Eskom revives 5 200MW Nuclear 2 plans at Thyspunt as activists warn of threats to squid grounds and coastal communities.
Picture: iStock
A decades-long tussle over a planned nuclear power station at Thyspunt on the Eastern Cape coast has flared up again, pitting Eskom seeking long-term electricity security against environmentalists determined to protect one of South Africa’s most sensitive coastal landscapes.
The latest flashpoint comes after Eskom revealed plans to restart environmental studies for the project, “Nuclear 2”, that could see a new 5 200MW capacity nuclear power plant built at Thyspunt near St Francis Bay, or at Bantamsklip in the Western Cape.
Thyspunt nuclear plans resurface near St Francis Bay
This has since prompted the Thyspunt Alliance, a coalition of residents and environmental activists that successfully challenged earlier nuclear proposals, to raise funds for legal, scientific and environmental scrutiny of the project.
The alliance points out that many of the concerns – including impacts on squid spawning grounds, marine ecosystems, cultural heritage sites, tourism and local communities – that dominated the previous environmental assessments remain unresolved.
A nuclear facility at Thyspunt, the alliance has warned, would turn the area into one of the largest construction sites in the southern hemisphere and place significant pressure on local infrastructure and ecosystems.
The wrangle comes at a time when South Africa is facing a very different energy landscape from the one that existed when the project first surfaced nearly three decades ago.
Several coal-fired power stations are approaching the end of their lifespans, with environmental regulations and maintenance costs continuing to place pressure on coal generation.
According to energy analyst Ruse Moleshe, the debate should no longer focus solely on whether South Africa wants nuclear power, but on what will replace coal.
Will nuclear replace coal?
“South Africa is likely to require additional firm generation capacity over the next two to three decades as ageing coalfired power stations decline,” Moleshe said.
While renewable energy, particularly wind and solar, is expected to continue expanding rapidly, Moleshe said renewable energy alone may not be sufficient to guarantee electricity supply during prolonged periods of low wind and solar generation.
She said unlike renewable technologies, nuclear reactors can operate continuously, providing stable baseload electricity regardless of weather conditions.
South Africa already has experience with nuclear generation through Koeberg Nuclear Power Station near Cape Town.
Moleshe said the industry’s image remained heavily influenced by disasters such as Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011.
However, researchers have found that nuclear power led to significantly fewer deaths per unit of electricity generated than coal-fired generation.
Industry influenced by disasters like Chernobyl
Air pollution from coal-fired power stations has long been linked to respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease and premature deaths in areas such as the Mpumalanga Highveld, where some of the country’s largest power stations are.
“Nuclear energy generally compares more favourably with coal and other fossil fuels than public perception often suggests. Coalfired power is associated with relatively higher long-term health impacts because it emits pollutants linked to respiratory disease, cardiovascular illness and premature deaths,” Moleshe said.
Moleshe said gas was generally cleaner than coal, but it still produced carbon emissions and air pollutants during operation. Nuclear power, by contrast, did not produce air pollution or carbon dioxide during normal operation.
Its main risks relate to radiation safety, severe accidents and long-term waste management.
Serious accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima had major environmental and social consequences, but Moleshe said such events remain relatively rare compared with the scale of global nuclear generation over several decades.
Yet, safety may not be the biggest obstacle facing a new nuclear programme.
Nuclear deal
Moleshe said the more pressing concern was cost as large nuclear projects around the world have become notorious for construction delays and budget overruns.
SA’s own nuclear ambitions during former president Jacob Zuma’s administration was tarnished by controversy when a proposed multibillion-rand Russian nuclear procurement deal triggered allegations of secrecy and corruption.
In 2014, Zuma’s administration signed a deal with Russia to pave the way for state-owned nuclear company Rosatom to build up to 9.6GW of nuclear generating capacity.
The deal, estimated to cost as much as R1 trillion, sparked concerns over affordability, transparency and the potential burden of long-term debt on the country’s finances.
The project was ultimately canned in 2017 when the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town ruled that key procurement decisions and international agreements of the programme were unconstitutional and unlawful.
