Concerns over scant benefit for the local economy are being raised about the government’s push to acquire an additional 2,500MW of nuclear energy for South Africa.
The department of minerals and energy is working with key stakeholders and Eskom towards the implementation of the initiative, billed as a “strategic national project” to “ensure security of energy supply and contribute to the government’s economic reconstruction and recovery plan”.
Thyspunt near Jeffrey’s Bay is among the sites under consideration for the new nuclear build project, the department told TimesLIVE Premium.
SA’s push to go the nuclear route was hammered in 2017 by the Cape Town high court, which ruled the plan was invalid and that due process was not followed in making the decision to pursue a nuclear power option under then president Jacob Zuma’s tenure.
The National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) has already approved the process to secure additional generating capacity from nuclear.
If the plan is pursued and implemented, this would be SA’s second nuclear plant after Koeberg in Cape Town, which is undergoing a steam generator replacement project.
Energy expert Mohamed Madhi said going the nuclear route was “too little and too late” and should have been done about 15 years ago. The nuclear window was gone and other alternatives should be considered.
“If you are doing nuclear, you have to do it in a such way that you spend the money to get the best effect ... you stimulate the local economy and create a local supply chain,” said Madhi.
Madhi said the 2,500MW project was “way too little to create a nuclear supply chain, nuclear competence or job growth” in SA.
There is no way that new nuclear energy will help with the energy crisis, or be a cost-effective way for South Africa to reduce its carbon footprint and address the climate challenges we face.
— Francesca de Gasparis, South African Faith Communities’ Environmental Institute executive director
He said by the time the project came on stream, in about 2035, there would be cheaper renewable, alternative green energy solutions.
“The bulk of the advantage, benefit and profit would accrue to international players ... this is as good as writing a cheque to international companies and losing that money,” added Madhi.
Prof Sampson Mamphweli, head of the department of science and innovation’s energy secretariat at SA National Energy Development Institute, said efforts to acquire nuclear energy were in line with the country’s integrated resources plan (IRP), which cited nuclear energy as one of the future long-term energy solutions and made sense.
“If we acted well in advance ... we wouldn’t be sitting where we are today [in terms of energy supply shortages]. If you look at the projections in terms of energy demands in the current IRP, it says from 2035 onwards, we may need a lot of new generation capacity,” Mamphweli said.
On concerns about the project benefiting a few international players in the nuclear space, Mamphweli said the government could put out the tender with conditions about skills transfer and sourcing some components locally.
“They can put up the tender and say we need inbound skills from the international community, but we have this kind of skill set that sits with Necsa [the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation] for instance and some of the skills which sit with the private sector.”
Mamphweli said though nuclear reactors would be manufactured elsewhere, there was scope for local companies to benefit from non-nuclear components of the envisaged plant.
Francesca de Gasparis, executive director at the South African Faith Communities’ Environmental Institute (SAFCEI), said nuclear builds were known globally to surpass time and cost projections.
“There is no way that new nuclear energy will help with the energy crisis, or be a cost-effective way for South Africa to reduce its carbon footprint and address the climate challenges we face,” said De Gasparis.
She cited Hinkley Point C, a nuclear power station under construction at Somerset in the UK, as “a good example of the reality of building new nuclear power stations”.
“The cost for construction could soar to £50bn (R1.2-trillion) while it will likely be well over 15 years to build. This is not affordable financially or in terms of time,” she said.
De Gasparis said going the nuclear route was “a wasteful use of public money because build time is too lengthy”.
“Independent models and international economists all agree that renewable energy is the most cost-effective, quick and accessible way to address our energy crisis and invest in a sustainable and economically vibrant future for South Africa,” she said.
Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa), which in 2016 assisted SAFCEI and EarthLife Africa, who were challenging an irregular process when the government under Zuma wanted to pursue a 9,000MW nuclear project, has similar concerns.
“One of the suspensive conditions provided by Nersa ... was that an updated IRP needed to be concluded. That has not yet happened,” said Outa CEO Wayne Duvenage.
He said it was imperative the country undertook a credible and best plan for energy security with accurate and updated information fed into the new IRP.
“Until the new IRP-2023 process has completed its course and undergone the full public engagement sessions and is done so properly, by allowing the public and civil society the necessary time to participate meaningfully, there should be no requesting of proposals to develop such a large and expensive infrastructure project,” said Duvenage.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.