New nuclear plans threaten more electricity hikes for South Africans

Eskom is attempting to push ahead with plans for up to 10GW of new nuclear power capacity across multiple sites, signalling a major and costly expansion of nuclear energy in the country. This includes  plans for a new 5,200MW nuclear power station at either Thyspunt near Cape St Francis or Bantamsklip near Hermanus, in addition to the environmental authorisation they already have for an additional 4,000MW of new nuclear on the Koeberg site at Duynefontein. Civil society organisations warn that a new nuclear project could saddle South Africans with decades of unaffordable electricity costs, public debt, and unnecessary risk.

The Draft Scoping Report for the proposed development on the eastern coastline was released for public comment, with an extension granted until the 29th of May. Notably, the actual nuclear technology and specifications of the proposed power station have not yet been specified.

New nuclear build will drive up electricity costs for consumers

Civil society groups argue that at a time of rising electricity tariffs and economic hardship, embarking on another large-scale nuclear build programme would place an unacceptable financial burden on consumers and taxpayers.

According to Dr. Anthony Reed, energy and environmental activist, a cost comparison with latest nuclear reactors to be commissioned in the USA shows that Vogtle 3&4 (two AP1000 reactors, producing 2234 MW total) entered commercial operation in 2023 and 2024 respectively, at a total cost of about $35 billion. South Africa’s planned nuclear station for 5200MW would therefore cost R1384 billion, or R1.384 trillion.

“The claimed motivations for additional nuclear power in both the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2025, and in the Draft EIA Scoping Report, is that it is required for base-load energy and that it is ‘also one of the cheapest sources of generation in the South African power system’,” says Reed. “Both of these claims are incorrect in 2025/6 when we are moving towards a power system that has a high percentage of renewable energy sources, which together with rapidly dispatchable power such as gas turbines, completely obviates the need for “base-load”. Therefore locking the country into the costs associated with a technology that will provide outdated energy sources will push up electricity prices unnecessarily.

“Secondly, the claim that nuclear is the cheapest power in our current system is false as they had only considered the running costs, whereas the construction and decommissioning costs of nuclear power generation account for 70% of the unit costs. In all current models, nuclear is the most expensive option per unit generated,” says Reed.

“Every independent study has concluded that nuclear power has no place in a least cost scenario in South Africa,” says Koeberg Alert Alliance member and ex-NNR Board member, Peter Becker.

“For example, in June 2025, a three year study was published by the Development Bank of South Africa, the Presidential Climate Commission and the National Planning Commission. It concludes: ‘Given the urgent need to address energy shortages over the short- to medium-term (2025–2035), no new coal or nuclear capacity is envisaged during this period. Furthermore, the modelling reveals that across all three scenarios, the system can meet reliability and emissions constraints through a mix of renewables, storage, and flexible gas capacity without requiring new coal or nuclear investments through to 2050.’”

“That should be the end of the story,” says Becker. “Including nuclear in the energy mix will increase the cost of electricity for consumers.”

Risk of corruption high

There is also growing public suspicion that the push for a new nuclear programme is being driven less by energy security concerns and more by the opportunities it creates for corruption and politically connected contracts.

“Given that a nuclear build makes no economic sense, even according to studies done by government bodies, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that there are hidden motives behind this push for new nuclear plants,” adds Becker.

“We know from the Zondo commission that Eskom was the centre of a vast corrupt network, and it would be naive to think that this has been completely eradicated,” he says.

No comparative study on energy alternatives done

Organisations have also criticised the Draft Scoping Report for failing to include a dedicated specialist study on energy alternatives. In particular, the report does not adequately consider distributed renewable energy options such as wind, solar, and battery storage.

"South Africa's own government bodies have concluded that nuclear power is unnecessary, unaffordable, and has no place in the country's energy future through to 2050,” says Greenpeace Africa’s Climate and Energy Campaigner, Cynthia Moyo. “That should settle the debate. The fact that Eskom is pressing ahead regardless tells you everything about whose interests this process is actually designed to serve.

“The South African Renewable Energy Grid Survey identifies a development pipeline of around 220 gigawatts of wind, solar and storage projects already in development - capacity that far exceeds what is needed to power this country reliably. South Africans are already buckling under electricity tariffs they cannot afford. The communities of Thyspunt and Bantamsklip deserve better than to have their coastlines, their heritage, and their futures placed at risk for a project that even government research cannot justify,” says Moyo.

