South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma says South Africa is committed to nuclear power expansion
South Africa committed to nuclear power expansion, process to be open – Zuma, http://www.reuters.com/article/safrica-politics-nuclear-idUSJ8N1H5007
South Africa is committed to an “open, transparent” process to build new nuclear power plants and the government planned to go through with its plans for nuclear expansion, President Jacob Zuma told parliament on Thursday.
South Africa is planning to build 9,600 megawatts (MW) of nuclear capacity, a project that could be one of the world’s biggest nuclear contracts in decades.
But Energy Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi said on Wednesday in Moscow that the plans will be reviewed as the country is in a recession. (Reporting by Wendell Roelf; Writing by Ed Stoddard; Editing by James Macharia)
Russia’s Rosatom denies any ‘secret deal’ with South Africa
Russia’s Rosatom says no ‘secret deal’ with South Africa http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFR4N1JC007 Jun 20, 2017, MOSCOW, – Deputy chief executive officer of Russia’s state nuclear firm Rosatom Kirill Komarov told a briefing on Tuesday that there was no “secret deal” between Russia and South Africa over nuclear projects.
He also said the nuclear pact between two countries from 2014 was standard for such circumstances.
Russia and South Africa discussed joint nuclear projects but those plans were disrupted after South Africa’s High Court deemed a nuclear cooperation pact with Russia unlawful earlier this year. (Reporting by Alexander Winning; writing by Maria Tsvetkova; editing by Vladimir Soldatkin)
Chris Yelland on the disadvantages of nuclear power for South Africa
Is nuclear the best option for SA? Flexibility is key in an unpredictable world. Money Web, Roger Lilley / 1 June 2017 Eskom appears to be more concerned with building new nuclear power stations than in signing power purchase agreements with independent power producers that use renewable energy sources. Energize caught up with energy analyst and managing director of EE Publishers, Chris Yelland, for his opinion on what generation technologies South Africa should opt for.
…….CHRIS YELLAND:…..I am certainly not opposed to a nuclear new-build in South Africa on ideological or technology grounds. But there are real issues that both nuclear and renewable energy proponents must deal with. ….
Firstly, there are public perceptions of political motives, political interference and corruption associated with mega-project procurements. There are widespread public perceptions that things happen in secret behind closed doors, that due process is not being followed, and that there are some rather sinister motives. Whatever we think of these perceptions, whether they are true or not, they actually need to be dealt with.
The high, upfront capital costs, and associated financing and affordability of such mega-projects, is an issue, and one really has to deal with this issue, because it is one of the big drawbacks of nuclear.
We must also fully understand the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from nuclear power over the economic lifetime of the plant, taking into account the overnight capital cost, interest during construction, the fixed and variable operating, maintenance and fuel costs, and the costs of decommissioning and waste disposal. The LCOE indicates the overall cost, in R/kWh of the electricity delivered from a nuclear power plant, in order to be able to compare it properly on a similar basis with other technologies.
Nuclear power stations take a long time to build – up to ten to 12 years per reactor – and mega-projects are prone to high cost and time overruns. These realities cannot simply be ignored.South Africa needs flexibility in an uncertain and unpredictable world, where electricity demand is difficult to predict in the years ahead, and disruptive technologies are on the horizon. Technologies such as wind, solar PV and energy storage may change the rules of the game……..
A tipping point was reached as the price of wind and solar PV energy came crashing down. All of a sudden there are now lower-cost alternatives to new nuclear and new coal power. Nuclear is no longer the least-cost option, and a blend of wind, solar PV, gas and pumped storage can deliver reliable, despatchable, baseload power at lower cost than new nuclear and even new coal power…….
there’s the option of wind, solar PV, gas and pumped storage. This is a low carbon option, just as nuclear is a low carbon option. But it is also an option to deliver reliable, despatchable baseload power in a flexible way at lower cost than the nuclear option. This is what is termed “flexible power”…….
CHRIS YELLAND: In my view, the decline of the coal sector is inevitable, as the world moves away from coal to a cleaner, low-carbon future, both locally and globally.
