South African Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, who is next in line to lead the country, said the government currently can’t afford to build new nuclear power reactors.
“We have to look at where the economy is -- we have excess power and we have no money to go for a major nuclear plant building,” Ramaphosa told reporters Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “We have said the nuclear process will be looked at in the broad context of affordability.”
Ramaphosa’s approach differs markedly from that of President Jacob Zuma, who he succeeded last month as head of the ruling African National Congress. Zuma has championed plans to build as many as eight reactors that would generate 9,600 megawatts of energy starting from 2023 and cost as much as 1 trillion-rand ($84 billion) -- a program critics say the country can’t afford and doesn’t need.

Read more....
​ 

Twenty-three South African civil rights and environmental activist groups have sent a letter to Energy Minister David Mahlobo seeking clarity on the nature and purpose of the upcoming Energy Indaba, scheduled for December 7 to 8 in Johannesburg.
“It appears that the indaba will relate to the ongoing draft Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) and the draft update to the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for electricity. While we welcome – and insist on – the opportunity to participate in any decision on South Africa’s energy future, we write to convey our serious objections in relation to the process that has been followed,” the civil rights groups said in a combined statement.
This was followed by the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse's (Outa's) request for urgent clarification, in which it stated that it did not understand the purpose of the indaba. “We will object to its use as formal public participation,” the organisation said.
“According to the Ministry, it would appear the planned Energy Indaba constitutes a formal public engagement process on energy matters in general, including on the nuclear matter,” said Outa CEO Wayne Duvenage in a letter sent to Mahlobo.
Speaking to Engineering News Online, the Centre for Environment Rights pollution and climate change attorney and programme head Robyn Hugo said the Minister had yet to respond to their letter, but that he still had until Thursday afternoon to do so.

Read more...

Business Day reported on Monday that Earth Life Africa and the Southern African Faith Communities' Environment Institute (Safcei) will go to court on Wednesday in a bid to stop government's rush to proceed with the deal.
The civil society organisations are reportedly concerned about public statements by Energy Minister David Mahlobo, that the nuclear programme was being fast-tracked without a public-participation process.
In April, the Western Cape High Court set aside two determinations by former energy minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson, which laid the groundwork for the deal. The court also declared the nuclear cooperation agreement between South Africa (SA) and Russia to be unconstitutional and invalid.
Now, Earth Life Africa and Safcei reportedly want the court to rule that no steps can be taken until there is a lawful determination in terms of the Electricity Regulation Act, which means that the National Energy Regulator of SA (Nersa) will have to approve it. A public participation process will also have to take place.
City Press reported that Mahlobo was pushing for the finalisation of the integrated energy resource plan four months ahead of schedule. This would reportedly allow Mahlobo to make a decision on the country's energy needs based on "empirical evidence". It is widely expected that Mahlobo was appointed to the portfolio to push through the deal.
Writing for Daily Maverick on Monday, energy expert Chris Yelland wrote that, according to the draft integrated resource plan for electricity, nuclear is both too expensive and unnecessary for SA.
"Based on local and international studies, and real-world experience, and again contrary to what is often heard from nuclear evangelists (including those within Eskom itself), the latest Eskom study shows that the overnight capital cost of new nuclear in SA is the highest by far of all the generation technologies, significantly higher even than that of concentrating solar power (CSP) with nine hours of energy storage," Yelland wrote.

​Source.....

DURBAN: Two international anti-nuclear activists visited Durban on Saturday to educate the community on the harmful effects of nuclear energy. They highlighted why South Africans must continue to oppose its proliferation in our country.

Russian activist Vladimir Slivyak and American activist Chris Williams claim African countries are “easy targets” for nuclear reactor companies who have wanted to sell the idea of nuclear energy, as more Western countries oppose it.

Slivyak, a member of the Russian environmental organisation Ecodefense, has been an environmental and energy activist since 1989. Williams, a long time sustainable energy policy activist, is currently the Vermont USA organiser for the Citizens Awareness Network.

These activists have already been to Joburg and Port Elizabeth where they visited rural communities near a proposed nuclear site to educate them about what nuclear energy was and what it would mean for them if it were introduced.

In Durban yesterday, Slivyak and Williams spoke at an event at St Paul’s Church. Recently Earthlife Africa Johannesburg and the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute challenged the government’s nuclear deals with Russia, the US and South Korea.

In April, judgment was delivered in the Cape Town High Court and these deals were set aside and declared unlawful and unconstitutional. In a press briefing yesterday morning Slivyak and Williams emphasised the need for South Africa to distance itself from nuclear energy and said renewable energy was the way of the future.

“South Africa has enough sun as well as wind. There are other alternatives like solar and wind energy which is now becoming the way of the future. When these international nuclear companies try to sell you the idea of nuclear energy, they don’t tell you that in the long run, it’s actually going to cost you a whole lot more than you expect,” said Williams.

He said the financial markets internationally were also moving away from nuclear energy to renewable energy because it was cost effective and the safer alternative.