“A 2025 study looking at 662 energy projects across the globe, demonstrated that the average cost of nuclear was just over double the planned cost at the start of the project (102% over budget), and delivered 35 months later than planned,” says Reed. “On the other hand, solar generation projects came in just under budget and delivered on average one month late, and wind coming in 5.2% over budget, and 2 months late. Renewables, complimented with rapidly despatchable energy, such as gas, always outperform nuclear and other outdated generation, in all best-fit modelling.

“Independent energy analyses continue to show that renewable energy combined with battery storage can be deployed faster, more flexibly, and at significantly lower cost than new nuclear generation,” says Reed.

Further concerns have been raised about the outdated basis of the assessment process. The Draft Scoping Report relies heavily on a siting study conducted in the 1980s and references nuclear policy dating back to 1998, both of which predate major changes that have transformed the global electricity landscape.

Both Thyspunt and Bantamsklip are heritage sites

The report itself acknowledges unresolved legal and heritage issues surrounding the Thyspunt site.

“In January 2025, the SA Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) provisionally declared all of Eskom’s Thyspunt properties a Grade I Cultural Landscape, the highest heritage protection status in the country,” says Southern African Faith Communities' Environment Institute’s (SAFCEI) Senior Energy and Climate Justice Coordinator, Ntombizodidi Mapapu.

“Thyspunt is a heritage-sensitive landscape, with archaeological and palaeontological significance recognised at the highest level. That designation holds until at least February 2027, and this overlaps with the timeframe for ongoing specialist studies, raising serious concerns and questions about compliance and permitting,”says Mapapu.

“Communities and stakeholders need to be informed whether SAHRA has been formally engaged and if heritage permits are current, expired or under review. Moreover, how will heritage protections be upheld during the specialist study phase?” she says.

“A further concern is that both Bantamsklip and Thyspunt are environmentally pristine areas with unique and highly sensitive ecosystems on land and in the ocean, which will almost certainly be impacted by both construction and operation of the plant,” says Overstrand Environmental Association Director, Anton Kruger.

Lack of time to meaningfully engage with Report

Both affected residents and civil society groups have also questioned whether meaningful public participation is possible under the current process, with communities expected to review thousands of pages of highly technical documentation within a limited timeframe.

“Communities, civil society organisations, and local stakeholders have consistently highlighted that the original timeframe was insufficient, given the complexity of the documents and the number of specialist studies still underway,” says Mapapu.

“Communities living in and around Thyspunt, including fishers, tourism workers, heritage custodians, and coastal residents, have the right to participate in decisions that may affect their livelihoods, cultural landscapes, and environmental safety. This requires accessible information and time frames, and above all, transparent communication from Eskom and the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP). This demands full disclosure of heritage, environmental and legal constraints,” she says.

Rodney Anderson from Save Bantamsklip points out the apparent absence of radiological and long-term health studies for communities living near nuclear power stations. “International studies, including the Baby Tooth Survey that detected radioactive isotopes in children’s teeth, highlight the importance of assessing potential exposure and health impacts. Have similar international studies and evidence been considered?” he says.

History of overruns and ballooning costs with megabuilds

South Africa’s experience with cost overruns and delays in large infrastructure projects should serve as a warning against embarking on another expensive and high-risk mega-project without transparent public scrutiny.

“EDF is France’s nuclear power generator, and their latest build project is Hinkley C in the United Kingdom,” says Reed. ‘EDF have already built, and currently run 57 reactors on 19 sites, and yet their latest project is now projected to cost 35 billion Euros, almost double the starting cost of 18 billion Euros, and its completion date has been pushed out by another year, taking the total build time to 13 years. This is typical of nuclear power plant construction.”

Government should prioritise affordability and public interest

Civil society organisations are calling on government to undertake a transparent, evidence-based assessment of energy alternatives that prioritises affordability, energy security, environmental protection, and the public interest.

"Natural Justice shares the concerns raised by SAFCEI and other stakeholders around the cost implications, the risk of corruption, inadequate public participation, and the long-term environmental harm from nuclear waste associated with a nuclear build programme,” says Natural Justice’s Cape Town Hub Director, Delme Cupido.

“We join with all the civil society organisations in calling on government to pursue energy alternatives that are in the best interest of both communities and the environment, as well as providing for stable and affordable energy that meets the current and future needs of the nation as a whole,” says Cupido.