S. Africa's energy 'policy'

April 23, 2008

Dear Sir,

As a Bermudian currently living in South Africa I read with interest your report (Royal Gazette April 22 2008) on a talk to be given at the BUEI by Gert Claassen (sic) of Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Limited, South Africa.

In your report you state "South Africa used nuclear energy to help solve its energy problems".

That made me laugh so hard I nearly forgot to light the candles here in the house before the lights went out for the compulsory electricity 'load shedding' (read no electricity) which we have to endure every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday from 6 p.m. to 8 .p.m since the beginning of 2008.

Other parts of the country have differing times and days of 'load shedding', but all are out of power for 2 ½ hours. In the major cities the power can go off any time of any day or night for any length of time.

Recently I was in an area whereby the power was off every Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 6 a.m. until 8.30 a.m. – just think about getting children up and ready for school, much less adults getting ready for work and the day ahead!

In the 1990s here in South Africa ESKOM (the Government equivalent of Belco) calculations showed that new power stations would be needed by 2007 to meet the expected demand growth. As time passed, existing power stations were reaching the end of their design lives, demand for electricity soared, but as a result of the ruling party government African National Congress (ANC) policy no new power stations were being built.

Then four years ago, ANC policy changed and ESKOM got the go-ahead to build more power stations. It was too little, too late and so everyone in South Africa has to endure 'load shedding' and this will continue until approx the year 2014.

As to the talk to be given by Mr. Claassen, whilst no doubt he will extoll the virtues of nuclear energy (which I have no problems with ) the main factor to be borne in all of this will be the cost of such a plant.

In South Africa the nuclear energy programmes costs (including the Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor) have escalated out of sight, and no doubt this will be more of the same in Bermuda.

Please put any thought of a nuclear energy plant in Bermuda in the same place as the PLP proposed airport at the West End and the proposed bridge from Spanish Point to Dockyard.

BRIAN CALLAGHAN

Fancourt, Blanco, South Africa

Time to go nuclear

April 22, 2008

Dear Sir,

In my last Belco bill I received a pamphlet outlining Belco's future plans. I was absolutely shocked to see they want to expand using the same obsolete oil burning technology. They even quoted the name of a prestigious consultant group that came to this conclusion. If this actually happens, Bermuda and its people will be locked into the inevitable $200 per barrel of oil in the next ten years. Make no mistake, $200 oil is a decade away.

This whole sequence of events is a classic example of "group think" i.e. people being told only what they want to hear and thinking inside the same old box. We need to go nucelar for Bermuda's economic and environmental future.

There should be nobody having anything to do with future energy plans for this Island who hasn't read 'The Meaning of the 21st Century', a book written by Bermuda's own James Martin. It is written in layman's terms to make the main points and technological terms for the more advanced reader, all in the same text. In four pages (147 - 151) you will learn all you need to know to convince you that Fourth Generation nuclear power plants will save this Island from the financial ruin which will follow the stupid expansion of energy production from fossil fuels.

To summarise Fourth Generation Nuclear power – it is called a pebble bed reactor. Small beads of uranium are used as fuel. One of these pellets weighs a quarter of an ounce and costs about $1.14. Obviously there are millions of these used together. Each pebble, while reacting with others, is capable of producing as much energy as three and a half barrels of oil. At $100 per barrel that's $350. Uranium is 15,872 times as powerful as oil. For the same energy cost, China could run for five days on oil and one year on uranium.

These uranium pebbles are in carbide steel casing, which are indestructible. I could go into more technology but it serves no purpose. The point is, these reactors are absolutely safe. A single reactor is the size of a 40 foot shipping container and will produce between 100-200 megawatts of power. For larger plants many of them can be linked together to a single control panel. Just imagine we could get rid of these huge grids that we have running all over the Island. No longer would a power failure somewhere between Hamilton and St. George's black out the East End. We could have 3 containers in St. George's, 5 containers for Southampton- Sandys. No more long distance grids to maintain.

