Any decision to pursue a 2,500MW nuclear build will likely be seen as irrational and unreasonable if tested in court, the National Energy Regulator of SA (Nersa) heard on Tuesday.
Should the regulator be given the green light for a nuclear build, it would lead to “severe legal complications”, Anton van Dalsen, legal counsellor for the Helen Suzman Foundation, warned Nersa.
The regulator concluded the first of a two-day public hearing on the concurrence with a ministerial determination for the procurement of 2,500MW new power generation capacity from nuclear.
Nuclear power in SA has been mired in controversy for many years since a mega-build of 9,600MW was aggressively pursued under former president Jacob Zuma, despite cost estimates ranging up to R1-trillion. Attempts to push through the procurement of nuclear power were ultimately declared unlawful by the high court in 2017.
The 2,500MW of nuclear is not allocated for in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2019, SA’s electricity infrastructure development road map that guides the regulator in its licensing of new power projects. Under the heading “Decision 8”, the plan does however mention the need to “commence preparations” for such a nuclear build at an affordable pace and scale “because it is a no-regret option in the long term”.
Mineral resources & energy minister Gwede Mantashe last year signed a ministerial determination for the procurement of nuclear power. To be gazetted, the determination requires concurrence from Nersa. The public hearings form part of Nersa’s consultation process, which will inform its decision on whether to concur with the determination.
Van Dalsen said the foundation, which promotes liberal constitutional democracy, is not advocating for or against nuclear as a technology. The sole justification for pursuing the build, that it is a “no-regret option”, without offering any explanation about why, and despite nuclear being “massively more expensive” than alternative technologies, is inadequate, he said.
Absolutely necessary
“The defects and omission of Decision 8 of the IRP and the subsequent determination must be brought to the minister’s attention … these defects and omissions are obvious and of a major nature and it can therefore be expected that an approval of the ministerial approval by Nersa will be seen by a court as irrational and unreasonable in any potential legal proceeding,” Van Dalsen said.
Zizamele Mbambo, deputy director-general in the department of mineral resources & energy responsible for nuclear energy, said because of the long lead times of about 10 years to build nuclear it is “absolutely necessary” for preparations to begin so that it can fill SA’s anticipated baseload power gap post 2030. The IRP only plans up until 2030, he said.
Mbambo said nuclear provides the lowest cost and clean electricity. He said that the only way to know the true costs and timelines of a nuclear build is to proceed with a commercially binding call for bids from the market.
Nuclear is by far the cheapest power-generation option, David Nicholls, chair of the SA National Energy Corporation (Necsa), Wits professor Simon Connell and others said in their submissions.
This was countered by civil society groups such as the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (Safcei), which estimated the cost would be as high as R330bn.
The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research presented its research findings that 2,500MW of nuclear would add R3.8-R4bn a year over the next 30 years, compared with a “least cost” energy portfolio, which simply favours the cheapest power-generation options.
Liziwe McDaid of the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) said the IRP follows a scientific modelling process to ensure SA does not waste money on something that becomes obsolete in a few years.
“A slow and steady review of the IRP is a good way to make decisions,” she said.
Beyond the potential cost and concerns over transparency, SA’s poor track record in executing large projects was highlighted as a risk of a nuclear build.
Asked about SA’s ability to execute such a large project, Mbambo pointed to the long-delayed and over-budget Medupi and Kusile power stations, which have financially ruined Eskom, as evidence that the country has experience that “empowers SA to execute projects of this magnitude”.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.