State was willing to lie to SA over costs of Zuma’s nuclear plan, City Press News 24 Jan De Lange, 2018-10-08 The state was prepared to lie to South Africans over the estimated costs of former president Jacob Zuma’s nuclear plan.
Cabinet also decided to go ahead with the nuclear power deal on the grounds of hopelessly incorrect and over optimistic “facts” that the energy department presented to Cabinet – such as an assumption that the exchange rate would stay at R10 a dollar.
A top secret Cabinet notice and accompanying memorandum – which have now been declassified and were handed to the state capture commission last week, revealed for the first time how close South Africa was on the edge of an economic crisis, and how desperate Zuma and his cronies were to push through the nuclear power deal.
Last week, Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene told the commission investigating the extent of state capture how Zuma chastised him because he wasn’t making quick enough progress over the nuclear deal.
During a state visit to Russia in July 2015, then minister of energy Tina Joemat-Pettersson wanted Nene to sign a one-page agreement.
It was a letter addressed to the Russian authorities, Nene said, adding that he couldn’t remember the precise details of the letter but he remembered that it effectively gave a guarantee to the Russian authorities over the nuclear programme, if they agreed to finance it.
Nene refused to sign it because it would have been catastrophic for the country, he said.
Zuma wasn’t impressed, because he wanted to be able to present something to President Vladimir Putin when they met.
A few months later, Joemat-Pettersson’s department was still forging ahead with the project, despite warnings from Treasury.
On December 9 2015, the day Cabinet approved the nuclear deal, Nene recalled been summoned into a meeting with then president Zuma. It lasted less than five minutes and he was informed that he was being removed from his role as finance minister.
He was replaced by Des van Rooyen, which set off a spiral of uncertainty for the markets.
The secret Cabinet notice showed that the government wanted to downplay the cost implications of the deal. Prices should not be communicated prior to the procurement process being completed, it said, and if any communication was to be done around the costs of the programme, it was decided to talk about the low end of the range……..
The numbers show that nuclear would have ruined South Africa
A nuclear engineer from a large Western nuclear power company, who also tendered for the project, told Rapport that the numbers were completely unrealistic.
The number of $2500 a kilowatt was from nuclear power stations being built in Asia – mainly China and Korea. It would be unrealistic to think that it would be possible to build a nuclear power station in South Africa at such a low price, he said.
“In South Africa, if everything goes according to plan, you could bank on it costing about $5000 per kilowatt,” he said.
Both the engineer and Serfontein said that, under the best circumstances, the project would cost more than R1 trillion.
If Cabinet had gone ahead with this binding agreement, it would have ruined South Africa financially, they both said………
At that time it was widely known that the Russian state-owned nuclear power company, Rosatom, would be the preferred bidder because Joemat-Pettersson had signed a framework agreement with Rosatom more than a year before, on September 22 2014, that would make the Russians the sole supplier for South Africa’s nuclear power programme.
Nene refused to sign off on nuclear energy – and it cost him his job https://businesstech.co.za/news/energy/275039/nene-refused-to-sign-off-on-nuclear-energy-and-it-cost-him-his-job/ Bloomberg3 October 2018South African Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene said he met repeatedly with members of the Gupta family, who have been implicated in a corruption scandal related to former President Jacob Zuma and separately was twice pressured to sign a multi-billion Russian nuclear-power deal by former Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson.
Nene made his comments in a statement accompanying his testimony at a judicial inquiry into allegations of corruption and so-called state capture which involve the Guptas, who are friends with the former president.
Nene denied wrongdoing in his meetings with the family and said he refused to sign the agreement for Russia to provide nuclear energy, a plan that had been publicly backed by Zuma.
President Cyril Ramaphosa came to power in February and has changed the top management at the likes of the revenue authority and the state power utility as part of his pledge to fight corruption. He reappointed Nene as finance minister, a move that helped bolster investor confidence after years of economic mismanagement and regular cabinet changes under Zuma.
Nene first served as finance minister until December 2015, when Zuma fired him, causing a plunge in the rand and bonds. Mcebisi Jonas, who was Nene’s deputy, told the commission the Guptas offered him a bribe to take over the finance minister post, which he declined.
Nene rejected pressure to approve the construction of as many as eight nuclear reactors, which would have the capacity to generate 9,600 megawatts of energy. The costs of the project, championed by Zuma, would have been “astronomical,” he said in his statement.
