Koeberg can withstand quake, tsunami

2011-03-15 14:36

Cape Town - Eskom on Tuesday assured MPs that its Koeberg nuclear power plant near Cape Town was designed to withstand both earthquakes and tsunamis.

The electricity utility's operations and planning division MD, Kannan Lakmeeharam, said the design of Koeberg's two reactors was more advanced than those at Japan's Fukushima plant.

A major nuclear crisis is brewing at Fukushima in the wake of the Richter scale 9.0 earthquake that hit Japan last week. Cooling systems have failed at three of the plant's reactors; three massive explosions have rocked the complex; and there are reports of major radiation leaks.

Tens of thousands of people living within a 20km radius of the plant have been evacuated.

Briefing a joint meeting of Parliament's energy and public enterprises portfolio committees, Lakmeeharam said while the reactors at Fukushima were "generation I" design, those at Koeberg were "generation II".

"There are several elements to what is going on in Japan that we have to compare to South Africa. The first is... design of the plant.

"The Fukushima plant is generation I technology; Koeberg is generation II technology, which is a pressurised water reactor. So it's different technology."

'Koeberg can cope with a tsunami'

On Koeberg's ability to withstand a major earthquake, he said the plant was built to withstand a Richter scale 7 seismic shock.

"The Koeberg plant is built on a raft to withstand a Richter scale 7 earthquake. So you've got to look at what is the history of seismic activity in South Africa, and whether that design is sufficient.

"Every nuclear power station is built to what is known as a safety case... based on looking at environmental issues and the past history of seismic activity, and so on."

He told MPs that the emergency power supply for Koeberg's reactors was designed to cope with a tsunami.

"A nuclear power station needs electricity to make sure the cooling water system works. The cooling system for the reactor core is one of the most critical elements of a nuclear power station.

"At Koeberg, the primary source of electricity for this cooling system is the national grid. [Over and above this], we have a dedicated source for Koeberg supplied by gas turbines.

"We [also] have diesel generators on site, and further generators at a higher elevation.

"So we have four layers of security to provide power for the cooling water system. We test them [all] regularly... All of this is overseen by the National Nuclear Regulator.

"So there are some differences; obviously what's happening in Japan is of concern, and we have to keep reviewing our own practices in the light of what we learn," he said.

The largest recorded earthquake in South Africa measured 6.1 on the Richter scale. It struck the Western Cape towns of Tulbagh and Ceres in 1969.

  • Melly30 - 2011-03-15 14:39


      John Seloa - 2011-03-17 11:36

      I aqree fully with Bratt. I would not trust a word from this. Better say, "SA is at not at risk of earthquake or tsunami as this country is one of the safest places on planet earth (geologically speaking)." However, saying that we designed a plant better than the Japs is utter rubbish.

      Snoopy88 - 2011-03-17 11:51

      But it can't withstand a well-placed monkey wrench!!

      Michelle8 - 2011-03-17 21:36

      Koeberg is not as old as the nuclear plant in Japan. They used better technology to build Koeberg, as it was not the first nuclear power station ever built, and they could learn from older plants, including Japan's. The engineers and scientists used to build Koeberg were very well-informed and were probably brought in from countries like Japan to help us build a modern, updated nuclear power station. Scientists and engineers from around the world are consulted every time something big like a nuclear power plant is consructed, so SA would definitely have had the ability to build a better plant than the Fukushima plant in Japan. I'm sure there are other, more modern nuclear power stations in Japan that are built better than Koeberg. And, if we had to build a new power plant in SA, it would be better than older plants in Japan. The technology is always improving.

  • gizzy - 2011-03-15 14:46

    Ha!ha! After the bolt in the turbo, I believe NOTHING Koeberg or Eskom say.

      lenand40 - 2011-03-15 14:49

      You really have no choice. What are you going to do? Make them redesign it?

  • rodneyrittmann - 2011-03-15 14:47

    It might be able to survive quakes and Tsunamis (which SA has NONE of), but can it survive the ANC government?

      Educated - 2011-03-15 14:58

      And, unfortunately, so did you, truthteller.

      CronoslayeR - 2011-03-15 15:03

      im sorry truthteller, but until you know rodney's age, you have no right to call it his apartheid. Half of us being blamed for that werent even in school back then. But i wont say anything rude about the ANC, i will however say that theyre definitely not the brightest bunch of humans for the job. lol

      rodneyrittmann - 2011-03-15 15:22

      MY apartheid ... I'm colored you idiot! My grandfather is black!

