Hubbry Logo
Nuclear power in South AfricaNuclear power in South AfricaMain
Open search
Nuclear power in South Africa
Community hub
Nuclear power in South Africa
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Nuclear power in South Africa
Nuclear power in South Africa
Nuclear power in South Africa
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Koeberg Nuclear Power Station

South Africa is the only country in Africa with a commercial nuclear power plant.[1]

Two reactors located at the Koeberg nuclear power station account for around 5% of South Africa's electricity production.[2] Spent fuel is disposed of at Vaalputs Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility in the Northern Cape.

The SAFARI-1 tank in pool[3] research reactor is located at the Pelindaba nuclear research centre in Gauteng.

New build

[edit]
class=notpageimage|
Nuclear power plants in South Africa
 Active plants
 Sites of potential plants

The 2010 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) envisaged building 9,600 MWe of new nuclear power capacity by building between six and eight new nuclear reactors by 2030, which would cost about R1 trillion.[4][5]

In 2016, an updated draft IRP was published which set a much lower and slower nuclear target, due to lower demand projections and increased capital cost. This updated IRP envisaged that the first new nuclear power plant would only need to be online by 2041.[2]

South Africa's 2019 Integrated Resource Plan[6] plans a 20 year life-extension for Koeberg to 2044, and a delayed nuclear new build programme due to the "marginal cost of [nuclear] generation, in comparison to other options" with a scenario that may build new capacity after 2030.

In December 2023, the government announced it would invite nuclear vendor bids for 2500 MW of nuclear energy by 2032.[7]

In August 2024, then–Minister of Energy and Electricity Kgosientsho Ramokgopa announced that the Ministerial Determination for the procurement of 2500 MWe of new nuclear capacity was withdrawn to allow for further public consultation, after legal challenges were made regarding the procedure for seeking public comments.[8]

In May 2025, Minister Ramogkopa stated that South Africa was seeking expertise from around the world to assist in affordably building nuclear capacity for the country, at scale. He further stated that, following studies done by the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA), South Africa plans to spend R60 billion on its nuclear build program.[9]

The minister said that the new program must have a capacity of at least 10 GW to be deemed credible by the country’s energy market. He said that the successful bidder would be from France, South Korea, the United States, China, or Russia, once experts had been consulted.[9]

Corruption

[edit]

There was little concern about the cost of the endeavour, as well as the probability for corruption, due to the efficiency of transparency in the procurement processes and the regard of civic society.[10][11] President at the time Jacob Zuma pushed ahead with plans to secure nuclear power.[12]

Russian President Vladimir Putin and the then South African President Jacob Zuma planned to embezzle billions of dollars from the nuclear power plant deal involving Russia’s state-owned company Rosatom.[13][14][15] Former President Jacob Zuma sacked Finance Minister Pravin Gordan for blowing the whistle about corruption.[16][17]

Legality

[edit]

Following the Public Protector's "State of Capture" report, which implicated him and Jacob Zuma in the peddling of state patronage, Brian Molefe resigned from his position as executive chief of Eskom on 1 January 2017. However, analysts noted that corruption at Eskom was deep-rooted and that Molefe's resignation would not resolve the nuclear question.[18] In April 2017, Eskom requested that the Treasury department waive procurement regulations for the new nuclear plants, claiming that Eskom "had done a lot of the work prior" and that these efforts were adequate. The Democratic Alliance objected on the grounds that this would embark the state on its "single biggest public procurement without fully assessing associated risks and consequences for SA’s economy".[12]

On 26 April 2017, following a legal application by Earthlife Africa and the Southern African Faith Communities Environment Institute, the Western Cape High Court declared that the South African government's new nuclear procurement processes had been unlawful because they had not followed due processes. The court noted that the National Energy Regulator, Parliament, and the Energy Minister must all be involved in the process. All of the subsequent existing contracts with Russia, the US, and South Korea were therefore found to be void.[19][20][21]

Costs

[edit]

The R1 trillion cost of the proposed new nuclear project played a part in ratings downgrades by international credit ratings agencies.[12]

Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, who opposed new nuclear installations on the grounds of the steep cost, was replaced by Malusi Gigaba in March 2017.[22] Gigaba is responsible for filling the vacancy of chief procurement officer at the Treasury, which would make decisions about procurement processes regarding the new nuclear project.[12]

Life extension of Koeberg

[edit]

In January 2018, Eskom's acting Chief Financial Officer stated that the company cannot afford a new nuclear build, following a 34% drop in interim profits due to declining sales and increasing financing costs. The government stated it will proceed with the plan but more slowly.[23] The draft 2018 IRP does not call for new nuclear power, partly due to declining electricity demand, forecast 30% lower than in the previous IRP.[24]

South Africa's 2019 Integrated Resource Plan plans a 20 year life-extension for Koeberg to 2044, and a delayed nuclear new build programme due to the "marginal cost of [nuclear] generation, in comparison to other options" with a scenario that may build new capacity after 2030.[6] Small modular reactors may become an attractive option, dependent on earlier demonstration elsewhere in the world.[25]

In July 2024, the month Unit 1's license to operate was set to expire, South Africa's National Nuclear Regulator granted Eskom an operating license to operate Unit 1 at Koeberg until July 2044. A decision on Unit 2 was deferred.[26]

On 30 December 2024, Eskom successfully synchronized Unit 2 of the Koeberg nuclear power station in Cape Town to the national grid. The National Nuclear Regulator is expected to decide on the extension of Unit 2’s operational license in 2025.[27]

Small modular reactors

[edit]
Further information: Pebble bed modular reactor

Small modular reactors in the form of the pebble bed reactor design was invested in by the South African government; one such project was the Pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR).[28] In February 2010, the South African government announced that it had stopped funding the development of the pebble bed modular reactor after investing 80% of the R9.24 billion (2010) (equivalent to R14.28 billion or US$1.08 billion in 2018)[29].[30] Personnel from the defunct PBMR took their expertise to X-energy, Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation and the Pretoria-based Stratek Global.[31]

Nuclear expertise in South Africa

[edit]

AREVA built the twin units of the Koeberg nuclear power plant. In 2001, AREVA NP[32] bought a 45% stake in LESEDI Nuclear Services,[33] followed by a further 6% stake in 2006. Today Framatome is a majority shareholder in Lesedi Nuclear Services.

In 2016[34] the IAEA concluded a Long Term Operational Safety Review at South Africa’s Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant. The Pre-SALTO (Safety Aspects of Long Term Operation) review mission was requested by the Government of South Africa's Department of Energy.[35] "A SALTO peer review is a comprehensive safety review addressing strategy and key elements for the safe Long Term Operation of nuclear power plants".[36]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Nuclear power in South Africa

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Nuclear power in South Africa involves the production of electricity via nuclear fission primarily at the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, the nation's only commercial nuclear facility, featuring two pressurized water reactors that have generated baseload power since their commercial operation began in 1984 and 1985, respectively, contributing roughly 5% of the country's total electricity supply from a combined capacity of 1,860 MW. Operated by the state-owned utility , Koeberg has demonstrated resilience amid 's chronic electricity shortages, known as loadshedding, by providing stable output during periods when coal-fired plants falter due to aging and maintenance failures, underscoring nuclear energy's role in addressing intermittency issues inherent in renewables and the unreliability of alternatives. possesses substantial reserves, historically producing over 100,000 tonnes of by 1980, which supported domestic fuel cycles including enrichment capabilities that once supplied low-enriched uranium for Koeberg until their closure in the . The sector's development traces back to the mid-20th century, with early tied to apartheid-era strategic interests that extended to a covert nuclear weapons program dismantled in the early , after which focus shifted to civilian applications; however, expansion efforts have been hampered by high capital costs, technical delays in Koeberg's life-extension program—now targeting operations beyond 2044—and political controversies, including a canceled 9,600 MW under former President Zuma amid allegations. Recent policy shifts, as outlined in the 2025 Integrated Resource Plan, signal renewed emphasis on nuclear capacity, including up to 5.2 GW of additions and revival of technology like the , aiming to diversify the away from dominance while leveraging indigenous resources for in a context of escalating demand and grid instability.