We live in a global village, and South Africa simply cannot continue to burn coal regardless of the consequences to water use, pollution, health and climate change. The world is expecting us to move to cleaner options, and South Africa has made international commitments to do just this. We need to plan ahead and address these matters going forward. ……
The growth of rooftop solar PV in domestic, commercial and industrial applications has not been considered in the Draft IRP 2016 at all, and yet is a growing and inevitable reality, both globally and in South Africa.
The Department of Energy, Eskom and municipal electricity distributors ignore this growing alternative and supplement to conventional grid electricity at their peril. This is potentially a huge disruptor to the traditional business models of power utilities.
Customers are choosing cleaner and cheaper sources of energy to reduce both their costs and dependency on public utilities. Thus I expect very significant growth in this market as solar PV and battery storage prices continue to drop, while the price of grid electricity continues to rise.Utilities have to sit up and take note. Otherwise they may find themselves in a death spiral, where rising costs of grid power drive their customers away to alternatives. As people move to these alternatives in greater numbers, so the costs of the new alternative technologies come down due to increasing economies of scale. At the same time, in a vicious circle, this further pushes up the price of grid power, as utilities try to recover their fixed cost structure from declining kWh sales volumes.
This really needs to be taken seriously. It has happened in other parts of the world, and it’s not unthinkable that it could happen in South Africa. https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/south-africa/nuclear-energy-the-best-option-for-south-africa/
Nuclear power company Eskom wants a blank cheque from the South African government
Eskom asks Gigaba for blank cheque, news 24, Sipho Masondo
2017-05-28 Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba has been asked to approve various components of the nuclear deal and effectively give Eskom a “blank cheque”.
These requests are contained in a letter Eskom chairperson Ben Ngubane wrote to Gigaba earlier this month. In the letter, dated May 10, Ngubane also pleads with the minister to intervene in the stand-off between Treasury and Eskom regarding the Gupta family’s Tegeta Mine.
The letter was sent to Gigaba two weeks after the Western Cape High Court’s ruling that key elements of the nuclear deal were unconstitutional.
The letter appears to be an attempt by Ngubane to set a new tone for the relationship from the somewhat tense one that Eskom had with Treasury under ministers Nhlanhla Nene and Pravin Gordhan. Treasury and Eskom clashed repeatedly in recent years as the former insisted that the power utility abide by the rules and questioned its procurement practices.
In his letter, Ngubane:
. Asked for a direct line to Gigaba;
. Pleaded with Gigaba to revise the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (PPPFA) or rush to introduce the Procurement Act to enable “radical economic transformation”;
. Requested the finance minister to relax the stringent conditions relating to the extension of the power utility’s R350 billion guarantees;
. Appealed to Gigaba to approve various programmes relating to the nuclear deal. These included exempting Eskom from the PPPFA and the approval of the Standard Infrastructure Procurement and Delivery Management; and,
. Raised concerns that Treasury had appointed another service provider to review Eskom’s coal contract with Tegeta and that the stand-off between the two parties regarding the power utility’s coal contracts with the Gupta family’s Tegeta mine had been going on for two years……..
ast month, City Press also reported Eskom was set to get the nuclear deal underway in June by issuing a request for proposals.
At that time, sources had told City Press that President Jacob Zuma had removed finance minister Gordhan and his deputy Mcebisi Jonas because they were opposed to the nuclear deal and were dragging their feet in having it implemented.
After seeing Ngubane’s letter, a source with knowledge of Treasury’s workings said: “Now you know why Gordhan and Jonas were removed. This is the completion of state capture.”
The source said Ngubane and the Eskom leadership wanted the PPPFA to be relaxed “so that they can do as they please with procurement”.
“Why would they want the conditions that come with guarantees to be relaxed? You must remember, for government to give guarantees, there must be stringent conditions. You simply cannot relax them,” he said.
Such conditions, he said, included a corporate plan that should be seen and approved by Treasury, and procurement policies that were in line with the Public Finance Management Act and the PPPFA.
A senior executive at Treasury said: “Baldwin [Ngubane’s middle name] is saying the previous minister was not a friend of Eskom. He was strict and put Eskom under watch through guarantees and other procurement conditions.
“He is asking the new minister to relax conditions, approve the nuclear deal, exempt Eskom from procurement measures and give the favours as outlined in the letter.” http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/eskom-asks-gigaba-for-blank-cheque-20170527
South Africa: corruption and th ecapture of the State
Betrayal of the Promise: The Anatomy of State Capture https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-05-26-betrayal-of-the-promise-the-anatomy-of-state-capture#.WS4FiJKGPGg RANJENI MUNUSAMY
South Africans have been bombarded with revelations of how the state has been hijacked to amass wealth for a connected power elite involving President Jacob Zuma and the Gupta family. An academic research partnership has consolidated all available information into a frightening compendium on state capture, mapping the deals, the key players and the modus operandi for commandeering control of state institutions and parastatals. Their report shows why it is necessary for a judicial inquiry and criminal prosecution for corruption, fraud, money laundering, racketeering and, possibly, treason. It also shows the danger of key enablers such as Zuma, Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba and Eskom CEO Brian Molefe remaining in their posts. By RANJENI MUNUSAMY.
When President Jacob Zuma executed his most overt act of betrayal of the people and party who put him in power by firing Pravin Gordhan and Mcebisi Jonas as minister and deputy of finance, he probably did not foresee that this would turn an entire society against him. Opposition parties, the ANC’s alliance partners Cosatu and the South African Communist Party, civil society, business, veterans and stalwarts, religious leaders and now academics are standing up to oppose and expose the Zuma-Gupta contagion.
Last week, the South African Council of Churches (SACC) released a report of an Unburdening Panel comprising evidence of whistle-blowers who approached church leaders about their experiences of state capture. On Thursday, the State Capacity Research Project, a team of leading academics from four universities, released a 72-page report detailing what they call a “silent coup” by an organised criminal network.
Betrayal Of The Promise: How South Africa Is Being Stolen is a report that sought to respond to Gordhan’s challenge to “connect the dots” around all the allegations of state capture and why he and Jonas were fired.
“While corruption is widespread at all levels and is undermining development, state capture is a far greater, systemic threat. It is akin to a silent coup and must, therefore, be understood as a political project that is given a cover of legitimacy by the vision of radical economic transformation. The March 2017 Cabinet reshuffle was confirmation of this silent coup; it was the first Cabinet reshuffle that took place without the full prior support of the governing party.
“This moves the symbiotic relationship between the constitutional state and the shadow state that emerged after the African National Conference (ANC) Polokwane conference in 2007 into a new phase. The reappointment of Brian Molefe as Eskom’s chief executive officer (CEO) a few weeks later in defiance of the ANC confirms this trend,” the report states.
South Africa’s anti nuclear movement renews its campaign
Group that ended Eskom’s nuclear bid plans next move http://www.fin24.com/Economy/Eskom/group-that-ended-eskoms-nuclear-bid-plans-next-move-20170528 Matthew le Cordeur Cape Town – The Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (Safcei) has moved on from its court victory over government and Eskom in April, which set aside the nuclear procurement programme.
High court ruling on nuclear was a victory for SA – Liziwe McDaid
A month after winning the court bid, Safcei spokesperson Liz McDaid said the victory opened space for other civil society organisations to come together to keep the nuclear programme from moving forward.
McDaid, who was engaging with stakeholders in Khayelitsha last week, told Fin24 that the court victory was a major boost in bringing other stakeholders together.
“For civil society, this has opened a space,” she said. “It has meant that organisations involved in child care, youth work (and) social justice have realised what the impact of such a deal could have on their work.
“Right now, it’s up to civil society to consolidate that gain, to spread that message and to mobilise going forward.”
McDaid said Safcei would focus its attention on the Department of Energy’s draft integrated resource plan and energy plan, which is currently undergoing stakeholder engagement and public hearings.
“One of our critical areas is the electricity plan, which was five years out of date,” she said. “We want to make sure that process runs properly and that renewable energy is given its proper place, because we want to see South Africa move into the future.
