We will still be better off with renewableenergy
BUSINESS Report’s article “SA deal with Moscow almost a certainty” by Sechaba ka’Nkosi, July 13, 2015, refers. Sechaba ka’Nkosi writes: “The deal that is expected to cost South Africa more than R1.2 trillion will see Russia build South African nuclear power plants to alleviate the electricity crisis in the country”, and “South Africa put a six-month deadline to award the contracts”.
Firstly, had he informed himself of the facts concerning the first process to be completed before the get-go he would know that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been returned twice by civil society by exposing “fatal flaws” in some specialist studies.
A host of excuses and delays has kept the third Revised Draft EIA from seeing the light for almost four years. The release, now expected next month, may trigger a response period and another Public Participation round before the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) gets to assess it.
Even in the unlikely event of the DEA handing down a positive Record of Decision we can fully expect a lengthy judicial appeal process to follow. As it appears that South Africa is to be ruled by the courts and that it has willing and able citizens who are determined to exhaust all remedies, this is going to be a long haul.
Therefore it is doubtful if the current administration will still be around when these processes are complete.
Secondly, it is quite clear that South Africa cannot afford R1.2 trillion for nuclear reactors, so the Russians et-al would be “lending” us the money, as did the EU/IEC bankers for Greece, with us citizens taking the geo-political and financial risks much as the Greek people have done, with the possibility of similar results.
The Russians would also be coming after uranium where the Guptas and Zumas have invested and intend to ramp up the whole mining and fuel cycle chain.
The rapid price decline for renewable technology can be seen locally. The total megawatt value of bids submitted in bid window three was oversubscribed, 6 023 megawatt offered against 1 473MW opened.
Aggressive price decreases were seen across all the technologies with an average of 74c/kWh achieved for wind, down from R1.14/kWh in window one; 99c/kWh for solar photovoltaic, down from R2.75/kWh in window one; and R1.64/kWh for concentrated solar power (CSP), down from R2.69/kWh in window one. Independent Power Producers equal speed and efficiency and risk their own, not taxpayers’ money.
Eskom’s revelations that electricity from Medupi could come in at an estimated 97c/kWh suggests South Africa can have better value from renewable technologies such as wind and solar. You can bet that was an optimistic estimate considering that they are not near finished yet.
Thirdly, If Mr Mbambo, the chief executive of the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa is serious about creating “immense employment opportunities” he is flogging a dead horse, as nuclear is at the bottom of the barrel with about 500 permanent jobs per reactor, which comes to 4 000 (8 off VVER1 200 reactors)
Agama Energy’s 2003 study into the employment potential in SA’s Renewable Energy Technology (RET) found that if we generate just 15 percent of total electricity use by 2020 using RETs it will create 36 400 new direct jobs, without taking jobs away from coal-based electricity.
Also 1.2 million direct and indirect jobs would be generated if a portion of South Africa’s total energy needs, including fuels, were sourced with RETs by 2020.
Why should we ignore the untested, sub-standard Russian technology (compared with the Evolutionary Power Reactor) and attendant geo-political, financial, health and environmental risks and low provision of jobs for South African citizens, when compared with modern renewable technologies. We cannot get away from, or ignore, the high cost we would pay for the electricity and the high risk profile of this murky voetstoots deal.
On June 24 Megan Darby wrote: “Climate campaigners won a court case against Dutch government, (where) judges ruled (that) the Netherlands should deepen emissions cuts to at least 25 percent by 2020”.
Why don’t we? What is our legacy to be? R ANDERSON I&AP SAVE BANTAMSKLIP technology. However, he states that of these, six were in financial institutions. I would think input from financial institutions would be imperative to determine whether a project is financially feasible before progressing further.
Secondly, has an in-depth feasibility study been concluded? One only sees approximations. Unfortunately, given the government’s track record re handling state money (eg Arms deal, Nkandla), corruption and debatable management competencies (eg Eskom, Post Office, Health, Police, Immigration), the perception is that the overall cost to the taxpayer would grow exponentially by the time the project is completed. These facts must be taken into account.