Pebble bed nuclear reactors in question

Eskom is attracted to the technology because it sees it as being 'inherently safe' and not needing the expense of a full safety barrier, known as a secondary containment, which other modern reactors have. In June, Rainer Moormann, a scientist who works at Germany's Juelich Research Centre, FZJ, published a report on safety problems with pebble-bed reactors after re-examining the pebble-bed prototype reactor, the AVR, which was shut down in 1988. According to an article in Nucleonics Week, Rainer's findings were 'strongly rebutted' in a presentation by PBMR Ltd, which is 100% owned by Eskom. The PBMR company said Moormann is alone in his findings, and other scientists regard his study as 'flawed'. Full Cape Times report (subscription needed)

Meanwhile the debate over where Eskom's PBMR will be built in SA continues. Three sites under consideration - Thyspunt, Bantamsklip and Pelindaba - have been ruled out as suitable locations for the proposed demonstration model of the nuclear facility. The Cape Times notes that according to the draft environmental impact report released last week, Thyspunt, near Cape St Francis, and Bantamsklip, near Pearly Beach, have been eliminated because of their 'greenfield' status. All three were eliminated because of the lack of infrastructure and the high cost of providing it. Pelindaba was ruled out after the Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA stated 'categorically' that it was not responsible for generating electricity, but for the manufacture of nuclear fuel. The only site left is Koeberg. The report said if the PBMR demo model were authorised, it was unlikely to begin producing commercial electricity before 2023. Full Cape Times report (subscription needed)