Ndungane warns that the government will not give up after nuclear deal ruling, Business Day, 28 APRIL 2017 Anglican archbishop emeritus Njongonkulu Ndungane expressed his “profound relief” at Wednesday’s High Court ruling on the nuclear deal, but warned that he expected Eskom and the government to “fight tooth and nail” to have it overturned.
Ndungane commended Earthlife Africa, the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (Safcei), and other civil society organisations that have been in the forefront of opposing the deal for several years.
“This is a salutary lesson. Civil society in SA has doggedly persevered in doing what it believes is right in respect of the nuclear deal.
“That they have been vindicated by the high court is a triumph of David against mighty Goliath. Government and Eskom should know that we do not intend to be brow beaten into submission,” the archbishop said.
However, he said he fully expected the government and Eskom to appeal against the ruling, since the small cabal of people led by the President in whose interests the nuclear deal appeared to have been negotiated, were unlikely to simply give up.
In addition, the various departments and state-owned enterprises involved would not want to see their expenditure to date being written off as “fruitless and wasteful expenditure”.
Ndungane expressed his deep concern that the South African government, which had been elected by the people to act for the people, was failing in its duty to protect the interests of the poorest people…….
He asked South Africans, when next they are called to exercise their ballot, to vote for a government that will act in the full interests of all the people of the land, and not just a select few.
“I have said previously that this nuclear deal will cripple the country’s economy. Our current debt stands at R1.89-trillion. When we borrow money to pay for the nuclear deal, our country will owe R3-trillion. Anyone with the most basic ability to balance a budget can see that increasing one’s debt by more than half is financial suicide,” the archbishop said. He asked South Africans, when next they are called to exercise their ballot, to vote for a government that will act in the full interests of all the people of the land, and not just a select few.
“I have said previously that this nuclear deal will cripple the country’s economy. Our current debt stands at R1.89-trillion. When we borrow money to pay for the nuclear deal, our country will owe R3-trillion. Anyone with the most basic ability to balance a budget can see that increasing one’s debt by more than half is financial suicide,” the archbishop said. https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2017-04-28-ndungane-warns-that-the-government-will-not-give-up-after-nuclear-deal-ruling/
April 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Religion and ethics, South Africa |
Leave a comment

Eskom funding may be muffling dissenting voices on nuclear amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism, 28 Apr 17, The lure of millions in Eskom funding appears to have gagged two research institutions previously critical of the utility’s nuclear procurement plans. The lure of millions in Eskom funding appears to have muzzled two research institutions previously highly critical of the state-owned utility’s plans to procure a fleet of nuclear power stations.
In the case of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) amaBhungane understands that the CSIR’s Energy Centre has been effectively gagged since a secrecy-shrouded meeting in March this year between acting Eskom CEO Matshela Koko and his counterpart at the CSIR, Dr Thulani Dlamini.
In the other case, the Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies (CRSES) at Stellenbosch University withdrew comments it had submitted for publication that were highly critical of Eskom’s nuclear plans.
In an email seen by amaBhungane, CRSES director Wikus van Niekerk said: “We receive significant funding from Eskom, some from a programme where Matshela is personally involved in, and I need to be careful how I react in public not to put this at risk.”……..
Case 1: CSIR Energy Centre
Several industry insiders, who asked not to be named, raised the alarm after the CSIR Energy Centre’s head, Dr Tobias Bischof-Niemz, suddenly pulled out of an event on South Africa’s future energy supply in early April.
They told amaBhungane that a strong rumour had emerged that at Koko’s March meeting with the CSIR chief executive, Eskom had pledged a significant sum – R100 million was mentioned – for CSIR research on technology related to nuclear energy.
AmaBhungane was unable to independently verify the claim.
While there is no evidence of any untoward quid-pro-quo, the same sources noted that the Energy Centre has withdrawn from other public engagements on renewable energy and South Africa’s future energy mix.
Adding to suspicions is the reluctance of both Eskom and the CSIR to disclose any detail of the meeting between Koko and Dr Dlamini.
Both institutions declined to answer questions about who attended the meeting, what was discussed and whether Koko offered the CSIR additional funding, as rumoured……..
Eskom spokesperson Khulu Phasiwe said Eskom had R30.8 million worth of “multi-year collaborative projects” underway with CSIR and another R17.5 million worth were “actively under consideration”.
The CSIR insisted the organisation “did NOT receive any payments from Eskom in order to stop any research that we are conducting,” but ignored questions about Bischof-Niemz’s non-attendance at the April event where he was scheduled to give a presentation on renewable energy.
Up to now the Energy Centre has been vocal about its research on South Africa’s optimal energy mix, which suggested that the price of renewables had dropped to the point where government’s plan to procure 9,600 MW of nuclear power did not make financial sense.
…….
Case No 2: CRSES Stellenbosch
The CSIR is not the only research institution that Eskom channels money to. The Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies (CRSES) at Stellenbosch University is another, and it too seems wary of upsetting Eskom.
