Nuclear may have shiny advantages but SA is in no position to embrace such an energy deal
Defending the use of nuclear power is no easy task. Nuclear is one of the best energy technologies in the world but has the worst reputation and public image, historically introduced through weaponry and war.
But that is exactly what Knox Msebenzi, MD of the Nuclear Industry Association of SA, did recently in a presentation to the Free Market Foundation and an audience heatedly divided between passionate pronuclear and antinuclear devotees.
His three key focus areas were corruption, cost and safety. Two of these have certainly been hitting the headlines in SA over the past few years, becoming inseparably intertwined with our nuclear intentions.
On corruption, Msebenzi said this was a governance issue rather than a nuclear power technology issue, and nuclear could indeed be implemented without this scourge.
He also said the nuclear industry was highly regulated on national and international levels, programmes were scrutinised, it was very difficult to conceal corruption in this sector and international bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency were vigilant.
Msebenzi said SA was still open to bidding on a nuclear programme and no “deals” had been signed and sealed. Several international vendors were interested in tendering for SA’s nuclear programme and the country had not committed to Russia or China, despite the abounding rumours of facilitation fees, Putin pay-offs and Gupta acquisitions in the uranium sector. He found these automatic associations to be tenuous and murky.
On cost, Msebenzi said there were no authoritative figures on what a South African nuclear build would cost, despite a figure of R1-trillion being bandied around and taken as given. Undoubtedly, the final figure would be a big one, but this was a long-term spend extending over two or three decades. And while Treasury would guarantee the fund-raising, costs would certainly be borne by taxpayers and other relevant stakeholders.
The direct costs of construction and generation were not the only benchmarks for a nuclear decision. Return on investment — which looks at outputs, yields, storage infrastructure and the network required for each type of power source — should be the main gauge for deciding whether to proceed with a particular type of energy offering.
On safety, the often-cited catastrophes that have occurred since nuclear power’s widespread use are Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. While tragic, this was not out of line considering more than 400 nuclear power plants and reactors operated in the global industry. Also, safe waste disposal was guaranteed, otherwise regulators would never authorise these projects.
Countering Msebenzi on his safety assurances, the antinuclear camp highlighted the dangers of the uranium sector, listed less-publicised nuclear accidents and questioned how high-level nuclear waste was stored and transported.
Msebenzi believes the optimal solution for any country is a diversified energy source mix across the spectrum of nuclear, solar, wind, hydro and so on. Each technology has its own strength and balances the weaknesses of others.
For example, the highly intermittent nature of renewable means it is unlikely to be a reliable source of baseload or bulk energy. Only coal, gas and nuclear can fulfil that function at the moment.
I think renewable energy could conceivably be used for bulk energy if attached to massive industrial-sized batteries or pumped storage systems such as Ingula in the Drakensberg.
Msebenzi noted a rather patronising attitude towards SA, in terms of having the skills to handle a nuclear fleet. “Of course we do, as we have been running Koeberg for decades.”
I can see the attractions of nuclear energy, but until the budget deficit is reined in and government debt to GDP returns to manageable levels, a nuclear power plant fleet is not for us.
MSEBENZI SAID CORRUPTION WAS A GOVERNANCE ISSUE RATHER THAN A NUCLEAR POWER TECHNOLOGY ISSUE