South African environmental groups sue Energy Minister over nuclear agreements
Environmental groups take energy minister to court over nuclear agreements https://www.enca.com/south-africa/environmental-groups-take-energy-minister-court-over-nuclear-agreements SOUTH AFRICA Thursday 15 October 2015 JOHANNESBURG – While South Africa has signed a number of intergovernmental framework agreements with Russia, China, South Korea and the USA on the country’s planned nuclear development, environmental groups say they are frustrated with the lack of transparency.
On Monday, they filed court papers challenging the constitutionality of the agreements.
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg and the South African Faith Communities Environment Institution want the intergovernmental framework agreements for nuclear procurement set aside.
They say their attempts to get information on the nuclear procurement deal have been blocked.
“We are concerned citizens standing up against the unlawful and unconstitutional exercise of power by government, and in the public interest are going to court in an effort to protect our constitutional rights,” said Makoma Lekalakala, senior programme officer at Earthlife.
Safcei’s Liz McDaid says that faith communities in their network are increasingly concerned about the government’s continued support for nuclear energy despite a lack of evidence that SA can afford it.
“Ethical governance has to be the cornerstone of true democracy,” she said.
- The organisations are represented by Adrian Pole Attorneys, assisted by the legal resource centre.
The application will challenge the legality and constitutionality of:
• the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) on strategic partnership and nuclear cooperation signed with Russia in 2014
• the tabling of the Russian IGA in Parliament under a provision that makes the agreement binding on the international plane without the need for parliamentary ratification
• the tabling of outdated IGAs on nuclear cooperation entered into with the USA and Republic of Korea
Environmental lawyer Adrian Pole says that the signing of the binding agreements is unconstitutional and unlawful because proper process wasn’t followed.
“In terms of section 34 of the electricity regulation act the minister in consultation with the energy regulator is required to make a determination on whether new electricity generation is needed and how much new nuclear generation capacity is required,” he said.
This should have been done with Nersa during a public participation process said Pole. Applicants will be using section 217 of constiution to argue that framework agreements be set aside @eNCA #nuclear
- The minister of energy is expected to respond to the application within 10 days.
To view the full unsigned court application see below:
In South Africa, nuclear plans might not proceed: parliament approval is necessary
Nuclear build plans need Parliament’s approval, MPs told http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2015/10/13/nuclear-build-plans-need-parliaments-approval-mps-told BY LINDA ENSOR, 13 OCTOBER 2015, IT WAS “HIGHLY IMPROBABLE” THAT GOVERNMENT WOULD PROCEED WITH THE NUCLEAR BUILD PROGRAMME WITHOUT IT FIRST BEING APPROVED BY PARLIAMENT, TREASURY DIRECTOR-GENERAL LUNGISA FUZILE TOLD PARLIAMENT’S FINANCE COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY.
All expenditure had to be reflected in the medium-term expenditure framework, which was subject to parliamentary approval and possible amendment, Mr Fuzile said in reply to questions by Democratic Alliance finance spokesman David Maynier. Mr Maynier was concerned about a comment made by President Jacob Zuma in August that the nuclear procurement would have been completed by the end of the current financial year.
The committee met to discuss the Treasury’s annual report.
Concern over government’s intentions mounted after it signed cooperation agreements with Russia, China, France and the US and seemed to be on the verge of clinching a deal with Russian energy company Rosatom. Energy Minister Tina Joematt-Pettersson has strongly rejected any suggestion that a deal has been concluded. There have also been public demands for greater transparency in the entire procurement process.
Mr Fuzile stressed that the process of finalising plans was still at its “very early stages”. The 2010 integrated resource plan included nuclear energy as one of the sources of power indicating that SA was open to the idea of nuclear. The government had been gearing itself up to understand nuclear better, Mr Fuzile said.
The Treasury had completed some work on the costing and financing models for a nuclear programme but it was classified information that the cabinet had not seen yet. Officials had discussed what elements of the work could be communicated in the public interest but to do this would require that it be declassified.
Mr Maynier has failed in his attempts to get information on the nature of the studies undertaken by the Treasury and their contents. Committee chairman Yunus Carrim emphasised the importance of the issue being discussed. “We have to know what the costs are,” he said and undertook to expedite arrangements to have a joint sitting with the energy committee.