      Betterworld - 2011-03-15 15:29

      @ truthteller: Ironic that you have named yourself truthteller yet support a a government that is riddled with lies and corruption. As for Koeberg being more advanced than Japan's Fukushima plant - highly unlikely.... Japan has the third biggest economy in the world. This means that they are one of the biggest energy consumers in the world. More likely to say that there nuclear capabilities are far superior to that of Koeberg.

      Nate - 2011-03-15 15:38

      Political statement on this topic. Thats sad dude.

      Cartman - 2011-03-15 15:41

      @truthteller, Ahh so rodneyrttimann it was your apartheid, or your parents or theirs. Nevertheless lets not dwell in the past.....some-one has got to get the blame for the incompetence of the current ruling party (18 years and counting) might as well be you.

      David Mostert - 2011-03-15 16:02

      @thumbsucker/truthteller a fully functioning generation 2 design advanced nuclear power facility survived apartheid (as an insult, that is a little ambiguous...) isn't that a sign of competence? not defending, just asking...

      Welleducated - 2011-03-15 16:43

      Hahaha. I am not white not black. I am human and this statement is true. We emay even get... "tolled" to upgrade it in future instead of using the taxes and electricity bills we already pay.

      Welleducated - 2011-03-15 16:45

      Hahaha. I am not white not black. I am human and this statement is true. We may even get... "tolled"... to upgrade it in future instead of using the taxes and electricity bills we already pay.

      MrIceland - 2011-03-16 07:34

      @Betterworld The Fukushima plant is over 40 years old. Koeberg was commissioned in 1984 so it's a more advanced design and a different type of reactor. Japan was one of the early adopters of nuclear power stations so they have a lot of them dotted around the country, some old (and well maintained) and some new.

      ikabot - 2011-03-16 09:33

      @CronoslayeR: Apartheid belongs to a white middle class child born this morning. The advantages the white middle class child enjoys are the fruits of apartheid. It will be this way for generations.

      Betterworld - 2011-03-16 15:21

      @ Mr. Iceland So you're saying that Koeberg can withstand these tsunamis and major earthquakes as its so much more advanced... yet generating sufficient electricity for the Western Cape is too much to ask? Hmmmm..... The estimated economic losses due to the power cuts was over R 500 M as at February 2007, and is estimated to rise to possibly as high as R 2 billion. Way to go Koeberg!

  • Wouter - 2011-03-15 14:47

    And we all believe Eskom. And the ANC. And Santa Claus. And the Easter Bunny....

      pop101 - 2011-03-15 15:31

      Well, guess if they tell you, you won't have power tomorrow, you won't belief them then. Me on the other hand,I would go out and buy some braai wood.

      Tiwonge - 2011-03-15 17:18

      That's a nice one. All the more that the majority of the MPS (Read ANC)in the same parliament merely rubberstamp the political talking heads heading that institution, who can only say what their masters want to hear. Yes Easter bunnies do exist if you belong to that joke of an institution. This is from a new DA member who is a darkie at that!!

  • Straight Forward - 2011-03-15 14:48

    "Eskom has assured MPs". I feel so safe in this knowledge. Both parties, Eskom and MPs are so reliable and trustworthy

      wattalotokak - 2011-03-15 15:51

      Just a question - what happens when the "assurance" falls short on whatever disaster? Who gets the answer for such things??? Eskom??? or the MP's??? NOBODY is accountable in South Africa...! So what good is an "assurance" which is not even worth a 1 cent coin??? I totally agree with you hehehehe

      pop101 - 2011-03-15 15:55

      Probably the NNR.

      Stop The NWO - 2011-03-16 00:27

      Feck wattalotokak... don't you know the story by now... it'll be the old regime who's to blame.

  • CynicBelieve - 2011-03-15 14:50

    And we believe that Japan's nuclear reactors are less superior than ours? Uhm...I don't think so. Looked at what happened a few years ago at Nersa in Pretoria with that radiation scare and there wasn't even an earth quake. Sort out your own problems before making false promises. Dimwits!

      pop101 - 2011-03-15 15:29

      Actually they are. They are older, hence older technology.

  • - 2011-03-15 14:51

    I am far away from Cape Town, Phew!!! Hopefully an earthquake measuring 7.1 will not happen, 6.1 was not heard of before 1969 like 7.1 is not heard of today.