In July 2015, Nene twice refused to sign a letter from Joemat-Pettersson providing a guarantee to the Russian government on the nuclear program.
“As a result of my refusal to sign the letter, I was seen as the person standing in the way of the nuclear deal,” he said. “I was accused of insubordination, not only by the president but by some of my colleagues.”
Lindsay Dentlinger 5 Sept 18, nuclear power has not deliberately been excluded from the draft Integrated Resource Plan(IRP) which outlines the country’s energy needs until 2030.
Instead, he says the country’s energy demands have decreased.
Briefing Parliament’s energy committee on Tuesday, Radebe also pointed out that the cost of renewable energy technology has also come down.
According to the draft IRP, nuclear energy will only account for about 4% of the country’s energy mix by 2030.
This means no nuclear build programme is being envisaged.
Radebe says there are some misunderstandings about the decision taken on nuclear energy.
“It is not in the plan together with a number of other technologies for the period ending 2030 due to lower demand and lower cost of other technologies.”
MPs say they are relieved a new nuclear project has been scrapped for now, because it is not only unaffordable but would open the door to corruption.
South Africa Opens Door to Future Russian Nuclear Power Deal, US News, July 26, 2018 , BY ALEXANDER WINNING, JOHANNESBURG (Reuters)– South Africa cannot afford large-scale expansion of its nuclear power capacity but would still be open to future deals with Russia, a senior ruling party official said on Thursday, shortly before the arrival of President Vladimir Putin for a summit.
Russian state firm Rosatom was one of the front runners for a project to increase South Africa’s nuclear power-generating capacity championed by former president Jacob Zuma.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has put nuclear expansion on the back burner since taking office in February, saying it is too expensive, and has focused instead on pledges to revive the economy and crack down on corruption.
African National Congress Treasurer General Paul Mashatile, one of the six most powerful members of the ruling party, said Pretoria would not rush into major nuclear investments but that it was still open to deals. ………
Russia wants to turn nuclear energy into a major export industry. It has signed agreements with African countries with no nuclear tradition, including Rwanda and Zambia, and is set to build a large nuclear plant in Egypt.
Rosatom signed a separate agreement with South Africa’s state nuclear firm on Thursday to explore joint production of nuclear medicines and other ways of harnessing nuclear technology, a statement from the two firms showed.
The agreement, which is non-binding and is not related to large-scale power generation, is a further sign that Rosatom is keen to cement its position on the African continent.
December 2017 marked the beginning of significant political changes in South Africa. Former President Jacob Zuma was replaced by Cyril Ramaphosa as president of the African National Congress (ANC). On 14 February 2018, Zuma stepped down as president of the Republic of South Africa (RSA), almost one year short of completing his second and final term. He was replaced by the newly elected president of the ANC, Cyril Ramaphosa.
This has brought about significant changes in South Africa. However, what this means for Government’s nuclear energy ambitions is not yet clear. While the Zuma administration remained unwaveringly committed to the Nuclear Energy New Build Programme in its full 9.6GW glory, mixed messages about the future of nuclear energy have emerged from President Ramaphosa and his newly appointed Minister of Energy, Jeff Radebe.
Given this uncertainty, as well as the country’s questionable track record with pursuing nuclear energy procurement under the Zuma administration, those opposed to the nuclear new build programme are left in limbo.
Will government continue to pursue nuclear energy despite its prohibitively high costs; the lack of energy demand to justify a build on this scale; the fact that we don’t have the money to finance it; and the continued resistance from many constituencies throughout South Africa? If it does, will the procurement process be more open and transparent than it was under the Zuma administration and will government engage with and listen to the concerns of its people?
These are critical questions because the energy choices we make now will have significant impacts not only on our energy security and economic performance today but also in the future.
Furthermore, as we enter into a new period of optimism in South Africa, the need to ensure Energy Democracy, understood in its broadest sense to mean that all South Africans are informed about and have a say in our energy future, is critical.
It is in this spirit that the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) undertook two studies to explore the future of nuclear energy in South Africa. The purpose of these studies is two-fold. First, it seeks to understand what we can learn from the decisions made and strategies pursued to push nuclear energy under the Zuma administration. Second, it seeks to highlight the potential points of intervention available to those seeking to oppose nuclear energy deployment, or at the very least ensure accountability in the procurement thereof.