Email correspondence seen by amaBhungane suggests that the independent research institute is willing to self-censor for fear of offending its funder.
The correspondence between CRSES director Wikus van Niekerk and the staff of Energize magazine – an energy sector trade publication – concerns a submission written by Van Niekerk that is strongly critical of Eskom’s nuclear plans.
After submitting the draft to the editors, Van Niekerk then refused to have it published as a standalone piece. In the correspondence Van Niekerk writes that “We [CRSES] receive significant funding from Eskom, some from a programme where Matshela [Koko] is personally involved in, and I need to be careful how I react in public not to put this at risk.”
According to Eskom, CRSES received R2.6 million in 2016 from Eskom’s Power Plant Engineering Institute, with planned funding for this year projected at around R4 million. CRSES receives additional funding from Eskom’s Research, Testing and Development business unit for R2.5 million photovoltaic penetration study……..
Joemat-Pettersson had previously ordered Eskom to sign the outstanding agreements by 11 April. However, under Mmamoloko Kubayi, who replaced Joemat-Pettersson after Jacob Zuma’s Cabinet reshuffle, the deadline passed without agreements being signed.
Talk of the nuclear deal has revved up since Zuma’s highly controversial reshuffle, which many see as an attempt by the president to remove ministers – particularly at Treasury and the Department of Energy – seen as obstacles to a future deal.
The DoE under Kubayi asked that signing of power purchase agreements be delayed until she could meet with public enterprises minister Lynne Brown on the matter.
Meanwhile the investments of 37 independent power producers, worth approximately R58 billion, remain plagued by uncertainty.http://amabhungane.co.za/article/2017-04-28-exclusive-eskom-funding-may-be-muffling-dissenting-voices-on-nuclear
April 29, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
investigative journalism, secrets,lies and civil liberties, South Africa |
1 Comment

South Africa’s nuclear deals unlawful, court rules http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39717401 26
April 2017 A South African court has annulled initial agreements the government reached with three countries to help it build nuclear power stations.
April 28, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Legal, South Africa |
2 Comments

Back to square one for Eskom as judge sets nuclear decisions aside https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2017-04-26-court-rules-on-nuclear-plans-and-it-is-not-good-news-for-eskom/ LINDA ENSOR In a major reversal for Eskom’s nuclear plans the Western Cape High Court has set aside the two determinations issued by former minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson which lay the basis for the nuclear procurement.
It is back to square one for the utility as the court found that the determinations relating to the construction of 9,600MW of nuclear plants were unconstitutional and invalid.
It also declared the nuclear co-operation agreement signed between the South African and Russian governments to be unconstitutional and unlawful. This agreement is widely seen as laying the foundation for the involvement of Russian energy giant Rosatom in the South African nuclear build programme.
The first determination which was set aside was issued under section 34 of the Electricity Regulation Act and ruled that 9,600MW was required and should be acquired by the Department of Energy. It was signed in November 2013 by then energy minister Ben Martins but gazetted only in December 2015. The second determination was signed in December 2016 by Joemat-Petterson and identified Eskom as the procurer of new nuclear energy.
The determinations were approved by the National Energy Regulator of SA but the court found that the regulator’s concurrence with them was procedurally unfair, irrational and in breach of the National Energy Regulator Act as there was no public participation.
Judge Lee Bozalek, with the concurrence of Judge Elizabeth Baartman, also found that the request for information issued by Eskom in December last year was unlawful and unconstitutional and it was set aside.
The request for information, which closes at the end of this month, would form the basis for a request for proposal and for the procurement of 9,600MW of nuclear energy.
In a written judgment handed down Wednesday Judge Bozalek declared that the manner in which Joemat-Pettersson had tabled the nuclear co-operation agreements with the US, Russia and South Korea in Parliament was unconstitutional and unlawful, and set aside them aside.
The nature of the agreements meant they had to be tabled in terms of section 231 (2) of the Constitution, which requires the approval of both houses of Parliament, and not section 231 (3), as the minister irrationally decided to do, the judge said. Tabling in terms of Section 231 (3) does not require parliamentary endorsement.
There were joyous scenes outside the court after the judgment was handed down in the case, which was brought by Earthlife Africa and the Southern African Faith Communties’ Environment Institute against the Minister of Energy, President Jacob Zuma, the National Energy Regulator of SA, speaker of the National Assembly Baleka Mbete, chairperson of the National Council of Provinces Thandi Modise and Eskom.
Spokespersons for the two organisations said the judgment would ensure there was proper oversight by Parliament and the people in the process of procuring of nuclear energy, which would have to be undertaken in an open and transparent process.
The two NGOs argued there had been no proper public participation or consultation process over the determinations, which were “irrational and unreasonable”. The government rejected these arguments on the ground that these determinations amounted to “executive policy”.
