Halting construction of a second nuclear power station has given everyone the breathing space to further examine the energy sources that suits South Africa best.
Whether to stake the country’s future on nuclear energy or not is a difficult question to answer. In an era in which the consequences of climate change are being driven home with urgency, those who see nuclear as a “clean” energy option appear to have grabbed the high ground.
But it is not as clear-cut as that. With nuclear, there are a number of things that could go wrong. Most obvious of these are costs. Consensus seems to be that it would cost R1trillion, which would place enormous stress on our GDP, especially in the light of the country’s recent downgrading to junk status by rating agencies Standard and Poor’s and Fitch.
But not everyone sees it like this. Last year, Phumzile Tshelane, chief executive of the SA Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa), suggested, without going into detail, that South Africa could build nuclear power stations more cheaply than any other place on earth.
The biggest problem though with nuclear energy is safety. Although its record, generally, is safe, when things do go wrong, they go horribly wrong. For instance, the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl in the Ukraine in 1980 caused the deaths of almost one million people, and the area around the plant will not be used again - for ever.
Today, more than 440 nuclear reactors are in operation, with another 60 in the planning stages. A major accident at any one of them could be catastrophic. Also, more reactors means more places to dump waste will be needed.
In a report in 2006, the Department of Minerals and Energy stated that at the nuclear research facility at Pelindaba, near Hartbeespoort Dam, waste had been placed in an excavated hillside known as Thabana.
At the Koeberg nuclear power station, high-level waste, made up of spent fuel assemblies, is stored on site in rocks under water.
From time to time, these rocks are repacked to cram in more waste. According to the report, by 1999 Eskom had provided R1.16bn for the management of the spent fuel, and the eventual decommissioning of the power station itself.
By 2010, no plan had been devised for the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste.
We are pleased that the Western Cape High Court has blocked construction of a second nuclear power station in South Africa - not necessarily because we are against the use of nuclear energy, but because the costs and lack of answers to safety concerns need further scrutiny.
The court’s action has given everyone the breathing space to further examine the energy sources that suits South Africa best.