Evidence against nuclear raises doubt about process

MINISTER of Energy Tina Joemat-Pettersson’s recent announcement that the nuclear procurement process will start at the end of September is yet another indication that the national government is not serious about our country’s future economic and energy security.

Her announcement follows Eskom chairman Brian Molefe’s letter to her department in which he expressed the power utility’s reluctance to sign any further power-purchasing agreements with renewable energy independent power producers, despite this highly successful programme attracting R194bn in investment and procuring more than 6000MW

Both these decisions threaten the growth of the renewable energy sector, which is critical to tackling rising energy demand and moving towards a carbon-free economy. We are already seeing the consequences.

Last year I attended the opening of the SMA Solar Technology factory in Cape Town, which manufactures energy inverters for rooftop photo-voltaic power. Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry Mzwandile Masina, who attended the event, was quoted as saying: “This is the third renewableenergy component manufacturing facility opening in a short space of time and is testament to the growing importance of the green economy in general and the renewable energy industry in particular.”

Just more than a year later, the factory has closed, with the company indicating it is largely because of a lack of commitment from the national government to create a sustainable business environment and promote foreign investment in the renewable energy sector.

Joemat-Pettersson claims the independent power producers programme continues to form an important part of the national energy mix, but that her department will go ahead with the nuclear procurement process in the absence of an updated integrated resource plan suggests she is speaking with a forked tongue.

The integrated resource plan sets out SA’s anticipated long-term electricity demand and stipulates the generation capacity and energy mix that is required to support it. The plan is meant to be updated every two years. However, the last plan issued was in 2010. This plan is completely outdated, yet it appears to be the basis for the government’s decisions regarding the nuclear-build programme.

Processes around nuclear have lacked the reason, transparency, legality and impartiality that should be inherent in a major procurement process in a constitutional democracy. Instead, it has been laden with rumours of secret meetings and agreements, an avoidance of public consultation and participation, a disregard for industry expert opinions and the removal of government officials who question the nuclear deal decision. The Department of Energy and Eskom are supporting nuclear as a crucial part of the country’s future energy landscape in the absence of any documented business case that is publicly available and independently verifiable.

Their insistence on nuclear being a cheaper option to renewable energy seems to be based on a misleading comparison between the costs of first-generation independent power producers, (which have since fallen drastically and become much more competitive) and the operating costs of Koeberg — which was built more than three decades ago, and should be considerably cheaper than new-generation nuclear power plants.

Much work in this field shows the opposite is true. A study by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) found that the (levelised) cost of electricity from nuclear power is 25% more expensive than new coal or solar photovoltaic, and 67% more expensive than wind.

Eskom also argues that the variable nature of wind energy and day-time dependence of solar energy means that we need reliable base-load energy derived from nuclear. However, they have failed to talk about natural gas and how it is perfectly suited to provide this base-load power, bringing the advantages of “just-in-time” production to the energy sector.

The CSIR has also calculated that a combination of renewables and gas is by far a cheaper option.

Furthermore, an unreleased 2013 draft of the integrated resource plan concluded that we should not proceed with new nuclear build. Instead, it suggested that the nuclear programme be delayed until 2035, and that it should be abandoned should the costs exceed $6500KW. The question is: Why was this draft kept under wraps? Had the decision to proceed with nuclear already been taken despite the growing body of evidence against it?

There are serious questions about the rationality of the stance on nuclear taken by Eskom and the Department of Energy. And our constitution requires rational decisionmaking from the government.

Without an updated integrated resource plan that provides an authoritative assessment of the relative cost of each of the available energy technologies, Joemat-Pettersson must provide answers on how her department has decided to proceed with the considerable investment in nuclear, and why the procurement process kicking off at the end of the month precedes the finalisation of the plan (it is now meant to be released in December), which should serve as the main decision-making tool.

Of even graver concern is President Jacob Zuma’s personal involvement in the nuclear procurement process. His determination to force the nuclear deal through even in the glaring absence of adequate evidence to support it raises suspicions about his motives, as do unanswered questions about how SA will afford this investment, which at an estimated maximum cost of R1.6-trillion is equivalent to the 2015 national budget.

SA cannot afford to pursue an expensive nuclear programme while ignoring the advantages of renewable technologies combined with natural gas. It is a five-fold win: lower carbon emissions, competitive electricity prices, more foreign investment, more industrialisation and local jobs with no government funding required.

This is the energy future the Western Cape government is pursuing. We have prioritised energy security and are implementing our plan to achieve this. Our goal is to ensure energy security that supports economic growth in the Western Cape and SA as a whole, incorporating diverse and lowcarbon sources of energy and improving energy efficiency by 2020.

We aim to achieve a 10% reduction in demand from Eskom by changing energy usage and sources.

We are facilitating investments in utilityscale renewables; encouraging energy efficiency in households and businesses; promoting rooftop solar photovoltaic installations and are aggressively pursuing the importation of natural gas. The provincial government has assisted more than half the municipalities in the Western Cape to put in place the legal frameworks and tariffs for rooftop photovoltaic, making distributed generation a reality.

Why was this draft kept under wraps? Had the decision to proceed with nuclear already been taken?

■

Zille is Western Cape premier.