Civil society launches legal challenge against South African government’s plans for new nuclear energy

Hot off the heels of their recent solidarity visit to Kenya, the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI) and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg are wrapping-up a tour of South Africa, with the support of Russian environmentalist Vladimir Slivyak. The group has been engaging communities about the dangers of nuclear, while garnering support for their application, filed at the High Court, to stop government’s recent nuclear energy procurement plans, to ensure procedurally fair processes. The eco-justice organisations – that mobilised South Africa to stop the unconstitutional R1-trillion nuclear deal with Russia in 2017 – are ramping up their campaign to stop nuclear energy in the country, promoting more sustainable and renewable solutions, which are more aligned to a just transition.

SAFCEI and Earthlife Africa seek to review and set aside the Minister of Electricity's controversial Section 34 determination to procure 2,500 MW of new nuclear energy capacity. The organisations argue that the determination is unlawful and unconstitutional because the process has, thus far, been procedurally unfair.

“The exorbitant costs and lengthy build time (likely to be more than a decade) that are associated with nuclear energy projects will divert funds away from essential public services like healthcare, education, housing, and infrastructure development – all these services are already suffering drastically. And what about how this decision could affect the cost of living? South Africans are already having to deal with double digit annual increases in the cost of electricity. It makes no sense to pour hundreds of billions of Rands into new nuclear energy that will do nothing to address our current energy crisis while other, more affordable and quicker to install energy solutions are available”, says Francesca de Gasparis, SAFCEI.

In September 2021, following an initial public consultation process earlier in the year, the National Energy Regulator (NERSA) gave a conditional concurrence with a draft nuclear determination signed by the Minister of Energy in March 2020. This means its decision was ‘subject to’ a number of suspensive conditions. These conditions required the Minister of Energy to provide further information to show that the build was affordable, that technological developments were taken into account, and that 2500 MW of new nuclear electricity generation capacity was rational. This requires an energy demand analysis to inform the energy mix required to meet the envisaged demand, and to assist in determining the required capacity and scale of nuclear procurement. If not met, then NERSA has not concurred with the determination for more nuclear energy.

Earthlife Africa’s Makoma Lekalakala says, “The last integrated energy plan, IRP2019, included a policy ‘decision’ to commence preparations for a 2,500 MW nuclear build programme at an affordable pace and scale. It did not include new nuclear capacity as part of the least-cost electricity generation mix for the 2030 planning horizon. While the recently gazetted draft IRP2023 proposes even more extensive nuclear capacity additions by 2050, totalling 14,500 MW, potentially surpassing former President Jacob Zuma's disastrous 9,600 MW nuclear build programme that was declared illegal and unconstitutional by courts in 2017.”

SAFCEI and Earthlife submitted detailed representations to NERSA during the public consultation process, raising critical issues that are supported by an expert report. This includes the huge, anticipated cost of the nuclear build programme, estimated at R330 billion. The Department of Minerals and Energy (DMRE) eventually submitted a report in purported satisfaction of the suspensive conditions in July 2023, which NERSA accepted. However, despite its conditional concurrence, NERSA has subsequently refused to provide the organisations (and the public) with information about its concurrence or an opportunity to make further representations when the Minister of Energy apparently had met the suspensive conditions.

“NERSA’s failure to make the DMRE’s report available to the public for further comment, was procedurally unfair. Furthermore, we believe the issue was muddied further when the Minister of Electricity published the Minister of Energy’s 2020 determination because, previously, in March 2023, the power to make such determinations was transferred from the Minister of Energy to the Minister of Electricity. In our opinion, then, no determination has been made that new nuclear generation capacity was needed, as required by the empowering legislation. The evidence submitted by the DMRE that NERSA has purported satisfied the suspensive conditions,” says de Gasparis.

Both organisations agree that the risks associated with nuclear energy, including potential nuclear accidents and environmental contamination, are significant and that South Africa, with its history of environmental issues and limited disaster management infrastructure, is not well-equipped to handle these risks. In the event of a severe accident, the consequences could be devastating for both people and the environment.

Lekalakala says, “Then there is the issue of radioactive waste, and especially high-level radioactive waste. The reality is, there are currently no solutions for permanently disposing of this highly toxic material. And if we add more nuclear, this means even more harmful waste that we don’t know what to do with and which poses a huge health threat to current and future generations. Catastrophic nuclear accidents or mishandling of radioactive waste can have severe environmental and health consequences. Contamination of land and water sources can disrupt local ecosystems and compromise the safety of food and water supplies. Health issues arising from radiation exposure can place additional pressure on healthcare services, which may already be under-resourced and overburdened.”

