The Albany Gazette - South Africa Nuclear Consultation Denies Predetermined Decision Amid R500-billion Cost Debate

The Department of Electricity and Energy has categorically denied allegations that its ongoing public consultation on a new 5.2GW nuclear energy program is a "charade," following sharp criticism from energy analysts who argue the government has already made up its mind. The denial came during an EE Business Intelligence webinar, where Zizamele Mbambo, the department’s deputy director-general for nuclear energy, defended the integrity of the process against claims that Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa had predetermined the outcome.

The controversy stems from comments made by long-time nuclear critic Chris Yelland, who suggested during the webinar that the consultation was merely a formality. Yelland pointed to statements Ramokgopa made two days earlier at the Nuclear and Clean Energy Conference, where the minister declared, "We are going to build nuclear in this country. Take us to court." Ramokgopa had also indicated that publishing a formal case for nuclear development was necessary to streamline potential litigation, stating it would make it "very easy for the judges to resolve" any legal challenges.

Responding to Yelland’s assertion that the decision was already made in the minister’s mind, Mbambo stated firmly, "I must put it categorically that this is not a charade. There is no predetermined decision that has been made." He assured attendees that the process was being conducted in good faith and that the minister remained determined to consider public input before finalizing any decisions.

Mbambo outlined the department’s timeline for the consultation process, noting that Ramokgopa intends to publish his intention to make a section 34 determination under the Electricity Regulation Act by the end of November. This will be followed by a 60-day comment period and subsequent provincial roadshows. A final decision is scheduled for April 2027, although Ramokgopa’s prepared speech indicates that consulting with the energy regulator Nersa and the finance minister sets an outer bound of June 2027.

The proposed 5.2GW capacity represents the first phase of a potential program that could expand to 10GW, a scale Mbambo argued is necessary to justify the development of local nuclear fuel cycle facilities. He described nuclear technologies as providing "reliable baseload power whilst complementing intermittent renewable energy generation and energy storage." Eskom has already submitted a feasibility report, with an indicative roadmap placing the first new unit online in 2036.

Despite these assurances, skepticism remains high among experts and former officials regarding the project's financial and technical viability. Rob Adam, former CEO of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa), provided a stark cost estimate for the initial phase. Adam calculated that building 5.2GW at a low international benchmark of US$6,000 per kilowatt ($31.2-billion) would result in a total cost exceeding R500-billion.

Adam further challenged the government’s industrial localization ambitions, describing the push for a local fuel cycle as "a bit of a red herring" because the primary economic value lies in building reactors rather than producing fuel. He noted that localizing 20% of the project would require R100-billion in work, necessitating R30-billion or more in guarantees. This figure, Adam pointed out, is twice the market capitalization of South Africa’s entire listed construction industry. "Some of us who push localisation should sober up a little bit," he said.

Adam also expressed skepticism about the revived pebble bed modular reactor technology, noting that every energy minister since 2010 has announced its revival without tangible results. "It’s almost like saying all protocols observed," he remarked. He proposed an alternative model involving building, owning, operating, and transferring the facility to vendors, thereby sharing financial risk to avoid a repeat of the collapsed 2008 tender.

The debate also extended to the government’s advisory structures. Yelland pressed Mbambo on the expert panel Ramokgopa announced in September 2024 to advise on the pace and scale of nuclear development. While Mbambo confirmed the panel had been appointed and had advised the minister, he noted its term had expired. Adam revealed he had been consulted only once and attended a single meeting.

The panel’s chairman, North-West University vice-chancellor Bismark Tyobeka, was named in July 2025 and had previously hailed the government’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) as "bold" and "progressive." However, Yelland noted that the panel’s full membership and advice have never been made public, suggesting he may lodge a Promotion of Access to Information Act request.

Further criticism came from Grové Steyn, managing director of Meridian Economics, who clarified that the reference case in the 2025 IRP builds no new nuclear. Regarding the final "balanced plan," Steyn stated, "Let me be 100% clear about this. It is not the result of modelling analysis." He highlighted that Koeberg nuclear plant had run both units for only about a third of the hours since April 2017 and noted that megaprojects typically overrun budgets by 120% or more.

Sonwabo Damba, a department energy planning specialist, rejected suggestions that modellers had been pressured, citing independent peer review. He argued that while the balanced plan "may not necessarily be the cheapest plan," it best addresses security of supply, cost, and emissions. The IRP’s nuclear scenario calls for more than 15GW by 2050, with the initial 5.2GW comprising about a third of that long-range target.

Prudence Madiba, CEO of the South African National Energy Development Institute, addressed concerns about integrating nuclear with renewables. She pointed to the risk that planned gas infrastructure might not materialize as coal stations close, emphasizing that Koeberg’s performance proves nuclear can provide stable baseload power. However, Stellenbosch University’s Mark Swilling criticized Madiba, Damba, and Mbambo for responding to reasoned arguments by asserting requirements without logical substantiation.

Environmental concerns were also raised by Makoma Lekalakala, director of Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, who warned of impacts on biodiversity, water, tourism, and fishing livelihoods around Thyspunt in the Eastern Cape, one of Eskom’s chosen sites. Along with Liz McDaid of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute, Lekalakala led a 2017 court challenge that set aside South Africa’s nuclear agreements with Russia, the US, and South Korea. "Nuclear is not clean. Nuclear is dirty. Nuclear is dangerous," Lekalakala said, adding that the fuel chain from mining to construction is carbon intensive.

Adam pushed back against these environmental characterizations, stating, "If you replace a coal-fired power station with a nuclear power station, you obviously decarbonise." As the consultation process moves forward, Yelland told Mbambo he took his word for the good faith of the process but warned, "We’re going to hold you to it."

(A.Johnson--TAG)