Energy committee chairman Fikile Majola has committed himself to holding public hearings on the nuclear build programme, which opponents say will be too costly, especially given SA’s low growth prospects.
Mr Carrim noted that the African National Congress had decided at its national general council meeting at the weekend that a cost-benefit analysis be undertaken of the nuclear proposals.
South Africa’s govt will face massive resistance if it continues with nuclear power plans
ANC warned: Abandon nuclear plans, or else, Mail & Guardian, 06 OCT 2015 MATTHEW LE CORDEUR
Greenpeace has warned the ANC that civil society will mobilise against it if the ruling party does not take nuclear energy off the table. Greenpeace has a message for the ANC ahead of its National General Council (NGC) meeting starting on Friday: drop nuclear energy, or face massive resistance.
Greenpeace executive director Kumi Naidoo said on Monday that the ANC should “take nuclear off the table”.
“The ANC needs to know that if it does go for the nuclear option as part of the (energy) mix, then they are on a collision course with the broader spectrum of the South African civil society,” he said.
“The faith organisations are mobilising and elements in the trade union federation are mobilising in the broader NGO spectrum.
“So the ANC can make that decision knowing full well that they will be blocked in the court,” he said. “There will be a robust campaign against any financial option. Any lending institution will come under tremendous pressure.”……..
Naidoo said South Africa should not be investing in nuclear at all, because it is “too expensive and too dangerous”.
“As a solution to our energy crisis, it will be delivered too little too late and will take 10 to 15 years to build one single plant.”
The Energy Department has signed agreements with several countries as part of its Nuclear Build Programme to build 9 600 MW of nuclear energy by 2030……http://mg.co.za/article/2015-10-06-anc-must-drop-nuclear-or-face-the-wrath-of-the-people
South Africa’s Treasury kept its nuclear work secret
Treasury’s work on nuclear energy being kept secret – David Maynier Politics Web | 27 September 2015DA MP says dept has clearly done work on the feasibility, financing and assessment of alternative energy options The Minister of Finance, Nhlanhla Nene, has not disclosed the fact that the National Treasury conducted and completed extensive work on the proposed nuclear build programme in the 2014/15 Financial Year.
Up until now the Minister has claimed the National Treasury had only recently been invited into the process of decision-making on the financing of the nuclear build programme; and that, although work was being done on the nuclear build programme, the work had not been completed.
However, a careful reading of the National Treasury’s 2014/15 annual report tells a very different story. The National Treasury in fact:
– conducted and completed extensive work on nuclear energy during the 2014/15 Financial Year;
– some of the work was included in the decision-making process and submitted to the Department of Energy during the 2014/15 Financial Year; and
– an official, or officials, from the National Treasury, received training, at an estimated cost of R500 000, in nuclear finance, which was sponsored by South Korea……… We cannot sit back and allow the nuclear build programme to go ahead in secret given the massive financial implications for South Africa. http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politics/treasurys-work-on-nuclear-energy-being-kept-secret
South Africa’s govt keeping nuclear costs secret from the public
Business Day denied nuclear cost reports http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2015/09/18/business-day-denied-nuclear-cost-reports BY CAROL PATON, 18 SEPTEMBER 2015, THREE reports by top international consultancies which explore the cost of building 9,600MW of nuclear power in SA have been classified as secret and will not be made available to the public, the Department of Energy has said.
The reports were commissioned in the past year by the department from KPMG, Ingerop and Deloitte to provide information on nuclear-procurement models, the cost of nuclear plants and financing models.
The Open Democracy Advice Centre requested the documents on behalf of Business Day under the Promotion of Access to Information Act last month.
In a reply received this week, deputy director-general of the department Zizamele Mbambo said “the records contain information to be used in the procurement process. The disclosure of such information will compromise the negotiations or prejudice the commercial competition as far as third parties are concerned”.
These were the same grounds used to maintain the secrecy of the intergovernmental agreements on nuclear co-operation. But when the agreements were tabled in Parliament in June, they contained no proprietary or commercial information. The letter also states that the documents are classified. Mr Mbambo has said the department’s studies show that the nuclear build “is affordable” without giving details.
Business Day editor Songezo Zibi said the application was made as “we have reason to believe that the cost studies the department does not want the public to see until it is too late in the process, show that 9,600MW of nuclear will be unaffordable”.