History

Early development (1940s–1970s)

The origins of South Africa's nuclear program trace to the mid-1940s, when uranium deposits were identified in gold mines, leading to the establishment of a Uranium Research Committee in 1946 to explore potential. This initiative reflected the country's abundant resources, estimated at over 300,000 tonnes of recoverable reserves by the 1950s, which positioned as a significant global supplier. In 1948, the Atomic Energy Act created the Atomic Energy Board (AEB) to regulate production, trade, and research, marking the formal institutionalization of nuclear activities. The AEB oversaw the opening of South Africa's first uranium processing plant in 1952 at the Consolidated Mines, enabling exports of to the and under bilateral agreements. By the mid-1950s, sixteen uranium extraction facilities were operational, generating revenue that funded further nuclear research amid Cold War-era international collaborations. The 1950s and early 1960s saw expansion into nuclear research infrastructure. In 1957, South Africa signed an agreement with the to acquire a , culminating in government approval in 1959 for a domestic nuclear industry and the site near . Construction at began in 1961, and the SAFARI-1 —a 20 MW thermal, light-water moderated facility supplied by the —achieved criticality in March 1965, supporting isotope production, materials testing, and training for over 50 years. This reactor represented South Africa's initial capability in nuclear operations, though focused on research rather than . By the late 1960s, rising electricity demand from industrialization prompted the Electricity Supply Commission (Escom, predecessor to ) to evaluate for baseload capacity, leading to feasibility studies and initial proposals for commercial reactors in the early 1970s. These efforts built on AEB expertise in uranium fuel cycle activities, including pilot-scale enrichment experiments, but commercial remained prospective, with no grid-connected plants operational by decade's end.

Koeberg construction and apartheid-era expansion

The represented South Africa's principal initiative in commercial during the apartheid era, aimed at bolstering amid international oil price shocks and impending sanctions. In the early , the government identified nuclear energy as a means to diversify from and imported oil, particularly for the where coal logistics from inland sources proved inefficient. Construction began on 1 July 1976, following a decision to procure two pressurized water reactors (PWRs) from the French firm (now part of EDF), as Western suppliers had imposed embargoes due to apartheid policies. The project entailed building twin units each with a gross capacity of approximately 900 MWe (Unit 1 at 970 MWe and Unit 2 at 940 MWe), designed to supply base-load to the national grid while reducing reliance on fossil fuels vulnerable to global disruptions. 30 km north of facilitated direct power delivery to high-demand coastal areas, bypassing long-distance transmission challenges for coal-fired alternatives. French involvement extended to engineering, construction, and initial fuel supply, with South Africa developing parallel domestic capabilities in enrichment at to mitigate future import restrictions. Progress faced setbacks from anti-apartheid , including a December 1982 attack by operatives who detonated four limpet mines on transformers and other equipment, inflicting damages valued at around R500 million (equivalent to roughly R13.5 billion in 2025 terms) and delaying completion by several months. Despite such incidents, Unit 1 synchronized to the grid on 4 April 1984, with Unit 2 following on 25 July 1985; both achieved commercial operation by late 1985, adding 1,800 MWe to national capacity. No additional commercial nuclear power stations were pursued or completed during the apartheid period (1948–1994), positioning Koeberg as the cornerstone of the country's nuclear electricity generation and a strategic response to isolationist pressures. The facility's development aligned with broader efforts to localize the nuclear fuel cycle, including mining abundant domestic uranium reserves, though it remained the sole large-scale power contributor amid policy emphasis on self-reliance rather than rapid fleet expansion.

Nuclear weapons program and dismantlement

South Africa's nuclear weapons program originated in the context of escalating security threats during the apartheid era, including Cuban and Soviet-backed incursions into neighboring . In 1974, Prime Minister formally authorized the development of a nuclear deterrent capability, leveraging the country's substantial resources and nascent . The program centered on producing highly (HEU) via at the secret Y-Plant in Valindaba, adjacent to the research facility, with initial HEU production achieving weapons-grade material (over 90% U-235) by 1978. By 1989, had completed assembly of six gun-type fission devices, each yielding an estimated 10-18 kilotons, though none were ever deployed or tested. The decision to dismantle the program came in September 1989, when President ordered its termination amid the winding down of the , diminished regional threats following the Angolan conflict's resolution, and strategic calculations for post-apartheid international reintegration. Dismantlement commenced in early 1990, involving the disassembly of the six complete devices and one incomplete device, destruction of non-nuclear components under controlled procedures, and recovery of approximately 480 kilograms of HEU for reconfiguration into low-enriched forms or storage. All explosive test data, documentation, and specialized equipment were systematically eliminated to prevent reconstruction, with the process overseen by the South African Atomic Energy Corporation to ensure irreversibility. South Africa acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear-weapon state on July 10, 1991, followed by a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the (IAEA) on September 16, 1991. In 1993, the government publicly disclosed the program's existence and dismantlement, prompting IAEA verification missions that included isotopic analysis of HEU stocks, site inspections at and Valindaba, and audits of production records to confirm no undeclared materials or activities remained. By August 1994, the IAEA verified the completeness and accuracy of 's declarations, certifying that all weapon-related had been accounted for and the program fully terminated, marking as the only state to have indigenously developed and then voluntarily relinquished a nuclear arsenal.

Post-apartheid policy shifts

Following the end of apartheid in 1994, South Africa's nuclear policy initially emphasized continuity and safety oversight for the existing , which supplied about 5% of national electricity, while integrating nuclear energy into broader electrification goals under the . The Nuclear Energy Act of 1993, enacted just before the transition but operative post-apartheid, established the National Nuclear Regulator to ensure compliance with international safety standards and prohibited weapons development, reflecting a commitment to peaceful use amid global non-proliferation pressures. The 1998 White Paper on Energy Policy identified nuclear as a viable baseload option for diversification beyond , but prioritized expanding access to electricity for underserved populations, with nuclear capacity held steady at Koeberg's 1,860 MWe rather than immediate expansion due to fiscal constraints and surplus generation at the time. In the early 2000s, policy shifted toward technological innovation with the launch of the (PBMR) project in 1999 by and the state-owned Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Pty Ltd, aiming to develop high-temperature gas-cooled reactors using South Africa's resources for exportable, proliferation-resistant technology. Endorsed in Cabinet plans for deployment by 2010-2015, the initiative received over R9 billion in public funding but encountered escalating costs—to R20 billion by 2008—and technical hurdles, including fuel qualification failures. The project was placed in care and maintenance in 2010 and funding terminated that September, as the government cited unaffordability amid the global and Eskom's need to prioritize conventional coal plants like Medupi and Kusile. Under President from 2009, policy pivoted aggressively toward large-scale nuclear expansion to meet projected demand growth, with the 2010 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) proposing an additional 9,600 MWe of nuclear capacity by 2030, financed through a mix of public and private investment. This culminated in a intergovernmental agreement with Russia's for up to 9,600 MWe at an estimated $76 billion cost, intended to replace aging infrastructure but criticized for lacking competitive tendering, opaque , and potential ties to Zuma's allies. In 2017, the High Court declared the Russia deal and related pacts with the and unlawful for procedural irregularities, including failure to consult stakeholders and inadequate cost assessments, effectively halting . The administration of President from 2018 de-emphasized nuclear expansion in favor of renewables and gas in updated IRPs (2019 and 2023), extending Koeberg's life to 2044-2045 while postponing new builds due to fiscal pressures, high (estimated at R145-200 billion for 2,500 MWe), and Eskom's debt burden exceeding R400 billion. This reflected a pragmatic response to load-shedding crises driven by coal failures and maintenance backlogs rather than ideological opposition, though anti-nuclear advocacy from environmental groups and fiscal conservatives influenced the slowdown. By 2023, however, announcements signaled a policy reversal, with plans for a 2024 bidding process for 2,500 MWe of new capacity to address baseload reliability amid targets. In October 2025, the revised IRP marked a significant shift, committing to increase nuclear's share from 3% to up to 16% of generation by 2040 alongside gas, including revival of the PBMR program with R2.23 trillion ($120-130 billion) investment to deploy small modular reactors for net-zero goals by 2050. The move, announced by Energy Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa, prioritizes lifting PBMR from care and maintenance by Q1 2026 to leverage domestic technology amid resolved load-shedding and coal dependency risks (slashing from 58% to 27%). This evolution underscores nuclear's role in causal energy security, countering earlier cancellations rooted in mismanagement and short-term fiscalism rather than inherent viability, as evidenced by Koeberg's consistent 90%+ capacity factors.

