Proposed pebble bed modular reactor

Conclusion

• 
  INTRODUCTION
  

• 
  CONTEXT OF THE FINDINGS
  

i. The survey did not capture the full spectrum of visitors, but focussed largely on those that stayed in the establishments that are less expensive such as B&B’s and self-catering facilities. The reason for this is because the hotel groups were not willing to allow surveys to be done on their clientele. As such, the high-income category tourists could not be included in the survey. Most of the tourists who resided in hotels in and around the Cape Town CBD and Waterfront, are far from the Koeberg power plant. It can therefore be assumed that this group would in all probability be much less concerned about the existence of a nuclear plant. As such, this grouping would have decreased the percentage of tourists that may not return due to the existence of a nuclear plant.

ii. A one-page background document was attached to the questionnaire to provide the basic information on the PBMR. However, it was found that tourists did not have time to study the background documentation, and as such did not have a good understanding of what the project entailed. Their reaction may thus have tended to be more negative, based on the connotation on nuclear technology and their perceptions of past accidents, such as the disaster that occurred at Chernobyl. The high percentage of visitors in the Pelindaba area that indicated that they might consider not to visit the area again should the PBMR project be implemented, could therefore be considered as an over-count.

iii. The study did not consider the positive effects that the construction and operation of the plant will have on the local economy. As an indication of the significance of such a contribution, the proposed phase 2 development at Arabella Golf Estate could be used as an example. It was calculated that the investment of R431 750 000 would generate an additional R97 850 000 to the GGP. This is a once off injection into the economy. The construction of the PBMR plant would have a similar effect on the local economy. Besides this once-off effect, the operation of the plant, and the sale of the electricity generated would also have an ongoing impact on the local economy. As an indication of the significance of this, the sector “Water and Electricity” (which include the sale of electricity), contributed 2.1% towards the GGP of Malmesbury¹¹⁴ in 1980. In 2000, the contribution of this sector increased to 22%. The annual growth rate achieved in this sector for the period 1990 to 2000 was about 6.3%. This growth can only be attributed to the effect of Koeberg. As such, the effect of the initial capital investment and the operational cost may cancel and even exceed the “loss” that may occur because of fewer tourists visiting the area.

iv. Some of the people employed at the nuclear plant would stay at the local tourism establishments. In discussions with the owners of the local B&B’s, it was stated that many of the engineers and technicians from overseas stay at the local establishments. This category of visitors is an important source of clientele, particularly for those establishments that are located near to the plants.

• 
  CONCLUSIONS
  

i. The reduction in the number of people visiting the two areas will in all probability only occur in the short term, as people will in time “get used to” the existence of the plant. Secondly, the annual overall growth of the local tourism industry (i.e. the annual growth in the number of visitors) should cancel this decrease.

ii. Some of the engineers and technicians employed at or visiting the plant, stay at the local tourism establishments as they offer affordable rates and are closely located to the plant. This source of visitors could off-set the “loss” of the others.

It can therefore be concluded, that the possible negative effect implied by less tourists visiting the area, may only last for the short term, and may be cancelled out by workers staying at the local establishments.

To whom it may concern:

This questionnaire forms part of a Tourism Impact Study regarding the proposed Pebble Bed Reactor (PBMR) that is to be built at the Koeberg site. The purpose of the study, is to assess the current perceptions within the tourism industry on nuclear technology, with specific reference to the use of PBMR technology at Koeberg and Pelindaba.

1. The study will be conducted in Blaauwberg and surrounding areas, i.e. the immediate vicinity of Koeberg nuclear plant.

2. The study will also be conducted in the areas within the immediate vicinity of the Pelindaba nuclear plant.

For the success of this study, it is of the utmost importance that the respondents answer all questions as accurately as possible. Please note that you will remain completely anonymous and that the response to this questionnaire will be analysed for statistical purposes only. You may contact Urban-Econ for further information.

Thank You.

Miss. L. Liesing Mr. D.W. Visser

Cell. 083 4262142 Cell. 082 3350554

Tel. (021) 426 0272

Fax. (021) 426 0271

PBMR: Tourism Impact Perception Survey

INSTRUCTIONS:

Please answer all the questions as accurately as possible.

To whom it may concern:

Eskom, which is the largest provider of electricity in South Africa, is in the process to conduct detailed feasibility studies and an environmental impact assessment (EIA) on a demonstration model for a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), which is to be located near to the existing nuclear plant at Koeberg. One element of this impact assessment is to gain an informed perspective on the possible impact that such a development may have on the economy through the tourism industry. This questionnaire forms part of a survey conducted in the local tourism industry to determine perceptions and opinions about the use of nuclear technology to generate electricity. It will be to the long-term benefit of the economy, the tourism industry and the local community if this survey reflects the actual views and perceptions. The view and perceptions of the individual tourist, both domestic and international, represents the key to this survey.

It would therefore be appreciated if you complete this questionnaire as accurately as possible.

Please note that you will remain completely anonymous and that responses in this survey will be used for statistical purposes only.

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact De Wit Visser or Lizell Liesing at any of the contact numbers or addresses provided below.

Your co-operation is much appreciated.

Contact persons for more detail:

De Wit Visser

Or

Urban-Econ

Tel: 021 – 426 0272

Fax: 021 426 0271

E-mail: uedevctn@adept.co.za
PBMR: Tourism Impact Perception Survey
INSTRUCTIONS:

Please answer all the questions as accurately as possible.

Please indicate your answer with an "X" in the appropriate block.

The tourist

Question 1 Where are you visiting from?

Europe
America
South Africa
Other

Question 2 How long is your stay in the Pretoria/ Cape Town area?

Please indicate the duration.