South Africa's planned nuclear build has been shrouded in controversy from the moment the energy-starved country decided to move forward with plans to replace its ageing coal-fired power stations with the technology. The main concern is the cost of the technology and its direct implications for electricity tariffs, which have rocketed in recent years.In a boardroom high above Pretoria's Visagie Street, Zizamele Mbambo, the deputy director-general for nuclear at the Department of Energy, was not too fussed by the controversy surrounding the planned build.Critics say the build will cost R1-trillion, about the size of South Africa's entire annual budget, and dwarf the arms deal, with corruption and waste lurking in every corner. But Mbambo rejects the estimate."We've done our own work and our answers are very different. Experts put the nuclear investment costs at between R400-billion and R670-billion, and the potential benefit to the economy at R2.3-trillion," he said."We will not go public with our calculations because we have not started the procurement process yet. If we announce our price range too early, we will lose the leverage to negotiate the best deal. We are testing the market and doing cost estimates, monitoring 21 nuclear projects globally."Mbambo sees nuclear as a solid investment as the power plants have a lifespan of between 60 and 80 years, securing base load electricity in a sustainable, clean and reasonably priced way, which includes low maintenance and fuel cost, and a smaller carbon footprint."It will stop load-shedding and stimulate the economy."story_article_left1Base load power plants can generate dependable power to consistently meet demand, unlike wind and solar energy, which depend on the weather.Apart from cost concerns, critics have raised red flags over the perceived favouritism towards a Russian build over the US, France, China and South Korea, even though general agreements have been signed with all of them."All proposals will be judged fairly," Mbambo said."Each country negotiates uniquely, setting the terms of agreement. We are dependent on the input of the country approaching us. The country or countries selected as partner or partners must assist South Africa to become self-sufficient. It is up to the partner country to work it into the agreement, to South Africa's benefit."He said it was another red herring that the 2013 country report for South Africa by the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) had been hidden from the public.The country report is a detailed peer-review mechanism measuring a country's nuclear development readiness."We are very transparent. We issued a statement when the IAEA finished its work in 2013. Since then, it has been in the cabinet process. I promise you that the IAEA report will be released in its entirety before the end of August, with an improvement plan. I can show you the IAEA report now, if you want," Mbambo said, stung by the allegation of secrecy.He was promptly restrained from doing so by the department's communications officer, Johannes Mokobane, who sat in on the interview."We have to change our regulation and legislation on safety, but it is untrue that we failed 60% of safety requirements. It is impossible to measure it in that way anyway - it is a qualitative measurement, not quantitative," said Mbambo."These rumours are an effort to discredit the country and the government. In fact, South Africa is the only country with existing nuclear capability to have itself assessed.story_article_right2"Cabinet has applied its mind and has followed a very measured approach. There is no intent to be secretive."Another red flag raised concerns that the US-based Westinghouse technology currently used at Koeberg differs so vastly from Russian technology that it will be incompatible.Mbambo dismissed this concern out of hand."Koeberg uses a pressurised water reactor (PWR). Each of the countries we are considering as nuclear partners also use PWRs, so it is the same basic system we use and know."Koeberg, however, is a generation 2 PWR and technology has improved. We are now looking to build six to eight generation 3 PWRs. They will differ from Koeberg. They don't have to be the same. They can run parallel. They are not dependent on each other, so using Westinghouse technology is not an issue."But whether we use Westinghouse, Rosatom [the Russian nuclear company], or whatever technology, they will be generation 3 PWR nuclear plants. It is like driving a Toyota, and then making an issue about which model is driven or which country it was assembled in."Koeberg is 30 years old. It can run for another 20 years. We will keep using it, and we will use the new ones," said Mbambo.Construction of Koeberg, Africa's only nuclear power station, began in 1976 and was completed in 1985...