According to Russian environmentalist Vladimir Slivyak of Ecodefense, who was instrumental in exposing the unsavoury details of the ‘secret’ nuclear deal in 2014 and who has seen the devastation that comes with nuclear, “It is a huge concern that Africa still welcomes nuclear technology, even with all the facts available about the huge capital costs of a nuclear build programme, and the risk of disaster in the event of a catastrophic accident. And it is interesting because this outdated technology is being rejected almost everywhere else as people realise that nuclear power doesn't really work, in the long run.”

Slivyak says, “The funds required to kickstart a new nuclear build, I believe, would be better invested in more cost-effective and sustainable energy solutions like solar and wind farms (with battery storage), which can be developed and brought online much quicker. This will better serve South Africa’s urgent need for electricity that can be generated almost anywhere, at a more affordable cost and while simultaneously combating climate change. Even the small reactors that have been touted here, all evidence suggests that electricity from these will be way more expensive than from renewables.”

SAFCEI and Earthlife Africa stand firm in their opposition to nuclear energy, citing its financial, environmental, and social risks. They call on government to prioritise transparent and inclusive decision-making processes, ensuring that civil society voices are heard and considered. With viable, sustainable, and cost-effective alternatives like solar and wind energy available, the organisations urge a shift towards renewable energy solutions that benefit all South Africans, safeguarding the nation's future and upholding the principles of transparency, accountability and public involvement. Now, more than ever – because climate change is becoming more and more evident – it is crucial for government to rethink its nuclear ambitions and align with the growing global movement towards greener, safer renewable energy.

SAFCEI and Earthlife Africa also comment on the NNR’s recent announcement:

Earthlife Africa JHB Director, Makoma Lekalakala says, “It is very surprising that the Nuclear Regulator has approved the Koeberg life term operation application. This comes before the International Atomic Agency has had a chance to confirm that they have fulfilled and successfully complied with the recommendations that they had been given. If the National Nuclear Regulator was really a regulator, they would have taken into consideration the health aspects, and the dangers Koeberg poses - that the public is sometimes not made aware of. They should have used all these as a deterrent for them to approve the life term operation application.”

Francesca de Gasparis of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI) says, “We have just heard the news that the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) has granted Koeberg an extension of its licence for Unit 1. If the NNR had taken into account – which we do not believe they have – all the comments from the public and experts into their decision-making, if they had listened to the fact that so many important safety documents are out of date, and if they had heard about the safety concerns about really important functional aspects of Koeberg that have not been updated, they never would have granted this licence.”

“We are extremely disappointed in the NNR, as we do not believe – with these kinds of governance decisions – that they are playing their regulatory role correctly. From our perspective, as an environmental watchdog – we believe that this decision was based on inadequate information and coupled with inadequate time for proper, meaningful public consultation, in terms of the quality and the load of information that was provided. We will be looking at this matter further,” adds de Gasparis.

While nuclear energy presents significant challenges and risks, renewable energy sources offer a more viable, safe, and economically beneficial path for South Africa’s energy future, aligning with the principles of a just transition. Here are five reasons to promote renewables and reject nuclear energy:

Costs and Development Time: Nuclear energy projects require substantial initial financial investment and, with the long construction timelines (often extending beyond a decade), can be a massive burden to the economy. This makes nuclear much less viable when compared to renewable energy projects that are significantly cheaper and can be deployed in a matter of months.

Safety: The potential for catastrophic nuclear accidents, as seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima, poses significant safety concerns, especially since South Africa’s current infrastructure and emergency response systems may not be able to adequately manage these risks. Renewables, on the other hand, pose minimal safety risks – no catastrophic failures or meltdowns, and no hazardous waste.

Waste: Nuclear reactors produce long-lived radioactive waste, which requires secure, long-term storage solutions. Currently, there are no long-term storage or disposal solutions available for high level radioactive waste. On the other hand, renewables produce little to no greenhouse gas emissions and instead, offer a sustainable and environmentally friendly energy solution.

Dependence on Imported Technology and Fuel: Nuclear energy is heavily dependent on imported technology and expertise, and enriched uranium, and is susceptible to international market fluctuations. With renewables, South Africa can harness abundant sun and wind (supported by battery storage), to promote energy independence and long-term sustainability.

Job Creation: The renewable energy sector can stimulate local economies and promote inclusive growth, by creating numerous jobs across various skill levels, from manufacturing and installation to maintenance and operations, while the nuclear sector mostly needs highly specialized skills, which does not support broad-based economic development or job creation.