  • truthteller - 2011-03-15 14:52

    even Japan Energy Cooperation said that

  • x - 2011-03-15 14:53

    What this article (and ESKOM) is NOT saying, is that Koeberg is 8km from a fault called the 'Milnerton fault'. Google it and you will see it is a well known fault structure. SA's historical seismic activity is of no importance or relevance when you consider the fault structure, which caused a 6.5 quake 200 years ago - so clearly we are overdue for another one. So lakmeeharam says that "Every nuclear power station is built to what is known as a safety case... based on looking at environmental issues and the past history of seismic activity, and so on." Clearly this did not help the Japanese now did it???

      Alta - 2011-03-15 15:03

      Yes and I live close to the Milnerton Fault and Koeberg....not very comforting I would say.

      JOHNNYBRAVO - 2011-04-09 11:25


  • Monique2011 - 2011-03-15 14:53

    Germany has announced that they are shutting down all their nuclear power stations - this is not good enough. Eskom can't even control their own finances and now we're led to believe that they are qualified to make such an assessment. Remember that Japan said the same thing!

      omgwtfnews - 2011-03-15 16:23

      Germany is only shutting down pre 1980 nuclear power stations...

  • CorneN - 2011-03-15 14:54

    We are not even close to a fault line. The only chance South Africa has of getting a 9.0 on the scale is if Malema's ego pops. I'm more worried about maintanence than natural disasters...

      Madelane - 2011-03-15 15:21

      Actually the Milnerton fault line is a scant 8 k's from Koeberg out to sea so an earthquake on this line could well mean a double whammy of quake and tsunami. Other than the Tulbach quake the last one prior to that was in what is now Gugs and Kieletshia etc back in 1899.

  • Goebels - 2011-03-15 14:56

    Designed and built in 80's. Maybe there was (discreet) corruption too then, but at least there was quality! (PS, I know it was built by the French)

      gizzy - 2011-03-15 15:56

      Gosh, could yo imagine another being built now. It would have to be BEE! Just look at those houses at the gateway project and you get the creeps. Those houses are collapsing after 2 years! No more nuclear power stations for us please!

  • Educated - 2011-03-15 14:56

    It may be able to withstand an eartquake or tsunami but can it withstand an eskom employee?

      SAFFA-CAT - 2011-03-15 15:01

      Or an ANCYL attack?

      mollma - 2011-03-17 09:04

      For your "educated" presence you and "wattalotokak" must take an early lunch.We all would like to know some facts and atleast a decent conversation.

      JOHNNYBRAVO - 2011-04-09 11:26

      educated, you made me howl with laughter on this one!!

  • Joe Public - 2011-03-15 14:57

    You arrogant fool. So a Eskom spin doctor has managed to appease a bunch of ignorant politicians. Get real people of course he is going to say that, that are looking for funding to build additional reactors and its coming out of your pocket. Question everything do believe a word of it!!!!!

      pop101 - 2011-03-15 15:25

      Nope it doesn't come from your pocket alone. They are securing foreign investors. Typical Joe Public response.

  • SAFFA-CAT - 2011-03-15 15:00

    Tsunamis/Hurricanes/Tornados/Floods are NOTHING. Can Koeberg withstand ESKOM'S incompetence is what I want to know?

  • Sir Charles - 2011-03-15 15:03

    Yes maybe Natural Disasters but not the uneducated affirmative action employees !

  • Viv - 2011-03-15 15:05

    If Eksom and the MP's say it is safe then it must be! I can now happily ride my unicorn to the leprechaun tea party at the end of the rainbow with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

  • The Patriot - 2011-03-15 15:05

    Smacks of arrogance to me. If power lines are up routed, then no electricity to pump water for cooling.Why try BS? The Japs have generators as well. Not coping at all. Protective core, better then the Japs that Live and build in a seismically active zone not as good as Koberg's? Build to withstand a scale 7(Not 9 like Japans)? Maybe there are lessons that need to be learned but were too smart to do that, right ESKOM?

