Back in February last year, we told you how our government was in cahoots with Russia to find a nuclear solution to our energy issues. This was then confirmed in September, when we signed an intergovernmental agreement for the possible construction of 9,600-megawatts of new nuclear energy. Apparently it is still ‘under discussion’, but the trillion dollar question is ‘what does it actually mean for South Africa?’

A Russian lecturer and activist named Vladimir Slivyak has shed some light on the matter at a recent University of Johannesburg seminar titled “Are Russian nuclear reactors a viable solution to the South African crisis?”.  And, as the Mail & Guardian reports, what he had to say is anything but encouraging.

Of most concern is that under the agreement, if anything goes wrong with the nuclear reactors, Russia will have 0% liability for the consequences. And Russia do have a track record for things going wrong with their reactors.

In the six decades where nuclear has been used to create energy, he says there have been numerous incidents. Chernobyl was the only one that caused waves because it affected so many other countries that it could not be hidden – 60% of the radioactive dust released landed outside territories belonging to the Soviet Union. Even now there are forests in Germany where people cannot hunt animals because of their contamination, he says.

The state nuclear regulator – Rostekhnadzor – said last year that 39 incidents had occurred in 2013. The main reasons were “mismanagement, defects in equipment and design errors”. The country’s fleet of 34 reactors has had much of its life extended by 15 years, despite being built to operate for about 30 years.

However, Russia will take care of the construction, management and decommission of the nuclear plants. That sounds ok right? Wrong.

 If you go with nuclear energy now, you have to stick with that technology for a century.” This includes a minimum of a decade in construction – with some plants taking three decades – and 60-years of operation before at least three decades of decommissioning, he says.

In the US the cost of decommissioning is worked out at the same as the cost of building a new plant.”

With the South African build is set to cost anywhere up to R1-trillion, that would mean the same cost (adjusted upward with inflation) would have to be born near the end of this century, he says. “Except then you will have no income coming in. Just the cost of powering the reactors while you wind down operations. And the endless cost of looking after the nuclear waste.”

While it’s all very well that Rosatom will shoulder the expense of decommissioning, they’ve never actually done it before. Which means South Africa would be agreeing to a process no-one yet knows the technical outcome of.

Lastly, there is overwhelming evidence that nuclear energy is a dying industry, largely for the issues listed above. Most countries are looking towards sustainable energy sources, with the only confirmed ‘new-build’ reactors happening in China and Belarus. Everyone else, including Russia, is reducing their nuclear energy quota.

So, in case you were in any doubt as to why this is a catastrophically bad idea, I’ll leave you with this last quote:

“This is a dying industry and there are just too many unanswered questions for South Africa to go down this path. Except we know the element of corruption can always be present in the nuclear industry,” says Slivyak.

For more on this story click HERE.

[source: M&G]