Judge Bozalek, however, said the determinations – which would have far-reaching consequences for the country – were not merely administrative decisions, and a “rational and fair decision-making process” was required before Nersa decided whether or not to concur with the minister’s proposed determination.
The National Energy Regulator Act required that decisions that materially and adversely affected the rights of others had to be procedurally fair. The regulator decided to concur with the 2016 ministerial determination by means of a round-robin exercise a mere three days after being asked to do so by Joemat-Pettersson.
“In taking the decision Nersa was under a statutory duty to act in the public interest and in a justifiable and transparent manner but also to utilise a procedurally fair process giving affected persons the opportunity to submit their views and present relevant facts and evidence. These requirements were clearly not met by Nersa in taking its far-reaching decision to concur in the minister’s section 34 determination,” Judge Bozalek said.
He also ruled the two-year delay in gazetting the 2013 determination breached the minister’s decision, “thus rendering it irrational and unlawful”. The delay also violated the requirements of open, transparent and accountable government. The minister should have consulted with Nersa again in 2015 before gazetting the determination.
Red flag
The government’s nuclear plans have been red-flagged by credit ratings agencies, which downgraded SA to junk status.
President Jacob Zuma has been determined to proceed with the nuclear build programme, despite critics saying it is not necessary and beyond the means of a fiscally constrained government. His stance led to the removal of Joemat-Pettersson as energy minister and her replacement by Zuma supporter Mmamoloko Kubayi in the recent Cabinet reshuffle that also removed Pravin Gordhan as finance minister.
The draft 2016 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) says SA will not need new nuclear power plants before 2037, but until it is finalised, Eskom has been operating on the basis of the 2010 IRP, which proposes the construction of 9,600MW in nuclear plants.
In December, the power utility issued a request for information, which closes on April 28, and by the end of June it planned to issue a request for binding proposals from potential vendors, provided it obtained the approvals to do so.
April 28, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Legal, South Africa |
Leave a comment
Eskom admits trying to dodge procurement procedures for nuclear deal, Business Tech By Staff WriterApril 21, 2017 State power utility, Eskom, says that earlier reports made by the Democratic Alliance about trying to dodge correct procedures for nuclear procurement are partially true, but stressed that it is only looking for exemption from certain areas of the process.
Earlier this week, the DA alleged that Eskom had made a direct application to the National Treasury chief procurement officer, Schalk Human, asking to be exempted from the prescribed procurement procedures for the new nuclear power acquisition.
The party stated that this was done in an apparent bid to accelerate the nuclear new build programme, “in a move that would mean that the country’s biggest ever procurement deal would not be subject to due diligence and correct procedures”……….
As indicated in the original report by the DA, it appears that the political party will fight the rushed process.
DA shadow minister of energy, Gordon Mackay, said that the exemption is ‘significant’ and would mean Eskom is embarking on the country’s single biggest public procurement – without fully assessing associated risks and consequences for South Africa’s economy.
“All state entities are bound by specific procurement standards and requirements. These processes are vital to ensure the effective, efficient and transparent acquisition of goods and services by the State and its entities. If procurement standards cannot be met – procurement should not commence,” Mackay said.
“The DA is strongly opposed to the nuclear deal and will continue to pursue all avenues to scrutinise every process involved and to ultimately put a stop to a deal that will enslave future generations of South Africans.”https://businesstech.co.za/news/energy/171505/eskom-admits-trying-to-dodge-procurement-procedures-for-nuclear-deal/
April 22, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
The applications are for exemptions from the rules governing government procurement as set out in the Public Finance Management Act.
Eskom chief nuclear officer, Dave Nicholls, told Business Day that much of the work on the nuclear procurement had been done before the promulgation of the regulations over the last year.
He reportedly said Eskom wanted Treasury to assure it that the work already done would be seen as compliant with regulations, to avoid having to start the process from scratch.
He said there was nothing untoward with the applications.
“We believe the work that has already been done is adequate and is equivalent to what Treasury is asking for,” he told the paper.
DA energy spokesman Gordan Mackay told Business Day the party objected to any “unacceptable” attempts to rush through the procurement process.
April 22, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Legal, South Africa |
Leave a comment
Science strikes back: anti-Trump march set to draw thousands to Washington Scientists are ditching their labs for the streets in a mass protest against the Trump administration’s war on facts, but will the effort resonate with skeptics? Guardian, Oliver Milman 18 Apr 17, On Saturday, thousands of scientists are set to abandon the cloistered neutrality of their laboratories to plunge into the the political fray against Donald Trump in what will likely be the largest-ever protest by science advocates.
The March for Science, a demonstration modeled in part on January’s huge Women’s March, will inundate Washington DC’s national mall with a jumble of marine biologists, birdwatchers, climate researchers and others enraged by what they see as an assault by Trump’s administration upon evidence-based thinking and scientists themselves.