Koeberg Nuclear Power Station

Design and technical specifications

The Koeberg Nuclear Power Station comprises two pressurized water reactors (PWRs) of a three-loop design, supplied and engineered by Framatome (now part of EDF) based on a Westinghouse-derived technology. Each unit has a thermal power rating of 2,775 MWth, producing a gross electrical output of approximately 930 MWe, with net capacities around 900 MWe after accounting for house loads. The primary circulates pressurized water through three independent loops, each equipped with a vertical to maintain flow over and transfer to generators. The , measuring 13 meters in height and 25 cm in wall thickness, is constructed from low-carbon alloyed with less than 0.2% cobalt and internally clad with for resistance and shielding. A pressurizer maintains at around 15.5 MPa to prevent boiling in , featuring electric heaters and spray mechanisms for precise control. Fuel assemblies consist of 17x17 arrays of zirconium-alloy-clad uranium dioxide (UO₂) pellets enriched to 3-5% U-235, incorporating gadolinium as a burnable poison for reactivity management; each reactor core holds 157 assemblies, with refueling outages typically every 12-24 months depending on burnup cycles. Heat from the primary loop is exchanged in three vertical steam generators per unit—model 51B type with Inconel-600 tubing—producing saturated steam at 5.8 MPa and approximately 1,800 tons per hour for driving one high-pressure and three low-pressure turbines rotating at 1,800 rpm. A tertiary seawater cooling system draws 80 tons per second from the Atlantic Ocean to condense exhaust steam, isolated from the nuclear island to minimize radiological risks.

Operational history and performance

Construction of began on July 1, 1976, with Unit 1 achieving criticality on April 4, 1984, and entering commercial operation on July 21, 1984. Unit 2 followed, synchronizing to the grid on July 25, 1985, marking the start of full dual-unit operations. The plant, consisting of two pressurized water reactors each rated at approximately 900 MWe, has provided baseload electricity to South Africa's grid for over 40 years, contributing roughly 5% of the nation's total supply. Early operations included routine refueling outages, with the first for Unit 1 (Outage 101) lasting 135 days from January 24, 1986, to June 8, 1986, focused on and inspections. Subsequent decades saw consistent , with average annual of 13,668 GWh from the combined 1,860 MW capacity, underscoring its role as a reliable low-carbon source amid South Africa's coal-dominated fleet. Mid-life upgrades from onward enhanced and , maintaining high factors historically above global nuclear averages, though specific plant-level capacity factors have not been publicly detailed beyond Eskom's reports of sustained baseload delivery. Recent performance has involved extended outages for long-term operation (LTO) preparations, including replacements to extend unit lifespans to 60 years. Unit 1 underwent a major outage starting December 8, 2022, returning to service in November 2023 after refueling and component upgrades costing around $640 million. Unit 2 completed its LTO outage, synchronizing to on December 31, 2024, following similar extensive . Unplanned events, such as a Unit 2 issue in early 2025 resolved by March 9, and a September 2024 dual-unit downtime due to a Unit 1 test failure and Unit 2 , temporarily reduced output but were addressed without safety compromises. These interventions, approved by the National Nuclear Regulator in July 2024 for Unit 1's extension to 2044, demonstrate proactive lifecycle management despite challenges from aging infrastructure and supply chain delays.

Safety record and regulatory oversight

The Koeberg Nuclear Power Station has operated without any major accidents or significant radiological releases since Unit 1 entered commercial service on July 4, 1984, and Unit 2 on November 9, 1994, accumulating over 1.2 million reactor-years of safe operation across its two pressurized water reactors. Radiation doses to workers and the public have remained well below regulatory limits, with annual public doses typically under 0.01 millisieverts, far below the 1 millisievert international benchmark. The plant's safety performance aligns with global nuclear standards, as confirmed by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) missions, including Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) evaluations that have praised its safety culture while identifying areas for continuous improvement, such as problem identification and resolution. Notable incidents include a turbine hall fire on March 23, 2006, which damaged non-nuclear systems but was extinguished without affecting reactor cores or causing off-site , classified as an International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) Level 2 event internally managed per design basis. During the 2019–2023 steam generator tube bundle replacement outages, minor steam leaks and equipment delays occurred, but systems prevented any radiological impact, with root causes traced to components and addressed through corrective actions. Post-Fukushima stress tests in 2012, conducted with IAEA input, verified seismic resilience up to 0.3g acceleration, exceeding local hazards, though critics have questioned long-term integrity based on observed cracking, which attributes to environmental factors rather than structural failure. IAEA Safety Assessment of Long-Term Operation (SALTO) reviews in 2022 and 2024 identified 14 observations in 2022—primarily on management and leaks—and eight in 2024 related to monitoring, but concluded the plant's supports extended operation with recommended enhancements. Regulatory oversight is conducted by the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR), an independent statutory body established under the National Nuclear Regulator Act No. 47 of 1999, which enforces compliance with Fundamental Safety Standards aligned to IAEA guidelines through mandatory authorizations, routine inspections, and probabilistic risk assessments. The NNR requires to submit periodic reports, including for the long-term operation (LTO) program, evaluating ageing effects like and ; Unit 1 received a 20-year LTO extension to July 2044 on July 11, 2024, following a comprehensive evaluation report confirming no unresolved significant risks, while Unit 2's application underwent public hearings concluding in October 2025, with decisions pending internal NNR processes. The NNR's inspections, such as those during 2022 emergency drills revealing 22 non-compliances in protocols, have driven corrective measures, though some environmental groups argue oversight has overlooked data gaps in impressed current systems. IAEA peer reviews validate NNR's framework as robust, emphasizing its role in ensuring causal factors like equipment reliability directly mitigate accident probabilities.

