One clear indicator of poverty worldwide is access to affordable energy. If we had not been misinformed about the reliability of sources of energy that are alternatives to the current fossil fuels (coal and oil) that we use today, South Africa would have been a world leader in providing not only clean and safe energy to all our people, but also in exporting indigenous technologies that would have built on proven technologies from elsewhere.
Renewable energy technologies constitute an alternative source of energy that remains largely untapped in South Africa. This includes free energy from the sun via both photovoltaic panels, that convert sunlight to electricity, and solar thermal (heat) technologies, which, through the heating process, can either heat water for use directly or generate steam to produce electricity.
Renewable energy also includes free energy from the wind – the most mature technology worldwide, and one that is growing at a rate of up to 62% a year. Even off a low starting point wind alone could generate the world’s electricity by 2030.
Other technologies also being used commercially include: wave and tidal power that can be hidden under water given that the motion of the ocean never stops; biomass energy- the use of organic material that is grown for both its methane and heat value – as plants use carbon dioxide while growing and release it when burnt; micro-hydro power (small dams) for generating electricity on a small scale as opposed to the large dams that constitute environmental and social disasters; as well as geo-thermal energy, which uses the heat from underground.
The established fossil and nuclear fuel industries do not accept these as valid solutions. Their argument is that coal is cheaper – if you don’t mention the health hazard to people living in the vicinity of coal-power plants. In the United States recent studies show that, even without the subsidies that the fossil and nuclear industries receive, wind is cheaper than coal by simply including the health costs to people as a result of being harmed by emissions and general pollution.
”Nuclear power will be too cheap to meter” – is the strident voice of the nuclear industry.
However, every state in the US that uses nuclear power charges on average 25% more for electricity, and there is also the related danger posed by radioactive waste.
It is also often stated that renewable energy is ”intermittent”. Only 0,2% of the world’s coastlines, or 2% of deserts, could generate enough electricity for the whole world at today’s consumption rates. Wind has, in large areas along our coastlines and escarpment, at least a 35% availability.
So, why are we not going along the route of clean and safe energy for our people? Is it that vested interests do not want communities to own the means of producing energy, both for themselves and for sale to the national grid? Or is it because the simple technologies outlined previously are not challenging enough? Or is it simply that decision-makers are being fed biased information?
Whatever the reason, we need to address these issues as a matter of urgency. Not only is it only a matter of time before we will be expected to pay for our greenhouse gas emissions from coal, but attempting to grow the nuclear industry will be extremely inefficient (the manufacture of nuclear fuel is an energy-intensive process) and will simply result in higher costs for consumers.
We must move away from the mindset that energy generation must be centralised – distributed generation not only helps ensure security of supply, but also minimises the need for long transmission lines. A number of countries are racing along the renewable energy path and setting targets of at least 50% of electricity from renewable energy.
There must be something wrong with our thinking if we continue to pursue failed and abandoned technologies, such as Eskom’s proposed pebble bed nuclear reactor, which is in trouble as we speak. Its US investor, Exelon, has pulled out and the British investor, British Nuclear Fuel Limited, is technically insolvent owing to its inability to pay for its radioactive clean-ups. The South African Industrial Development Corporation is on record as wishing to sell its shares. This reactor will produce 10 times more radioactive waste than other nuclear processes. Our government’s expert panel was recently unable to establish whether it is feasible from either a financial or technical viewpoint. The amount Eskom is planning to spend on the 10 reactors could supply more electricity if it were spent on renewable energy.
Renewable energies are not rocket science, but simply proven technologies that produce minimal pollution, are pretty much free to run once built, and will produce immediate benefits for communities who can be taught how to manufacture South African versions of renewable energy technologies. Zimbabwe and India are doing very well building wind turbines. South Africa can build wind turbines with at least 60% local content – unlike the proposed nuclear reactors, which will mainly be imported. The economics work – many more jobs are created from renewable energy, no matter what proponents of dinosaur technologies may say.
The world’s leading economies, mainly in the European Union, are moving away from coal, oil and nuclear power. It makes sense for fossil and nuclear energy companies in those countries to look elsewhere for new markets, but it should not be Africa or anywhere in the South. We are not the dumping ground of the North’s failed technologies. We deserve better.
Muna Lakhani is a member of Earthlife Africa Johannesburg and Gauteng campaign coordinator for the Nuclear Energy Costs the Earth Campaign