The first study, South Africa’s nuclear new-build programme: Who are the players and what are the potential strategies for pushing the nuclear new-build programme, maps the most vocal constituencies in the nuclear energy debate and their reasons for either opposing or supporting the new build programme. What it reveals is that across the board, irrespective of ideological positions or technology preferences, South Africans are opposed to the nuclear programme. The reasons given by these commentators include, the prohibitively high costs involved, the lack of energy demand to justify the programme, the lack of finance to fund such a programme, the secrecy associated with nuclear procurement and the potential for corruption, among others.
The study also unpacks some of the lessons we can learn from government’s strategy to push the nuclear programme under the previous administration. Importantly, it unpacks the Earthlife Africa and Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI) legal challenge, which saw the Western Cape High Court declare Government’s Intergovernmental Agreement with Russia unlawful and what those opposed to nuclear energy can learn from this process. It attempts to understand what, given the High Court decision, are the strategies available to Government if it is to continue to pursue nuclear energy in South Africa.
The second study, South Africa’s nuclear new-build programme: The domestic requirements for nuclear energy procurement and public finance implications, provides insight into the various legislative requirements for large infrastructure builds in South Africa.
What it reveals is that SA has a robust legislative framework in place to ensure that due process is followed in large infrastructure procurement. In particular, Treasury’s various procurement rules impose a number of checks and balances to prevent cost overruns and delays and to ensure transparency and accountability. These are critical to understand, not only in the context of nuclear energy, but for any infrastructure build we might seek to undertake.
The second report also shows unequivocally that SA cannot afford to pursue the nuclear new build programme. Using very conservative cost estimates, it shows not only that the fiscus can neither finance the programme nor provide the guarantees necessary to seek financial support elsewhere.
Given this, and as we move into a new period in SA’s democracy, it is critical we entrench inclusive and accountable decision making from the get go. This requires that we ensure that government engages with and listens to all stakeholders when making important decisions about our energy future.
Going into this new period, we can draw on two fundamental lessons from our past. The first is that everyone has the power to make a difference. Against all odds, Earthlife Africa and SAFCEI, were able to change the course of our energy future. The second is that in order to exercise this power we need to be informed. The energy space is unnecessarily complicated. It is time for those working in this space, to move away from the technical language that excludes participation by most South Africans and start driving Energy Democracy in its truest form.
– Ellen Davies is the Project Manager of Extractives Industry at the World Wide Fund for NatureSaliem Fakir is the Head of the Policy & Futures Unit at the World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa.
Another nuclear safety scare at Pelindaba as management fumbles, amaBhungane, 7 June 18
Whistleblowers have accused the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation of sidelining qualified staff in favour of inexperienced technicians.
Another safety incident has shaken the Pelindaba nuclear facility outside Johannesburg, resulting in the total shutdown of the NTP Radioisotopes plant which produces vital supplies of nuclear medicine and radiation-based products.
Senior NTP staff point fingers at parent company the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa).
The sudden halt in production, which can be lifted only once the National Nuclear Regulator gives the all-clear, threatens global medicine supply.
AmaBhungane understands that the NTP facility was shut down after a dangerous spike in hydrogen gas levels was detected last Thursday (May 31). This, according to a senior technical employee, “could have resulted in an explosion”.
Necsa group chief executive Phumzile Tshelane, speaking on behalf of Necsa and NTP, ignored most questions put to him, saying: “We cannot disclose classified information.”
He did, however, attempt to downplay the incident. “This was a minor incident followed by vigilant safety protocols which ensured that there is no danger as alleged by your source.”
Tshelane cautioned against what he called “dangerous and alarmist allegations”.
This is the latest in a string of setbacks for NTP, the owner of the plant. In November last year, the plant was shuttered by the nuclear regulator after faulty calibrations in an instrument for analysing hydrogen levels.
Several employees claimed that since the November incident the new acting management brought in to get the plant restarted has bungled the recovery process and created unsafe work conditions.
……. AmaBhungane is in possession of correspondence between the regulator and Necsa/NTP from February to May that suggests the recovery process has been far from smooth.
The correspondence paints a picture of a breakdown of safety culture at the plant, where those working on returning the facility to full production are out of their depth.