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Capabilities

Uranium resources and mining

South Africa holds substantial uranium resources, primarily as a by-product of from quartz-pebble conglomerate deposits in the Basin, which spans roughly 330 km by 150 km across and Free State provinces. These resources are classified under identified recoverable categories, with key deposits including () holding proven and probable reserves of 4,490 tU at 0.06% U grade, and inferred resources of 13,630 tU, while Buffelsfontein (formerly ) reported reserves of 53,700 t U₃O₈ (equivalent to approximately 45,500 tU). Additional potential exists in other formations, such as the Uranium Province with indicated resources of 8,440 tU at 0.089% U for the Peninsula Energy project, though much remains undeveloped due to economic factors tied to viability. Uranium mining in South Africa commenced commercially in the 1950s, leveraging underground gold operations in the Witwatersrand, with the Nuclear Fuels Corporation of South Africa (Nufcor) establishing processing plants to recover uranium from mine tailings and slurries. Historical output peaked at around 6,000 tU per year during the 1960s, contributing over 100,000 tU cumulatively from 1951 to 1980 through facilities like those at Nufcor's plant 60 km west of Johannesburg. Production methods involved acid leaching of gold tailings, but declined sharply post-1980s due to falling uranium prices, rising extraction costs, and a shift in focus to primary gold recovery amid depleting high-grade ores. As of 2022, annual production stood at 200 tU, ranking as the world's 11th-largest producer, with output sourced mainly from AngloGold Ashanti's operations in the area of the Basin. This represents a continued low from peaks, with 2023 and estimated 2024 figures similarly at 200 tU, primarily via recovery from ongoing mining rather than dedicated uranium operations. Other sites, such as Cooke () in the , ceased uranium production in 2016 after yielding 67 tU that year, reflecting challenges like low uranium grades (e.g., 0.028% U at Cooke) and dependency on economics. Revitalization efforts, including reprocessing, hinge on sustained high uranium prices to offset costs exceeding $50 per kgU in some cases.
YearTotal Production (tU)Key Contributor
2011582Vaal River (548 tU)
2016490 (423 tU)
2022200 (200 tU)

Enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing

South Africa's uranium enrichment capabilities originated during the apartheid era at the Valindaba facility adjacent to , where an aerodynamic enrichment process using helikon vortex separation technology produced highly enriched uranium (HEU) from 1977 to 1990, primarily for the country's clandestine nuclear weapons program that yielded six devices before dismantlement in the early . The facility's output supported weapon-grade material exceeding 90% U-235 enrichment, but operations ceased post-dismantlement, with equipment decommissioned under IAEA verification to prevent proliferation risks. Currently, no commercial-scale enrichment occurs domestically; the relies on imported low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel assemblies, typically 3.5-4.5% enriched, sourced from international suppliers like (now ). Recent developments include agreements for laser-based enrichment at by ASP Isotopes Inc., a U.S. firm partnering with Necsa (South African Nuclear Energy Corporation) and to produce high-assay LEU (HALEU, up to 19.75% enriched) for advanced reactors, with construction of an initial facility planned pending permits, targeting operations from 2028 onward under a 10-year supply contract for up to 150 metric tons. This initiative aims to support South Africa's revival and export potential, though full centrifuge-based commercial enrichment revival—potentially in partnership—is under evaluation for commissioning around 2026-2027 to meet projected needs of 465 tonnes annually by 2030 for expanded capacity. Fuel fabrication in has historically been limited to research and small-scale operations, with facilities operational since 1962 producing low-enriched fuel elements for the SAFARI-1 at , including the BEVA plant which handled up to 100 tonnes per year of in the and before scaling back. Necsa currently fabricates specialized fuels, such as molybdenum-99 targets for medical isotopes, but commercial (LWR) fuel for Koeberg is fabricated abroad, with Necsa receiving technical support from for LEU conversion and assembly processes. Efforts to achieve self-sufficiency include Necsa's plans to re-enter nuclear fuel manufacturing, focusing on high-temperature reactor (HTR) pebble fuels for potential global supply, aligned with the Integrated Resource Plan's nuclear expansion goals, though no large-scale domestic LWR fabrication plant exists as of 2025. Feasibility studies for integrated local conversion, enrichment, and fabrication capabilities continue, emphasizing economic viability amid resource abundance but high capital costs. Reprocessing of remains absent in , which adheres to a once-through cycle without commercial facilities for or recovery, reflecting policy choices post-weapons dismantlement to minimize proliferation sensitivities under IAEA safeguards. Historical at involved limited hot cell operations for SAFARI-1 spent examination and minor handling tied to the weapons era, but no industrial-scale reprocessing plant was built, and current Necsa activities focus on waste conditioning rather than . Future considerations for reprocessing are exploratory, tied to long-term and modular reactor programs, but 's strategy prioritizes dry storage and potential deep geological disposal over closed cycles, with no verified plans for deployment as of 2025.

Waste management and disposal

South Africa's nuclear waste management primarily addresses low- and intermediate-level waste (LILW) through disposal at the Vaalputs National Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility in the Province, established in 1986 following site selection in 1978 based on international criteria for geological stability, aridity, and low . The facility, spanning an arid Bushmanland Plateau area approximately 100 km southeast of , accepts solidified LILW from and other nuclear operations, transported in metal or concrete containers under regulated safety protocols. Until July 2025, operations were managed by the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa); the license was then transferred to the state-owned National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute (NRWDI), which now oversees disposal to ensure long-term isolation in near-surface engineered trenches and vaults designed to minimize interaction. High-level waste, primarily spent nuclear fuel from Koeberg, is not disposed at Vaalputs but stored on-site in wet pools, with over 1,000 tons accumulated as of recent estimates, generating approximately 30 tons annually. No reprocessing occurs domestically, treating spent fuel as waste under the national Radioactive Waste Management Policy and Strategy approved in 2005, which mandates a minimum 50-year cooling period before final disposal considerations. Transition to dry storage uses HI-STAR 100 casks supplied by Holtec under a 2015 Eskom contract, enabling interim above-ground storage to alleviate pool capacity constraints. For long-term high-level waste management, South Africa lacks an operational , with NRWDI planning a Centralized Interim Storage Facility (CISF) off the Koeberg site starting around 2030 to consolidate spent fuel casks, funded through ongoing collaborations with and the Development Bank of Southern Africa. Permanent disposal strategies remain in development, guided by the National Nuclear Regulator's oversight to prioritize radiological safety and , though challenges include and amid the country's uranium-rich but seismically variable .

Current Status

Contribution to national electricity supply

The Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, South Africa's sole operational nuclear facility, generates approximately 5% of the country's total electricity supply through its two pressurized water reactors with a combined net capacity of 1,860 MW. This output equates to an average annual production of around 13,000 GWh, serving as a reliable baseload source amid frequent disruptions in the predominantly coal-fired national grid managed by , which supplies over 90% of South Africa's electricity. As of early 2025, both Koeberg units are synchronized to following the 2024 recommissioning of Unit 2 after a major refit, enabling full capacity operation and reducing reliance on emergency load shedding measures that have plagued the energy sector. The plant's high —typically exceeding 90% when operational—contrasts with the lower availability of aging coal , underscoring nuclear's role in stabilizing supply during periods. In 2023, nuclear generation accounted for about 5% of total output, a figure sustained into 2024 despite periodic maintenance outages on individual units. Koeberg's contribution remains marginal relative to South Africa's installed capacity of approximately 55 GWe, where coal dominates at over 80%, but its dispatchable, low-carbon baseload power is critical for grid inertia and frequency control, particularly as renewable integration increases risks. Ongoing life extension efforts aim to preserve this output beyond 2044, potentially averting further capacity shortfalls projected in national energy plans.