“The future energy is definitely renewable and not nuclear,” she said. Continue reading
South Africa’s nuclear build plans – ripe for corruption
How SA’s nuclear plant build could fuel corruption The government can restrict public and parliamentary oversight by using arguments on national security, Business Day, 23 MAY 2017 7 The construction of a nuclear power plant is considered to be a megaproject – characterised as a significant investment, as being highly complex organisationally and technically and as having a long-lasting effect on the economy, society and the environment.
International experience shows that such projects are prime targets for corruption. Their size, complexity and longevity create thousands of contractual links — between the customer, contractor, sub-contractors, co-ordinating project offices, etc — each of which present an opportunity for corruption. A recent local example is the corruption that plagued phase 1 of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project.
Allied to this is the potential problem of central government involvement. Energy projects in particular tend to be centrally managed by governments and, by necessity, afford senior public officials discretionary powers over projects.
The construction of a nuclear power plant is particularly problematic as governments can use issues of alleged national security to restrict public and even parliamentary oversight.
In SA, apartheid-era legislation such as the National Key Points Act of 1980 could be used to withhold information about any new nuclear power plant being constructed. As Right2Know has said, “historically, the National Key Points Act has been used and abused to stifle access to information”.
In the alleged interests of national security, information about corruption (think Nkandla) or a radioactive leak could be hidden from the public. The situation is made worse by the fact that there is no public interest defence for whistleblowers in terms of the National Key Points Act.
Nuclear power plant construction is also open to corruption because of the information asymmetry between the vendor and the buyer.
SA is not able to build nuclear power plants on its own and lacks the necessary information on the technical complexity of construction processes. This means that the vendor can be confident that the buyer is not fully aware of all the features and financing needs of the power plant, creating opportunities for graft by the vendor.
The type of construction model signed with vendors can also have an effect on corruption. SA’s nuclear build front-runner Rosatom offers various models. According to Phumzile Tshelane, CEO of the Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA, the country prefers the build, own and transfer model in terms of which vendors and states work in joint venture partnerships to build and operate power plants that are eventually transferred to recipient states.
At first glance, this looks like the best model for SA because it means that anything between 25% and 50% of project implementation and construction jobs will be localised. However, in SA, where according to Transparency International, both the public and private sectors are endemically corrupt, such a model creates numerous opportunities for rent-seeking.
Already, we have seen a R171m deal for the “procurement of the nuclear build programme management system” awarded to a company called Central Lake Trading 149 that is run by the son of Vivian Reddy, long-time associate of President Jacob Zuma. While there is no indication of anything suspicious in this deal, it demonstrates the kind of opportunities created……..
How nuclear procurement has been handled to date in the country shows just how far the government has departed from best practice.
Firstly, the government has failed to show that the nuclear build is necessary. Its own Ministerial Advisory Council on Energy recommends that no new nuclear power capacity is necessary in SA for the foreseeable future.
This view is confirmed by Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) modelling, which shows that no new nuclear power is necessary until at least 2050 (the date their modelling ended). Prof Anton Eberhard of the University of Cape Town has described the state’s determination to pursue the nuclear procurement as “irrational”.
Secondly, the government has not properly assessed alternative ways of meeting the perceived need.
While it has considered renewable energy options, it has done so in a fashion that artificially constrains their potential.
The government’s draft 2016 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) places completely arbitrary limits on the amount of renewable energy that can be delivered in SA despite there being, according to the CSIR, no technical reason for this.
Energy expert Chris Yelland has stated that the constraints imposed in the IRP are the result of “a political decision rather than a rational planning decision”.
Thirdly, project costs and benefits have not been estimated accurately throughout their complete life cycles.
Energy experts throughout SA agree that the draft 2016 IRP underestimates the cost of nuclear power and overestimates the cost of renewables.
The IRP suggests a cost of R0.97/kWh for new nuclear power. The CSIR has found that the “most optimistic” cost would be R1.17/kWh, while research carried out by EE Publishers suggested R1.30/kWh.
None of these calculations factor in the considerable extra costs of nuclear fuel, routine plant maintenance and refurbishment, decommissioning, or the long-term disposal of nuclear waste. For renewables, the IRP gives a price of R0.81/kWh for solar and R0.93/kWh for wind, while the CSIR shows that both now cost R0.62/kWh, with prices continuing to fall.