The march is a visceral response to a presidency that has set about the
evisceration of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and many of its science-based rules, the
dismissal of basic climate change tenets by the president and his appointees and a proposed budget that would remove
around $7bn from science programs, ranging from cancer research to oceanography to Nasa’s monitoring of the Earth.
Many scientists at federal agencies, concerned their work may be sidelined or censored for political purposes, will take the unusual step of publicly damning the administration.
“It’s important for scientists to get out of the lab and talk about what’s important,” said Andrew Rosenberg, who spent a decade at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and is now at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “You don’t check your citizenship at the door when you get a PhD. No one would tell an architect they can’t have a view on HUD [the Department of Housing and Urban Development]. That would be nonsense.”
Rosenberg said younger scientists, in particular, are increasingly rejecting a stance of studied silence when faced with what they see as threats to their profession…….
The march now has dozens of people grappling with the logistics of the DC march and more than 500 companion events around the world. More than 100 organizations have lent their support, including the institutional heft of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest general scientific organization, and the American Geophysical Union.
April 19, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AFRICA |
Leave a comment
In the Sahara, a Little-Known Nuclear Wasteland, “There’s nothing nuclear in what I do. It’s just rocks we dilute into powder.”, Catapult, Hannah Rae Armstrong Apr 12, 2017 Activist Azara Jalawi lives with her mother, a nomad; her daughter Amina, who watches Mexican soap operas and dates a local human trafficker; her son Doudou, nicknamed “Slim Shady,” and a lean girl, probably a slave, in the town of Arlit, Niger, a mining hub of about forty thousand set deep within the Tuareg Sahara, a slow-baking proto-Chernobyl, a little-known nuclear wasteland.
Around Arlit, prehistoric volcanoes and petrified forests rise from the sand. Beneath it lie the skulls of giant crocodiles who preyed on dinosaurs a hundred million years ago. Within the rocky plateaus are havens like the oasis at Timia, where orange, grapefruit, and pomegranate groves ripen and flower in the desert. For forty years, the French nuclear-energy giant Areva has mined uranium here, and milled it into yellowcake, the solid concentrate that is the first step towards enriching uranium for nuclear fuel or weapons. Three miles outside the town, fifty million tons of radioactive tailings—a waste byproduct containing heavy metals and radon—sit in heaps that resemble unremarkable hills. In strong winds and sandstorms, radioactive particles scatter across the desert. “Radon daughters,” odorless radioactive dust, blanket the town. Public health and the environment exhibit strange symptoms of decay—mysterious illnesses are multiplying; grasses and animals are stunted. The people of Arlit are told that desertification and AIDS are to blame. ………..
Living atop an open-pit uranium mine has made the people ill, in ways they do not understand. Breathing radioactive dust, drinking contaminated well water, and sleeping between walls stitched from radioactive scrap metal and mud, the people tell stories to fill the gaps in their knowledge. ………
At her brother Doudou’s high school, funded by the mining company, students are told not to do drugs or set things on fire. Teachers tell Doudou nothing about the contaminated well water he consumes daily. At lunch on my first day in Arlit, I ask nervously about the source of the water in a chilled glass bottle on the table. “Don’t worry, it’s the well water,” they assure me. “We drink it all the time.” I learn later that well water readings reveal contamination one hundred times beyond the World Health Organization’s threshold for potable water.
………. a dim awareness of the contamination risks was just beginning. Almoustapha Alhacen, a yellowcake miller and environmental activist, recognizes himself on the cover of a 2012 book I’ve brought with me: “Being Nuclear: Africans and the Global Uranium Trade.” He is the man wearing a gas mask and gloves. “The problem with Areva is it never informed people that radioactivity exists and that it is dangerous,” he says. An NGO called the Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD), created by a French EU deputy after the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe, equipped him with a device and trained him to take readings. Once, he recalls, he saw a pregnant woman eating mud next to the road that leads from the mine to the town. This road is often tamped down with clay from the mines, and the tires that cross it regularly give it a fresh, invisible wash of radon. Almoustapha took a reading there and found radioactivity twenty-four times higher than the safe level. At markets selling scrap metal used for building houses, and at the community taps where people draw water, he took readings that were off the charts.
“Arlit was built around uranium. And humanity needs uranium,” Almoustapha says, speaking quickly and with rage. “But what happens next for us, when the uranium runs out, Areva leaves, and we are left with 50 million tons of radioactive waste?” As an activist, he ponders the future and the environment with seriousness. But these become abstract concerns before the fact of his job, which he needs right now. In a white turban and sunglasses, with sequined leather jewelry adorning his chest, he protests: “There’s nothing nuclear in what I do. It’s just rocks we dilute into powder, powder we dilute into liquid. It’s just mechanics, like for any car.” …….
