LETTER: Eskom rejected 2008 nuclear build
SA’s power supply would be even worse off if the utility had taken up the plan
Almost every sentence of Des Muller’s analysis is incorrect (“What Jacob Zuma Meant and Why He Was Right About Nuclear,” April 26). It was Eskom itself, and not any Integrated Resource Plan process, that rejected the 2008 planned nuclear build on the basis of expense ($6,131/kW, not $5,000 as Muller states); both of the principal vendors Muller mentions, Westinghouse and Areva, are now effectively bankrupt or have been subject to massive reorganisation/bailouts; the record of nuclear builds around the world is dreadful both in terms of cost escalations and delays, and third-generation nuclear tech has made the nuclear industry’s record much worse. There is in fact little scope for localisation and SA does not have the requisite skills; the load-shedding we have today is primarily a consequence of poor management of existing power plants, poor coal supply arrangements and selling electricity for below the cost of producing it for over 20 years. Additionally, water desalination plant...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.