The world is going nuclear. There are 440 old type nuclear power plants in 36 countries. Fifty six countries operate 284 research reactors as well. There are another 220 plants that power ships and submarines. These are all old type reactors which create weapons-grade plutonium as waste and have rods, not pellets, which when spent creates a disposal nuisance. The new technology creates none of this.

To add to this, there are 30 more plants being built now and 74 more planned. This doesn't include new information that Japan wants 11 more, India 20, Russia 42 and the US 21. Did you know France generates 80 percent of its power from nuclear?

In America alone nuclear power has reduced the emissions of greenhouse gases by 128 billion tons per year. In 2005, it saved 1.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide and kept 90,000 tons of toxic heavy metals out of the mix.

Governments worldwide are reassessing their policies on nuclear power. It's the cheapest, cleanest energy around. Oil production reached its peak in 2006. It may remain at these levels for a while, but with increasing demand from China, India and similar developing countries this demand cannot be met. We in Bermuda are rich but I'll bet the price of oil is going to knock our socks off soon. We will be paying $10 a gallon for gas by the end of this year. Government could ease up on the duty for fuel but it is such a rich 'cash cow' that I doubt it. I mean, they even got Belco to collect their fuel tax for them which we know as fuel adjustment. I tell you, this cost of fossil fuels could bring Bermuda's economy to a halt!

Maybe we could talk James Martin into chairing a committee for our future.

This new Fourth Generation nuclear business is the brainchild of a South African Company.

In closing there is one other wonderful thing about uranium. Not a single ounce comes from the Middle East. I personally am ready to stop feeding OPEC and countries like Venezuela over $800 million a day – these same countries hell bent on destroying our free societies. Instead most uranium comes from Canada and Australia who are friendly and could probably use the money.

R. DUNCAN MORAN, DDS

City of Hamilton

P.s. I see from Tuesday's paper that there will be a presentation by the South African firm on May 9 from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. at BUEI. It will be very informative.

Utilise the elements

April 21, 2008

Dear Sir,

I wonder if anybody has been following the price increase in oil. It is now almost 300 percent higher than it was in 2000 and many analysts believe it will go much higher than the current $117 a barrel.

Very soon the fuel adjustment charge on our Belco bills will exceed all other charges combined, but don't worry, Belco and its shareholders will never lose out as their risks are very well managed. This is probably why Belco is still promoting safe (for them), reliable and risk-free oil based power generation when there is ample evidence that commercial wind and tidal seawater resources have been proven to work well for electrical power generation for up to 40 years in Europe.

Belco's association with the Current to Current Corporation would seem to be a sick joke when you look at the website for that company. What have they done when compared with all the other companies that have working ocean and tidal current systems in place?

I know we may not be able to rely 100 percent on renewables but by incorporating them in a diversified power generating plan for Bermuda, diversified in location as well as process, Bermuda could save millions of dollars annually in fuel imports and significantly reduce its foreign exchange liabilities and its carbon footprint.

Perhaps the Government should consider expending our dwindling financial resources on something that would save us money. Forget about replacing the causeway for now and use the $90 million to buy and install proven off-shore wind power generating technology and make Belco accept all power into the grid at a fair price to Bermuda's residents.

Every breath of wind will reduce oil consumption. Joint Government/private/Belco projects at the East and West Ends of the Island using Government or privately-funded wind power with automatic Belco diesel back up would be a step in the right direction.

These co-generation systems for remote locations are successfully employed around the world already, saving communities a small fortune in fuel and helping the planet to boot. Win-win all around if one cares for our planet.

We can embrace technologies that exist now to save electrical power and we can conserve without significantly impacting upon our lifestyle to reduce peak power demands.

A little commitment now could significantly delay or perhaps even eliminate the time when it becomes necessary to further increase power generation. I also see no reason why Bermuda must remain a power dinosaur and continue to solely burn fossil fuels when it can show the world it can become a power leader by embracing renewables. It just needs the will and a little of the entrepreneurial spirit that we Bermudians are renowned for. What can we all do to help?

BALANCED

Pembroke