Lastly, particular suppliers have been favoured and deals have been reached without proper oversight.
The recent court case between the Department of Energy and Earthlife Africa-Southern African Faith Communities Environment Institute demonstrates this.
The judges in the case found that Rosatom had been favoured over other potential vendors as a “a firm legal commitment existed between SA’s government and Rosatom in terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement signed with Russia in 2014”. An agreement that the judges found, “clearly required to be scrutinised and debated by the legislature” and was in breach of section 10 of the National Energy Regular Act, which calls for participatory decision-making processes.
New Energy Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi recently stated that new agreements will be signed with nuclear vendors but that she did not want to find herself “in court every day”.
She could heed best practice and ensure that before any procurement proceeds, an anti-corruption plan is in place between the government, the vendor and civil society.
This should identify where corruption could take place, make recommendations for mitigating it and should be regularly reviewed during each phase of project implementation. Transparency International calls these plans “integrity pacts” and they have been successfully implemented in 15 countries in more than 300 procurement projects.
Sadly, in the current climate, it seems inconceivable that either Eskom or Rosatom (or any other vendor) would agree to be held accountable to civil society, such is the headlong charge for nuclear power in SA.
• Dr Overy is a freelance environmental researcher. https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/2017-05-23-how-sas-nuclear-plant-build-could-fuel-corruption/
Timeline of the decline of South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma
The descent of Jacob Zuma in 31 steps and counting, Daily Maverick, KAVISHA PILLAY AND MARK HEYWOOD, SOUTH AFRICA, 23 MAY 2017
Eskom protesting a bit too much that South Africa’s nuclear negotiations are squeaky clean?
No corruption in nuclear negotiations, Eskom chief nuclear officer assures Engineering News, 18TH MAY 2017 BY: KIM CLOETE CREAMER MEDIA CORRESPONDENT, Eskom’s chief nuclear officer David Nicholls is still firmly committed to the principle that nuclear is the way to go for a sustainable energy future and says he knows of no corruption in negotiations on a deal to procure new nuclear energy capacity.
South African government still determined to sign new nuclear power agreements
South Africa to Sign New Nuclear Power Pacts After Court Ruling https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-05-13/south-africa-wont-appeal-judgment-blocking-nuclear-power-deal May 13, 2017, JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) – South Africa plans to sign new, more transparent nuclear power agreements with five foreign countries after a high court blocked a deal with Russia due to a lack of oversight, the energy ministry said on Saturday.
Energy Minister Mammoloko Kubayi confirms that South Africa nuclear deal is back on the agenda.
Nuclear deal back on the agenda, says minister http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/nuclear-deal-back-on-the-agenda-says-minister-9121358, 14 May 2017, Siyabonga Mkhwanazi Cape Town – Energy Minister Mammoloko Kubayi has confirmed the nuclear deal is back on the agenda.
Kubayi said this on Saturday after she announced she would not appeal the Western Cape High Court decision to halt the nuclear process.
She would instead stick to the judgment by following all the processes in the procurement of nuclear power. She said South Africa needed nuclear power as part of the energy mix programme of the government.
Kubayi said the process would start from scratch. From next month, new, standardised agreements would be signed with Russia, China, the US, South Korea and France.
This came after the court nullified three of the agreements last month.
Kubayi said the government couldn’t estimate the cost of nuclear power, but the process would start from scratch.
“We have to start fresh and do new determinations and issue requests for information.
“That is important because it will assist us on the cost.”
However, the government’s push for a nuclear programme has been questioned, with opposition parties warning of high costs and threats of legal action if proper processes are not followed.
The court halted the nuclear programme last month, saying processes had not been followed.
The DA, IFP and ACDP said the government had not come clean regarding the costs.
One of the civil society groups that took the government to court on the nuclear deal said on Saturday it would keep an eye on the process. The Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute said it wanted Kubayi to follow the law.
Co-ordinator for energy and climate programme at the institute Liz McDaid said it wanted to ensure everything was done according to the book. “We are glad the minister has chosen to follow the law because the previous process was found to be illegal. We will need to study whatever steps she puts on the table.
