Without doubting the intentions of the writer, your article comparing the costs of energy makes some misleading statements (“Renewables-led energy mix in SA will be cheaper than nuclear, study shows”, June 19).
While I fully support renewables, saying that including nuclear power with coal amounts to “locking SA into a high carbon, high cost and high risk energy future” is incorrect, especially regarding environmental impact. Large-scale onshore solar and wind farms might be green, but they can blight the landscape spectacularly.
When the wind doesn’t blow or the sun shine, they lack reliability, whereas nuclear stations have a design life of 50 years during which everything will change around them, including price expectations.
The writers make much about whether the generation cost will be R1 per kWh or R1.50 or R1.60. Is that such a big deal for a consistent, reliable supply? Nothing lasts forever and that includes solar panels, wind turbines and batteries.
I don’t hear much about how they will be recycled or what happens after the rare earths needed for their manufacture run out.
Bernard Benson
Parklands
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businesslive.co.za. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
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.