Nuclear energy in South Africa:
Questions and Resources
David Fig
davidfig@iafrica.com
Key issues to follow

The plans – Government plans are to add to the existing 1 844MW (megawatts)
installed at Koeberg with an extra 9 600MW. This is in the IRP2010 plan. In the
Nuclear Energy Policy (2007) document, the government also plans to build an
enrichment plant. Government was developing a pebble bed reactor but
cancelled it in 2010 after spending R9 billion with no results. Plans are to build
the new reactors at Thyspunt (E Cape), Koeberg and Bantamsklip (W Cape).

The money – The “overnight” cost of a new reactor is around US$3,5 million per
MW. To install an extra 9600MW would therefore set the taxpayer back by
US$33,6 billion. Compare this with other forms of energy per MW. Compare also
with the country’s huger-than-ever foreign debt statistics. Reports that tenders
for R1trillion are being prepared by government, double the size of the arms
deal, and equally open to corruption.

The environment – Government currently has no disposal facility for high-level
reactor waste (other than the on-site cooling ponds at Koeberg). Low and
intermediate level waste are dumped at Vaalputs in Namaqualand. We need to
insulate the high level waste from the environment for at least 244 000 years.

Worker health – a large number of workers at NECSA (Pelindaba) are trying to
claim compensation for health impacts of working in the industry. Up to now
their applications have been in vain. NECSA claimed not to have kept efficient
health records of its workers.

Jobs - there will be some jobs but local citizens lack the skills to work in the
reactors, causing most of the new jobs to go to imported workers. Compare this
with the many more local jobs (without needing a physics degree) opened up by
renewable energy sources at local level in many parts of the country.

Regulation – the National Nuclear Regulator has admitted that it is undercapacitated and under-funded. If we are to multiply nuclear facilities that require
regulation, our current establishment will not cope, when more scrupulous
regulation is needed more than ever.

Safety - in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, it became clear that the operating
company did very little to prevent explosions and meltdowns. They also covered
up some aspects of their mismanagement. Are our authorities more technically
competent? Are our rural municipalities geared up to protect communities from
radioactive spillages? Is our emergency planning effective?

Climate – although it is true that there are few carbon emissions from a reactor,
many of the other processes in the nuclear fuel chain emit huge amounts of
carbon. These include mining uranium, enrichment, fuel fabrication, transport of
nuclear materials, reactor construction and decommission at the end of its life.

Giving up nuclear - Germany and Switzerland are winding down their nuclear
programmes. Italians have voted in a referendum against nuclear. Austria will
not go nuclear. Russia and China are making safety reviews of their nuclear
industry after Fukushima. Is there something to learn from these actions?

The nuclear lobby – who supports nuclear? In South Africa there is pressure
from fleet builders Areva (France), Westinghouse (US-Japan), and GEC-Hitachi
(US-Japan). South Korea and China also want us to purchase their reactors,
which are less advanced and have less safety features. In SA, the mining, smelting
and some manufacturing industries (forming the Energy Intensive User Group)
also have a pronuclear stance and are putting pressure on government to go
down this path.

Alternatives – government and intensive users of electricity argue that they
need “baseline” electricity (that is constantly provided and not intermittent).
They don’t accept that renewables can deliver this. This is contrary to all
experience in countries that have taken renewables seriously. If there are
enough renewables, there will be no intermittence, as different modes (sun,
wind, tides, biogas) will complement one another. We are a sunny, windy
country. We don’t have to be prisoners of fossil fuels and uranium.
Resources:
Telephonic
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy --- 072 6285131
Koeberg Alert Alliance - 083 4442083
Pelindaba Working Group – 083 7404676
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg – 082 6829177
Earthlife Africa Cape Town – 083 4717276
Greenpeace Africa – 011 482 4696
Federation for a Sustainable Environment – 073 2314893
SA Faith Communities’ Environmental Institute – 082 7315643
National Union of Mineworkers – 011 8337012
Eskom spokesperson – 082 4436683
National Nuclear Regulator – 012 6747100
NECSA- 012 3054911
Department of Energy – 012 4444253/4190
Printed/online
The following publications also contain resource lists or useful references:
David Fig, 2007. Uranium road: questioning South Africa’s nuclear
direction. Johannesburg: Jacana (an earlier version appears on the Heinrich Boell
Stiftung Southern Africa website) www.boell.org.za
David Fig, 2010. Nuclear energy rethink?: the rise and demise of South
Africa’s Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. ISS Paper 210. Pretoria: Institute of
Security Studies. www.issafrica.org
Greenpeace International, 2011. The true cost of nuclear power in South
Africa. Amsterdam: Greenpeace International. www.greenpeace.org/africa
Other publications
Engineering News www.engineeringnews.co.za
Nuclear Monitor www.antenna.nl/wise
Nucleonics Week www,platts.com/Products/nucleonicsweek
Nuclear Intelligence Weekly www.energyintel.com