South Africa\u2019s nuclear procurement programme will officially begin on September 30, amid a court case against the process and as rating agencies watch the country\u2019s spending plans.<\/p>\n
Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson announced the latest milestone in Parliament on Wednesday, when asked for an update on the controversial 9.6 GW nuclear new build programme.<\/p>\n
South Africa currently has one nuclear power station \u2013 Koeberg in Cape Town \u2013 and this programme would effectively see another three or four power stations built either near Koeberg or near Jeffrey\u2019s Bay in the Eastern Cape.<\/p>\n
Joemat-Pettersson told Parliament that the Department of Energy would release its request for proposals on September 30, which would \u201ctest the market\u201d.<\/p>\n
It had originally planned to release this process at the end of March, after Cabinet published a Gazette in December 2015 to allow the process to proceed.<\/p>\n
Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (Safcei) and Earthlife Africa are engaged in legal proceedings against the Department of Energy over agreements signed with Russia\u2019s nuclear firm Rosatom ahead of the official procurement process.<\/p>\n
Legal documents indicate that South Africa did sign a nuclear deal with Russia, the group claims. They said \u201cthe Russian agreement was entered into unlawfully, but makes (an) internationally binding commitment to buy a fleet of nuclear reactors from Russia\u201d.<\/p>\n
“We from Safcei and in civil society have been trying to communicate with government for years about the best way ahead for South Africa\u2019s energy future,” Safcei’s Bishop Geoff Davies told Fin24 on Thursday.<\/p>\n
“We have clear evidence that nuclear is now the most expensive and unwise form of energy, particularly in South Africa with the best of renewable energy resources in the world.<\/p>\n
“For more than five years, our letters to President Jacob Zuma have been unanswered and unacknowledged. We are deeply suspicious of the motives behind the government\u2019s commitment to nuclear energy.”<\/p>\n
Joemat-Pettersson\u2019s announcement of the release of the request for proposals is \u201cill advised\u201d, Gordon Mackay, the Democratic Alliance spokesperson on energy, told Fin24 on Thursday.<\/p>\n
He cited the above case of \u201cprocedural irregularity\u201d, which is currently before the high court in the Western Cape. In addition, he said it was worrying as South Africa \u201centers the so-called ratings season, which will determine SA’s credit rating come year end\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe move by the minister will surely undermine attempts by National Treasury to bolster confidence and maintain a stable credit rating.\u201d<\/p>\n
These issues would be made clearer if the Department of Energy updated its Integrated Resource Plan \u2013 which has not been published since 2010. It should be published every two years.<\/p>\n
Professor Anton Eberhard, who advises government on energy policy, said the programme will be an unnecessary financial burden in the country.<\/p>\n
He has called for the power sector to be restructured, with a focus on independent power producers that includes renewables energy.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe need to follow best international practice by separating state-owned power generation from transmission and system operations, so that the latter can procure and dispatch both state and private power in a fair and transparent manner,\u201d he told Fin24 recently.<\/p>\n
Fin24<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n The true cost of nuclear power in South Africa<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n South Africa can\u2019t afford nuclear build on top of Medupi<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n The case for nuclear energy in South Africa<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nMore on South Africa’s nuclear plans<\/h3>\n