The Open Democracy Advice Centre is to appeal against the refusal.
Spokesman for the Right 2 Know Campaign Murray Hunter said the affordability study for SA’s strategic arms procurement in 1999 was classified until last year. “When this was unclassified, it was clear that there had been enormous financial risks. Governments often overclassify documents to shield themselves from accountability and end up making the wrong decisions. The fact that these documents are being withheld makes it impossible for SA to have the conversation about nuclear energy.”
Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson recently claimed that she had never advocated nuclear build of 9,600MW.
Mr Zibi said it “was also curious how a cost study can be conducted if, as the minister claimed, the size of the procurement was yet to be determined. What, then, would be the benchmark number if not the 9,600MW already mentioned by the president and ministers of energy including Ms Joemat-Pettersson?”
South Africa fires key nuclear negotiator
Joemat-Pettersson fires point man on nuclear BY CAROL PATON, Business Day, 15 SEPTEMBER 2015, THE key figure in the government’s bid to secure a 9.6GW nuclear energy programme, nuclear physicist Senti Thobejane, has been fired by Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson, raising new questions on the future of the project.
Mr Thobejane, who was nuclear adviser to Ms Joemat-Pettersson, also advised President Jacob Zuma, which, with his knowledge and skills, placed him in a unique position to broker the large nuclear procurement, of which Mr Zuma has been an enthusiastic supporter.
He was the key figure in discussions with vendor countries and played a central role in the Cabinet’s energy security sub-committee, which is led by Mr Zuma himself.
His sudden departure comes as the Treasury is finally getting to grips with the feasibility of the nuclear procurement, which until recently had been kept under wraps by the Department of Energy. The department has repeatedly assured Parliament and the public that the procurement of 9.6GW of nuclear energy was affordable and viable. However, it has refused to make public the studies which it says support this.
The reasons for the termination of Mr Thobejane’s contract are not publicly known. ……..aside from Mr Thobejane’s departure there are other signs that the programme may be losing momentum. Six weeks ago Ms Joemat-Pettersson denied that the government had ever said it would build 9.6GW of nuclear power, describing the number as “a thumb-suck”………
In reply to questions submitted by Democratic Alliance MP David Maynier, Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene said on Monday that the Treasury was still in the process of assessing both the financial costs and economic effects of the nuclear build programme.
“This work is currently not finalised yet as there is an interactive process under way with the Department of Energy on the scale of the programme and possible financing scenarios that have a bearing on the modelling work and its results. The recommendations from this work are expected to be submitted to the Cabinet as soon as the work is completed,” said Mr Nene. http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2015/09/15/joemat-pettersson-fires-point-man-on-nuclear
Exposed: confidential agreement gives Russia unfair control over South Africa’s #nuclear project
Exposed: Scary details of SA’s secret Russian nuke deal , Mail & Guardian 2 Sept 15 The secret nuclear deal our leaders have signed with Russia carries many risks for South Africa. Shocking details of the secret nuclear deal that Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson signed with Russia last year can, for the first time, be revealed. The text, which has been jealously guarded by her department and Russian nuclear company Rosatom, holds many dangers for South Africa.
It creates an expectation that Russian technology will be used for South Africa’s trillion-rand fleet of new nuclear power stations. And by laying the groundwork for government-to-government contracting, it appears designed to sidestep the constitutional requirement for open and competitive tendering.
Once the agreement comes into force, the Russians will have a veto over South Africa doing business with any other nuclear vendor. And it will be binding for a minimum of 20 years, during which Russia can hold a gun to South Africa’s head, in effect saying: “Do business with us, or forget nuclear.”
The agreement confirms the government’s intention to make “Atomic Tina’s” energy department the procuring agent for the nuclear programme rather than Eskom – where the country’s nuclear expertise lies, despite the utility’s travails. Joemat-Pettersson signed the agreement in Vienna on September 21 last year, three weeks after President Jacob Zuma held talks with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, at the latter’s country estate.
- Download the original signed agreement (Russian version)
- Download an English translation of the agreement…….
