There was a big fuss in the media when a story came out that South Africa had signed a deal with the Russians to buy eight nuclear reactors.

The story was not true. When I saw the first press release, I felt uneasy because it just did not look right.

Moments later, I received a phone call from a journalist and I said that I was sure that it was wrong. The next day, the journalist correctly published my version. But the big ball was rolling and, over the next few days, the story erupted. I received a call from the BBC in London and I recommended that they essentially ignore the story because I was by then sure that it was incorrect. It looks like the BBC took my advice.

So, what was the real story? What happened was that there was a South African delegation at the yearly conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. The delegation included the Minister of Energy, who signed a scientific cooperation agreement with the Russians, in terms of which the two countries agreed to work together on technology issues related to South Africa’s nuclear power plans. The Russians then issued a badly worded press release out of Moscow that implied that this agreement included the next steps in a procurement process, leading to the purchase of Russian reactors. That was not the case.

The fuss erupted and I was on radio and TV programmes and continuously called by various media the whole week. Overall, I think that the whole volcanic eruption was good for the nuclear programme. Journalists who knew nothing about nuclear came to see me and a number of them listened with genuine interest and then produced good stories.

Of course, a lot of nonsense also flowed, as the antinuclear lobby climbed in and tried to sow confusion. An example of somebody who should not have been so transparent in his blind antinuclear stance was a professor who works at the Energy Research Centre of the University of Cape Town (UCT). On a TV programme I also featured on, they referred to him as “a UCT scientist”. He has no scientific qualifications.

Anyway, in referring to nuclear power costs, he wrote in a newspaper: “What seems obvious is that the R1-trillion (or so) nuclear investment will not be free.” Really? Well, yes. I guess that it is obvious that it will not be ‘free’.

He then said: “A simple average of the range estimates for the proposed nuclear build is R881-billion.” Really? Why does a so-called energy researcher use a ‘simple average’ and ‘range estimates’ and then come up with a figure accurate to 1 (note the 881)?

The ‘researcher’ then does a ballet leap from 881 and says: “Even if we do not take likely cost overruns into account, the proposed programme is likely to end up costing us 4 to 20 times as much as the arms deal.”

So, what has the arms deal got to do with ‘simple averages’ for nuclear? Well, a little bit of thought makes one realise that the UCT ‘researcher’ is trying to push a smear campaign. Genuine researchers do not do things like that, particularly at a fine institution like UCT.

But he was by this time at a gallop, and also added: “Estimates of the investment costs for a 9 600 MW nuclear build programme range from R320-billion to R1.4-trillion – excluding likely cost overruns.” Wow! All of a sudden, the ‘researcher’ pulls a R1.4-trillion card out of his sleeve. He also brings in “likely cost overruns”.

But he was not finished. By this point, he was clearing buildings in a single stride. He said: “South Africa has already experienced the huge costs of overinvesting [in electricity production]. Coal-fired power stations were mothballed a few decades ago – at significant cost to our economy and society.”

Really? Firstly, it was not “a few decades ago” – that would have placed the action around the time of the Second World War. Secondly, what actually happened was that Eskom took old, small power stations due for decommissioning and mothballed them. Thank heavens, because, recently, when electricity supply became really tight, the utility dusted some of these off, modernised them and brought them back into service.
They are all small and are not intended as a long-term solution, which a competent researcher should have pointed out. A ‘researcher’ should also have explained the term ‘significant cost’, since he was very quick to invent a figure of R1.4-trillion for the nuclear programme.

The faulty nuclear press release, which originated in Vienna, has produced quite a roller coaster, resulting in some enlightening insight . . . plus a lot of the other chaff.