LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Nuclear is often the cheapest source of electricity

Neil Overy keeps repeating his stale, discredited nonsense on nuclear power (“Eskom’s nuclear push clashes with just transition goals”, April 23.)

Contrary to Overy, nuclear power has shown it can be the cheapest source of electricity in many countries, as well as the safest and cleanest. By contrast, solar and wind (“renewables”), associated with the oxymoronic “just energy transition”, have proved themselves to be by far the most staggeringly expensive source of grid electricity in every country that has tried them.

Germany used to be a highly successful industrial country, with nuclear power providing its cheapest, safest and cleanest electricity. For political reasons it decided to phase out nuclear in 2011 and invest heavily in tens of thousands of gigantic wind turbines and solar arrays, using colossal quantities of raw materials (wind turbines use more than 10 times as much concrete and steel as nuclear per kWh) and incurring severe environmental problems.

The result was soaring electricity prices that shut down German industries, crippled its economy and impoverished sections of the population. In January, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz conceded that shutting down nuclear power was a “huge mistake”.

Britain has gone the same route in pursuit of “net zero”, with the same result: economic suicide. In France, nuclear used to be the cheapest source of electricity until it was hijacked by green politicians and complacency from its nuclear industry. In China, South Korea and Russia, nuclear power still provides cheap electricity, with the plants built on schedule.

Over the past 60 years pressurised water reactors like those at Koeberg have proven so safe that I believe Koeberg should scrap its evacuation drills for the surrounding public. They are unnecessary.

Nuclear is by far the best option for South Africa’s electricity future — solar and wind are the worst by far.

Andrew Kenny

Via email

Iran should be depowered regardless of its nuclear threat

Andile Songezo’s letter refers (“US misrepresented nuclear threat posed by Iran”, April 24). I go with the middle ground (it is the Middle East after all).

I think Iran used the threat of nuclear arms as a deterrent rather than a reality (estimates are that it has about 400kg of 60% enriched uranium in gas form; 90% enrichment is required for a bomb).

Depowering Iran remains a good thing to me — because of its destabilisation of the Middle East, because it is a brutal and misogynistic regime, and because of its avowed intention to destroy Israel and every Jew.

To me the most likely scenario for a nuclear war is one in which Israel’s back is forced to the wall of annihilation.

Paul Kearney

Via Business Day online

SA has much to learn from US on appointing ambassadors

Marianne Merten’s column refers (“Washington posting exposes ad hoc approach to ambassador announcements”, April 24).

Contrast how we arrived at dusting off Roelf Meyer (does anyone really know?) with the long, highly visible and very public process US ambassador to South Africa, L Brent Bozell III, had to go through. Including aggressive assaults by the US opposition (the Democrats).

Bozell might have been the US president’s choice, but there was still a rigorous public process of checks and balances that he had to meet and overcome.

We have much to learn from the US. Their system is, after all, 250 years old and still going strong. Ours is teetering at 30.

Stuart Meyer

Via Business Day online

Police and banks can do more to combat cybercrime and fraud

The South African Police Service (SAPS) has been exposed at all levels (“SAPS leadership needs sweeping review after probe”, April 16), reflecting the incompetence of the prime protector of society.

In the case of cybercrime, commercial banks are complicit participants. When money has been stolen from a bank client by another client of the same bank, does the bank attempt to apprehend the fraudster?

No! It tells the client who has suffered the loss to report the problem to the ombudsman and the SAPS. Despite the expected protection provided by the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, and despite the Hawks being notified, the fraudster gets away with close to half-a-million rand. The conclusion is that hush money passed hands to protect the participants along the fraud chain.

If politicians, police officers, partners of audit firms and directors of public companies can be caught with their hands in the till, so can police detectives, bank employees and crypto fraudsters.

The stolen money was eventually used to buy crypto. The bank should have reported the “unusual” transaction to the revenue authorities, the Financial Intelligence Centre and the Financial Sector Conduct Authority.

Unfortunately, in South Africa, where financial crime is rife, banks are protected and government departments do not communicate. The barriers are up unless there is loads of money to go to court. So, despite the lifting of the Financial Action Task Force greylisting, the circus will continue.

Chris Richards

Via email

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businessday.co.za. Letters of more than 200 words may be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.​