“In Germany, they’ve already taken a decision to close 23 nuclear reactor plants in the next five to six years. They’ve made a commitment to source all their power through sustainable energy and other countries should follow in this path. We are here to spread the word in terms of what’s happening on the international front and countries can make informed decisions based on this,” said Slivyak.

Earthlife Africa Durban, who hosted the anti-nuclear activists, said it was concerned that the South African government still planned to pursue the nuclear deal.

“It is at the heart of the state capture and the cabinet reshuffle. If it goes ahead the R1 trillion deal will bankrupt the country. It is a risky and dangerous source of power as witnessed by the many nuclear disasters, most notably Fukushima in Japan”.

“Earthlife Africa Durban and the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance supports a renewable energy future and an end to coal and nuclear power stations. We call on the people of South Africa to oppose the government’s shady nuclear deals and to support a safe, clean and green future with renewable energy,” said Earthlife Durban spokeswoman, Alice Thompson.

Outdated approach in Eskom’s coal-blackened clutches will have to be modified to accommodate renewables.
There is speculation that the recent cabinet reshuffle that replaced the ministers of finance and energy, among others, was intended to open the way for the nuclear deal. Thankfully, this has been stalled. The simple reality is that, with the decline in demand and as the potential of renewable energy, energy efficiency and regional gas get realised, SA does not need a nuclear deal.

However, the introduction of increasing amounts of renewable energy are forcing an energy policy rethink as a new paradigm emerges characterised by smaller, cleaner, more decentralised energy systems and more transparent governance and regulation, which are not popular with utilities such as Eskom which want to grow at any cost to the economies they are mandated to supply
.
These renewable energy and energy efficient resources are not yet optimally exploited because Eskom has control of procurement, despite attempts to promulgate an independent system and market operator. Without an independent operator Eskom does what it can to impede anything that could reduce its market share, whether this is independent, foreign power production or long-term efficiency improvements.

Read more......

May and June 2017 will go down as two of the most dreadful months in the history of the South African power utility Eskom. Its credibility in the eyes of the public has reached rock bottom after a series of well-publicised scandals.

Following the suspension of the then acting Eskom CEO, Matshela Koko, over a large contract allegedly benefitting his step-daughter, the nation was stunned by the reinstatement of the former CEO, Brian Molefe, who had previously left the utility under a cloud. The saga also forced the power utility to face the wrath of the parliamentary portfolio committee on Public Enterprises.
Highly damaging revelations followed from leaked emails, corroborating the findings of the Public Protector that Eskom’s leadership had allegedly irregularly assisted the Gupta family’s Oakbay Investments in securing the Optimum mine and the associated coal supply contract. The emails apparently also highlighted indefensibly close links between the Guptas and specific Eskom board members and executives. To top it off, the R4-billion Duvha boiler replacement was inexplicably awarded to a Chinese company, at a much higher cost than proposed by its competitors.
The scale of these alleged transgressions and the initial unwillingness or inability of government to deal with these matters has generated the impression that there are other agendas at play. It suggests that, like many other state-linked entities, Eskom has been taken over by persons furthering individual interests at the expense of the national good, a phenomenon now referred to as state capture.
This further raises the suspicion that the brazen taking of sides in the rollout of new generating capacity is also driven by other motives. Koko and Molefe have been outspokenly pro-nuclear and have blocked the long outstanding conclusion of power purchase agreements with successful bidders under the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers Procurement Programme (REIPPPP). The power utility appears to have also promoted the distorted narrative that renewables are chiefly responsible for job losses at Mpumalanga coal mines.
The latest REIPPPP projects offer vastly reduced power purchase tariffs compared to the early rounds. Most renewables are now clearly cheaper than the cost of new coal and nuclear. Therefore Eskom’s opposition to REIPPPP on affordability grounds sounds decidedly hollow. The perception has therefore been created that Eskom is part of an effort to sabotage the renewable energy sector, which is the nuclear industry’s chief competitor in South Africa’s future energy landscape.
By late June, after Molefe and Eskom board chair Ben Ngubane left, Lynne Brown, the minister of public enterprises, had clearly had enough of the scandals at the power utility and the associated public outcry. The Eskom board was reconstituted, and with it came the appointment a new and favourably received interim CEO, Johnny Dladla.
The deep crisis that Eskom is embroiled in requires drastic action. The new board must be firm and decisive in dealing with the scandals. The public needs to be convinced that no efforts are being spared in prosecuting those that have done wrong, and in recuperating irregular expenditure.
The power utility continues to be a key enabler of South African economic and social development, and its functionality and effectiveness remains a national imperative. The bulk of Eskom’s employees and the broader public support that goal.
While at this stage not directly compromised in the manner of Eskom, the nuclear industry too is in need of deep introspection. The sector has failed to condemn the irregularities and presidential interference in the nuclear procurement process to date, which saw Russian developer Rosatom allegedly placed in a dominant position over its competitors.
The Western Cape High Court ruling that the Russian nuclear agreement is invalid is viewed in some quarters as merely a speed hump rather than a call to return to the drawing board. NECSA board chair Kelvin Kemm’s defiant pronouncement in Moscow that the nuclear deal will be finalised before year end, probably to Rosatom’s advantage, is the worst thing the nuclear sector could do right now. Whatever the intention, such sabre rattling will merely harden the opposition from a public seemingly skeptical of all things nuclear.
There are respected people working in the nuclear field who genuinely believe that nuclear technology has a role in the future South African energy mix. These nuclear advocates have to now recognise that rehabilitating their sector requires the rebuilding of public trust, and honest attempts to allay concerns about costs, safety and potential corruption associated with new builds.
The renewable energy sector has been riding high on the back of positive international sentiment and the successful implementation of projects from the first three REIPPPP phases. That ride is however about to get much bumpier as the sector runs into opposition from unions and government.
While this opposition is to some degree based on misinformation, possibly planted deliberately, the renewable industry also needs to re-evaluate its tactics. Green hype and crude PR are no longer going to cut it, and current and past mistakes are about to be exploited ruthlessly. As with nuclear, sober engagement and diplomacy are now crucial to take the renewable energy sector forward to its rightful place in South Africa’s energy landscape.

