in many of the assertions and will think I am part of a conspiracy to “conceal the facts” since I am an engineer and, thus, by definition, biased. But the article is incorrect. The writer is wrong. And if environ- mentalists are to have any credibility, they should check facts and evaluate assertions, either about Koeberg or global warming, before publishing them.