Koeberg life extension program

The Koeberg program, formally known as the Long-Term Operation (LTO) , aims to extend the operational life of the power station's two pressurized reactors beyond their original 40-year lifespan by 20 years each, allowing Unit 1 to operate until 2044 and Unit 2 until 2045. Initiated by in the early 2010s, the program involves extensive refurbishments, including replacements, reactor vessel head inspections, and upgrades to safety systems to meet (IAEA) standards for aging management. These modifications are required to address component degradation and ensure compliance with the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) licensing criteria, drawing on global precedents where similar plants have safely exceeded initial lifespans. Eskom's board approved an initial budget of R20 billion in 2010 for the refurbishments, contingent on regulatory approval, but costs have escalated due to delays and scope expansions. The process requires sequential long-term outages: Unit 1 underwent its major outage from 2019 to 2023 for steam generator replacement and other works, while Unit 2's outage began in 2023 and extended beyond projections, with synchronization to the national grid achieved only on December 31, 2024, after completing key LTO upgrades. These delays, attributed to issues and technical complexities, have contributed to broader electricity supply constraints in , though proponents argue the extension secures baseload capacity equivalent to about 5% of national demand without . Regulatory progress includes the NNR's approval on July 10, 2024, for Unit 1's 20-year extension following of Eskom's , which incorporated seismic reassessments and material integrity analyses. For Unit 2, whose operating expires on November 9, 2025, the application remains under NNR as of October 2025, with Eskom submitting updated safety analyses despite criticisms from groups like the South African Faith Communities' Environment Institute (SAFCEI) over alleged reliance on incomplete or outdated data for critical components such as containment structures. Eskom maintains that the program aligns with the 2019 Integrated Resource Plan's emphasis on , while independent analyses, such as those modeling electricity costs, estimate an additional 6 cents per kWh from the refurbishments compared to alternatives like renewables. The NNR's final decision on Unit 2 is anticipated before expiry, potentially hinging on verification of deferred inspections and compliance with post-Fukushima enhancements.

Challenges in maintenance and outages

The Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, South Africa's sole commercial nuclear facility, has encountered persistent maintenance challenges stemming from its aging infrastructure, originally commissioned in 1984 for Unit 1 and 1994 for Unit 2, which necessitate extensive refurbishments for long-term operation beyond 40 years. These include frequent equipment inspections revealing defects, such as tube issues in steam generators identified through non-destructive testing (NDT) during the life extension program, leading to prolonged outages for corrective actions and quality assurance. A core issue has been delays in the steam generator replacement project, critical for extending plant life, where Eskom's 2022 decision to halt work—later deemed at fault by a ruling—resulted in a R1 billion penalty and further setbacks. Unit 2 underwent major maintenance including generator replacement and returned to service on December 31, 2024, after an extended outage, while Unit 1's return was postponed multiple times, ultimately to late August 2025, due to additional maintenance needs post-NDT findings. These delays reflect broader shortcomings at Koeberg, including scheduling overruns in modification and outage tasks, as documented in engineering analyses of factors like and . Unplanned outages have compounded reliability issues, with multiple automatic trips causing the plant to go offline unexpectedly, such as an over-week shutdown in August 2025 and contributions to a 2,700 MW generation shortfall in March 2025 that triggered Stage 3 load-shedding. attributes some interruptions to aging components requiring immediate intervention, while regulatory oversight by the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) mandates rigorous testing, including integrated leak rate tests overdue on Unit 2 since 2015, adding to downtime risks. Despite these, maintains that planned levels align with winter preparations and do not elevate overall load-shedding probabilities if other unplanned breakdowns stay below 13,000 MW.

Future Developments

Integrated Resource Plan 2025 and new capacity targets

The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2025, approved by the South African Cabinet on October 22, 2025, as a draft framework, outlines a pathway for supply security through 2039, emphasizing diversification amid ongoing load-shedding and plant retirements. It projects the addition of over 105 gigawatts of new generation capacity in total, with a cumulative investment value estimated at R2.2 trillion, aiming to balance supply-demand dynamics while targeting net-zero emissions by 2050. For nuclear power, the IRP 2025 allocates 5,200 megawatts (5.2 gigawatts) of new capacity to come online by 2039, marking a significant revival from prior plans that had deprioritized large-scale nuclear builds due to cost concerns. This target, which could be expanded based on further feasibility assessments, positions nuclear as a baseload contributor alongside gas, solar, and wind, potentially comprising 16% of total generation capacity within 14 years—up from the current approximate 3% reliance excluding Koeberg. State-owned Eskom has welcomed the plan for providing an investment roadmap, while the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA) views it as enabling a "robust nuclear build programme" to support industrial growth and clean energy transitions. The nuclear targets reflect a shift under Minister of Electricity and Energy , prioritizing dispatchable low-carbon sources to mitigate risks from renewables, though implementation details such as timelines and specifications remain subject to and regulatory approval. Critics, including some analysts, caution that achieving the 5.2 gigawatts will require overcoming historical hurdles and financing challenges, as evidenced by stalled nuclear ambitions in the . Nonetheless, the plan's endorsement by nuclear industry stakeholders underscores its alignment with South Africa's resources and existing Koeberg infrastructure for potential fleet expansion.

Revival of small modular reactors

South Africa's interest in small modular reactors (SMRs) stems from the legacy of the (PBMR) project, initiated in the as a high-temperature gas-cooled design aimed at providing scalable, factory-built nuclear units. The program, which invested approximately ZAR 20 billion before its suspension in 2010 due to escalating costs and funding shortfalls, represented an indigenous effort to leverage South Africa's resources and engineering expertise for exportable technology. Recent revival efforts reposition SMRs as a solution to the ongoing , characterized by frequent load-shedding, by enabling faster deployment of baseload power compared to large-scale plants. The government's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2025, published in October 2025, explicitly calls for reviving the PBMR program as part of procuring over 2.5 GWe of new nuclear capacity, with SMRs targeted for deployment by 2030 to contribute to a total generation mix where nuclear rises to 16% by 2039. This includes lifting the PBMR facility from care and maintenance status by the first quarter of 2026, allowing resumption of demonstration and commercialization activities under the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa). In June 2025, agreements were signed with domestic partners like Stratek Global and international collaborators, including Chinese firms, to advance SMR development, focusing on derivatives such as the High-Temperature Modular Reactor (HTMR-100), a 100 MWe pebble-bed design evolved from PBMR technology. Private sector initiatives complement state efforts, with Stratek Global securing a 2,000-hectare site straddling and North West provinces in July 2025 for an SMR , emphasizing modular construction to mitigate the capital risks that doomed the original PBMR. Potential deployment sites draw from earlier evaluations, including coastal locations like Thyspunt and Schulpfontein in the Eastern and , though recent priorities favor inland or near-existing infrastructure to reduce transmission losses and enhance grid stability amid Eskom's challenges. Necsa has advocated for SMRs at sites like Koeberg or authorized zones to leverage existing regulatory frameworks and skilled workforce, projecting initial units could address localized demand in industrial hubs. Revival faces hurdles, including regulatory updates for SMR licensing under the National Nuclear Regulator and securing private investment, given past procurement controversies that inflated costs without delivery. Proponents argue SMRs' features—such as in pebble-bed designs—align with empirical evidence from prototypes demonstrating meltdown resistance, offering a pragmatic path to without relying on intermittent renewables alone. By 2025, ministerial commitments underscore nuclear's role in achieving net-zero electricity by 2050, with SMRs positioned to scale incrementally as feasibility studies confirm economic viability against alternatives.

International partnerships and self-sufficiency goals

South Africa's nuclear policy emphasizes achieving self-sufficiency across the , from and enrichment to fuel fabrication, reactor deployment, and , as articulated in statements from the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy. This goal, targeting reestablishment of the full fuel cycle within the next decade, leverages the country's substantial domestic reserves—estimated at 6% of global identified resources—and existing capabilities at facilities like , where historical enrichment research occurred. Officials have highlighted this self-reliance as essential for , reducing import dependence amid chronic electricity shortages, and fostering industrialization through localized of nuclear components. Central to these self-sufficiency efforts is the planned revival of the (PBMR) program, dormant since 2010, with care-and-maintenance status expected to end by the first quarter of 2026 to advance indigenous technology. This initiative aims to produce domestically designed reactors capable of scalable deployment, potentially exporting expertise to other African nations, while minimizing reliance on foreign reactor vendors for future capacity additions targeted at up to 10 GW under the Integrated Resource Plan 2025. To bridge technological and financing gaps en route to independence, South Africa pursues targeted international partnerships focused on knowledge transfer rather than outright procurement. In 2025, agreements with advanced joint research on small modular reactors, complementing earlier frameworks with (signed October 2014) for cooperation in advanced reactor designs and fuel cycle technologies. While a 2014 intergovernmental pact with Russia's envisioned up to 9.6 GW of new capacity, it was halted amid legal and fiscal scrutiny; recent engagements prioritize selective collaboration on infrastructure and funding without committing to vendor lock-in. These alliances, including IAEA-supported initiatives during South Africa's 2025 G20 presidency, emphasize capacity building for African nuclear programs, aiming to de-risk domestic development while safeguarding strategic autonomy.