In their communications with Necsa/NTP, the regulator flags among other things: the submission of falsified results; inaccuracies in tables submitted; the failure to demonstrate repeatability of tests; the unsuitability of a particular individual to provide theoretical training to NTP staff; a lack of due diligence in calibration; failure to submit hydrogen calibration schedules; and a repeated failure to address the poor quality of graphs.
In a letter from March, the regulator writes: “Noting the falsification of information, highlighted by the regulator… and recognising that that similar issue (sic) was previously raised by the regulator… Necsa/NTP Management is required to confirm what action(s) have been taken with regard to this matter.”
The protected disclosure also notes two separate incidents that were incorrectly handled by Necsa deployees.
On Monday, 4 June 2018, comments from the public on the draft Integrated Planning Framework Bill are due to the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) in the Presidency.
The call for comments makes the draft bill sound fairly benign, in that the DPME says the bill will provide for the functions of the department and establish an institutional framework for “a new predictable planning paradigm and discipline within and across all spheres of government”.
However, upon analysis, the bill could be the latest worrying development in the relentless bid to push the new-nuclear build programme forward.
On 17 May 2018, Loyiso Tyabashe, senior manager of nuclear new build at Eskom, said at African Utility Week that Eskom is continuing with front-end planning for a nuclear build programme. This despite Cyril Ramaphosa sending clear signals at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January that South Africa does not have money to pursue a major nuclear plant build.
Within this context, consider the following lines contained in the draft integrated planning framework bill, which says that the Minister in the Presidency must:
(c) annually in consultation with the Minister of Finance develop a budget prioritisation framework in order to guide the allocation of resources to organs of state in the national sphere of government;
(d) annually give input to the Minister of Finance in the preparation of the budget on—
the status of the economy and the possible macro-economic interventions;
its alignment with the National Development Plan; and
the proposed capital and development projects and programmes and related expenditure;
Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma is Minister in The Presidency responsible for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. This bill would give the minister the ability to develop a budget prioritisation framework that outlines which capital programmes to prioritise and to propose the related expenditure. Capital projects could include such contentious projects as the nuclear build, the Moloto Rail and the Mzimvubu dam.
In February 2018, which is after Cyril Ramaphosa signalled at the World Economic Forum that South Africa has no money for major nuclear expansion, the DPME launched a discussion paper on energy. The DPME’s website notes that enquiries related to this discussion paper could be directed to Tshediso Matona.
Tshediso Matona is the Secretary for National Planning at the DPME and is also the fired former Eskom boss to whom former President Jacob Zuma apologised about the way he was treated when he was fired.
The discussion paper reiterates that “the promulgated IRP 2010-2030 included 9.6 GW of nuclear power generation capacity, which has been confirmed as existing policy on numerous occasions. The Draft IRP 2016 that is in the public domain for consultation following a significant time-lapse since the promulgation of the IRP 2010-2030 in 2011 has a Base Case that requires nuclear power by 2037 (earliest) while a Carbon Budget scenario requires it by 2026.”
The discussion paper does acknowledge that the court case in which the Inter-Governmental Agreements (IGAs) with the United States of America, the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation were legally challenged, determined the IGAs to be irrational, unlawful and unconstitutional. The court ruled that they should be set aside.
However, the paper then continues to say that the opportunity for small modular reactors to be included in the integrated energy planning framework should be considered. While it says that appropriate realistic costs should be considered, the paper outlines in the line immediately before that small modular reactors have typically been considered prohibitively expensive. With regards to the small modular reactors, the paper refers to revived research and previous research in preparation for the shelved Pebble Bed Modular Reactor which cost about R10-billion before it was shut down.
So, if a smaller nuclear build at an appropriate realistic cost could be possible, should taxpayers be worried? According to two recently released reports by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), there is cause for concern. The WWF reports look at the players’ potential strategies for pushing the nuclear new-build programme as well as the domestic procurement and public finance implications. WWF cautions that suggestions for smaller amounts of installed nuclear capacity appear to be an attempt to gain support for smaller amounts of nuclear energy and use these as a stepping stone towards building the full 9.6 GW.
How might the Integrated Planning Framework Bill play a role in the continued push for nuclear? If the bill is legislated it would give the Minister in the Presidency responsible for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation the ability to give input to the Minister of Finance on proposed capital and development projects and programmes and related expenditure. The financing would need to come from somewhere.
WWF notes that finance for electricity generating plants typically comes from “corporate finance, government equity, government guarantees, loans from development finance institutions, a long-term loan from an export credit agency, and extra cash generated from regulated tariffs”.
