Gwede Mantashe. Picture: Freddy Mavunda/Business Day
Government may have the backing of the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) and industry players for its brand new nuclear power plans, but that doesn’t mean they won’t have to face renewed challenges.
Concerned groups have cast doubt on the government’s new nuclear energy programme, following the decision by the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) to back Mineral Resources Minister Gwede Mantashe’s proposed 2,500MW nuclear energy programme.
Last week, Nersa announced its support for Mantashe’s request for a section 34 determination (authorisation) under the Electricity Regulation Act, and published government policy, to include 2,500 MW of nuclear power in the country’s energy mix.
While some are criticising the feasibility of the plan itself, others are against the idea of nuclear energy in South Africa altogether, claiming renewable energy is the best direction to go for a sustainable energy mix for South Africa’s troubled power grid.
In April 2017, the Western Cape High Court ruled that government’s R1 trillion nuclear deal and related contracts signed under former president Jacob Zuma were illegal and unconstitutional. The new nuclear build programme was first mentioned in the 2019 version of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
Currently, South Africa’s energy mix consists largely of Eskom’s 15 coal-fired power stations and one nuclear-powered power station. There are also nine smaller stations which run on diesel, pumped storage and hydroelectricity.
The South African New Nuclear Build Platform (SANBP) has congratulated Mantashe and Nersa for what it has described as a bold step towards a clean, reliable energy mix, which will stimulate the economy and create jobs.
The group has highlighted the Thyspunt site between Cape St Francis and Oyster Bay in the Eastern Cape, which has been earmarked for South Africa’s nuclear energy expansion programme since 1985, as a potential starting point for growth in this sector.
ALSO READ: Eskom still trying to go nuclear, as OUTA tries to block application
SANBP spokesperson Des Muller said nuclear energy at Thyspunt would stabilise renewable energy and balance the grid. He added that baseload electricity from the Eastern Cape would secure regional energy supplies and reduce significant transmission losses.
“Thyspunt is surrounded by highly skilled motor manufacturing industries which would benefit from reliable clean energy, and well positioned to be part of the nuclear manufacturing supply chain. Nuclear energy delivers exactly what the Eastern Cape needs right now,” said Muller.
According to Muller, economic growth is directly correlated to a reliable, sustainable, low-cost energy supply, and to meet global carbon emission standards, we need to move to clean energy sources.
SANBP claims that nuclear energy is not only affordable but it will create thousands of jobs. They claim the current plan could produce over 350,000 job-years during the build, and over two million job-years for operation and maintenance.
MP Kevin Mileham said the Democratic Alliance’s (DA’s) objection to the new nuclear energy build programme is based on their argument that government does not have the capacity to bring this plan to fruition.
Though the party is not opposed to nuclear power, Mileham said the nuclear build programme is beyond the government’s reach.
“South Africa should rather be pursuing a rapid deployment of independent power generation, from multiple sources of supply, with a strong emphasis on renewable energy, and building a robust grid infrastructure, with associated storage. We should be encouraging and incentivising energy efficiency, and making it easier for municipalities, businesses, and citizens to become self-sufficient in terms of electricity generation,” he said.
ALSO READ: Mantashe’s new nuclear plan ‘passes the buck’ to future generations, won’t help current crisis
Eskom’s dire financial situation and the economy’s continued downward spiral rendered any fantasy about a multibillion-rand nuclear build programme an exercise in futility, Mileham argued.
“The Covid-19 pandemic and the constrained fiscal space have left no room for South Africa to embark on costly and lengthy capital projects such as nuclear power stations.”
Energy expert Sampson Mamphweli said government’s plan to procure 2,500MW of new generation capacity from nuclear energy was not in line with the IRP of 2019. The latter is a revision of the IRP 2010 that had an allocation of 9,600MW of nuclear energy.
The revised plan is updated and it is based on the least cost option with various other considerations such as the just energy transition and emission targets for South Africa.
The IRP 2019 only has an allocation of 1,860MW, which is basically the extension of the life of the Koeberg Power Station, which was supposed to be decommissioned.
“The reason why many people are opposed to nuclear energy is mainly because it’s not safe. Many countries are decommissioning nuclear power plants due to safety issues after the accident at Fukushima in Japan in 2011, caused by the earthquake.
“The cooling of the plant failed which resulted in the release of radioactive steam that contaminated the water. Large parts of areas around the power plant are contaminated and will not be habitable or usable for agriculture for the next 300 years,” said Mamphweli.
In addition to safety issues, Mamphweli added that nuclear power plants were expensive to build and took too long to complete, with construction on one new plant expected to take 10-15 years.
Mamphweli argued South Africa could solve its energy supply issues without relying on nuclear energy.
Alternatives, he suggested renewable energy plants using solar and wind energy systems, with storage and the use of various storage systems including lithium ion batteries, hydrogen, as well as pumped storage. All of these are cheaper to build and could be built within 24-36 months, he added.
“We can also bring in gas to ensure that we have dispatchable power at all times for base load provision.”
Two civil society organisations who took the government to court over its R1 trillion nuclear deal involving Russia in 2017 have expressed concerns over the new push for more nuclear energy.
The Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI) and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg said this was happening as renewable energy projects were being stifled.
“DMRE’s [Department of Mineral Resources and Energy] seems single-minded on touting nuclear energy as the solution to our energy crisis. In the past two weeks alone, we heard of three disturbing developments,” said Francesca de Gasparis, SAFCEI’s executive director.
She contended that government’s own researchers acknowledged renewable energy was the lowest-cost option, and in line with global trends.
The group is also against Eskom seeking a site licence from the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) for Thyspunt, a popular tourism spot of Cape of St Francis, to become a nuclear power station.
“We also recently heard that Eskom had signed a refurbishment deal with a US engineering firm, which will essentially extend the lifespan of the Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant.
“Again, if the reports are true, it means that the lifespan extension of the nuclear plant is going ahead without any due process or public participation. As we understand it, Eskom’s application to the NNR for a licence to operate Koeberg past 2024 must include meaningful public consultation. With this in mind, it is clear that current processes are flawed,” she laments.
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.
