South Africa’s decision to add 2,500 MW of nuclear power capacity ignites fierce debate over financial viability and corruption risks. Amid persistent power outages, the move is a controversial pivot from the country’s growing renewable energy sector, raising questions about economic priorities and the shadow of past procurement scandals.
South Africa’s decision to add 2,500MW of nuclear power capacity ignites fierce debate over financial viability and corruption risks.
In a move that has sparked intense debate, the South African government has announced
This decision, aimed at addressing the country’s chronic power shortages, has brought to the forefront concerns over financial feasibility and heightened risks of corruption in large-scale energy projects.
While Electricity Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa touts the cost-effectiveness of nuclear energy, critics, including the Presidential Climate Commission and academic researchers, argue that the financial and ethical implications of such a project may outweigh its purported benefits.
This development comes at a time when South Africa is making significant strides in renewable energy investments, particularly in solar and wind power, raising questions about the government’s commitment to sustainable and transparent energy solutions.
The energy regulator’s green light for the nuclear project, expected to commission its first unit by 2032/33, is seen as a crucial step to alleviate the country’s persistent power outages.
Ramokgopa noted the cost-effectiveness of nuclear energy, citing a price of R0.60 per kilowatt-hour, significantly lower than other renewable sources like concentrated solar power (R1.25/kWh) and wind (R0.87/kWh), and far cheaper than open-cycle gas turbines (R5/kWh).
However, the Presidential Climate Commission has raised concerns, arguing that the cost of building new nuclear power stations may not be justifiable compared to lower-cost alternatives.
This sentiment is echoed in academic circles, with studies questioning the government’s rationale in pursuing nuclear technology despite the availability of more affordable and accessible energy sources.
An academic study by Britta Rennkamp and Radhika Bhuyan published in 2017, titled “The Social Shaping of Nuclear Energy Technology in South Africa”, revealed a complex interplay of political, economic, and social factors influencing the country’s nuclear ambitions.
The research highlights two polarised coalitions: a smaller, yet influential group of government players, businesses, and select experts supporting nuclear energy, and a larger opposing coalition comprising civil society organisations focused on environmental and governance issues.
The study concluded that economic factors, such as cost, job creation, and the financial health of state-owned entities, are more significant than security concerns in determining the programme’s success or failure.
The tangible benefits for the supporting coalition, including job creation and prospects for uranium mining, suggest that a nuclear programme’s primary goal may not be electricity generation, but rather economic gains for certain groups.
The Shadow of Corruption
The spectre of corruption would also loom large over this nuclear deal, especially given South Africa’s history with large-scale procurement and cost over-runs.
Past experiences have shown that corruption can significantly inflate the costs of such projects, placing an undue burden on taxpayers and betraying public trust.
Earthlife Africa, in an eight page Sustainable Energy Briefing on South Africa’s Nuclear Procurement Process, published in 2012 said: “South Africa has a dubious history with regard to the procurement of megaprojects. The spectre of the arms deal, under investigation by an official commission, still haunts the government … There are well-founded fears that a new nuclear-build tender will ignite a feeding frenzy, opening up unprecedented opportunities for corruption, political patronage and the abuse of state power for party political gain.”
The Catholic Parliamentary Liaison Office’s report on the implications of South Africa’s nuclear power programme also highlighted these concerns, stressing the need for transparency and accountability in the procurement process.
Palesa Ngwenya, a researcher, writing in a briefing paper for the Southern African Catholic Bishop’s Conference, raised concerns about South Africa’s nuclear build programme back in 2015, especially in the context of the country’s burgeoning renewable energy sector.
“South Africa is witnessing a significant surge in investments in alternative energy sources, particularly in solar and wind energy. The country boasts one of the world’s greatest solar energy potentials and is making remarkable progress in wind energy. In 2012, South Africa ranked among the top 10 global investors in renewable energy, outpacing larger economies like Brazil and France. This trend has only accelerated, with Eskom and various private sector partners leading the charge.
“Despite these advancements, the South African government plans to invest heavily in nuclear technology, a move seen as both expensive and reliant on uncertain international partnerships … The nuclear programme’s financial burden is expected to fall solely on South African taxpayers and consumers, in stark contrast to renewable energy projects, which attract investments from private entrepreneurs,” Ngwenya said.
As South Africa embarks on this ambitious nuclear project, energy observers say that balancing the economic benefits with the risks of corruption and cost overruns will be crucial.
They say for the South African public to have any confidence in the deal, the government’s commitment to providing affordable, reliable energy must be matched by stringent measures to ensure transparency and accountability in every step of the procurement process.
IOL News