  • teitge79 - 2011-03-15 15:06

    "The Milnerton Fault runs eight kilometres offshore near Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, through Table View and Milnerton, and on to the Cape Flats and part of False Bay. Further northeast of Cape Town, a major earthquake in 1969 destroyed many buildings in the towns of Tulbagh and Ceres." something I read on a site

      piet.blackwolf - 2011-09-03 20:26

      Ja ek was in die 1969 aardbewing gewees in Parow op die rolskaatsbaan en dit was 'n 100 kilos vêr weg.So ek het ondervinding daarvan.Ek het geweet van die Koeberg gevaar maar niks van die Milnerton Belt nie wat die Kaap nou dubbel gevaarliker maak.Daar was 'n 100 jaar gelede al voorspel gewees dat daar 'n kernontploffing gaan wees indie Kaap.Ek dink ook daar het nou ander faktore ook by gekom wat nie daar was nie naamlik die groot verandering van die Natuur op 'n globale skaal,daar gebeur nou dinge wat die gevaar hier meer vergroot en dan kom die Haarp storie ook deesdae baie in die nuus waar mense self kan besluit wat gebeur in die Natuur.Dan Koeberg kan 'n tidal wave weerstaan,wat 'n klomp bolly,en wat gaan gebeur as daai water wal Caltex se opgaar tenke tref wat vol plofbare brandstof is en onthou dit dryf bo op die water,so jy gaan 'n keuse hê versuip of verbrand.Ek het ook êrens gelees dat daar al dinge verkeerd geloop het by Koeberg waarvan die nuus weg gehou word van ons.Met 'n redelike groot Aardbewing sê maar van 6.5-8+ sal omtrent alle uitgangs paaie uit die Kaap geblok wees.Japan se Tidal wave het 40 min na die aardbewing gekom So dit gee jou nie baie reaksie tyd nie,ek het gehoop op tenminste 60 min om spore te maak Karoo toe hangende af of jy beseer is en hoe êrenstig daai besering is.Ons huise kan 'n sekere sterkte aardbewing weerstaan maar dan gaan die mure begin ingee met jou daar binne in. Ek het 'n staal rak systeem regom binne die kamer gebou.

  • Neille - 2011-03-15 15:09


  • omgwtfnews - 2011-03-15 15:10

    Nuclear plants are always built to withstand large earthquakes. Keoberg was no exception. Unfortunately when you get a mega earthquake like Japan did, you cannot guarantee anything. Our nuclear standards are well recognized around the world - in spit of the juvenile political jokes on this forum.

      SAFFA-CAT - 2011-03-15 15:24

      Koeberg was BUILT to withstand the forces of nature, the problem I have, is that the maintenance of Koeberg has been "WELL BELOW WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN" for the last decade & longer....20 Years ago - yeah, Koeberg was world class. Is it STILL?

      omgwtfnews - 2011-03-15 15:37

      how the hell do you know? Or are you just thumbsucking again because you have an issue with the government? The fact is it has been running and providing power bar the generator issues and the one maintenance issue a few YEARS which were are dealt with safely. Both reactors have been running well the past couple of years and only 1 is going down for routine maintenance now.

      gizzy - 2011-03-15 15:58

      It wasn't the earthquake that did the damage. It was the tsunami!

  • Rob - 2011-03-15 15:11

    What a relief!

  • Durbsviking - 2011-03-15 15:11

    "Every nuclear power station is built to what is known as a safety case... based on looking at environmental issues and the past history of seismic activity, and so on." And the Japanese, with a reputation for thoroughness and rigour, still got it wrong. We cannot redesign it but we sure as hell can make sure that our safety processes and disaster plans take into account that anything can happen. With overconfidence like this, we are in deep poo if anything does happen.

      Madelane - 2011-03-15 19:21

      Titanic (unsinkable) thinking which unfortunately we as humans adhere too strongly. Difference is these nuclear plants can turn this planet into a wasteland and not just sink to the ocean floor with a few hundred unfortunate souls.

  • Gorilla - 2011-03-15 15:13

    Can withstand Tsunami's and earthquake but not stupid locals who leave bolts behind.

  • mike881 - 2011-03-15 15:14

    Compare apples with apples - Japan was hit by a 9 earthquake. Koeberg with gen 2 technology can stand up to a 7 earthquake. When a 9 or a 10 hits there is almost nothing that will remain undamaged. Albeit the chances of an earthquake that magnitude hitting Koeberg are extremely remote. Secondly when Eskom like the politicians announces something I tend to believe the opposite due to the lying track record of both.

      gizzy - 2011-03-15 16:00

      The tsunami caused the damage. Any tsunami the size of what hit japan will take koeberg out.

