nuclear-news

Second, construction cost. Due to the lack of transparency in the negotiation about South Africa’s proposed nuclear construction it is hard to put an exact number on what it might cost. Dr Kelvin Kemm – the new chairperson of the SA Nuclear Energy Corporation – says that the scientists estimate that total cost will be about R650 billion. Most other estimates place it at more than R1 trillion. To put that in perspective, the government’s revenue target for 2016/17 is R1.3trln. Is this the cheapest way that South Africa can meet its energy requirements?

It is not only the cost that needs to be considered but also the consequences of the cost. If the money needs to be borrowed, how long will it take to pay back and how will this additional debt affect our credit rating and ability to borrow for other projects? If the project is funded by external parties, what trade and political conditions will be attached to these deals?

Third, the cost of energy generation. This is nuclear’s saving grace – relative to other methods its production of electricity per unit is cheap once the plant is built. Will this still be the case in 15 to 20 years?

Fourth, waste and disposal consequences. Nobody has yet figured out a way to produce nuclear energy without producing radioactive waste. This waste needs to be stored for 200 to 1 000 years before humans and other life can safely be exposed to it.

Fifth, decommission costs. Nuclear reactors have a lifespan of 40 to 80 years and thereafter need to be removed and replaced……

Sixth, transparency and corruption. As the government has shown, the majority of negotiations necessary in mega-infrastructure projects can take place behind closed doors without public consultation.

Megaprojects also typically work with few suppliers and include fewer and more lucrative trade deals. Compare this to the more transparent and decentralised process behind the independent power producers procurement programme used for smaller energy projects and it is easy to see that megaprojects are more vulnerable to corruption and theft of investment funding.

Seventh, disaster risk. Even if measures could be put in place to eliminate the chance of human error, technological failure and the risk of terror attacks, there is no way that constructors can guarantee that reactors will be safe from natural disasters. While terror attacks and natural disasters may not feel familiar in South Africa’s current climate, the nuclear reactors will exist for almost a century of change.

If nuclear is our best option then we have to be consulted and convinced on all accounts because it is the South African people that will carry the consequences if it’s not. http://www.iol.co.za/business/opinion/columnists/sa-nuclear-build-plan-requires-a-close-study-1998735