RC Anderson
The government’s rush to sign a nuclear deal this year was unnecessary and unwise as South Africa did not need 10 gigawatts of new electricity, UCT energy policy expert Hilton Trollip said in the City last week.
This deal would mean up to three nuclear reactors at Thyspunt, Koeberg and at Bantamsklip, 47km from Hermanus, which is still considered a viable site without “fatal flaws”. There were also quicker, cheaper and more flexible options, needing no fossil fuels, to provide baseload power without nuclear. Speaking at a seminar organised by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) about the nuclear programme, Trollip, from UCT’s Energy Research Centre, said the government was basing its push for nuclear on an outdated electricity planning document – the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) of 2010.
However, the updated IRP compiled in 2013, with revised electricity demand projections, said no nuclear baseload capacity was needed by 2025 if there was a high electricity demand, and not until 2030 if there was a lower demand. Trollip said Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson was on record as saying the reason for going ahead with buying 9 600MW of nuclear power “at speed” by the end of the year was because there was no alternative to nuclear as baseload. “That is nonsense. There are alternatives. We did recent modelling which shows that we can have a growing mining and minerals economy without nuclear power,” Trollip said.
He also pointed out that electricity consumption had indeed fallen over the last years: Statistics SA showed that South Africa had used less electricity in 2014 than it had in 2007.
Trollip went on to say “whenever the energy research centre asked for the data and evidence from those who said it was imperative to build nuclear now, they were never able to produce it”.
At the World Wildlife Forum (WWF) Sustainable Energy Report, presented later on the same day, data on comparative electricity growth paths highlighted the same “no growth” trend.
Attention was drawn to the undesirable effect of having nuclear distract from, and potentially displace, the roll-out of safe renewable energy where the desirable long-term benefits of more jobs and lower electricity prices could be jeopardised. This presentation was prepared by Paul Gauche and others from Stellenbosch University. The conclusion of both of these respected academic institutions is that nuclear fails on both the “need and desirability” tests which point to a “fatal flaw”.
Judith February, consultant, Governance, Crime and Justice Division, ISS Pretoria, wrote: “It seems of course that this government – President Jacob Zuma and the minister in particular – are hell-bent on the nuclear option to provide South Africa with 9 600MW of nuclear power.
“It would appear that there are serious reservations regarding the cost model being proposed, which will surely see South Africans committed for many decades. In addition to cost, there are safety and environmental issues to be considered; as well as the National Development Plan and its alternative options to nuclear.
“The nuclear deal will dwarf the arms deal of 1999 in both size as well as its potential for corruption. Is it a coincidence, one wonders, that Zuma himself is chairing the cabinet energy sub-committee on corruption and has handed the energy portfolio to a minister known to do his personal bidding?”
Fikile Majola indicated he needs to be supported by those in civil society and elsewhere who know that this nuclear deal is all of our business, and that there is no place for secrecy when the state is about to commit us – and future generations – to billions of rand in expenditure.
Majola is the chair of Parliament’s energy portfolio committee. He has also said that he would not simply “rubber stamp” this deal.
l Anderson has been involved in the Bantamsklip campaign since its inception in 2009.