“If they are going to follow the process, it will show we don’t need nuclear. Today we have organisations like the CSIR (the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research) who say that we don’t need nuclear. It is research institutions who say these are the numbers,” said McDaid.
DA spokesperson on energy Gordon Mackay said the party welcomed the fact that Kubayi would follow the process.
However, the party was concerned the government was intent on pushing ahead, despite concerns about costs.
Mackay said the decision was not sound if it was not based on the Integrated Resource Plan of 2016. He warned the party would interdict the minister if she started the process without the plan.
IFP chief whip Narend Singh also expressed concern about the costs. He said nuclear was unaffordable for South Africa at this stage and the government would have to prove in Parliament that nuclear was affordable.
Steve Swart, of the ACDP, said the party was concerned that nuclear was unaffordable for the country.
“The ACDP notes that Minister Kubayi has decided not to appeal the Western Cape High Court decision. This means she will have to comply with the stringent process set out by the court regarding openness and transparency and the role of Parliament in evaluating the desirability and costing of the nuclear project,” he said.”
No costing for South Africa’s nuclear build programme
NO PRICE TAG FOR NUCLEAR BUILD PROGRAMME YET http://ewn.co.za/2017/05/13/no-price-tag-for-nuclear-build-programme-yet The department of energy says it is yet to determine the cost of the nuclear build programme, while concerns were raised over a previous estimate of R1 trillion. Sifiso Zulu 14 May 17
JOHANNESBURG – The department of energy says it has not pronounced the cost of the nuclear build programme as it is considering funding options.
A price tag of up to R1 trillion previously reported to be the cost of nuclear power has raised concern over whether it is affordable
The department says it is negotiating with five countries that have signed intergovernmental agreements with South Africa in 2014 as part of plans to build a fleet of nuclear power plants.
The department’s Zizamele Mbambo says the price will only be determined once all consultations have been concluded
“We are not at the stage where we have determined what will be the actual cost of the programme because the procurement process has not started.”
The Western Cape High Court last month ruled that the decision to call for proposals for the procurement of nuclear energy is unlawful and unconstitutional
Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi has announced that she will not be appealing the ruling. (Edited by Masechaba Sefularo)
Political process in South Africa practically rules out any future nuclear procurement
Can any South African Nuclear Energy Procurement ever Succeed? Daily Maverick, DIRK DE VOS, 05 MAY 2017 Should the whole nuclear energy procurement process start up again, the few nuclear vendors that still remain should ask themselves: is it really worth the bother?As most of us know, the recent Cape High Court decision in favour of the applicants, Earthlife Africa Johannesburg (ELA-JHB) and the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI), to set aside nuclear procurement agreements was an utter thumping.
All South Africans owe a debt of gratitude especially since both NGO’s operate under significant financial constraints (donations can be made here) and for some, this was a replay of the David and Goliath story in the book of Samuel. Malcolm Gladwell’s take on that story is worth retelling…….
We are yet to see whether the new Minister of Energy will appeal the decision but it is hard to see how a “rematch” in any higher court will result in a different outcome.
Briefly, the court’s decision did two things. It set aside the previous Minister of Energy’s decision to proceed with the procurement of nuclear energy due to a number of flagrant departures from section 34 of the Electricity Regulation Act (ERA), which governs how such determinations should be made. It also set aside the Russian Nuclear Agreement as it should have – and did not – receive Parliamentary approval as required by section 231(2) of the Constitution. This agreement purported to create a number of obligations and liabilities for South Africa (including taking on all liabilities for a nuclear accident). The Constitution requires that these types of agreements with substantive impacts be approved by parliament. More basic framework co-operation agreements with the USA and South Korea – which, being of a more technical, administrative nature, did not require parliamentary approval – were also set aside on the basis that they were not tabled in parliament within a reasonable time, as required by section 231(3) of the Constitution.
