Nuclear energy - friend or foe?

Image: digitalart / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Barely a week after Fukushima, South Africa's cabinet approved a power generation master plan that calls for nuclear technology to become the single biggest new generator of electricity in South Africa. In terms of the newly-unveiled Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), nuclear power will make up 23% of all new electricity generation capacity in 20 years. Coal, which currently meets 95% of demand, will account for only 16%, renewable energy sources 42% and hydroelectric and gas-generated power 12%.

On one hand, critics of nuclear energy say that government has not paused, as other countries have done, to re-think South Africa's nuclear future in the wake of the nuclear disaster in Japan, which is now rated on the scale of Chernobyl. Even China, which has plans for the world's largest nuclear expansion programme, is said to have suspended approval of new projects to review the safety of nuclear reactors. President Zuma went ahead with a state visit to France, regarded as the world leader in nuclear technology, in March, apparently to hold talks with French companies interested in supplying nuclear technology to South Africa.

Severity exaggerated

On the other hand, many experts are saying that the severity of Fukushima has been exaggerated and that the threat of disaster has been largely contained.

Advocates of nuclear energy say it is the quickest, cleanest way to solve Africa's energy crisis and that nuclear energy will be the only economically-viable source of base load electricity to meet rising demand in future. South Africa has the skills, knowledge and mineral resources to secure its own supply and lead other African countries to a nuclear energy future.

Proponents of nuclear point out that renewable energy sources have been heavily subsidised to promote a climate change agenda and that this is already proving to be economically unsustainable as European governments close down subsidy schemes for green energy.

The pro-nuclear lobby also believes that there is a significant socio-economic threat in continuing to deny access to energy to almost a billion African people living in poverty and that wind turbines and solar panels simply cannot meet this demand. Experts also say that nuclear technology has advanced significantly and will continue to do so, reducing the risks and improving safety.

Eskom has maintained that South Africa has a good nuclear safety culture after 21 years of operating Koeberg and Energy Minister Dipuo Peters has been quoted as saying cabinet would consider all risks included in the IRP, including safety risks, reliability and costs.

Nuclear not viable

Critics of nuclear energy, however, say that South Africa cannot afford nuclear energy - either from an economic point of view or in terms of the dire consequences of a potential nuclear incident. Earthlife Africa Johannesburg says nuclear energy is neither safe nor economically viable and will burden future generations with the debt-financing and decommissioning costs as well as the ongoing threat of nuclear safety incidents.

Either way, the main conclusions of the recently held Energy Indaba 2011 remain relevant. Access to energy and energy security are immediate priorities that trump the climate change agenda and South Africa will need strong, courageous and visionary leadership to lead our country and our continent to a secure energy future. Meanwhile, the debate will continue to rage.