However, says the WWF, it is unlikely that corporate finance would be used; government-to-government loans or financing from state banks or development finance institutions of the vendor’s home country are more likely to be used, with sovereign wealth funds another possibility. In order to enable a loan, National Treasury may need to put up a loan guarantee. Given the alarming trend of State-owned Entities including Eskom needing bailouts, the possibility of the loan being called in would be a risk. The ratings downgrade that Eskom received would also mean that a loan, if it were granted to Eskom, would attract a higher interest rate than previously.
The draft Integrated Planning Framework bill is currently in white paper form. When it comes before Parliament, there is a strong rationale for civil society to study it closely and make submissions to ensure that it is not used as a tool to push corrupt capital projects through the system. DM
SA no longer has agreement with Russians on nuclear, says Radebe, Fin 24, Jun 04 2018 Khulekani Magubane Cape Town –Minister of Energy Jeff Radebe told eNCA on Sunday evening that South Africa no longer had an agreement with the Russians to procure for the development of nuclear energy for the country.
Speaking to journalist and political analyst Karima Brown on the news network’s show The Fix, Radebe said he was of the view that government did not appeal the court ruling in 2017 which invalidated the nuclear deal at that time.
The energy portfolio in national government has seen unparalleled instability with at least five ministers of energy in the past eight years, and a subsequent lack of clarity as to whether the Intergovernmental Framework Agreement which mentions nuclear would still be pursued and what role nuclear would play in the energy mix…….https://www.fin24.com/Economy/sa-no-longer-has-agreement-with-russians-on-nuclear-says-radebe-20180604
Eskom continues with front-end nuclear preparation May 17 2018 Carin Smith
Cape Town – Eskom is continuing with front-end planning for a nuclear build programme, Loyiso Tyabashe, senior manager of nuclear new build at Eskom, said at African Utility Week on Thursday.
During a discussion on nuclear energy, Professor Anton Eberhard of the University of Cape Town asked Tyabashe why Eskom was still focusing on nuclear development when it did not seem to be on President Cyril Ramaphosa’s radar.
The energy minister spoke extensively about successes in renewables and made no mention of nuclear power, at the conference in Cape Town, 15 MAY 2018 TANYA FARBER
Just hours after being sworn in as acting president‚ Jeff Radebe nailed his colours to the renewable energy mast at African Utility Week, on Tuesday.
Radebe was speaking at the Cape Town International Convention Centre‚ where 7‚000 delegates from around the world gathered to talk about water‚ energy and power.
The energy minister‚ who is acting president while President Cyril Ramaphosa and Deputy President David Mabuza are out of the country‚ spoke extensively about successes in renewables and made no mention of nuclear power.
“To date we have concluded 91 projects with a capacity of 63‚000 megawatts (MW). Sixty-two of these projects have the combined capacity of 3‚800MW, which already is connected to the grid‚” he said.
He told delegates that SA had seen a “significant decline in tariffs of about 55% for wind and 76% for solar” energy. About R136bn had been invested in renewable energy‚ with another R56bn to be spent over the next 3-5 years, when the construction of 27 renewable power projects — signed off in April — will begin.
These projects would save water‚ create 39‚000 jobs and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 23-million tonnes.
Radebe said the resource plan, which maps out the country’s energy mix for the next two decades, would be finalised in August.
The report is seen as the litmus test for whether Ramaphosa’s government has distanced itself from the nuclear aspirations of his predecessor‚ Jacob Zuma.
Although the nuclear deals were deemed unlawful‚ there is a chance they could re-emerge. But if Radebe’s speech was anything to go by‚ nuclear might finally be fading into the background.
Daily Maverick 14th May 2018, If South Africa’s new energy plan contains nuclear power as part of the
country’s future energy mix, it suggests that State Capture is still
embedded in government, anti-nuclear lobby groups say.
The new Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), a road map laying out South Africa’s future energy
mix for the next 20 years, will be presented to Cabinet on 15 August,
Energy Minister Jeff Radebe said last week. An energy policy expert has
warned that a nuclear programme in South Africa is “unfinanceable” –
even if Russia pays.
After South Africa’s controversial nuclear deals signed with Russia, Korea and the US, backed by former President Jacob Zuma, were found to be unlawful and unconstitutional by the Western Cape
High Court in 2017, there has been speculation as to whether this spells
the end of the nuclear expansion programme, or whether the government would
begin afresh.
The new IRP will reveal which way government intends to go.
If the energy minister knows, he is not saying. At a ministerial briefing
of the energy portfolio committee on Tuesday last week, MPs asked Radebe
three times if the government intended pursuing the nuclear programme, and
three times he gave a wait-and-see answer. Anti-nuke campaigner Liz McDaid
of the SA Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI), who with
Earthlife Africa’s director Makoma Lekalakala brought the nuclear court
case against the government, said none of the expert reports on South
Africa’s future electricity mix had found that there was a need for
nuclear power. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2018-05-14-industry-experts-are-watching-to-see-if-state-capture-still-has-a-role-in-future-of-energy-in-south-africa/
Energy Minister Jeff Radebe says he hopes to present the review of the Integrated Resource Plan to Cabinet by mid-August. Lindsay Dentlinger , 8 May 18, CAPE TOWN – Energy Minister Jeff Radebe says the country’s controversial nuclear build programme is under review.
He says no further decisions will be taken until the long-overdue review of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) has been finalised.
Radebe says he hopes to present the document to Cabinet by mid-August.
The minister on Tuesday appeared before Parliament’s Energy Committee for the first time since his appointment in February.
Radebe batted away MPs’ questions about the country’s nuclear power intentions, saying he doesn’t want to pre-empt the determination of the IRP.
The deadline for the review of the outdated 2010 document was changed by each of Radebe’s two predecessors, and he too has set a new date for submission to Cabinet.
For now Radebe says the focus is on complying with a High Court ruling which found government’s cooperation agreements on nuclear to have been unconstitutional.
Radebe said: “The issue of cost…I think those were determined at a time when a decision is taken whether or not to proceed.”
Radebe has given a commitment to MPs that there will be more consultation on the IRP including with the public.
Liz McDaid and Makoma Lekalakala have been awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for their role in stopping a controversial nuclear deal between South Africa and Russia.
Now they are urging other women to step up and fight against injustice.
“I think it’s like when you come up against bullies, at a certain point, you actually say enough is enough,” Ms McDaid said.
“It’s within the grasp of ordinary people. Let the politicians keep shouting, but let’s get on and make a difference.”
The fight of their lives
The two women, both aged in their fifties, one white and one black, took on the South African Government in 2014.
Together they led a campaign to stop a multi-billion-dollar deal with Russia, to build a series of nuclear power stations in South Africa.
The agreement had not passed through the normal checks, balances and scrutiny of parliament.
South Arica had also signed deals with the United States and South Korea.
Ms Lekalakala believed the project was unsafe, unnecessary and unaffordable.
“This deal was literally going to bankrupt the country,” she said.
“For us, challenging the abuse of power and protecting our constitutional right, this is fundamental.”
Their organisations — Earthlife Africa and the Southern Africa Faith Communities Environmental Institute — teamed up with other groups, including environmental lawyers, to take on the government.
Ms McDaid said she was confident she and Ms Lekalakla, along with their supporters, would win.
“I think what is really nice is that in a world that is often being led by men, this was a space where two women could actually work together,” she said.
“We have the same sort of energy, same attitudes and value system. So, we worked very well together.”
The environmentalists filed a case against the President of South Africa, the Department of Energy and the Speaker of Parliament.
“To say no nuclear energy should proceed without having satisfied all the legislative and regulatory processes,” Ms McDaid said.
On the 26th of April 2017, the High Court in Cape Town found the Government had not followed due process.
As a result, the deal was declared invalid and unconstitutional.
Ms Lekalakala and Ms McDaid began their activism against the apartheid regime in the 1980s.
Ms McDaid said people should not believe the story that they are powerless.
“We do live in a democracy, we have the right to stand up, we have the right to protest, and so people must use it,” she said.
Liz McDaid and Makoma Lekalakala have been awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for their role in stopping a controversial nuclear deal between South Africa and Russia.
Now they are urging other women to step up and fight against injustice.
“I think it’s like when you come up against bullies, at a certain point, you actually say enough is enough,” Ms McDaid said.
“It’s within the grasp of ordinary people. Let the politicians keep shouting, but let’s get on and make a difference.”
The fight of their lives
The two women, both aged in their fifties, one white and one black, took on the South African Government in 2014.