The most striking thing about the judgment is not the decision itself, but just how underhand, dishonest and profoundly inept the government has been in the whole affair. In a sense, they were worse off than Goliath – it was almost a process of self-sabotage. “Oh well”, says the nuclear lobby and in particular, NECSA – which by the way has just secured 85% of the total budget of R787 million allocated to nuclear by the Department of Energy for the next financial year, “the court decision said nothing about the wisdom of procuring nuclear energy as such and South Africa should just start the nuclear procurement process from scratch”. That is true. The court’s decision was mostly about procedural matters, but it raises an important question: could procuring nuclear power ever be done legitimately in a way that satisfies the Constitution and the rule of law? It’s an important question because the answer should guide whether anyone, especially taxpayer-funded entities, should bother even trying.
The answer is no and this is why. The Constitution was not drafted to prevent South Africa from procuring nuclear power, but, given the state of the nuclear energy sector in 2017, it makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible. It is perhaps this very reality that has driven the underhandedness that we have seen.
The problem, at its core, is that the nuclear energy sector is selling a crap product. One could go on forever about why nuclear energy is a problem, but here are the main points:
Nuclear is very different from any other energy options
There are no nuclear vendors that are not state-owned. Without state ownership, the nuclear sector would not exist. That means procuring nuclear requires first the state-to-state type agreements whether in terms of section 231(2) or (3) of the Constitution annulled by the Cape High Court. Further, simply having nuclear energy, let alone procuring new nuclear, requires a whole separate and expensive regulatory system, participation in international bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency, and funding a separate entity like Necsa. Nuclear energy costs South Africa nearly R800 million per year – a cost not typically included in the price of nuclear energy. Nuclear’s safety issues cannot be solved technologically; its safe operation requires constant vigilance from highly trained experts. Enormous decommissioning costs and the storing of spent fuel have not been resolved. Despite efforts to delink civilian nuclear from nuclear weapons proliferation, the risk remains. No other energy option needs any of this.
Nuclear is in decline everywhere……..
Nuclear is very expensive and therefore has to be very big……. A scan through existing nuclear power projects in those parts of the world where independently-obtained information is possible, makes for sobering reading – including projects developed or sponsored by Rosatom. One consequence of the record of nuclear is that credit rating agencies hate them and shred the credit rating of any country that gets serious about procuring nuclear. Current estimates are that nuclear power is now twice as expensive – on a per kWh basis – as renewables, while renewables continue to fall in price.
There are other problems. Eskom is in a terrible state and that is a long-term problem that will have to be resolved in one way or another – probably through another taxpayer-funded bail-out or some type of privatisation…….
Any project with anything like a trillion-rand budget is simply not going to slip through and any hurdle not cleared is fatal for a nuclear procurement programme. The process requires a large amount of transparency and this is the nub of the problem for any nuclear deal……https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-05-05-op-ed-can-any-south-african-nuclear-energy-procurement-ever-succeed/#.WQ0akUWGPGh
A message to the South African government: stop feeding us nuclear propaganda!
Eskom has told the public that they will manage the massive nuclear-build programme in a responsible manner, devoid of significant cost overruns, corruption and scope creep. Yet the court of public opinion is unconvinced, following years of a lack in transparency and many incidents of questionable leadership conduct, combined with Eskom’s inability to curtail gross runaway costs on projects at Medupi, Kusile and Ingula.
Our message to government and their pro-nuclear lobbyists is to stop trying to feed us with propaganda.
Pro nuclear lobbyists and government must stop propaganda campaign, BizNews.com, Wayne Duvenage, 2 May 17 “………What I find amazing,however, is the pro nuclear lobbyists’ belief that they alone are the experts and that civil society must simply trust their views on what is best for our country’s energy needs. Government has become its own worst enemy on the nuclear issue, believing they have the right to make these costly capital decisions without the necessary public engagement or for legally required parliamentary processes to take place.
-Government furthermore gives the impression that they don’t have to answer or offer explanation about the expose related to secret supplier agreements with Rosatom (yes this did happen), or the need for haste with the nuclear decision, or the use of an outdated 2010 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), or the exorbitant costs of the scheme and how this will be financed.
For months the pro-nuclear clan have complained that the R1-trillion price tag of a 9.6 GW nuclear programme is incorrect, but they overlook the need to provide the public with a credible response as to what the expected price tag should be.
