As the debate has never ended on nuclear (unlike the exceptions of some, er...hopes of some...) it seems like hydro-heavy Brazil continues to opt for nuclear.
Brazil is planning to expand its nuclear energy output by building five more reactors to augment the two currently in operation, Energy Minister Edison Lobao said on Thursday.
"Despite the recent incidents in Japan, Brazil is sticking to its policy of expanding its nuclear program," Lobao said in Rio, according to a report carried by Brazil's state news agency.
Lobao did not provide any timeline for the construction of the new reactors.
Brazil currently operates two reactors in its sole nuclear power plant located in Angra dos Reis, a coastal town south of Rio.
The facility generates around three percent of Brazil's energy production, which relies overwhelmingly on hydroelectric installations.
I did note that Brazil gets lots of power from hydro, right? Renewable right? However, the high dependence on hydro gives rise to some climatic vulnerability which is driving policy to diminish dependence on it. Despite this, in February 2010 the government approved $9.3 billion investment in the new 11.2 GWe Belo Monte hydro scheme, which will flood 500 sq km of the Amazon basin and supply about 11% of the country's electricity. However the scope for further hydro-electric development is perceived to be limited. But 11GWs is a LOT of energy. But, but...countries are going to do whatever it takes.
And in South Africa...
Environmental groups have slammed the government's decision to build nuclear plants, saying it will not lead to energy security for South Africa.
"As for nuclear energy as being our answer to whatever Eskom thinks it will be, that's not entirely true. If Eskom is concerned with electricity security, energy security and safe electricity supply, nuclear is not going to be able to provide that," Ferial Adams of Greenpeace Africa told News24.
Energy Minister Dipuo Peters announced on Thursday that the building process to build new nuclear plants which would produce 9 600MW, would begin by 2012.
Sure, the usual, right? But this AMAZING quote from Greenpeace SA from the SAME article:
But Greenpeace said that the reliance on base load was flawed and that nuclear plants around the world were subject to delays because of safety and regulatory requirements.
"Big utilities around the world have been punting the issue of base load, and saying that we need base load that’s why we can’t move away from things, and then saying that nuclear is the answer to that.
"Base load is not the most sustainable way of us using our energy. We actually lose a lot of our energy supply and Greenpeace has come out with our Energy Revolution, where we show that actually, you don’t really need base load for our electricity supply to work," said Adams.
OH MY GOD! What a bunch of idiots. Seriously. They know renewables can't provide baseload (The minimum 24/7 365 you need to run things like factories that make things like...well...PV, wind turbines, etc). Which they admit, obviously, since they simply choose to ignore the issue by denying it's importance and proposing phony schemes based on living like Hobbits. So, 'baseload'? Who needs it? A hug...
By all means, here is an analysis of what underdevelopment does to people without baseload, and condemnation of Greenpeace's western NGOish...wish to keep people in the dark: