Nuclear power remains misunderstood, despite its cleaner and safer record compared with coal.
Looking at it in cynical pseudo-scientific terms, you’d have to think that the half-life of the radioactive critics of nuclear energy would be measured in decades.
At the risk of raising the ire of some in the green lobby, we would say that, overall, nuclear energy has had, over the years, what the Americans would call “a bum rap”.
Following highly-publicised disasters in the ’70s and ’80s, like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl – and the well-known fact that nuclear waste can be highly toxic – many governments, including ours, have seemingly sworn off new nuclear build projects.
Yet, the reality is that nuclear is, in terms of direct threat to a population, far less serious than coal-fired power stations.
ALSO READ: SA’s new Integrated Resource Plan is progressive – but must be implemented swiftly
Ask any person on the Mpumalanga highveld – home of our coal-fired power station fleet – who is suffering from respiratory problems, if they disagree with that.
Prof Bismark Tyobeka, one of the country’s top nuclear experts, has welcomed the new energy blueprint announced recently by Minister of Electricity and Energy Kgosientsho Ramokgopa.
He says nuclear energy must be part of South Africa’s power mix, because it will help keep the lights on without worsening the climate crisis.
We must remove the emotion and listen to experts like Tyobeka.
NOW READ: Koeberg Nuclear Power Station unit 1 ready to bolster power grid
