The Koeberg nuclear plant. Photo: David Harrison
Amid South Africa’s presidency of the G20, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) prepared a report making a case for Nuclear Energy in Africa for the G20 Energy Transitions Working Group. However, it failed to address the significant costs, safety, public participation and transparency challenges of Africa’s only nuclear plant, the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, in Cape Town, which will hold public hearings on the 20-year extension of unit 2 this week.
Last year, Eskom estimated that extending the operation of Koeberg for the next 20 years would cost R21 billion. According to a report by Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southern Africa, published last year, Eskom had provided the same estimate for its long-term operation back in 2010.
In addition, the report offered a counter estimate of R70 billion when taking into account inflation, exchange rates and the example of recent French nuclear life extension programmes. Nuclear, and specifically nuclear in South Africa, has a steady track record of far exceeding budget, consistent with “The Iron Law of Megaprojects”.
If we had reallocated this R70 billion for the long-term operation extension cost, we would have more than made up for the R54 billion that the National Energy Regulator of South Africa forgot to include when announcing their tariff increases earlier this year. Their updated tariff hikes, officially announced last month, after the approved initial increase of 5.4% to 9%, are a slap in the face to ordinary South Africans already struggling through soaring electricity prices and a rising cost of living.
We also know that Koeberg is not necessary, since both units were offline in March this year without load-shedding or grid collapse. So, although the budgets and timelines might differ, the money could have been better spent.
There is a push to make the public believe that nuclear energy is a “clean and cost-effective energy source”, but the evidence clearly contradicts this. When we consider the lifecycle from uranium mine to power generation and underground storage of nuclear waste, the costs to the economy and to lives and livelihoods add up. All scientific modelling studies have shown that nuclear has no place in the least-cost scenario for South Africa.
A recent health study using a proxy of hair samples to detect uranium exposure indicates that not only miners are at risk of exposure to uranium, but so are residents close to these mines. Their exposure comes from many sources: the soil, contaminated water along the mining basin and even aerosolised from tailing storage facilities. The apparent health implications to increased exposure to radiation include damage to and cancers of the lungs, kidneys and bones. The human health cost is staggering — real lives are marked by cancer and chronic illness, lost productivity and economic activity and generational harm that silently drains local economies.
The concerns and risks associated with the disposal of the waste from nuclear energy production are numerous. Nuclear waste, specifically spent fuel from Koeberg, is stored in on-site pools and casks. International best practice is that nuclear waste should be stored deep underground yet, at the moment, there is no deep-geological storage for nuclear waste anywhere in Africa, leaving communities and the environment at risk until such a site is developed – if at all. The current solution to storing waste is to leave it to future generations to deal with or find some secondary use for it, a massive intergenerational injustice.
The site for waste disposal for Koeberg, Vaalputs in the Northern Cape, was selected during the rule of the apartheid government and the people in the area were not consulted. It was no coincidence that the communities in the area were majority black and brown people. When we recently spoke to members of the communities surrounding Vaalputs in preparation for the hearings on unit 2, they reflected that extending the Koeberg licence for another 20 years would ultimately impact their environment, public health and safety.
Some community members painted a very clear picture. Betty Links, 72, from Kharkams, said: “Hoekom bring hulle hul gemors in ons jaart, hou dit daar by julle!” (Why do they bring their mess into our yard, keep it there by you!)
Meanwhile Karel Beukes, 78, from Tweerivier said: “Dit is verregaande dat ons moet bly wonder of ons waterbronne alreeds besmet is!” (It is outrageous that we have to keep wondering if our water sources are already contaminated.)
Dawie Bunder, a livestock farmer from Kliprand, says he is concerned about the spent nuclear fuel coming a mere 10km from his farm. “What guarantee is there that our livestock and our grazing fields will not be impacted by highly radioactive waste on my doorstep?”
Nuclear waste remains deadly for thousands of years and there are no clear or acceptable disposal plans in Africa. In addition, broader concerns were raised about the waste from Koeberg being transported by trucks along the R355, which is in a poor state of maintenance with a high risk of crashes.
The proposed building of a centralised interim storage facility at Vaalputs increases the volume of nuclear waste not only for now, but for decades to come. There is very little data available on critical safety issues surrounding the storage and transportation of nuclear waste and this exacerbates communities’ frustration with the government, as well as operating and regulating bodies.
Nuclear energy is an unsafe, high-cost and slow-to-deploy technology. It requires strong grid infrastructure, which benefits only grid-connected cities, and leaves off-grid and rural communities without access to energy.
The dangers and concerns are numerous, but the decision should be clear and straightforward — stop the blank cheque to Eskom for extending Koeberg’s lifespan. South Africa and Africa should not take the advice and proponents on nuclear energy coming from the IAEA, which is intended to be a monitoring body, not an advisory body for further nuclear development. Low carbon does not mean environmentally friendly and harm-free.
When South Africa convenes the G20 countries for their final energy transitions working group from 7 to 10 October, they need to prioritise renewable energy sources like solar and wind. Africa needs clean, sustainable and decentralised renewable energy that is significantly more affordable than nuclear and delivers energy access to 600 million people across the continent. Energy justice is the priority. It is time decision-makers prioritised the needs of the people over the false idea of a windfall profit.
Tyler Booth is the coordinator for the African CSO G20 Climate, Energy and Sustainable Finance Network. Lydia Petersen is the spokesperson for the Koeberg Alert Alliance. Ntombizodidi Mapapu is a senior energy and climate justice campaigner at the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute. Peter Becker is a former director of the National Nuclear Regulator. They are members of the African Civil Society Organisations G20 Climate, Energy & Sustainable Finance Network.