While State-owned power utility Eskom, with support from government, needs an ambitious and transformative plan to produce, consume and share energy in the country, South Africa is naturally geared towards significant renewable- energy production, states independent campaigning organisation Greenpeace Africa crises response campaigner Shanaaz Nel.

“Eskom’s decisions and increased investment in resource-intensive power, following nation-wide load-shedding in 2008 and its state of emergency in March, continue to perpetuate the nation’s constant demand for energy,” Nel says, further emphasising that govern- ment, environmental industry leaders and energy producers are aware that renewable energy is mature, cheaper, and can be developed on a large scale.

Citing the ‘Energy [R]evolution - a sustainable South African energy outlook’ report, published by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council, Nel notes that decades of technological progression have resulted in renewable-energy technologies, such as wind, solar photovoltaic, geothermal power plants and solar thermal collectors, steadily moving into the mainstream.
Nel suggests a “roof-top revolution” for the future for South Africa as a potential source of renewable-energy production.

“A solar roof-top revolution is based on decentralised energy systems, where energy can be generated near the location where it is needed, which will increase energy efficiency, while allowing the energy to remain under the control of those individuals who use it.”

Nel adds that individuals and industry should then be allowed to sell excess power to the grid, creating another source of income for them and creating more energy for the country.

She highlights that renewable energy is a growing sector with global job-creation potential. Total renewable power capacity worldwide exceeded 1 470 GW in 2012, which increased by about 8.5% from 2011, she says, adding that, in terms of global contributions, wind power accounted for about 39% of renewable power capacity added in 2012, followed by hydropower and solar photovoltaic power, each accounting for about 26%.

Moreover, in 2011, global investment in renew- able energy reached a record amount of $257-bil-lion, a six-fold increase over 2004 figures, Nel emphasises, comparing this achievement to investment in new nuclear energy of only $7.3-billion in 2011.

Disinvesting in Coal and Fossil Fuel Electricity Generation
While almost 93% of South Africa’s current electricity is generated in coal-fired power stations – with the Koeberg nuclear station, near Cape Town, providing about 5% of capacity and hydroelectric and pumped storage schemes a further 5% – Nel says South Africa’s plans for the future energy mix entail continued reliance on fossil fuels such as coal.

She stresses this model is not a sustainable energy pathway for the country to respond to energy poverty, energy supply and climate change, as burning coal to produce electricity is a significantly water-intensive process, which creates several serious implications for water quantity and quality.

Citing the report ‘Water hungry coal: burning South Africa’s water to produce electricity’, published by Greenpeace Africa in October last year, Nel points out that, while South Africa struggles with water scarcity, and predictions are that the country will face a significant water crisis in the coming decade, “water scarcity could well become a fundamental development constraint”

Meanwhile, as a result of “insufficient coal supplies and insufficient planning, Eskom has been forced to increase its generation output by using diesel-powered open-cycle turbines”, Nel says.

The increased diesel production contributes significantly to carbon dioxide emissions and waste heat energy being directly and indirectly released into the atmosphere and water sources, while the expensive costs of running the turbines are passed on to the consumer, she says, highlighting that this additional expense adds to the spiralling debt for Eskom.

“More than R10-billion has been spent on diesel turbine power generation in the first six months of the current financial year, according to Eskom representative Andrew Etzinger,” Nel adds.

“Within this context, a number of choices are being made, which has major implications for water availability, poverty alleviation, job creation, electricity generation and energy access. One of these choices relates to the energy future of this country, which has economywide implications,” she says.

Nuclear Opposition
While the South African government is planning to build six new nuclear reactors and is increasing its nuclear energy to 9 600 MW, Nel emphasises that, given the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power station, in Japan, South Africa must ensure that it strengthens its nuclear liability laws.

“We need a law that will protect the citizenry and not the industry. The law should be based on the polluter-pays principle, according to Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,” Nel stresses.

She adds that nuclear power operators should provide means to prevent or remedy environmental damage and should directly and fully compensate victims, as there needs to be an end to supplier protection.

Further, “nuclear builds are far too expensive, carry a very high level of risk and would displace safe and affordable renewable energy”, Nel states, urging the nuclear planning committee “to take heed of the failures of nuclear technology elsewhere in the world”.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster occurred when a tsunami, triggered by an earthquake, hit the power plant in 2011, causing failure that resulted in a meltdown of three of the plant’s six nuclear reactors.

Nel believes the post-Fukushima debate on institutional failures forms a unique basis from which to push further for stronger liability regimes and highlight regulatory failures.

Meanwhile, she highlights that, in terms of the South African National Nuclear Regulatory Act of 1999, the level of financial security to be provided by the holder of the nuclear installation licence for Koeberg – Eskom – was R2.4-billion for the 2004/5 financial year.

This amount is insufficient to deal with any problems or disasters at Koeberg; therefore, should there be a Fukushima-level disaster at Koeberg, the taxpayers will have to pay, Nel says, concluding that “South Africa’s economy is not as robust as that of Japan’s and such a disaster would bankrupt the State, let alone the operator”.