  • Klaus - 2011-03-15 15:18

    I agree with CorneN - the likelihood of a disaster caused by natural events along the lines of what happened in Japan is minimal. The area closest to Cape Town, where two major tectonic plates meet that could wreak havoc, is in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the Atlantic Ridge. Although not considered a "hot spot", nothing says that a quake there cannot happen, which could result in a tsunami, which could hit Cape Town. Maintenance however is a different kettle of fish altogether, and if one recalls, it was maintenance / lack of adhering to procedure that caused the Chernobyl disaster. It would interesting to hear what the Eskom version of "absolute worst case" for Koeberg would be. Perhaps one should also bear in mind what happened with the Three Mile Island reactor - and that was in the USA.

      benjvanniekerk - 2011-03-15 15:47

      Just look at the Chernobyl site on google earth. The whole area is dead and deserted. It is quite a shock to see. Earth quakes and tsunamis are not the only threat.

      gizzy - 2011-03-15 16:02

      If the tectonic plates wreak havoc in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean it will cause a tsunami which will take koeberg out. It's wasn't the earthquake that caused the problem.

  • Andrew - 2011-03-15 15:18

    Earthquakes and Tsunamis are the least of our worries!!!

  • shaun.swan - 2011-03-15 15:19

    japan said the samething just need a big enough earthquake and koeberg is nou more.........

  • Sword&Cross - 2011-03-15 15:21

    South Africa is not too concerned about the natural disasters! Apart from the ANC flooding the Flood Plains of all rivers with voters in shacks CONSISTENTLY we only have plagues and diseases which are constantly overwhelming the nation. What DOES become a major worry though is the sheer magnitude of lack of maintenance, lack of service delivery, rampant violent crime, and extreme racism and outright blatant theft and embezzlement by the ANC which can almost equate to this tragedy in Japan.

      omgwtfnews - 2011-03-15 15:23

      Oh really? I wonder if you would say the same thing if you were the one walking through the destruction looking for your missing 99 year old mother. whine whine whine

      bentz - 2011-03-15 15:35

      nicely put Sword!

  • JuluisMalema - 2011-03-15 15:22

    Do not mock. Nature is stronger than anything and Every thing. God is in control of Every planet and Earth also, do not mock. People said the TITANIC can never sink, what happend to the TITANIC? Get you facts right people and re-frase you quote's.

  • Nice Guy - 2011-03-15 15:23

    We are all going to die

  • Monique2011 - 2011-03-15 15:23

    Switzerland has now suspended plans for 3 new plants .....wake up ANC and smell the coffee!

  • shirley.schoeman - 2011-03-15 15:24

    Ha ha, I had been having a really crap day but then I read this article and had a good laugh. Thank you eskom, I feel SO much better now!

  • fpkay - 2011-03-15 15:26

    I don't think Eskom knows the real impact of Earthquakes and Tsunamis.

  • Elaine - 2011-03-15 15:27


  • Paulo - 2011-03-15 15:34

    quite a bold statement to make-do you think he'll be avaialbe for comment if it doesn't?

  • JuluisMalema - 2011-03-15 15:37

    The only Tsunami in the history of South Africa is the ANC destroying everthing in SA. And the only Quake in South Africa is the corrupt police force and justice system.

  • TimStorm - 2011-03-15 15:39

    If you know nothing, please say nothing. I'm involved in Koeberg's compliance audit process as a third party systems auditor. The staff at Koeberg are exceptional and their safety systems are very well designed and maintained. Emotive comments on SA's nuclear power capabilities with no fact base are not helpful. Another point to consider: Had the Fukushima Nuclear power station been an equivalent MW output coal fire power station - burning coal over the last 40 years, the cumulative impact on the receiving environment (both micro and macro) would FAR exceed the impact of an incident such as this.

      omgwtfnews - 2011-03-15 15:54

      hear hear. Ignore the trolls.

      Klaus - 2011-03-15 15:55

      I would agree that the staff at Koeberg are competent, I do not think for one minute that anyone would let incompetent, untrained personnel loose in a nuclear power plant. However, there will be "worst case scenarios" that would need to be covered by a variety of procedures - I am sure you will agree with this. I wonder if you could comment on what the "assumed worst case" for Koeberg would be and how this would be dealt with. I do not however agree with you comparing the effect of 40 years of power by a coal fired power station - what 40 years would have done to the environment using coal is not quiet the same as what this catastrophe has the ability to do in the space of a few days.

      gizzy - 2011-03-15 16:04

      So please tell us more about the lose bolt that plunged us into darkness!

      omgwtfnews - 2011-03-15 16:14

      @gizzy it was human error - there was never any dangers of radiation leakage etc. Have you read up on the human error issues that caused 3 mile island or chernobyl?

      gizzy - 2011-03-15 16:45

      omgwtfnews , I was asking Tim Storm the question. He said that staff of koeberg were exceptional. So one of those exceptional staff made a boobo then?

