Chairperson, hon Minister and members, energy generation in South Africa is an opportunity to invest, meet our energy demands and our carbon emission targets, and create jobs.
At the current growth rate of 3% per annum, the demand is 40 000 MW of new generation over 20 years and this is where the second integrated resource plan 2, IRP2, plans a capacity mix between renewable energy, nuclear energy and coal.
Eskom was granted a loan of US$365 million by the African Development Bank for the development of the 100 MW wind farm near Koekenaap and the 100 MW solar project near Upington. This loan forms part of the South African government's guarantee for Eskom's debt. Green energy is the answer, but why is Eskom involved, and not independent power producers?
A balanced, clean and green energy mix is of vital importance, and the renewable energy targets are far too low. We have to ensure that we get value for money and create much-needed jobs at the same time. There should be total honesty and transparency when calculating the opportunity costs between renewable energy and nuclear energy.
The sudden bid of the National Energy Regulator of South Africa, Nersa, to cut the renewable energy feed-in tariff by 25% from R1,25 per kWh to 93,4c per kWh is threatening the development of the wind farms. The reason for the global cash crisis does not make sense when investors were waiting in the wings. Public meetings were held in May and the hon Minister promised to disclose her decision by mid-June.
The government is set to produce 9 600 MW of nuclear power between 2023 and 2030. Bantamsklip, Duynefontein and Thyspunt all form part of the environmental impact assessment, EIA, process, with Thyspunt being the preferred site for a 1 600 MW - now a 4 000 MW - nuclear plant.
The purpose of the EIA is for proper scientific research to be done to enable the interested and affected parties and the general public to participate, contribute and, finally, to make an informed decision on the outcomes of the EIA.
There are a couple of sugar-coated truths and half-truths to be faced before a final decision is taken on Thyspunt. These are mostly very technical and not clear to the man in the street.
Firstly, we believe the site selection was a political decision before the time and the R70 million EIA merely an academic exercise. Secondly, there is no generation III technology nuclear plant in operation anywhere in the world. There are two under construction and they are going over time and over budget. Thirdly, we have the endless argument about the emergency planning zones, EPZs. Fourthly, the wind direction and plume exposure pathway was not done properly in the EIA.
Fifthly, the Thyspunt site is regarded as a cultural landscape, as defined by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Unesco, World Heritage Convention, which placed an absolute veto on any industrial development there.
Sixthly, the economic report does not contain all the hidden costs that will impact on the municipalities, the province and the national government. Seventhly, the transport plans are not practical and need total transparency.
Eighthly, job creation is very important. The interested and affected parties were told that 7 500 jobs will be created, but nobody hears that there will only be a 25% local labour content, that is, 2 800 jobs for locals. These jobs will only be available from year six of construction.
The story that 1 000 welders will be trained by Eskom on a national level makes people think that the skills transfer will take place locally, which is not the truth. If Thyspunt is developed, however, job losses will occur in three sectors such as the chokka industry, agriculture and tourism. It may even lead to the closure of Port St Francis.
Lastly, the workers' village is a complete uncertainty without an EIA having been done up to now.
Many more points can and should be raised. The most important is the landmark court judgment when Stefan Frylinck, an environmental impact consultant, was found guilty in the Pretoria High Court in April this year of giving misleading and incorrect information to the authorities in the environmental impact report. If the National Nuclear Regulator of South Africa, NNR, is not going to protect the environment, the properties and the people, the people will protect them and themselves.
Hon Minister, we are not against nuclear power per se, but we are against a forced, misleading and ill-considered nuclear build that will make the arms deal look like a Sunday school picnic. Thank you. [Applause.]