The mayor’s visit to Koeberg might be commendable, but his naivety shows all round as he accepts all the assurances by Eskom’s personnel hook, line and sinker (“Mayor visits Koeberg for briefing on safety”, TygerBurger, 2 March).
He would have been wise(r) to have Peter Becker accompany him, who is in a position to enlighten his ignorance. Alone the words: “. . . it operates cheaply” has me cringe, when costs of demolition and clearing of nuclear sites world-wide are looked at.
Alone the safe storage of spent fuel rods costs an ongoing and ever increasing fortune, and world-wide nuclear power stations are running out of suitable useable sites.
Future generations are settled with a multibillion debt for the mess created by such a power station, apart from the fact that the site itself will not be habitable for hundreds of years.
It is also of interest to be informed by Eskom (on Friday 4 March) that the steam generator exchange will not happen this year, for good reasons.
This information is indeed commendable, but begs the question: how did Eskom initially estimate the time to exchange this unit? The reason given for the delay is simple: “There is a high likelihood of the unit being returned to the grid later than currently planned.” Who did the planning?
His (the mayor’s) comments to Eskom’s plan to extend Koeberg’s lifetime by 20 years also begs the question: where does the DA stand on the matter? Do they endorse this plan despite the many arguments against it? To my knowledge and memory, the DA has so far been pretty quiet on the matter, while the concerned community opposes the plan most strongly.