      Madelane - 2011-03-16 14:18

      Ever heard of affirmative action Klaus? But sadly the pro nuclear types cannot see that these plants contain materials producing waste that will affect many generations hereafter who will have to deal with it all quite aside from the immense damage, as you pointed out, in the space of a few days.

  • Ettienne - 2011-03-15 15:40

    @Joe Public - But the question is will the new reactors survive a Quake/Tsunami etc. now that we are 20 years into the future. Remember in the 80's things were build by "brainiacs" with a proper higher university education to last forever and Construction was still Construction and not Construction for Destruction.

  • clifford.pike1 - 2011-03-15 15:41

    ...sure, because we employ proven preventative construction techniques to counteract the abundant incidents of tsunamis and earthquakes in South Africa. Puh-leeze! The Japanese have done their level best to defend themselves against Mother Nature's terrible forces, with some success. The fact that so few concrete buildings were destroyed by the monster quake is testament to their efforts.

  • ERNEST - 2011-03-15 15:46

    Sticking to technical issues, I would say 7.1 is not comforting at all! Japan's recent earthquake is a record high, therefore considering we were hit by a 6.1 in 1969, I would say that a factor of safety of 1.16 is very flimsy by nuclear safety standards! The international Nuclear watchdog must make it mandatory to design for at least a 10 for regions with histories of earthquakes greater than 5.

  • Eric - 2011-03-15 15:57

    die wes kaap is plat dit sal nie saak maak of koeberg sal oorleef nie die helle peninsula sal uit spoel see toe.

  • blakat - 2011-03-15 16:06

    Yeah right. We build to withstand tsunamis? Puhleeze.

  • Ettienne - 2011-03-15 16:09

    So now they have more powers than GOD? NEVER!!! Think again!

  • Jack Anon - 2011-03-15 16:25

    Assurances from Eskom??? HA HA

  • Jack Anon - 2011-03-15 16:29

    The IAEA is supposed to be the global nuclear "watchdog", and they said nothing about the Japanese nuclear stations being located so close to the seismic faultline in the Pacific???

      Madelane - 2011-03-16 16:51

      Of course not. Nuclear reactors are so well designed and safe they can withstand anything. Ask the experts.

  • w.changes - 2011-03-15 16:39

    It's not the quakes and tsunami's that worries me.... It's the EISH, she's brokhen and not wacking.........

  • exocist - 2011-03-15 16:39

    EISH COMRADE this koeberg job really agrees with you, after you dropped that bolt in the reactor you're positivly glowing

  • HappyInCapeT - 2011-03-15 16:43

    Let's get some basics straight here - South African coasts, and in particular those of the Western Cape are not suseptible to tsunamis due the fact that we have a continental shelf that surrounds our coasts - the shelf repels most of the energy which would be generated by a tsunami and the results may be some large waves or unusually high tidal conditions. Secondly, South Africa is a relatively geologically stable place, we are far away from any of tectonic features (such as the tectonic plate boundaries - one of which Japan is sitting ontop of) which are the common cause of earthquakes. Yes the 6.1 scale earthquake did occur in Tulbagh as a large local fault called the Worcester fault runs right through the town, but Keoberg is a long way off from that. hey, nothing's impossible, but Koeberg is located at about the best/safest place you could ask for with respect to natural disasters.

      Michelle8 - 2011-03-18 16:33

      Well said, HappyInCapeT :) Research scientific facts before making emotional statements.

  • trishdonmall - 2011-03-15 16:46

    After Eskom not being able to find a bolt in a turbine I have little to no faith in what they have to say. Also bearing in mind the civil designs that are used in Japan who regularly face earthquakes, if they can have problems then I'm sorry but so can we. As the says goings, nothing in life is guaranteed except death and taxes.

      Madelane - 2011-03-16 16:50

      Actually there was no bolt. Inside info said that it was due to slack maintenance.