​Source..... EE Publishers

The nuclear build programme will end up costing the South African economy over R3 trillion in debt, according to civil society group Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa).

The organisation released a video this week unpacking the economic impact of the deal. South Africa’s current debt level is at R1.89 trillion and a nuclear deal can escalate this to above R3 trillion.

It is estimated South Africa will have to borrow R1.2 trillion for the deal. “R1 trillion will be enough to build 100 million RDP houses. Two houses for every man, woman and child in the country,” stated the organisation.

The repayments on a R1.2 trillion loan come to R100 billion a year. This will put a dent in government’s budget to supply basic needs such as education, healthcare, social welfare and public transport.

The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research found that nuclear energy is 25% more expensive than new coal and solar power, and 67% more expensive than wind.

Energy analyst Chris Yelland found that new wind, solar power and gas cost R1 per kW and new coal costs between R1.05 and R1.19 per kW. However, a nuclear will cost between R1.30 and R1.52 per kW

Fin24 previously reported that the 9.6 GW nuclear energy programme is expected to cost around R650 billion over its 10-year lifespan. Earlier this month Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson announced that requests for proposals (RFPs) would be released on September 30 2016.

Eight nuclear reactors have already been ordered for the nuclear site in Thyspunt, in the Eastern Cape, according to Outa. Fin24 reported that the country currently has one nuclear power station at Koeberg, in Cape Town. Three or four more stations could be built at Koeberg or Jeffrey’s Bay in the Eastern Cape.

Organisations Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (Safcei), EarthLife Africa (ELA) Johanesburg and Outa are working together to stop the deal.

On Thursday, ELA and Safcei said they are a step closer in their drawn-out court action to have the nuclear deal set aside with the submission of its replying affidavit.

“The next step is to set a court date,” said Safcei spokesperson Liziwe McDaid.

Fin24 previously reported that the 9.6 GW nuclear energy programme is expected to cost around R650 billion over its 10-year lifespan. Earlier this month Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson announced that requests for proposals (RFPs) would be released on September 30 2016.

Eight nuclear reactors have already been ordered for the nuclear site in Thyspunt, in the Eastern Cape, according to Outa. Fin24 reported that the country currently has one nuclear power station at Koeberg, in Cape Town. Three or four more stations could be built at Koeberg or Jeffrey’s Bay in the Eastern Cape.

Organisations Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (Safcei), EarthLife Africa (ELA) Johanesburg and Outa are working together to stop the deal.

On Thursday, ELA and Safcei said they are a step closer in their drawn-out court action to have the nuclear deal set aside with the submission of its replying affidavit.

“The next step is to set a court date,” said Safcei spokesperson Liziwe McDaid.

The two organisations are engaged in legal proceedings against the Department of Energy over agreements signed with Russia’s nuclear firm Rosatom ahead of the official procurement process.

On March 30, the organisations alleged that legal documents in their possession indicate that South Africa did sign a binding nuclear deal with Russia.

They said “the Russian agreement was entered into unlawfully, but makes (an) internationally binding commitment to buy a fleet of nuclear reactors from Russia”.​

​Source....

Cape Town – A court case questioning the legality of the Department of Energy’s (DoE) 9.6GW nuclear procurement programme has caused the department to delay gazetting the request for proposals (RFPs), the Democratic Alliance (DA) said.
The DoE said it plans to gazette the RFPs “early in this financial year”, after missing a deadline it set to finalise the process by 31 March.
“There is a consultation process with key stakeholders (Treasury and the IPP Office) that the DoE has undertaken before issuing the RFPs,” the DoE told Fin24 in a statement on Tuesday.
“This consultation process has not yet been concluded and the DoE will issue the RFP as soon as the process is concluded early in this financial year.”

Read more.....