WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2010-06-09 Time: 13:00:02 Posted By: News Poster
By Siseko Njobeni
Johannesburg – SA SHOULD build a fleet of nuclear power stations in order to limit costs and build a local manufacturing industry, the integrated resource plan stakeholder session heard yesterday.
The government has made clear its intention to include nuclear in the energy mix, but has remained unclear on how it will introduce the nuclear build programme. The second integrated resource plan is expected to spell out the role of nuclear energy.
Speaking at the session in Pretoria yesterday, the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation’s (Necsa’s) senior manager for nuclear fuel cycle, Andrew Linington, said the nuclear fleet approach should “be strongly considered” in SA.
Mr Linington said that because the so- called fleet approach brought “significant” economies of scale in the long term, Necsa encouraged the government to consider it.
Necsa’s main functions include conducting research and development in nuclear energy.
In 2008 Eskom shelved its plans to build the country’s next nuclear plant, citing financial constraints.
Nuclear experts also count stimulation of local manufacturing as another advantage of this approach.
Mr Linington said nuclear energy was the only viable option for base-load electricity for SA if the country was to move towards a low-carbon economy.
Base load is the minimum amount of power that a utility or distribution company must make available to its customers.
But representatives of environmental groups Earthlife Africa, Koeberg Alert Alliance and Climate Justice Now yesterday voiced their opposition to nuclear energy and to what they said was the Department of Energy ‘s bias towards it.
They argued that nuclear energy should not be included as a carbon- mitigating instrument. “We do not believe that all the externalities of nuclear are accounted for. We need to include the costs of possible (nuclear) accidents,” Earthlife project co-ordinator Tristen Taylor said yesterday.
The organisations were also concerned about the time allowed to give comments on the integrated resource plan. They asked for an extension of the commentary period beyond Friday this week. In its presentation, Climate Justice Now said the deadline for inputs should “at least” be August this year.
They also criticised the composition of the technical task team to assist the department in the formulation of the integrated resource plan.
Climate Justice Now said the individuals on the task team represented the interests of Eskom and big business.
Original Source: 
Original date published: 9 June 2010
Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/201006090788.html?viewall=1