Controversies

Procurement corruption under Zuma administration

During President Jacob Zuma's administration (2009–2018), efforts to procure additional nuclear capacity for were tainted by procurement irregularities and allegations, centered on a proposed multibillion-rand deal with Russia's state corporation. Zuma directed officials as early as autumn 2011 to award the contract solely to , circumventing competitive bidding and established regulations, including Treasury approval requirements. This approach ignored 's Management Act mandates for feasibility studies, cost-benefit analyses, and transparent tenders, prioritizing intergovernmental agreements over open . The deal, formalized via a September 22, 2014, agreement signed in , targeted up to 9,600 megawatts of new capacity using Rosatom's pressurized water reactors, with projected costs exceeding R1 trillion (roughly $76 billion at the time). Cabinet determinations in 2016 to initiate bypassed parliamentary scrutiny and environmental assessments, amid claims of undue influence from Zuma's associates, including links to the family's business interests through Zuma's son Duduzane's ventures. Finance ministers and Nhlanhla Nene resisted endorsement, citing unaffordability and opaque terms; Nene's opposition culminated in his dismissal by Zuma on December 9, 2015, following a December 8 meeting on nuclear strategy. The of Inquiry into , appointed in January 2018, documented Zuma's orchestration of pressure campaigns—via Energy Minister and chair —to coerce Treasury compliance from 2012 to 2017, framing the nuclear push as part of broader in the energy sector. Testimony revealed Zuma's role in potential Russian-linked pay-offs and Gupta-aligned manipulations, though commissions noted insufficient direct proof of personal enrichment while confirming systemic procedural subversion. These findings aligned with patterns of in and related entities, where non-competitive awards inflated costs and diverted public funds. On April 26, 2017, the High Court declared the nuclear procurement determinations unlawful and irrational in Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs, citing failure to follow constitutional processes, absence of , and evident risks in the sole-sourced framework. The ruling nullified the program, averting what analysts termed a potential fiscal catastrophe amid Eskom's mounting debt, and underscored how political interference eroded institutional safeguards against graft. No subsequent Zuma-era nuclear tenders advanced, with the scandal contributing to his February 2018 resignation amid probes.

Cost overruns and economic critiques

The Koeberg Nuclear Power Station's life extension program, approved by 's board in 2010 to prolong operations by 20 years beyond the original 40-year design life, was initially budgeted at R20 billion. By 2024, revised the estimated cost for long-term operations to R21 billion, though delays in critical components like replacements have incurred additional penalties, including a July 2025 ruling mandating pay approximately R1 billion for project delays attributable to 's mismanagement and 's execution errors. These setbacks, including extended outages since 2023, have reduced Koeberg's output to roughly half capacity, exacerbating national load-shedding and amplifying indirect economic costs through forgone valued in the tens of billions of rand annually. Proposed nuclear expansions under former President Jacob Zuma's administration, targeting 8,000 to 9,600 MW of new capacity through deals primarily with , were estimated to cost up to R1 trillion (approximately $76 billion at exchange rates), a figure equivalent to South Africa's at the time and deemed fiscally unsustainable by Finance Minister in 2018. The program's opacity and lack of competitive procurement fueled critiques that it ignored South Africa's constrained public finances, high sovereign debt levels exceeding 60% of GDP, and the risk of financing through costly state guarantees or loans from suppliers like , potentially straining the rand and inflating long-term tariffs. A ruling declared the intergovernmental agreements with , , and unlawful for bypassing parliamentary oversight and affordability assessments, halting the initiative amid projections of multi-year construction delays akin to those in Koeberg. Broader economic analyses highlight nuclear power's structural vulnerabilities in , where capital-intensive projects routinely exceed budgets by 40% or more due to regulatory hurdles, dependencies, and technical complexities, as seen in Koeberg's refurbishment overruns and paralleling coal-fired megaprojects like Medupi and Kusile. Critics, including economists from the , contend that such expenditures divert funds from scalable renewables or grid repairs, given nuclear's often surpassing R1 per kWh when factoring in overruns, decommissioning, and —costs not fully internalized in Eskom's projections. Proponents counter that these critiques undervalue nuclear's dispatchable baseload reliability amid Eskom's 20%+ unserved energy deficit, but fiscal realists emphasize the : R1 trillion could retrofit thousands of MW in gas peakers or solar-plus-storage at lower upfront risk, avoiding debt traps in a economy growing below 1% annually.

Public opposition and perceived risks

Public opposition to nuclear power in South Africa has been voiced through activist groups such as Koeberg Alert, formed in 1983 to challenge the , and more recent coalitions including Earthlife Africa and the Southern African Faith Communities' Environment Institute (SAFCEI), which in July 2024 launched a legal challenge against plans for new nuclear capacity, citing financial, environmental, and social risks. Protests have included a December 2021 demonstration at Beach near Koeberg, organized by to question the plant's and demand greater input on safety decisions, as well as Greenpeace activists scaling the Koeberg facility in August 2002 to highlight environmental concerns. These actions reflect broader wariness, amplified by the scandal-plagued 9,600 MW nuclear deal initiated under former President with , which fueled perceptions of opacity and potential in . Surveys indicate mixed public attitudes, with safety and cost often cited as barriers despite recognition of nuclear's role in addressing load-shedding and emissions. A 2011 Human Sciences Research Council survey found limited outright rejection of nuclear expansion, but persistent concerns over accident risks influenced by global events like Chernobyl and Fukushima. More recent analyses, including a 2021 study on household perceptions, show that while nuclear is viewed as a clean baseload option for mitigating power outages and , respondents expressed heightened risk aversion, with willingness to pay premiums for alternatives tied to fears of radiological releases and failures. Opposition has waned somewhat as global support for nuclear grows for net-zero goals, though domestic hurdles like public skepticism delayed procurement consultations as of August 2024. Perceived risks center on safety vulnerabilities, including potential accidents, exacerbated by Koeberg's aging infrastructure and past maintenance delays that have raised operational concerns without resulting in International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) Level 2 or higher incidents since commissioning. Critics highlight site-specific hazards, such as the proposed Thyspunt location's exposure to storm surges, sea-level rise, and rare tsunamis, as identified in a 2016 study deeming it unsuitable without mitigation. Additional fears involve radioactive waste storage, proliferation risks given South Africa's historical nuclear weapons program, and vulnerability to sabotage or terrorism, though the country's low seismic activity and robust regulatory oversight by the National Nuclear Regulator mitigate some geophysical threats. Misinformation about meltdown probabilities, drawn from international disasters, continues to shape views, despite Koeberg's 40-year record of generating over 1,000 terawatt-hours with no core damage or significant releases.