Together they led a campaign to stop a multi-billion-dollar deal with Russia, to build a series of nuclear power stations in South Africa.
The agreement had not passed through the normal checks, balances and scrutiny of parliament.
South Arica had also signed deals with the United States and South Korea.
Ms Lekalakala believed the project was unsafe, unnecessary and unaffordable.
“This deal was literally going to bankrupt the country,” she said.
“For us, challenging the abuse of power and protecting our constitutional right, this is fundamental.”
Their organisations — Earthlife Africa and the Southern Africa Faith Communities Environmental Institute — teamed up with other groups, including environmental lawyers, to take on the government.
Ms McDaid said she was confident she and Ms Lekalakla, along with their supporters, would win.
“I think what is really nice is that in a world that is often being led by men, this was a space where two women could actually work together,” she said.
“We have the same sort of energy, same attitudes and value system. So, we worked very well together.”
The environmentalists filed a case against the President of South Africa, the Department of Energy and the Speaker of Parliament.
“To say no nuclear energy should proceed without having satisfied all the legislative and regulatory processes,” Ms McDaid said.
On the 26th of April 2017, the High Court in Cape Town found the Government had not followed due process.
As a result, the deal was declared invalid and unconstitutional.
Ms Lekalakala and Ms McDaid began their activism against the apartheid regime in the 1980s.
Ms McDaid said people should not believe the story that they are powerless.
“We do live in a democracy, we have the right to stand up, we have the right to protest, and so people must use it,” she said.
Tri-Valley CAREs – Communities Against a Radioactive Environment
3 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Terrible! 2/3
Pros and cons of public opinion polls – Jason Robert Jaffe
What About the Ozone Hole | Global Weirding
For First Time, Majority in U.S. Oppose Nuclear Energy, Gallup, BY REBECCA RIFFKIN , March 18, 2016,
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
54% of Americans oppose nuclear energy, 44% in favor
First time in Gallup’s trend that majority oppose nuclear energy
Both major parties less likely to favor nuclear energy than in 2015
WASHINGTON, D.C. — For the first time since Gallup first asked the question in 1994, a majority of Americans say they oppose nuclear energy. The 54% opposing it is up significantly from 43% a year ago, while the 44% who favor using nuclear energy is down from 51%.
Gallup asks Americans as part of its annual Environment poll if they favor or oppose the use of nuclear energy as one way to provide electricity. Each year from 2004 to 2015, a majority of Americans said they favored the use of nuclear energy, including a high of 62% in 2010.
In 2011, Gallup conducted its annual Environment poll a few days before the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster in Japan, and at that time, 57% of Americans were in favor of nuclear energy. The next time the question was asked in 2012, a similar majority still favored the use of nuclear energy.
And although there have not been any major nuclear incidents since Fukushima in 2011, a majority of U.S. adults now oppose nuclear energy. This suggests that energy prices and the perceived abundance of energy sources are the most relevant factors in attitudes toward nuclear power, rather than safety concerns prompted by nuclear incidents.
Lower gasoline prices over the past year are likely driving greater opposition toward the use of nuclear power. As Americans have paid less at the pump, their level of worry about the nation’s energy situation has dropped to 15-year-low levels. This appears to have resulted in more Americans prioritizing environmental protection and fewer backing nuclear power as an alternative energy source.
Democrats and Republicans Less Likely to Favor Nuclear Energy
Republicans continue to be more likely than Democrats and independents to be in favor of nuclear energy. Still, support for the use of nuclear energy among Republicans and Democrats has declined in comparison to 2015. A slight majority of Republicans, 53%, are in favor of nuclear energy, down significantly from 68% last year. One in three Democrats, 34%, favor it, down from 42% in 2015. Independents’ support is essentially unchanged from last year, but is down from the high Gallup found in 2010……..
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted March 2-6, 2016, with a random sample of 1,019 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.
Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 60% cellphone respondents and 40% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. https://news.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx
November 29th and 30th and December 1st, Navajo Nation Museum, Hwy 264 & Post Office Loop, Window Rock, Navajo Nation, AZDecember 2nd, Flagstaff, AZDecember 6th, Guild Cinema, 3405 Central Ave, Albuquerque, NMDecember 7th, Grants, NMDecember 9th, Jean Cocteau Cinema, 418 Montezuma Ave, Santa Fe, NM