The terms of the agreement lean heavily in Russia’s favour. They:
- Indemnify the Russians from any liability arising from nuclear accidents during the reactors’ life. The agreement says South Africa is “solely responsible for any damage both within and outside the territory of the Republic of South Africa”;
- Hand the Russians a host of regulatory concessions and “special favourable treatment” in tax and other financial matters, but offer South Africa no such incentives; and
- Require Russia’s permission if South Africa wants to export nuclear technology it develops locally as a result of learning from the Russians, thereby hindering government’s aim that the nuclear new-build programme will develop a globally competitive local nuclear industry.
David Unterhalter, a University of Cape Town law professor and constitutional expert, this week said the agreement appeared to go far beyond the type of general framework document that government officials have declared it to be………
How we got the secret documentThe supposedly confidential agreement is published among the list of bilateral treaties on the website of the legal department of the Russian foreign ministry.
It was first obtained by South African environmental organisation Earthlife Africa Johannesburg by Russian anti-nuclear activist and head of Ecodefense Vladimir Slivyak, who got it from a source in the Russian foreign ministry. It is in Russian, and includes the signatures of Rosatom’s director general Sergey Kirienko and South African energy minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson.
A Russian translator commissioned by Earthlife to translate the agreement into English subsequently also found it publicly available on the ministry’s website.
amaBhungane has compared Joemat-Pettersson’s signature on the document with her signature on a current document; they are identical. amaBhungane has also commissioned its own translation of the agreement, which is available to download by clicking on the link at the top of this story. – Lionel Faull http://mg.co.za/article/2015-02-12-exposed-scary-details-of-secret-russian-nuke-deal/
“Trojan horse’ – anti nuclear protest in Pretoria, South Africa
Green Peace activists protest against SA’s nuclear power plans http://citizen.co.za/652983/green-peace-activists-protest-against-sas-nuclear-power-plans/ Valeska Abreu , 25 Aug 15,
Green Peace activists have tied themselves to a four meter high Trojan horse which has been changed to a pillar at the entrance of the Department of Energy in Pretoria.
They are silently protesting against South Africa’s plans for nuclear power. Four activists are sitting on the cold cemented floor wearing white safety overalls and masks, holding up placards that read “no future in nuclear” and “solar is the solution”.
The activist group is calling for the department to focus its plans on renewable energy rather than nuclear. Melita Steele, senior climate and energy campaign manager, says nuclear energy is a trap and could bankrupt the country.
The lobby group wrote a letter of demands to the department seven days ago but say they have not received any response. “It’s indicative of how the department is engaging on the issue of nuclear,” said Steele.
She said they would remain outside the department until they received feedback.
South Africa’s Finance Minister under pressure about govt plans for unaffordable nuclear power
Nuclear must be affordable, says Nene, Business Day, BY CAROL PATON, 24 AUGUST 2015, FINANCE MINISTER NHLANHLA NENE SAYS HE WILL HOLD THE LINE ON THE PROCUREMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IF IT IS UNAFFORDABLE, AND WILL REDUCE THE HEAD COUNT OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE TO ENSURE SPENDING STAYS IN LINE WITH FISCAL TARGETS.
Mr Nene is under enormous political pressure to accede to a presidency-backed plan to procure 9,600MW of nuclear energy capacity at a time when public finances are at their weakest since the mid 1990s.
Underlining this pressure was the appearance of a fake intelligence dossier last week, smearing top Treasury officials as apartheid agents and alleging that they and Mr Nene are part of a conspiracy by the old white establishment to control the Treasury.
The document aroused grave concern among the public, and in political and investor circles, as it is feared it may signal a political attack on the Treasury, which until now has been a strong source of confidence given its ability to exercise tight control over government finances.
The Treasury and Mr Nene say that the document is baseless but appears to be a worrying attempt “to undermine and destablise the institution”.
Mr Nene’s comments, in an exclusive interview with Business Day on Friday, come at a time of keen interest from ratings agencies and the investor community regarding whether the government will stick to self-imposed spending ceilings designed to cut debt in this challenging political context.
Of the challenges, top of the list is whether Mr Nene will be able to hold the line on the nuclear procurement.
Treasury and Department of Energy officials spent most of last week locked in an intense engagement in Cape Town over the financing options for the project.
Mr Nene said that since the Treasury had only just been invited into the process, it was too early to make pronouncements.
However, if it was unaffordable to the country and to consumers, who would have to pay for the energy generated, it could not be done, he said….. the Department of Energy’s discussions with vendors have all assumed the full 9,600MW would be commissioned. The department also envisages using the programme for industrialisation and job creation, and aims to create a nuclear export industry.
