Include the "nuclear" important in the electricity mix of South Africa, says the joint committee

The Energy Portfolio Committee has stated strong support for the inclusion of nuclear energy in South Africa's future energy mix.

This contrasts sharply with the government's latest plan regarding South Africa's future energy mix – the draft Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRP) 2018 – which does not contain nuclear energy because of its high cost.

In a report sent Wednesday to the Ministry of Energy, the Energy Portfolio Committee recommended to the IRP to "make it clear that coal and nuclear will remain important elements of the energy mix of the country." South Africa ".

The PRI project, based on a "least cost" scenario for South Africa's future energy mix, excluded the high cost of nuclear energy – at least until 2030.

However, the Energy Committee says in its report: "There is no compelling argument to counter the proposition that nuclear technology remains the cleanest, safest and most secure technology. , in the long run, the cheapest. "

Nuclear is no longer competitive

Asked to comment, Professor Harald Winkler, director of the UCT Energy Research Center, said that along with all credible modeling in South Africa – and on the African continent – the draft PRI had excluded nuclear power and new coal power plants from the "cheaper" electricity plan. .

"Nuclear is no more competitive, nor is coal," Winkler said.

The interim EPI of the Ministry of Energy considers renewable energies and gas as the least expensive energy mix for new power plants.

The committee drafted its report after holding public hearings in October on the PRI project.

The UCT Energy Research Center was part of the public submissions and had provided evidence based research.

The parliamentary committee process was separate from the Ministry of Energy process, which invited the public to submit written comments on the PRI project by October 26th.

The IRP should be finalized early next year.

Critical

The commission's report provoked criticism for seeming to take for granted the information provided by the lobbies and for a bias towards coal and nuclear power.

Liz McDaid of the SA Faith Communities Environmental Institute (Safcei) said she had submitted to the committee a report written by an international energy policy expert who had provided factual evidence, particularly of the high cost of nuclear in the world. She said that it was impossible for the committee to claim that nuclear costs the least, based on evidence.

"I hope that the DoE will review the committee's report based on its content and not on the wishes of the politicians, who are the same members who oversaw the nuclear deal. a chance to act in the public interest, but they failed, "McDaid said. I said.

The nuclear deal with Russia and other countries, approved by Parliament, was declared illegal in 2017 by the Western Cape High Court and overturned.

Richard Halsey of the 90×2030 project, who made presentations, described as "absurd" the report's statement that nuclear was the cheapest in the long run.

"They have to explain that this is an opinion, and not representative of public hearings." The way MPs addressed the subject revealed a fundamental bias for coal and nuclear, "Halsey said.

The CSIR, which also submitted proposals to the portfolio committee, told MPs that the CSIR and the Ministry of Energy models supported renewable energies, with gas being the cheapest option for production of electricity.

CSIR, like the DoE, said neither nuclear nor coal were "optimal cost solutions".

Brenda Martin, CEO of SA Wind Energy Association, said the committee's report did not find that the renewable energy sector was "four times more intensive in employment" than the coal or nuclear sector. .

The preliminary IRP includes 1,000 MW of new coal-fired power plants, to be built by the private sector under the government's Independent Producers & # 39; Producer & # 39; (PPI).

Promote pressure groups

Robyn Hugo, a lawyer with the Center for Environmental Rights, who objected to the inclusion of new coal plants in the PRI project, said her opposition was based on studies that badessed the benefits of coal-fired power plants. compared to alternative solutions.

"But the committee seems to have chosen to favor the views of lobbyists, including a coal technology provider to one of the coal's electricity producers, and their unverified claims about creation. jobs, in order to support the inclusion in the PRI of these useless and expensive facilities that will increase electricity costs by 23 billion rand and more, said Hugo.

However, the report was supported by many recommendations, including that the integrated plan of action should be finalized during this exercise to strengthen political certainty; that the IORP should be reviewed every two years; that the integrated energy plan and the gas utilization master plan be accelerated; that the IRP focuses more on the development of local industries and remains flexible in order to be able to respond to new technologies in a rapidly changing energy environment; and that it integrates local government into the IRP planning process and increases the allocation for integrated solar power generation from 200 MW to at least 500 MW.

Many people who submitted briefs to the committee said in their presentations that it was necessary to ensure that the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies is "a just transition" in order to reduce the impact on the coal sector and the mining towns. . This would include the recycling of coal workers so that they can be employed in the renewable energy sector.

The committee recommended in its report that the DoE hold a "national dialogue on the right energy transition", which should focus on the communities that will be affected by the abandonment of coal.

He also recommended that Energy Minister Jeff Radebe convene an energy summit to discuss South Africa's energy future.

* Sign up for the latest Fin24 news in your inbox: SUBSCRIBE TO FIN24 NEWSLETTER