And for as many months, the pro-nuclear campaigners appeared intent on challenging the public’s intellect by quoting nuclear energy from the 33-year-old Koeberg nuclear plant as being the lowest priced electricity in South Africa (between 21c and 43c/ kWh), as if to imply that this is what we can expect from future nuclear-build programmes.
Input from credible researchers purport the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE – i.e. over the lifetime of the plant) from a new nuclear-build programme to cost South Africans between R1.30 and R1.50 per kWh, and this is before adding in any tax effects, decommissioning, long-term waste disposal and plant life extension costs into account. This is well above the figure of R0.97c/kWh used in the 2016 update of the IRP, sourced from a secret DOE research document. The waters are muddy indeed.
Eskom has told the public that they will manage the massive nuclear-build programme in a responsible manner, devoid of significant cost overruns, corruption and scope creep. Yet the court of public opinion is unconvinced, following years of a lack in transparency and many incidents of questionable leadership conduct, combined with Eskom’s inability to curtail gross runaway costs on projects at Medupi, Kusile and Ingula.
While the authorities continue to make new energy build project decisions based on an outdated Integrated Energy Plan (IEP), the public will remain sceptical. While the DOE chooses to ignore the recommendations of the Minister of Energy’s own experts around least-cost energy choices in the IRP, business will not invest. And for as long as government shuns its critics and keeps civil society’s experts at bay from scrutinising their assumptions and costs which inform the forthcoming IRP process, mistrust will remain high.
Then there is the question of the actual need for new energy build programme decisions in the next five to 10 years, taking into account that:
- South Africa’s current electricity generation capacity is roughly 45GW.
- Coal = 38.5 GW; nuclear (Koeberg) = 1.94GW; hydro = 1.5 GW (including 0.8GW Cabora import) and RE = 3.1 GW. This excludes reserve capacity of peaking gas and hydro at 5.3 GW.
- By 2022, current new build generation projects will take this to 55GW. Medupi (3.2 GW); Kusile (4.0 GW); Additional RE (3 GW).
- Yet today’s electricity requirements only average around 26.6 GW.
- With demand ranging between 22 and 32 GW.
- Demand has reduced over the past five years with little increase expected in the next few years.
- Even if one anticipated a healthy economic growth for SA at an unlikely high rate of 2.5% per annum for the next 10 years, experts do not predict additional electricity demand to exceed 6 to 7 GW, for the next decade.
- Set aside 15% of total capacity for maintenance, and introduce decommissioning of a few older coal fired plans and our capacity still exceeds demand a decade from now.
- Clearly, we don’t need to make a decision on new energy build projects for at least the next five years, leaving us ample time to assess options and build for possible higher demand by around 2030.
- There is simply no need to rush the nuclear decision in the manner currently being undertaken.
- Add to the above the fact that many countries are decommissioning current or cancelling future nuclear build programmes, while the rate of introduction of renewable energy continues to soar. With less than 5% of our electricity coming from RE and many countries around the world at 30% and climbing, the people of South Africa need an extremely rational explanation behind our government’s hasty appetite for nuclear energy, which appears to shun conventional wisdom.If there was ever an issue that was shrouded in public uncertainty and confusion in recent times, it is government’s nuclear energy build plan. And the reasons thereof lie squarely at the feet of government and their State-Owned Entities.
Our message to government and their pro-nuclear lobbyists is to stop trying to feed us with propaganda. Let’s get together and hear each other. What this country urgently needs is an energy charter, one that will provide the necessary clarity of our energy needs and solutions thereto. However, in order to ensure credibility, the Energy Charter process would need to be well informed, inclusive and absolutely transparent.
- Wayne Duvenage is the chairperson at OUTA https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2017/05/02/wayne-duvenage-pro-nuclear-lobbyists/
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
12 February – Webinar The Big Push: New Nuclear Projects in Canada
Thursday, February 12, 7 pm Eastern | 2nd of 4 sessions in the 2026 Nuclear Waste Online webinar series
Join a webinar on the push for new nuclear generation in Canada. Go to Northwatch.org to register or use the registration link https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ZfWOf1GITqSRIZX8CB-A9w
-
Archives
- February 2026 (115)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 