Recently, Cabinet approved a revised Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that charts a transformative path for South Africa’s energy future. The IRP envisions a R2.23 trillion investment in energy infrastructure by 2042 and has been called “the single biggest investment program of the post-apartheid era”.
In the plan, nuclear energy will play a significant role, with 5.2 gigawatt of new nuclear capacity planned by 2039. For some context: the Koeberg Power Station has a total capacity of 1.8 gigawatt.
Nuclear power is a solution that deserves to be part of our energy mix. Koeberg, the only nuclear plant on the continent, has been safely supplying electricity since 1984. Yet, nuclear energy remains remarkably contentious and poorly understood by the public. It is unfortunately too often seen through the lens of historic tragedy (Chernobyl and Fukushima) or understood through the many Hollywood-level disaster images embedded in the public imagination.
Radioactive. Poisonous. Dangerous. Deadly. These are common associations – further spurred on by well-meaning but frequently misguided activists. In fact, research has shown that coal power is much more deadly than nuclear power. A morbid but instructive statistic to consider: Coal power stations result in 28.6 associated deaths per terawatt-hour, nuclear only 0.3.
The truth is that to a large extent nuclear has a narrative problem.
Communicating the safety and the benefits of nuclear power as part of our country’s energy mix is an economic imperative. The South African economy cannot grow, and as a country we cannot get out of an unemployment death spiral, without readily available electricity to support growth.
Nuclear power’s efficiency (output per unit of fuel) and its resilience (long-term grid stability) is undeniable. But the conversation must move beyond technical jargon, and beyond ideological divides, to address the concerns of the citizens: safety, cost, and environmental impact.
Safety, often the most emotive issue, can be addressed head-on. Modern nuclear technology has evolved significantly in the past few decades. And even the historic safety track-record of nuclear power stations are much better than most people think.
Cost is a hurdle, but one that must be contextualised. The plants are expensive to build, but they are relatively cheap to operate and have very long lifespans. A well-articulated cost-benefit analysis, grounded in transparency and long-term planning, can also help shift the narrative.
Environmental concerns also deserve attention. Nuclear energy produces virtually no greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear waste management, often cited as a drawback, is a solvable engineering challenge, not an insurmountable problem. Countries like Finland and France have demonstrated effective long-term storage solutions.
However, public trust cannot be won overnight. It must be earned through consistent communication. Nuclear energy, if pursued responsibly and transparently, can be an important part of South Africa’s energy solution. The case for its use deserves to be made, not just in boardrooms and policy papers, but on media platforms and in public engagements across our nation.
– Loftus Marais
Senior Account Manager