If any state benefits from the distraction counter-terrorism provides from these underlying issues, it is France. Insecurity shields the mines from environmental scrutiny. Threats justify deepening militarization, an ongoing erosion of Nigerien sovereignty and independence. And the French mines still face no real obstacle to radiating the radiant desert. In fact, they’re expanding. A new mine—Africa’s largest—is being built near Arlit, at a site called Imouraren. There, a “security belt” encircles 100,000 acres, marking the land off limits to nomads.
https://catapult.co/stories/in-the-sahara-a-little-known-nuclear-wasteland#
April 14, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
environment, Niger, Uranium, wastes |
Leave a comment
The resolution takes forward multilateral negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament.
States started negotiations on nuclear disarmament in 1946, a year after the atom bombs were dropped on Japan. But the talks faltered as the Cold War warmed up.
Fearing that the spread of nuclear weapons would make those states that had them even more reluctant to give them up, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was negotiated and entered into force in 1970.
The treaty was the first building bloc on the road to a world without nuclear weapons. It prevented states that didn’t have nuclear weapons before 1968 from acquiring them. And it prohibited states that had nuclear weapons from providing other states with them.
The non-proliferation obligation of the treaty has been exceptionally successful. Nuclear weapons have spread to only four other states since its inception. Today there are nine states with nuclear weapons: the original five, namely the US, Russia, the UK, France and China. The other nuclear armed states are India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. They are not members of the nonproliferation treaty.
The non-proliferation obligation of the treaty should be seen in the context of Article VI of that treaty, requiring all its members – including the five original nuclear weapon states – to negotiate in good faith general and complete disarmament of nuclear weapons, in other words, to negotiate a world without nuclear weapons.
This is the disarmament obligation of the treaty. Unfortunately, it stated no deadline for these negotiations. This legal loophole has been used by the nuclear weapon states to delay giving up their arsenals.
In fact, the treaty is disingenuously interpreted to suggest that the five original nuclear weapon states should be allowed to have these weapons, but not any other states. Continue reading →
April 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, Reference, South Africa, weapons and war |
Leave a comment

Rigorous review process needed for SA nuclear deal http://www.iol.co.za/news/opinion/rigorous-review-process-needed-for-sa-nuclear-deal-8625269 | 11 April 2017 New Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba has the rubber stamp of approval out that Pravin Gordhan kept locked away, writes Lauren Hermanus.
The day before Ahmed Kathrada passed, on 27 March, now ex-Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan was recalled from an investor roadshow. In shock, we all asked ‘why?’ Our president knew the answer but he wasn’t in a talking mood. After Gordhan’s axing the rand took a dive and so did our nerves. Overnight the nuclear expansion programme and the South Africa-Russia procurement deal that’s been looming since 2013 became an imminent reality.
It took the debutant Minister of Finance Malusi Gigaba only hours to declare that the energy system has stabilised in South Africa and that it was time to unite to stimulate “investment, create new jobs, increase productivity and raise incomes”. Perhaps he got his notes from Eskom CEO Matshela Koko, who claimed just a few months ago, “The successful execution of the new nuclear build programme will not only fuel GDP growth, but could alleviate levels of unemployment in SA.”
In keeping with the vacuous tone of pro-nuclear discourse to date, these statements lack supporting evidence and analysis. How will it boost unemployment? How many jobs will it deliver? How does this compare with jobs in renewables and what are the relative returns on investment and payback periods?
During a recent press conference in Pretoria, Minister Gigaba said that no formal decision has yet been taken, but nuclear-based energy generation would be implemented to ‘diversify our energy mix’ based on ‘what the country can afford’ and that the process would be managed at a pace and scale our fiscus can handle.
Okay Minister, but take into consideration that our fiscus is already struggling to handle housing, social grants, higher education and public health. It has not yet handled water management infrastructure upgrading (just to make it real for the middle class), and if it can handle nuclear, we certainly have not been told how, and over what time period.
Gigaba has the rubber stamp of approval out that Gordhan kept locked away. And this is a problem, because the numbers we saw from the government-sponsored CSIR are very worrying and indicate that we should be investing in renewables instead.
What is Gigaba’s plan?
Conservative estimates put the cost of nuclear construction at $50 billion. Given the scale of the 9,600MW nuclear programme, it would be wise to draw on our experience with other large-scale energy infrastructure investments to learn some valuable lessons and check our assumptions. The almost 4,800MW coal-fired Medupi has fallen behind schedule, and while estimated at R69.1 billion in 2007, stood at R195 billion in June of 2016. So, what happens when the nuclear deal, large as it is, goes even a little off course, which nuclear builds typically do? How will we pay for that? What is Gigaba’s plan?
