Anti-Nuclear energy protesters held a vigil outside Parliament in Cape Town in April on the seventh anniversary of a landmark Western Cape High Court ruling that halted a proposed R1-trillion nuclear deal. Without stringent and effective anti-corruption frameworks, nuclear energy could become a playground for profiteering, benefiting a few while the broader populace bears the economic and environmental costs, the writer says. – Picture: Leon Lestrade / Independent Newspapers
By Kumi Naidoo
South Africa stands at a crucial crossroad. The deepening energy crisis has illuminated gaps in our infrastructure, tempting the Government of National Unity (GNU) towards nuclear energy.
Despite public opposition and civil society efforts to defeat the $76 billion (R1.4 trillion) Zuma-Russia nuclear deal, the government seems to ignore public sentiment against nuclear energy.
For some, nuclear energy emerges as a potential stable and “clean” supply of electricity. However, deeper examination reveals this could be disastrous, especially concerning the climate crisis and corruption and for socio-economic development.
Splitting atoms promises continuous power with less carbon emissions than coal. Nevertheless, several critical considerations raise doubts about its suitability for South Africa.
First, the massive cost implications are prohibitive. Nuclear projects require immense capital investment, which the South African economy, strained by national debt, unemployment and poverty, can scarcely afford. The financial burden is often underpinned by long-term debt, burdening future generations.
Second, the timeline for such projects spans years, often decades, making it unfeasible as an immediate remedy.
South Africa’s energy woes demand quick action, not the lengthy delays characteristic of nuclear projects. Renewable energy solutions, like solar and wind, could be deployed quicker and provide immediate relief. The average period to complete a nuclear project is at least seven years, provided everything goes according to plan. Many countries have experienced longer periods, sometimes spanning more than two decades.
The unit cost of energy, commonly described as the Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE), is a key factor in evaluating different energy sources. The LCOE represents the per-unit cost (typically per megawatt-hour, MWh) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle: nuclear energy is R1 100 to R2 500/ MWh, coal R900 to R2 700/ MWh, solar power R360 to R900/MWh, and wind power R550 to R1 100/MWh.
The cost of generating power through solar and wind is significantly less than that of nuclear and coal. Of course, this also means less money to be distributed to corrupt elites as we have seen become the common practice at Eskom over the past decades.
A megawatt of continuous power can support around 811 average South African homes for a year.
Any energy policy must consider environmental and climate impacts. Although nuclear energy is low-carbon once operational, the entire life cycle – from construction to mining and waste management – is problematic and far from being carbon emission free. Uranium mining has severe environmental costs, and radioactive waste presents enduring challenges.
Focusing on nuclear energy could deflect attention from sustainable, decentralised renewable options. South Africa enjoys abundant sunshine and wind, representing untapped energy sources. Pursuing nuclear energy might suggest a superficial effort against climate change, diverting us from developing a job-rich renewable energy infrastructure.
The Climate Justice Charter Movement correctly argues that “nuclear energy is dangerous and costly. Instead, we (should) advance socially owned and community based renewable energy systems (such as solar, wind, hydro and tidal power), supported by participatory budgeting and incentives (such as feed-in tariffs) for our workplaces, homes and communities”.
Holistically speaking, southern Africa is a water-scarce region, with many without easy access to clean drinking water. Nuclear and coal are significant water consumers, when compared to renewable energy options and would further compound our water challenges.
Measured in gallons of water per MWh, nuclear consumes 400 to 800, coal 300 to 700, solar PV about 20, wind about 1 (for cleaning)! To ignore water usage is irresponsible and short-sighted.
Nuclear energy is promoted as green but its environmental impact is profound. Every pound of enriched uranium generates more than 25 000 pounds of radioactive waste during mining and processing.
Annually, the global nuclear industry produces about 10 000 to 12 000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste, which remains hazardous for thousands to millions of years. Safe long-term storage and disposal are complex and costly.
Bobby Peek, the director of groundWork, points out: “Nuclear energy is not the sustainable solution we need. It brings with it a legacy of waste and risk that future generations will be burdened with.”
Large-scale projects in South Africa have been plagued by corruption and inefficiency. The Medupi and Kusile power stations are reminders of cost overruns and delays. Effective execution of nuclear projects requires transparency and accountability. Without stringent and effective anti-corruption
frameworks, nuclear energy could become a playground for profiteering, benefiting a few while the broader populace bears the economic and environmental costs.
Renewable energy sources like solar and wind offer more employment opportunities compared to nuclear and coal. Solar power creates 5.65 jobs per MW (megawatt) and wind power 0.5 to two jobs per MW. On the other hand, nuclear creates 0.4 to 0.7 jobs per MW and coal 0.18 to 0.38 jobs per MW. (Sources: World Nuclear Association – 2020, IEA – 2021, Irena – 2020)
The way forward is a multifaceted approach prioritising renewable energy, social inclusivity and sustainability.
Liz McDaid, of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute, correctly argues: “Renewable energy is cleaner, cheaper, and provides more jobs. It is a win-win solution for our country.”
In conclusion, the GNU’s pursuit of nuclear energy amid an energy crisis is fraught with risks. Instead, South Africa should leverage its natural renewable resources, prioritise ethical governance and adopt an inclusive energy policy. The cost of uranium for nuclear plants can fluctuate but solar, wind, geothermal and biomass are not beholden to the changes, promoting energy independence.
The GNU must recognise that apart from failing to deliver basic energy needs, we are ignoring the growing impact of the climate crisis as we experience more and more extreme climate events from Cape Town to Durban and several places in between.
The call made by civil society through the Climate Justice Charter Movement to declare a climate emergency, which has been ignored by the previous government, must be urgently considered by the GNU, Parliament and provincial legislatures.
How the GNU responds will be a good indication of whether it is going to be looting as usual or whether we will see the changes our people justly deserve.
As Makoma Lekalakala of Earthlife Africa poetically states: “Nuclear energy is not the answer to our energy problems; it’s the most expensive way to boil water.”
* Dr Kumi Naidoo is Global Ambassador, Africans Rising For Justice, Peace and Dignity
** The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of The African