A really interesting social phenomenon is the antinuclear stance of many people. I find many people who are rabidly antinuclear, but then, as I chat to them socially, I find out that they have no idea what they are talking about.
They often cannot tell the difference between an atom and a molecule, do not know what radiation is, and do not even know what a nucleus is . . . but are opposed anyway.
This is like being opposed to heart valve replacement surgery without knowing how many chambers the heart has, or what a heart valve does.
It is bad enough to find such closed-minded attitudes among individual members of the public, but when one comes across such attitudes in companies, then it is really amazing.
One such company is well known and presents itself as a firm of energy analysts. I was utterly appalled to read an antinuclear article by one of its analysts.
I have come across people from this company before and, interestingly, they all present a solid antinuclear attitude. They come over as a promotional organisation for renewable energy, so I am totally suspicious of the objectivity of any of their output. An analyst from the company said: “While it is undeniable that the construction of additional baseload generation capacity is required to address the country’s energy security issues, one cannot help raising this question: Why is such a strong focus being repeatedly placed on nuclear energy, despite several energy analysts holding a contradictory view?”
I say: so what if ‘several’ people hold a contrary view – what about all those who do not? What about all those scientists who hold a contrary view about wind and solar power? The analyst then hands out a totally disgraceful insult to real energy planners and, in appealing for clarity to industry, says: “It would convince industry that government is following a more consistent, logical and considered policy development process instead of one that is driven by the whims, fads and fancies of particular individuals.”
So, who exactly are the ‘particular individuals’ ‘who have whims, fads and fancies’? Who also would be the idiots who would listen to them? Am I one of them? After my genuine careful investigation of South Africa’s energy requirements, I am of the firm opinion that nuclear power is absolutely necessary right now. So, am I a ‘particular individual’ with a ‘whim’?
The ‘analyst’ then goes on to quote the ‘World Nuclear Industry Status Report’, which comes out essentially antinuclear. However, with a bit of intelligence, one can easily see that the report is actually an antinuclear group.
Interestingly, the firm of ‘energy analysts’ does not consult sources like the legitimate World Nuclear Association, the International Atomic Energy Agency or maybe the nuclear associations of France, the UK, the US, Russia, Korea and China. Presumably, they are left out because they are also prone to ‘whims’.
Then the analyst says: “As long as an abundance of cheap coal is available in the country, coal-fired power stations are likely to be a cheaper and more viable solution to address baseload requirements than nuclear.”
An analyst should actually ask: Is the coal cheap, and for how long? He or she should also ask: Where is the coal, and why was Koeberg built in the Cape? The analyst should also have found out that, right now, the electricity produced by the Koeberg nuclear station is cheaper than the coal-fired electricity. Why would that be?
But the analyst asks: “Are there no less-risky, cost-competitive technologies that can be rolled out in substantially less time than nuclear? The most notable such technologies would be renewables and gas.”
This is an insulting comment – as if all the scientists and engineers who have worked on these questions for years are all a bunch of gullible idiots. Simple answer: No, the renewables do not offer anything like the reliable baseload power required to run iron foundries or gold mines.
Gas? Well, there is very little gas infrastructure, and, yes, I believe gas will play a role, but how? Will it be gas distribution to companies or large-scale gas to electricity plants? Many more answers are needed.
Our analyst says: “In terms of implementation timelines, there is little evidence to support a case for nuclear generation capacity.” My answer: Bunk. Have you looked at the Korean and Chinese timelines and asked why they are so short?
He then says: “In terms of implementation timelines, there is little evidence to support a case for nuclear generation capacity.”
So, to you Eskom guys, you know what he thinks of your ability, in addition to the clear ignorance of the truth of nuclear power.