If the nuclear deal goes ahead, the much-beleaguered Eskom will conduct the procurement process and secure the necessary finance. It bears repeating that a loan by Eskom ultimately falls to the public purse to pay. Eskom, already weighed down in debt and scrambling to pull in payments from defaulting municipal clients, cannot afford to fail. National Treasury will not let it, as its success is critical to the survival of our economy. A bad bet on nuclear is a bad bet on our behalf, and when the need for fiscal triage arises, we will pay for it through increasing electricity prices, and tax funds diverted from other urgent priorities. Additionally, the integrity of Eskom’s procurement processes was called into question in the State of Capture Report. We should reasonably require that no massive procurement is undertaken before the extent of financial mismanagement is publically determined and transparently addressed.
The need for nuclear is the most fundamental concern
Any energy investments made must be deemed absolutely necessary before adding to Eskom’s indebtedness and our national debt. The 2010 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that Gigaba used to justify nuclear was replaced by a 2013 update that called for only around a third of the nuclear capacity of its predecessor. Now, four years later, it is unclear that we need any nuclear at all.
2013, we will recall, was also the year that, against the Department of Energy’s (DoE) official position, a nuclear transaction was first designed and taken into talks with Russian service providers the following year.
While Cabinet pushes for nuclear, local governments pull in a different direction. Municipalities like Nelson Mandela Bay (well before they went DA) and the City of Cape Town have identified renewables as engines of local economic development, inclusive of local manufacturing opportunities, the holy grail of our industrial policy. In fact, many municipalities are pursuing localised renewable energy, which is at odds with a national nuclear expansion strategy. Mayor Patricia de Lille announced earlier this year that she would take the Minister of Energy to court over the right to buy energy directly from REIPPPP power producers without having to go through Eskom.
It will not be the only court case requiring the attention of the recently appointed Minister of Energy, Mmamoloko “Nkhensani” Kubayi. The nuclear deal is already the subject of a Cape High Court case, for allegedly failing to meet the standards of parliamentary review and public participation required for an investment of this scale.
Reframing the debate
The bare facts of the nuclear deal have been obscured by political rhetoric and false opposites. There is now an urgent need to unearth points of common concern between actors that may have very different views on how our energy sector should be structured.
Something must be said that has not often been said. You do not need to believe that REIPPPP (South Africa’s Renewable Energy IPP Procurement Programme) is the future of the South African energy sector to oppose this deal. REIPPPP is one possible tool. But you can equally argue for an Eskom-led renewable energy strategy, building on their already growing portfolio of wind and solar investments. You could argue for further municipalisation of the energy sector, for localised, small-scale energy generation and the use of residential and commercial microgrids. I happen to be pro a combination of all of the above, aimed primarily at keeping energy affordable and accessible for all.
This nuclear deal must be opposed because it makes no economic sense. It appears to benefit private interests against the public good, it may bankrupt the country over the coming decades and it will likely leave us with an overcapitalised energy sector. Moreover, like Gigaba said, our energy system is stable for now, and there is no reason to rush on nuclear. Let’s talk numbers and put this investment through the appropriate rigorous parliamentary and public review processes of our hard-won democracy.
Being opposed to the nuclear deal does not make you a racist, a classist, anti-ANC, pro-DA, pro-EFF, pro-privatisation or anti-transformation. It is a valid, evidence-based position that can be held by a range of different actors, some terrible and some not so terrible. Consensus building to create coherent policy and strategy in a pluralistic and contested political space is the point and prize of democracy.
Minister, give us, the people of South Africa, policy, finance and energy experts, NERSA, Eskom, Municipalities, the DOE and all interested parties, the chance to flex our democratic muscle and apply our minds, and through contest and collaboration we will develop a national energy plan so thorough as to eclipse the draft 2016 IRP and support the economic development of our beloved country with our best knowledge, experience and collective intelligence.
* Lauren Hermanus is a sustainable development specialist and Strategic Director of the Massive Small Collective, focused on urban resilience, energy innovation and equity.
April 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment

Eskom: SA has not signed nuclear deal http://northglennews.co.za/106808/eskom-sa-not-signed-nuclear-deal/ The power utility has not received any formal proposals from potential supplier SOUTH Africa has not signed any nuclear deal, Eskom recently said. Responding to last week’s media reports alleging that a nuclear deal has been signed, Eskom reiterated the remarks made by National Treasury that no deal has been signed.
“Eskom expects to issue a full Request for Proposal (RFP) to the open market once the Request for Information (RFI) has been assessed and the relevant approvals have been obtained,” said Eskom Chief Nuclear Officer, Dave Nicholls.
Nicholls said the power utility has not received any formal proposals from potential suppliers and has not signed any power plant procurement agreements.
“Eskom has not undertaken any pre-qualification assessment to date related to the potential respondents to a potential RFP,” he said.
South Africa plans to introduce 9 600 megawatts of nuclear energy to the grid in the next decade.
“The funding model of the project will be determined by the response received from the markets once bidders have responded to the RFP. This will also be done at a pace and scale that government can afford,” said the department.
