ANDREW DICKSON: SA can’t rely solely on renewables to reach net-zero emissions targets

SA has committed to net-zero emissions by 2050, but the country’s power crisis is putting achieving this in jeopardy. Consequently, cabinet recently approved the Just Energy Transition Implementation Plan, which will purportedly guide the country’s transition to a low carbon economy through the scaling up of renewable energy sources while also meeting the country’s energy needs and ensuring inclusive economic growth and employment. However, a balanced portfolio that includes nuclear power should be considered as a more holistic solution.  

Nuclear power plants provide a stable base load supply of energy. Conversely, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind have output gaps when the sun sets or the wind stops blowing, and therefore require backup power or energy storage solutions. Additionally, a typical nuclear reactor easily produces 1GW of electricity per plant and requires about 3.4km² of land to do so, whereas solar farms need between 116km² and 200km² to generate the same amount of electricity and 670km² to 930km² for wind. 

Moreover, unlike renewable energy projects, which are hampered by transmission grid capacity constraints in places such as the Northern Cape, the Western Cape, and some parts of the Eastern Cape, where these natural resources are in abundance, nuclear power plants can be constructed in areas with greater grid capacity.  

Nuclear power could therefore play a crucial role in addressing climate change because nuclear power plants emit no greenhouse gases during operation. Furthermore, over the course of their life cycle nuclear plants produce about the same amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per unit of electricity as wind, and a third of the emissions per unit of electricity when compared with solar.

And this does not even take into account the carbon emission footprint of grid-scale battery storage, including all steps in the manufacture of the battery from mining and refining of the materials used through to recycling the battery once it comes to the end of its lifespan. 

In France, for example, 88% of electricity is produced from zero-emission sources, with nuclear accounting for 63% of the energy mix and wind 12%. This has led to the country becoming the EU’s largest producer of zero-emissions power, putting it far ahead of other EU countries in decarbonising electricity generation. France has committed to fully decarbonise its electricity by 2035 and will phase out coal entirely by 2024.  

Despite this, SA only makes use of 1.9GW of nuclear power versus 3.4GW of wind and 2.3GW of solar. While there are concerns about the safety of nuclear power, largely due to two major accidents elsewhere in the world — Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima in Japan in 2011 — this does not compare with the number of deaths caused annually from pollution from coal-fired plants. A report by the Centre for Research on Energy & Clean Air has found that Eskom’s coal power stations alone are responsible for about 2,200 deaths every year. Nuclear has actually been deemed one of the safest sources of energy, even more so than wind. 

In addition, while it takes on average about eight years to build a nuclear reactor, versus two to six months to construct a wind farm and eight to 12 months for a solar farm, delays in the Renewable Independent Power Producer Programme have meant that these projects aren’t that fast. And with nuclear plants, we would be able to generate gigawatts of electricity, unlike renewable projects which only produce a couple of hundred megawatts in some cases. 

By increasing the amount of nuclear power in SA’s energy mix we could ensure a bigger, better and more stable baseload, which would help bring about an end to load-shedding, spur economic growth and enable us to uphold our net-zero emissions commitment. 

• Dr Dickson is an engineering executive at CBI-Electric: Low Voltage.