South Africa should not bank on a nuclear future

Governments globally are rethinking nuclear energy. The German government has decided to phase out nuclear energy, and a recent referendum in Italy saw that 95% of Italians voted against the use of nuclear1. Indeed, what recent examples have shown is that nuclear power delivers too little, too late, and at too high a price for the environment.

Interestingly, the South African government’s response has been quite the opposite. Merely six days after the Japanese were reeling from a nuclear meltdown, the South African government approved the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2010), allowing for the construction of 9 600 megawatts of new nuclear power, making up 12.7% of total power capacity by 2030.

In July 2011, Minister of Energy Dipuo Peters announced possible delays to new nuclear energy capacity, acknowledging the dangers of nuclear energy.

She said the government will be guided by investigations arising from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster2. However, they are continuing with the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for Nuclear-1.

If South Africa is concerned about energy security, then nuclear should be the last option. A nuclear plant takes more than a decade to build, is dependent on a non-renewable resource, creates dangerous radioactive waste, and is extremely costly.

In contrast, renewable energy capacity can be built much faster, and without the safety, environmental and financial risks associated with nuclear power.

Globally, nuclear has been declining for decades. The cost of nuclear energy is a major deterrent. According to Citibank, a large reactor would cost between R40 billion and R80bn. But it is difficult to estimate the final cost of a nuclear reactor, as the full costs are established at the end of the project – at which time the amount spent is usually way above estimates.

Two EPR3 units under construction in Finland and France are both facing costly construction delays for this reason. Construction in Finland started in 2005 and is four years behind schedule, having exceeded budget by nearly 100%. The EPR in France has experienced cost overruns of 50% to €5bn, and commissioning has been delayed by two years to 20144.

In South Africa, we witnessed the same with the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor: the initial project estimate in 2002 was R1.013 million; but by 2010, when the project was shut down, it had cost almost R10bn – and there was nothing to show for it.

The EIA for Nuclear-1 is wrought with deficiencies. The first concern is how one can assess a project when the detailed technical descriptions of the proposed nuclear plant are not even available.

The second concern is that the exclusion zone for emergency planning purposes around the power station complex is within 800 metres. The EIA states “internationally accepted exclusion zones are being considered for Nuclear-1.” However, the exclusion zones considered are based on the European utility requirements, rather than a standard underlined by regulations.

The third concern relates to the disposal of waste. The EIA states there is sufficient capacity for the disposal of all types of waste at the reactor sites, and that the “potential impacts of these forms of waste should be minimal.” This is concerning, given the lessons from Fukushima.

The head of AREVA’s5 North American unit stated recently that “leaving used fuel in... a spent fuel pool may not be a very wise decision.”

After 60 years and billions of dollars’ worth of studies, there still is no solution for the long-term storage of radioactive waste, much of which will remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years.

The claim that nuclear power could be a solution to climate change is false. The International Energy Agency’s “Energy Technology Perspectives 2008” report6 shows that even if existing world nuclear power capacity could be quadrupled by 2050, its share of world energy production would still be below 10%. Even if this massive increase were possible, it would only reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 6% compared to the 21% reduction that renewable energy would provide.

Unfortunately, our government’s delay is not an indication of intent to stop nuclear energy plans. It still has its blinkers on – our challenge is to open its eyes.

Nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction from the clean energy development needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. The reality of climate change means we urgently need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Safe and clean renewable energy technology is ready to go; and partnered with energy efficiency programmes, it is what South Africa really needs. It can be done!

Ferrial Adams: Greenpeace Africa

1. http://referendum.interno.it

2. www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/sa-wants-fukushima-lessons-integrated-into-nuclear-as-iea-warns-on-emissions-2011-07-04

3. European Pressurised Reactor

4. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story/safety-must-be-hallmark-of-nuclear-power-plan/1/138982.html

5. AREVA is a large French nuclear company, operating worldwide in all aspects of nuclear power.

6. www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2012