April 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment

‘R1 trillion nuclear deal will guarantee SA junk status’ http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/r1-trillion-nuclear-deal-will-guarantee-sa-junk-status-8565844 9 April 2017 ANA Reporter Cape Town – It is an undeniable fact that South Africa cannot afford, and does not need, government’s planned nuclear energy deal, the Democratic Alliance said on Sunday.
Media reports on Sunday that the nuclear deal was going full-steam ahead were extremely concerning and would essentially guarantee that South Africa would be downgraded by more ratings agencies and make recovering from this status even more difficult, DA spokeswoman Natasha Mazzone said.
Fitch Ratings stated in no uncertain terms on Friday that a key driver behind the decision to downgrade SA’s long-term foreign currency debt and long-term local currency debt to “BB+”, or “junk status”, was that “Eskom has already issued a request for information for nuclear suppliers and is expected to issue a request for proposals for nuclear power stations later this year.
The Treasury under its previous leadership had said that Eskom could not absorb the nuclear programme with its current approved guarantees, so the Treasury will likely have to substantially increase guarantees to Eskom”.
Just days before, S&P Global also downgraded South Africa to sub-investment level – “junk status”. Mazzone said the DA would ask public enterprises portfolio committee chairwoman Dipuo Letsatsi-Dub for an urgent meeting of the committee to ensure that Parliament, as a key oversight body, would fully interrogate all aspects related to the nuclear deal.
“The undeniable fact is that South Africa cannot afford, and does not need, the nuclear deal. Indeed, international ratings agencies agree and this deal has been repeatedly cited as a cause for great concern and a key factor in downgrades not only for Eskom, but the country as a whole.
“These downgrades have already and will continue to have a devastating effect on our economy. Jobs will be lost and the cost of living will increase, which will hurt the poor,” Mazzone said.
Earlier on Sunday, City Press reported that a confidential document reveals that South Africa’s nuclear-build programme kicks off in earnest in June when Eskom issues a formal request for proposals from companies bidding for the estimated R1 trillion contract.
The nuclear deal – for which Russian company Rosatom was widely considered to be the front runner – was, according to senior National Treasury officials, “directly related” to President Jacob Zuma’s axing of finance minister Pravin Gordhan and his deputy Mcebisi Jonas, the newspaper reported.
“It is well known that Gordhan was against the project as he said the country couldn’t afford it.Eskom will be issuing a request for proposals in June and that really is the beginning of procurement. Gordhan had to go because he was going to block it again,” a senior official reportedly said.
The internal Eskom document dated three days before Gordhan and Jonas were axed revealed a tight timeline for the programme that would see four plants built to provide 9600 megawatts of electricity to the country.
After the request for proposals was issued in June, the deadline for bids was September, for evaluation in December. The winning bidder would be decided in March 2018 and the contract signed between December next year and March 2019, City Press reported.
The document also revealed that most of the major nuclear contracts would be implemented through “turnkey” procurement, which Treasury officials were concerned about.
“While Treasury allows for turnkey procurement, we know that it is often used to hide corruption. Companies that are asked to deliver turnkey projects are accountable to themselves. They appoint whoever they like, however they like,” a senior official reportedly said.
Turnkey projects were when a single company was appointed to manage and deliver an entire project. The management company became responsible for appointing all contractors and service providers. This was different from an open tender that was spread over a range of different contractors appointed by the state, City Press reported.
April 10, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment

ZUMA’S CABINET RESHUFFLE OPENS DOOR FOR SA NUCLEAR DEAL, EyeWitness News, 1 April 17 Hartmut Winkler is professor of physics, University of Johannesburg.This article first appeared on The Conversation.
South Africa has just witnessed a game-changing Cabinet reshuffle with the firing of five ministers and several deputy ministers. This included the Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan and his second-in-charge Mcebisi Jonas.
The three ministries with the most critical impact on the energy sector have all been affected, significantly increasing the chances of the country opting for a highly controversial nuclear energy programme. Continue reading →
April 3, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
‘Gigaba has signed nuclear deal, we are Russia’s slaves’ http://citizen.co.za/news/news-
national/1474986/gigaba-has-signed-nuclear-deal-we-are-russias-slaves/, Charles Cilliers , 1 Apr 17, Vytjie Mentor has thrown her weight behind an allegation that includes the ‘revelation’ that Zuma’s nephew is set to make billions.
A little-known ANC member and part-time lecturer at the University of KwaZulu-Natal put 
Facebook users into a tailspin on Sunday evening when she took to the platform to declare that she had knowledge that the new finance minister, Malusi Gigaba, has already signed off on a new nuclear deal.
Sibusisiwe Mngadi, who lists as among her occupations being a part-time lecturer at the University of KwaZulu-Natal Pietermaritzburg and an area manager at the Msunduzi Municipality, wrote: “The Nuclear Deal deadline was last night. Guess whose signature is on the paper? The new Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba.” She alleges the deal will benefit President Jacob Zuma’s controversial nephew Khulubuse Zuma to the tune of R50 billion by his company being given the contract to build nuclear plants.