It has to date refused to make public its studies or provide evidence that a nuclear procurement of 9,600MW is affordable.
Mr Nene said that as with any project that involved the allocation of resources, the Treasury would have to account to the nation.
“That is why following process is critical…. My job is spelt out in legislation and my role is to uphold and stay within the confines of the Constitution and the Public Finance Management Act.”…..http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2015/08/24/nuclear-must-be-affordable-says-nene
African National Congress calls for transparency on nuclear tender process
ANC calls for transparent nuclear tender process, Mail & Guardian, 18 AUG 2015 2FRANZ WILD, STAFF REPORTER
ANC calls for “full, transparent and thorough cost benefit analysis of nuclear power” as SA prepares for a bidding process for new nuclear plants. n a document that will be discussed at its policy review conference in October, the ANC said: “Government must also announce publicly that nuclear energy can only be procured in line with the legal prescripts and after a thoroughgoing affordability assessment.”
The document was released on Monday.
During his State of the Nation address in February, President Jacob Zuma said all countries that bid “will be engaged in a fair, transparent and competitive procurement process to select a strategic partner, or partners, to undertake the nuclear build programme”.
But the Mail & Guardian reported earlier this year that in a “top secret” presentation, the energy department proposed a closed government-to-government procurement of new nuclear power stations instead of a transparent and competitive tender.
The nuclear agreement with Russia, which amaBhungane revealed, states that the government is prepared to give Russia exclusive rights to its nuclear build programme for a minimum of 20 years. During that time, Russia could block South Africa from procuring nuclear technology from any other country.
The Russians would be indemnified from any liability arising from nuclear accidents during the reactors’ lifespan. Russia would be granted a host of regulatory concessions and favourable taxation and other financial treatment. The designated competent authorities are South Africa’s department of energy and Russia’s state-owned Rosatom State Atomic Energy.
With the Russian economy in turmoil and the subsequent high cost of borrowing, the country’s ability to raise the funding for its nuclear ambitions in many countries is being called into question – as is its ability to deliver on time.
For South Africa, it is even more of a mystery how the government will provide the loan guarantees that would be required, given that so many have been extended to ailing parastatals such as Eskom and SAA. The state may have hit its limit………http://mg.co.za/article/2015-08-18-anc-calls-for-transparent-nuclear-tender-process
South Africa’s incorrect environmental assessments for proposed nuclear power stations
Nuclear deal environmental assessments don’t match proposed plants: DA http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2015/08/16/Nuclear-deal-environmental-assessments-dont-match-proposed-plants-DA RDM News Wire | 16 August, 2015
The Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) conducted to assess and predict the environmental consequences of chosen nuclear build sites – and which are necessary by law – are outdated and obsolete‚ and cannot be used in support of the proposed trillion rand nuclear build programme, the Democratic Alliance says.
The DA said on Sunday that this is yet another reason why Minister of Energy Tina Joematt-Pettersson must “move to scrap this secretive and unaffordable nuclear deal once and for all”.
In a statement‚ DA spokesman on energy Gordon MacKay said this information had come to light in a reply to a DA parliamentary question in which the Minister of Energy revealed that the EIAs – which are needed before construction can begin – were carried out for only three of the proposed sites by Eskom between 2007 and 2008.
“The DA has reviewed the existing EIAs and we have noted deficiencies in at least two respects.
“Firstly‚ the EIA’s have only assessed the suitability and environmental impact of High Pressurized Water Reactors‚ a technology currently being used at South Africa’s sole nuclear site at Koeberg.
“The EIA’s have not considered technology being offered by other bid vendors such as Rossatom’s AES 2006 reactor. This reactor‚ the VVER‚ is a water to water pressurised rector and differs materially from the design evaluated by the EIA. Adoption of technology from vendor nations with designs deviating from Koeberg’s would therefore be ill advised and invalid.
“Secondly‚ the EIA was conducted when the power utility was planning on expanding its nuclear generating fleet through the nuclear-1 project – a much smaller‚ single site project which does not compare to the current proposed build programme‚” Mr MacKay asserted.
“Indeed‚ the Environmental Consultants who did carry out the EIA indicated that the evaluation was only for a single nuclear power station of a maximum of 4‚000 MW‚” he added.
