Why stop at PBMR?

[bananas]

Letter to the editor from the manager of the World Wildlife Fund Climate Change Programme in South Africa:

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=121837

Why stop at PBMR?

RICHARD WORTHINGTON
Published: 2010/09/23 07:45:53 AM

In applauding the government for cutting the state’s losses on the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) programme you are quite right — in your leader — that “It takes courage to let go” (September 21). But why stop at the PBMR? Why assume that SA is wedded to “a programme of building conventional nuclear power plants”?

For years, Business Day took every opportunity to boost the PBMR, with Robyn Chalmers repeatedly heralding imminent foreign investment, which you acknowledge “simply never materialised”. In assuming that SA needs new nuclear power you may encourage further misdirection of public funds, when solar technologies offer far greater national benefits per unit of investment.

The share of nuclear power in global electricity supply is in decline, despite years of industry lobbyists proclaiming a “renaissance”. In 2008, nuclear power provided about 2% of final energy in the world. Despite claiming to be a mature technology, plant costs have recently been increasing by about 15% per annum.

Assumptions being used in our national electricity supply Integrated Resource Plan process (IRP2) include a 60-year lifespan for the new Areva plant, yet the average age of the 123 units retired to date is about 22 years. Overnight capital costs are assumed (in IRP2) to be about 3400 per kW, yet in April last year the CEO of Exelon, noting that “I represent the biggest company in my industry”, estimated the cost of two 1500MW units at 12bn , that is, 8000/kW.

<snip>

Richard Worthington
Manager: Climate Change Programme WWF, Johannesburg

[madokie]

1. Too cheap to meter my ass

rec

[kristopher]

2. Why indeed? nt