“Mission Nuclear done and dusted. Guess whose company is in charge of building the nuclear plants?
“Khulubuse Zuma is the SA holding company for the Nuclear plants. The next 20 yrs Khulubuse Zuma will be making more than 50billion. Congratulations, mission accomplished.”
She did not reveal what her source for this allegation was and many of her followers questioned whether she was properly informed or telling the truth.
Many pointed out that it was highly unlikely the new finance minister would have been able to sign off on such an important deal (the most expensive in South African history) after being in the job for just one day. Update: Treasury in an official statement later said that the new finance minister had signed no such documents and there were no documents ready to sign. Gigaba is yet to even occupy his office at Treasury.
Mngadi explained that she had not joined the struggle against apartheid and been jailed only for this to happen to her “beloved ANC”.
It is understood that President Jacob Zuma and the Gupta family have been pushing hard for government to sign off on a trillion-rand deal with Russia’s state-owned nuclear company Rosatom.
The former finance minister, Pravin Gordhan, and his predecessor, Nhlanhla Nene, were in no hurry to sign off on any nuclear agreements with Russia, or anyone else. Many analysts have concluded that both were axed due primarily to their opposition to any hasty conclusion of such a deal with Russia.
When Nene was axed in favour of Des van Rooyen in 2015, there were similar allegations that Van Rooyen had hurriedly signed off on the nuclear deal (he was in office for just four days), but these rumours turned out to be baseless.
Former ANC MP and party whistleblower Vytjie Mentor repeated the allegation about the deal being signed, though it’s not clear if she sourced her allegations from Mngadi or verified them independently.
She wrote: “Gigaba signed the nuclear deal last night. It will be R6 trillion with over-runs. All South Africans are now officially slaves of the Russians, and thus will be the case for the next 100 years.”
Mngadi’s post has already been shared nearly 700 times, with it also going viral on WhatsApp and Twitter.
Mentor has thrown her weight behind a group of South Africans calling for the observance of #BlackMonday by wearing black tomorrow in support of the call for Zuma to step down.
April 3, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
secrets,lies and civil liberties, South Africa |
Leave a comment

Treasury shoots down nuclear deal allegations http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/treasury-shoots-down-nuclear-deal-allegations-20170402 Jenna Etheridge, News24 Cape Town – National Treasury on Sunday set the record straight on news that was circulating on social media of a nuclear deal allegedly signed by incoming Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba.
ANC member Sibusisiwe Mngadi had alleged on Facebook earlier on Sunday that “the nuclear deal deadline was last night” and that Gigaba had signed it.
She also alleged that President Jacob Zuma’s nephew Khulubuse Zuma would benefit from nuclear plants being built.
“Khulubuse Zuma is the SA holding company for the Nuclear plants. The next 20yrs Khulubuse Zuma will be making more than 50billion. Congratulations, mission accomplished,” she alleged on the post.
Mngadi listed her occupations as a researcher and part-time lecturer at University of KZN in Pietermaritzburg, and an area manager at Msunduzi Municipality.
Some of her followers asked her for proof to support her claims. She replied that people should do their own digging, alluding only to a “parliament document that was signed yesterday”.
Former ANC MP Vytjie Mentor also entered the fray on her personal Facebook profile page, seeming to support the allegations.
“Gigaba signed the Nuclear Deal Last night. It will be R6 trillion with over-runs. All South Africans are now Officially slaves of the Russians, and thus will be the case for the next 100 years,” Mentor alleged.
National Treasury issued a series of tweets on the matter on Sunday night. “The Minister arrived (on) Friday and has not yet gone beyond boardrooms where he met management and later had a telecon with rating agencies,” the treasury account stated.
“He is formally occupying his office tomorrow and will have a briefing meeting with the outgoing Minister Pravin Gordhan in the morning. There are no documents of deals ready for signature on nuclear. Therefore the reports are misleading and mischievous.”
Gigaba’s spokesperson Mayihlome Tshwete also took to Twitter to say he had signed “not a single thing”, not even to sign off for the printing of his business cards. He said Gigaba had not even received any documents from the Director-General.“Sadly, we must now release a statement to deny fake news, then the story will be about the denial,” he lamented.
In government’s updated Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2016, which is still under discussion, it intends to add 20 385MW units of nuclear power to the national grid, Fin24 reported.
This will make up approximately one-third of South Africa’s total generation mix.
On December 20, 2016, Eskom, which has taken over from the Department of Energy as owner and operator of the proposed nuclear build programme, issued a Request for Information (RFI) for the procurement of nuclear energy. Comment is currently open for the Request for Proposal (RFP) until April 28.
The RFP is expected to be issued to the market place by the middle of the year and in 2018 Eskom and the Nuclear Energy Corporation SA (Necsa) will choose their preferred bidders and negotiate and finalise contracts.
April 3, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, politics international, South Africa |
Leave a comment