Benefits and Strategic Role

Energy security amid load-shedding crisis

South Africa's electricity supply has been plagued by load-shedding—controlled rotational power outages—stemming from Eskom's aging -fired fleet, with unplanned breakdowns averaging over 15,000 MW in peak crisis periods from 2022 to 2023, forcing up to Stage 6 shedding (up to 12 hours daily). The , operational since 1984, has served as a critical baseload provider amid this instability, delivering 1,860 MW from its two pressurized water reactors, equivalent to approximately 5% of the nation's total electricity demand. Unlike intermittent renewables or frequently derated plants, Koeberg's high reliability—evidenced by its to the grid post-maintenance without triggering additional shedding—has directly mitigated shortage risks, as unplanned outages below 13,000 MW across the fleet have historically allowed zero load-shedding even during Unit 1 delays. The station's return to full capacity, such as Unit 2's reconnection on December 31, 2024, following extensive upgrades, has bolstered grid stability during seasonal peaks, contributing to over 300 load-shedding-free days in 2024 and sustained improvements into 2025. Koeberg's dispatchable output, with a track record of producing the country's most cost-effective , underscores its role in by offsetting fleet inefficiencies, where energy availability factors hovered below 60% in prior years but rose to 67% by mid-2024 partly due to nuclear consistency. Delays in life-extension maintenance, like Unit 1's work in 2025, have tested margins but not escalated shedding when managed within Eskom's recovery thresholds, highlighting nuclear's resilience against systemic degradation. This reliability positions Koeberg as a cornerstone for averting future crises, as evidenced by policy emphasis on nuclear expansion to add 5,000 MW by 2036, recognizing its proven capacity to deliver uninterrupted power amid Eskom's 40-year-old coal dependency and vulnerability to breakdowns. While renewables have scaled, their variability exacerbates peak-hour shortfalls, making nuclear's firm, on-demand generation indispensable for long-term security in a grid strained by demand exceeding 40,000 MW during winters.

Economic impacts including jobs and GDP

The Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, South Africa's sole operational nuclear facility, supports approximately 1,786 direct jobs annually through its operations, alongside 14,110 indirect jobs in the and 19,837 induced jobs from employee spending, totaling around 35,733 positions as of 2012–2016 data. These figures reflect high-skill roles in , , and technical operations, contributing to workforce development in a sector requiring specialized . Planned investments from 2016–2020 were projected to sustain similar levels, with direct jobs at 1,564 and total indirect and induced at 35,164. Koeberg's economic activity generated R53.3 billion annually in total output during 2012–2016, including R23.1 billion to national GDP outside the and R29 billion to provincial GDP (1.4% of the 's total). Each rand of operational spending added 64–83 cents to GDP depending on the , while new capital investments yielded 50–70 cents per rand, demonstrating multiplier effects through , taxes (R16.4 billion in yearly), and (R35 billion nationally). These impacts stem from Koeberg's role in supplying 5% of national electricity, enabling industrial stability amid load-shedding. Ongoing life extension projects, approved for Unit 1 until 2045 with Unit 2 pending, involve significant capital outlays that bolster short-term construction and engineering jobs while extending long-term operational benefits. Projections for expanded nuclear capacity suggest up to 16,647 jobs and an R53.3 billion GDP boost by 2030, though such estimates assume policy support and financing amid fiscal constraints. Critics, including analyses from the Alternative Information and Development Centre, argue nuclear's capital intensity yields fewer jobs per megawatt than alternatives like renewables, with historical per-job costs exceeding R70 million in some Eskom data interpretations. Nonetheless, nuclear's baseload reliability supports broader economic productivity, with potential future contributions estimated at R39 billion annually to GDP by 2035 (0.6% of national output) under expansion scenarios.

Low-carbon baseload power for development

Nuclear power stations, such as Koeberg, deliver baseload —reliable, continuous output that anchors and underpins industrial and commercial operations essential for economic expansion. In , where coal-fired plants dominate the generation mix at approximately 80% as of 2024, nuclear contributes around 5% of total but operates at capacity factors exceeding 90%, far surpassing coal's typical 60-70% due to its dispatchable nature and minimal downtime. This high reliability avoids the variability of and solar, which, despite growing shares of 5% and 9% respectively in 2024, require backups to meet constant demand from energy-intensive sectors like and . The low-carbon profile of nuclear energy supports South Africa's developmental goals by enabling emissions reductions without sacrificing grid stability. Koeberg's two pressurized water reactors, with a combined capacity of 1,860 MW, emit negligible operational greenhouse gases—lifecycle emissions around 12 gCO2 per kWh, compared to coal's 800-1,000 gCO2/kWh—facilitating compliance with international commitments while powering growth. Reliable baseload mitigates load-shedding, which has shaved up to 2-3% off annual GDP through production halts and investor deterrence; nuclear's consistent supply sustains , job creation, and infrastructure buildout critical for alleviation and . Expanding nuclear capacity aligns with causal needs for scalable, firm power in a resource-constrained , where intermittent renewables alone cannot fulfill 24/7 for emerging hubs or electrification drives targeting 10 million additional households by 2030. Studies emphasize that baseload sources like nuclear enhance , reduce fuel import vulnerabilities (unlike gas), and catalyze regional trade via stable exports, positioning as an industrial leader in . This approach prioritizes empirical grid requirements over subsidized intermittency, fostering long-term prosperity through verifiable output metrics rather than aspirational deployment targets.

Nuclear Expertise and Institutions

Key organizations: Eskom, Necsa, and regulators

, the state-owned electricity , holds primary responsibility for generation in as the operator of the , the continent's sole commercial nuclear facility with two pressurized water reactors providing approximately 5% of the nation's electricity supply. Eskom, which generates about 95% of 's electricity, has pursued extensions for Koeberg's operational life, including the successful synchronization of Unit 2 to the national grid on December 31, 2024, following extensive long-term upgrades to maintain reliability amid broader energy challenges. In August 2025, regulatory approval enabled Eskom to explore adding up to 4,000 megawatts of new nuclear capacity at sites like Duynefontein, underscoring its role in potential expansion despite fiscal constraints. The South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa), established as a state-owned entity under the Nuclear Energy Act of 1999, focuses on , development, and innovation in nuclear energy and sciences to advance national socio-economic goals. Necsa manages applications, including production and handling, while promoting regional utilization without direct commercial power generation responsibilities. Its facility supports R&D, contributing to development and international collaborations, such as with in 2011 for enhanced nuclear capabilities. Nuclear activities are overseen by the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR), the primary authority enforcing safety standards to prevent radiological hazards to people, property, and the environment. Established under the National Nuclear Regulator Act of 1999, the NNR conducts assessments, issues licenses, and monitors compliance at installations like Koeberg, applying international benchmarks to ensure safe operations. Complementary oversight falls under the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) for broader energy licensing, though NNR holds specialized nuclear mandate. In practice, NNR's independence has faced scrutiny, with calls for strengthened enforcement amid Koeberg's aging infrastructure.

Research, innovation, and human capital

The South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) serves as the primary institution for nuclear and development, focusing on nuclear, , and related technologies to meet national needs. Its facility houses the SAFARI-1 , operational since 1965, which has supported nuclear research for six decades, including contributions to medical production supplying up to 25% of global molybdenum-99 demand. Necsa's research extends to radioisotope applications and materials testing, with recent initiatives including a with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) signed on April 25, 2025, to advance collaborative technology development. Innovation efforts center on modular reactor technology, exemplified by the (PBMR) project, initiated in the early 2000s as a high-temperature gas-cooled design for enhanced and . Placed in care and maintenance in 2010 due to funding constraints, the project is slated for revival, with South Africa's government advancing plans to lift this status by the first quarter of 2026 or earlier, aiming to bolster domestic nuclear capacity amid energy challenges. Necsa has targeted R50 billion in investments by February 2025 to drive nuclear innovation, including medical production and reactor technology commercialization. Complementary facilities like the Research Infrastructure (NuMeRI), launched in 2024, enable advanced drug development for cancer and through integrated imaging and capabilities. iThemba LABS, operated by the National Research Foundation, provides accelerator-based research in and production, supporting both fundamental and applied advancements. Human capital development faces challenges, with the sector experiencing significant skills attrition as of 2023, attributed to retirements, emigration, and insufficient pipeline replenishment, threatening operational sustainability. Necsa's Learning Academy offers accredited training programs tailored to nuclear operations, maintenance, and safety, addressing immediate workforce needs. In June 2024, South Africa hosted Africa's third Nuclear Energy Management School with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) support, training early-career professionals in program development and operations. Ongoing initiatives include skills forecasting collaborations and bursary programs, with emphasis on international partnerships to build competencies in reactor engineering and fuel cycle management. The DST/NRF South African Research Chairs Initiative funds a dedicated nuclear engineering chair at North-West University, fostering specialized research and postgraduate training.

