South Africa’s government is itching to press “go” on another nuclear building plan, less than a decade after former president Jacob Zuma’s conflict-ridden R1.2-trillion nuclear deal with Vladimir Putin’s Russia fell apart.
But the odds of any new nuclear assets going online anytime soon remain slim.
Speaking at a side event around the G20 energy group last week, electricity minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa launched a full-throated argument for South Africa creating new nuclear energy capacity.
“There has been a return to realism, where it is globally accepted that nuclear technology has a huge role to play in the energy mix as a key source to ensure countries achieve their energy security, energy sovereignty and energy justice,” he said.
Expanding South Africa’s nuclear programme would do just this, he said, including allowing the country to “move its economy into a digital era, engage in new research frontiers and take its rightful place among leading nations”.
It’s a controversial opinion, not just for the outsize safety risks that nuclear disasters create. Equally, the potential for kickbacks to suppliers through a procurement programme of this size would give most anti-corruption campaigners sleepless nights.
Ramokgopa told Business Times that the nuclear plan had been “soiled” by governance issues in earlier years – an apparent reference to Zuma’s shadowy deal with Putin – but the government had no doubts about the role nuclear could play. Russia, it seems, would not be excluded from any new tender.
“The nuclear space is confined, so if we were to do a public tender tomorrow, there are [five] countries that will respond – the US, France, South Korea, China and Russia,” he said.
Ramokgopa added granular detail, saying South Africa has targeted spending R60bn on the new nuclear programme, which includes buying mini-reactors, and relying on expertise from Russia and China.
Energy expert Chris Yelland says this talk of imminent nuclear capacity misses the point that building any reactors would take many years.
“Is there a need for nuclear power? Well, there could be, notwithstanding the safety fears, if you want to decarbonise. So, you can’t write it off. But at best, this would be a long-term solution, 10 to 15 years away,” he tells Currency.
Advocates of nuclear energy are far less ambivalent, arguing that there are no other realistic options available.
Shaun Nel, director at DG Energy says South Africa needs a baseload power supply that cannot be provided by renewable energy, which is too unreliable. And given the country’s just energy transition, coal is no longer an option.
“The only viable option to replace coal would be nuclear because of its carbon footprint,” he says. “Because of nuclear’s stability from a baseload perspective, it actually will help further renewables in the country. So, there are other positive spinoffs.”
Nel says that while nuclear is among the most expensive to build, the cost of operating the system after that is relatively low.
Nonetheless, a large-scale nuclear build would be riddled with obstacles.
Kevin Mileham, the DA spokesperson on energy, says nuclear is a viable option – but it’s not the immediate answer to South Africa’s energy needs.
“We’ve got to forward plan between what we currently generate and what we need, and we’ve got to do that in the quickest and most cost-effective way possible. And that is not nuclear and it’s not coal – it’s renewables,” he says.
On this point, Ramokgopa seems distinctly cool, appearing to echo the views of some nuclear proponents who say renewable energy is too variable to be able to create a stable baseload for the country to enable strong GDP growth.
Ramokgopa said last week that the energy transition “cannot simply be about decarbonising the global economy – it must also enable nations to industrialise, create jobs and expand the reach of human development”.
No track record
While Ramokgopa has placed much stock in small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), Yelland says the reality is that these are not commercially available at present for land-based commercial power generation.
“There are about 80 designs for these ‘mini-reactors’ globally, but very few have reached the prototype development stage. And outside of two pilot plants in China there are precisely none in commercial operation globally. So, this is not a proven, available, licenced technology, and nothing to hang our hat on right now,” says Yelland.
Mileham agrees. “I’ve come to realise that they are a bit of a pipe dream. There are only two countries that have operating small modular reactors – China and Russia – but they are not yet commercially available,” he says.
And that’s before you factor in the questions about the costs.
While Ramokgopa last week suggested a R60bn investment would be made in nuclear power, Yelland says this is far below any realistic cost.
“Typically, with an overnight capital cost for nuclear projects at, say, $8,000 per kilowatt, R60bn or $3bn would only get you 375MW, and this excludes owners’ development costs, interest during construction, and cost overruns,” he says.
Needless to say, that’s far below the 10GW Ramokgopa mentioned.
Large nuclear reactors are complicated to build, requiring intense regulatory processes.
When you consider the delays and operational disasters that ensued with building the coal-fired power stations at Medupi and Kusile – a much simpler technology than nuclear – this bodes badly for any large build in South Africa.
The process of building Medupi began in 2007, and it was meant to be finished in 2014. Yet it was only a decade later, in 2024, that the last unit synchronised with the grid. More to the point, while Medupi was originally budgeted to cost R80bn, the final tally come to about R250bn.
Sadly, nuclear plants around the world don’t have a great history on this score.
Nel points to the UK’s bungled Hinkley Point nuclear power station as a horrifying example of cost overruns: the plant, which has been under construction since 2016, is now only likely to be finished by 2031, at a cost of £35bn.
By contrast, Mileham says a utility-scale renewables plant could be assembled within 18 months. If you combine that with the sort of incentives for rooftop solar that countries like Vietnam have, you’re taking a lot of demand off the grid.
Even with South Africa’s smaller tax incentives, 6GW of solar has been installed over the past three years – and it is this power that has largely helped bring an end to crippling load-shedding.
“I’m not worried about safety or the environment when it comes to nuclear – what bothers me is the time it will take to build a nuclear power plant in South Africa and the cost,” says Mileham.
Throw in the opportunity for corruption, and it’s a massive bet that would only pay off one way or another in many, many years.
Sign up to Currency’s weekly newsletters to receive your own bulletin of weekday news and weekend treats. Register here.