He quoted the consultants as making clear in their report that “In spite of the above-mentioned broad recommendations regarding the number of power stations that could potentially be constructed at each site‚ it must be emphasized that the current application is for a single nuclear power station of a maximum of 4‚000 MW. The cumulative impacts of any additional nuclear power stations on a particular site (if authorised) would have to be confirmed in a new EIA process prior to any further development”.
“This‚” stated MacKay‚ “is significantly less than the current nuclear build programme‚ which is estimated at 9600MW‚ more than double the maximum of 4000 MW stipulated in the EIA. The report also makes it quite clear – anything above 4000MW would have to be confirmed in a new EIA process prior to any further development.
“The fact that the Minister is trying to distort South Africa’s legislative processes‚ in this way‚ is deeply concerning.
“It is now increasingly clear that the proposed trillion rand nuclear deal is ill-thought out‚ and rushed‚ and should not be pursued. The Minister must now put her pride aside‚ and do what is right: scrap the deal‚ once and for all.”
Secrecy and graft in South Africa’s multi $billion nuclear power plan?
Nuclear power plan stirs fears of secrecy and graft Project could cost as much as $100 bn – experts., Money Web Joe Brock, Reuters | 14 August 2015 Fears are growing in South Africa that agreements to build nuclear power plants that could be the most expensive procurement in the country’s history will be made behind closed doors, without the necessary public scrutiny.
Among those voicing concern, two government sources say the Treasury is not being included in procurement discussions, despite the massive budgetary implications of a project that experts say may cost as much as $100 billion.
Construction on the first plant is due to start next year, breakneck speed compared with the years of regulatory and environmental checks for nuclear projects in countries such as Britain and the United States.
The Democratic Alliance, the main opposition party, believes the pace of the deal will prevent proper analysis before contracts are signed and huge sums of money change hands.
“The whole deal has been veiled in secrecy. We have no details on what we’re buying, how much it’s going to cost or how we’re going to pay for it,” shadow energy minister Gordon Mackay told Reuters.
The Department of Energy (DoE) did not respond to requests for comment. It has said several times the procurement process will be transparent and follow procedure.
Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene was forced this week to deny reports of tensions with the DoE over the plans and said the Treasury was playing a supporting role in the procurement process.
Pretoria has already signed non-binding inter-government agreements for nuclear power support from several countries including France, China and South Korea.
South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma said this week the nuclear plan was at an “advanced stage” and the procurement process should be completed by March.
Following meetings between Zuma and Russian President Vladimir Putin last year, the Russian atomic agency Rosatom said it had agreed a $10 billion contract to build power stations.
However, the DoE denied an agreement had been reached, raising public suspicion in South Africa of backroom dealmaking – an accusation often levelled against the ruling African National Congress under Zuma’s tenure.
The nuclear deal is of huge concern given South Africa’s history of endemic corruption,” said Andrew Feinstein, a former ANC lawmaker and now executive director of Corruption Watch UK.
Feinstein is the author of a book about alleged widespread graft in a $4.8 billion arms deal during the late-1990s.
“I fear that the corruption in this deal might dwarf the arms deal,” he said.
Chronic shortages, mounting debt…….A 2013 study by the University of Cape Town’s Energy Research Centre found more nuclear power was not needed and would not be cost-effective, based on an estimated installed cost of $7 000 per kilowatt.
The DoE has estimated the build would cost $4 200 per kilowatt. Energy experts say this is optimistic and the calculations are based on out-of-date assumptions……..http://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/south-africa/nuclear-power-plan-stirs-fears-of-secrecy-and-graft/
South Africa facing a R1-trillion nuclear financial disaster
R1-trillion nuclear plans are simply “disastrous” for SA http://businesstech.co.za/news/energy/94677/r1-trillion-nuclear-plans-are-simply-disastrous-for-sa/ 31 July 15 Government’s R1-trillion nuclear build plans are going to turn South Africa’s energy crisis into a jobs crisis, according to the Democratic Alliance.
Earlier in July, the Department of Energy signed two memoranda of understanding with Russian state nuclear energy corporation Rosatom to implement several joint projects for education in the nuclear power industry.
Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson said that South Africa will start a nuclear build programme in 2015, in a bid to generate an additional 9,600MW of electricity.
The country will have as many as nine new nuclear power plants by 2030, with government pegging the total cost to build these at R500 million – though energy experts have stated R1 trillion was more realistic, and would likely increase.
In a statement issued on 31 July, DA leader Mmusi Maimane said the nuclear deal will drag the country’s economy back, and will cost thousands of South Africans their jobs.
According to the party, the details behind government’s nuclear plans show that the undertaking is unaffordable.
“Whichever funding model is chosen, you can rest assured that it will be paid for by the South African taxpayer, and that we can expect substantial tariff increases over many years.”
These higher prices would price the poor out of electricity usage, and would result in energy-heavy industries – like mining and manufacturing – shedding more jobs, said the DA.
“For a government that claims to be pro-poor – and for a country where 5.2 million people cannot find work and a further 2.4 million have given up looking – this is unfathomable.”
Maimane pointed to a number of flaws in the scheme:
- Even if government’s estimate of R500 million was correct, South Africa cannot afford to build the nuclear reactors. This would result in private-public partnerships being formed, which would be reflected in current and future electricity prices increasing, as citizens would have to pay.
- South Africa lacks the capacity and skills to operate eight nuclear power stations. We lack the capacity and skills to run the one we already have, said Maimane.
- The project goes against the government’s own National Development Plan, which urges caution on nuclear, pointing rather towards gas, wind, and solar energy as a primary source of power.
To date, government has not provided solid details on the nuclear build plans.
“Until the government tells us how much the nuclear deal will cost, how we plan to pay for it, and how they intend to choose the preferred bidder, we cannot begin to entertain the notion of going down this path.”
The DA leader said that, while the party does not oppose nuclear power, the current plan is “not right” for the country, and it will do anything in its power to block the deal.
South Africa is warned – Nuclear power is a dying industry
With the South African build is set to cost anywhere up to R1-trillion, that would mean the same cost (adjusted upward with inflation) would have to be born near the end of this century, he says. “Except then you will have no income coming in. Just the cost of powering the reactors while you wind down operations. And the endless cost of looking after the nuclear waste.”
“This is a dying industry and there are just too many unanswered questions for South Africa to go down this path. Except we know the element of corruption can always be present in the nuclear industry,”
Nuclear a ‘technology of the past‘, Mail & Guardian, 27 JUL 2015 SIPHO KINGS A Russian nuclear activist has labelled South Africa’s pursuit of new nuclear capacity – with Russian support – as “naive” and advised against it. “Nuclear is not technology of the future. This is technology of the past, of the Cold War.” This is the conclusion Vladimir Slivyak, of the Russian environmental group Ecodefense, reaches when talking about nuclear technology. Continue reading
Russia is front-runner in scramble to sell nuclear reactors to South Africa, but who will pay?
South Africa has concluded similar pacts with China, France, the US, Japan and South Korea.
“There are serious questions that need to be answered as to whether South Africa is able to finance this programme and how any investment would have to be repaid,
Will Putin pay for SA’s $100bn nuclear plan?, Mail & Guardian, 06 JUL 2015 11:03 MIKE COHEN The awarding of contracts to build SA’s nuclear plants is nearing. Who will pay for the big project? Russia is seen as the frontrunner to win the right to build South African nuclear power plants that may be worth as much as $100-billion. With a six-month deadline to award contracts, who’s going to pay for the country’s biggest project yet remains a mystery.
Price-tag estimates for as many as eight reactors generating 9 600 megawatts, which the government wants to begin operating from 2023 and complete by 2029, range from $37-billion to $100-billion. Bids are due to start this quarter, with Russia’s Rosatom seen as a leader. Areva, EDF, Toshiba’s Westinghouse Electric, China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding and Korea Electric Power have also shown interest.
The planned investment comes as the government battles to fend off a junk-grade credit rating and the Treasury seeks to rein in the budget deficit. Proceeding with the nuclear plants could result in a large increase in public debt, the International Monetary Fund warned in a report on June 24.
“There appears to be a simple-minded assumption that countries like China or Russia will provide cheap plants and offer finance,” Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich in the UK, who has monitored South Africa’s nuclear plans since 1997, said in a phone interview on June 24. “That’s an illusion.” Continue reading
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 (127)
- 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 