The government gave the final go-ahead for the production of nuclear fuel, for the Koeberg project in Cape Town, at Pelindaba in North West, just five days ago. [IOL] The IOL article, initially featured in the Cape Argus, was a little confusing and may have given the impression that the PBMR project – the controversial pebble bed modular reactor project – itself has got the nod.

For those who haven’t got their finger on the pulse (and I’m one of them), the PBMR project has two distinct channels – the production of nuclear fuel, on the one hand, and the production of a pebble bed reactor, on the other.

The two, from the perspective of Eskom (and thus the government), are not interdependent. Nuclear fuel doesn’t have to be used in the nuclear reactor at Koeberg exclusively. The nuclear fuel can, and this is Eskom’s intention, be transported and exported for use on similar reactors to those South Africa intends building, in countries like China and the USA. Thus the go-ahead.

The department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism released two positive RoDs (that’s record of decision) in June 2003, in relation to these two channels, linked by a clause that said that authorisation of either channel was dependent on the other.

So, in effect, giving approval for the manufacture and transport of nuclear fuel and the environmental aspects of the pebble bed reactor.

There were appeals from various fronts, including those from Earthlife Africa, on both counts.

Earthlife Africa successfully challenged Eskom’s building of the reactor, on environmental grounds. An environmental assessment is still underway and remains in the scoping stages – an extension has been granted until 10 Mar (but not before outrage on the part of Earthlife Africa at the initial 4-week comment period for a highly technical document, some 633 pages long!).

In the interim, Marthinus Van Schalkwyk has sought legal advice and, despite the fact that the two RoDs were initially linked, has taken the decision to go ahead with the manufacturing of nuclear fuel.

Next: should we go nuclear part 2: but is nuclear the answer?