by Kwame Amuah
Eskom's plan to extend Koeberg nuclear power station's life by 20 years is misguided and risky, with South Africa's lack of maintenance technicians resulting in continued reliance on French company Framatome (formerly Areva), for maintenance and overhaul, an unsustainable dependence on foreign expertise and technology.
South Africa’s uranium enrichment capability was developed in the 1970s and 1980s as part of the country’s nuclear weapons programme, codenamed “Savanna”.
Although the nuclear weapons programme was dismantled in the 1990s, the knowledge and infrastructure gained during that period remain.
The Valindaba facility was capable of producing highly enriched uranium (HEU) using a gas centrifuge process.
Instead of leveraging this expertise and infrastructure, South Africa continues to rely on importing nuclear fuel from France, adding to the financial burden and perpetuating a reliance on foreign technology.
By reviving and adapting the enrichment capability, South Africa could reduce its reliance on imports, create jobs, stimulate local economic growth, develop a domestic nuclear industry, reduce reliance on foreign companies, enhance energy security, and independence.
The cancelled Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) programme led to significant advancements in fuel cell technology, which could be used in future nuclear reactors to provide a cleaner and more efficient source of energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate climate change, and create new economic opportunities and industries.
New generation reactors are cheaper to build and operate than extending Koeberg's life, offering improved safety features, increased efficiency, reduced fuel consumption and waste production, and enhanced waste management, minimising environmental impact.
Koeberg's reactors were commissioned in 1984 and 1985, making them approximately 38 and 39 years old, nearing the end of their normal 40-year life cycle. Eskom's planned 20-year life extension raises concerns about safety, maintenance, and upgrade costs.
Building new reactors would cost between R50 billion to R70bn, a one-time expense, whereas extending Koeberg's life will cost R20bn to R30bn over 20 years, plus R10bn to R15bn per year for fuel imports, totalling R40bn to R60bn over 20 years, making new reactors the more cost-effective option.
Koeberg's age increases the risk of accidents and radioactive leaks, putting the surrounding community and environment at risk, with the National Nuclear Regulator expressing concerns about Koeberg’s ageing infrastructure and safety.
Extending its life means continued reliance on imported nuclear fuel, contributing to carbon emissions and environmental degradation, contradicting South Africa's commitment to reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy sources.
Extending Koeberg's life is a costly and risky gamble.
Instead, South Africa should invest in new generation reactors, utilising local uranium reserves and innovative fuel cell technology, to create a cleaner, safer, and more efficient energy future.
What South Africa needs now is political will and bravery to make this happen, as Koeberg is a ticking time bomb, and disaster may strike if we don't act.
* Kwame Amuah, a respected voice in the scientific community in Africa, has transitioned from an academic career to a prominent advisory role. Having served as Science Adviser during President Mandela's tenure, he remains a trusted expert, providing guidance to African governments on nuclear issues that drive progress, development, and innovation.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
Do you have something on your mind; or want to comment on the big stories of the day? We would love to hear from you. Please send your letters to [email protected].
All letters to be considered for publication, must contain full names, addresses and contact details (not for publication)