Export potential and regional influence

South Africa's Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) has established a niche in exporting nuclear-derived medical isotopes, particularly molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), produced at the Safari-1 in , supplying up to 25% of global demand and serving as Africa's primary source for these critical healthcare materials. This export activity, bolstered by a $25 million contract with the U.S. Department of Energy in October 2010, underscores potential for broader commercialization of nuclear technologies, including proposed fuel fabrication for pressurized water reactors (PWRs), which could meet domestic needs of 465 tonnes of annually by 2030 while targeting international markets. Although the (PBMR) program was terminated in 2010, its high-temperature gas-cooled technology underwent testing in the United States in 2008 and in 2009, highlighting historical efforts to position South African innovations for export to modular nuclear markets in developing regions. Electricity exports from South Africa's grid, which includes nuclear generation from Koeberg contributing about 5% of national supply, totaled 12.3 TWh in 2022 through the (SAPP), enabling net exports of 1.5 TWh and fostering energy interdependence in the region. Necsa's expertise, supported by approximately 2,700 skilled personnel in the nuclear sector, positions South Africa to export training and consulting services, with ongoing programs assisting African nations in . As the only (SADC) member operating a commercial , exerts regional influence through the SADC Nuclear Regulators' Network (SADC NRN), established in 2011 and hosted by its National Nuclear Regulator (NNR), which coordinates safety standards and information sharing among member states. Necsa contributes to this framework by promoting research and innovation applicable to SADC infrastructure goals under the Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) for 2020–2030. During its 2025 presidency, partnered with the (IAEA) to advance nuclear new-build programs across , leveraging its operational experience to guide continent-wide adoption and positioning itself as a hub for transfer and energy planning. This leadership enhances 's strategic role amid 's projected need for 15 GW of new nuclear capacity by 2035, where its historical and technical reservoir could drive collaborative projects despite competition from global players like and .

References

  1. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/south-africa
  2. https://www.eskom.co.za/eskom-synchronises-koeberg-nuclear-power-station-unit-2-with-national-grid-following-extensive-upgrades/
  3. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/second-koeberg-unit-returns-to-service
  4. https://energycapitalpower.com/south-africa-launches-irp-2025-targeting-5-2-gw-of-nuclear/
  5. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/south-africa-aims-revive-its-small-nuclear-reactor-technology-2025-10-22/
  6. https://www.necsa.co.za/about-us/
  7. https://nnr.co.za/about/history/
  8. https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/masiza11.pdf
  9. https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/RevisitingSouthAfricasNuclearWeaponsProgram.pdf
  10. https://www.ntp.co.za/history/
  11. https://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/koeberg-marks-30-years-of-operations-as-sa-mulls-new-nuclear-chapter-2014-04-04
  12. https://www.eskom.co.za/eskom-divisions/gx/koeberg-nuclear-power-station/
  13. https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/south-african-who-attacked-a-nuclear-plant-is-a-hero-to-his-government-and-fellow-citizens/
  14. https://www.nti.org/countries/south-africa/
  15. https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/south-african-nuclear-program/
  16. https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/31pabian.pdf
  17. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull37-1/37105394248.pdf
  18. https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/south-africa-why-countries-acquire-and-abandon-nuclear-bombs
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Time-line-of-South-Africas-electricity-policy-1994-2015_fig1_299629999
  20. https://www.powermag.com/south-africa-abandons-pebble-bed-modular-reactor-project/
  21. https://www.neimagazine.com/news/south-africa-cancels-pbmr-funding/
  22. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2019/12/nuclear-enrichment-russias-ill-fated-influence-campaign-in-south-africa?lang=en
  23. https://neutronbytes.com/2014/09/23/south-africa-inks-9-6-gwe-10b-reactor-deal-with-russia/
  24. https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/currencies/south-african-court-declares-nuclear-plan-with-russia-unlawful-idUSKBN17S25Q/
  25. https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/markets/south-africa-revives-nuclear-reactor-project-in-new-energy-plan/ty1vnd4
  26. https://www.nucnet.org/news/south-africa-to-revive-abandoned-pebble-bed-modular-reactor-project-increase-nuclear-capacity-10-2-2025
  27. https://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/pbmr-to-be-lifted-from-care-and-maintenance-by-latest-q1-next-year-ramokgopa-2025-10-22
  28. https://nnr.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/K-31015-E-Attachment-2_240-165294677-Rev-4-PID-for-LTO-English.pdf
  29. https://www.eskom.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/What-is-LTO-History-of-Koeberg-Nuclear-Power-Station-1.pdf
  30. https://www.etenders.gov.za/home/Download/?blobName=142af990-330a-4338-9d82-ba65f56872fe.pdf&downloadedFileName=Annexure%2520M%2520-%2520TRS%2520for%2520%2520Nuclear%2520Fuel%2520Assemblies%2520at%2520KNPS.pdf
  31. https://www.eskom.co.za/koeberg-operating-model/
  32. https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/koeberg-nuclear-power-station-refurbishment/
  33. https://www.eskom.co.za/koeberg-celebrates-40-years-of-safe-nuclear-operation-delivering-1-800mw-of-reliable-baseload-power-to-south-africa/
  34. https://www.facebook.com/EskomSouthAfrica/posts/as-we-look-back-on-the-history-of-koeberg-nuclear-power-station-and-prepare-to-c/881119297393867/
  35. https://pmg.org.za/files/241031pcenergyreport2.pdf
  36. https://www.eskom.co.za/koeberg-unit-2-successfully-restored-to-service-following-unplanned-outage-delivering-930mw-of-reliable-baseload-power-to-south-africa/
  37. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-concludes-long-term-operation-safety-review-at-south-africas-koeberg-nuclear-power-plant
  38. https://nnr.co.za/koeberg-npp/
  39. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/long-term-safety-at-koeberg-assessed
  40. https://nnr.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Annexure-A.pdf
  41. https://nnr.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/TR-NPP-24-001-LTO-Safety-Evaluation-Report.pdf
  42. https://nnr.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/NNR-MEDIA-RELEASE-6-Oct-2025-NNR-Feedback-after-3rd-Set-of-LTO-Public-Hearings.pdf
  43. https://nnr.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/TR-NPP-24-001-LTO-Safety-Evaluation-Report-Annexures.pdf
  44. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production
  45. https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/south-africas-secret-nuclear-weapons
  46. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/sa_nuclear_technical_retrospective_kelley_1.pdf
  47. https://ir.aspisotopes.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/61/asp-isotopes-inc-enters-into-definitive-agreements-with
  48. https://www.jaea.go.jp/english/04/turuga/info/events/081201iaea/pdf/P.Bredell_paper.pdf
  49. https://inis.iaea.org/records/awsq1-5jz53
  50. https://www.esi-africa.com/industry-sectors/smart-technologies/necsa-looking-to-future-of-nuclear-fuel-manufacturing-and-smrs/
  51. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/south-africa-aims-to-be-global-supplier-of-htr-fue
  52. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TRS425_web.pdf
  53. https://www.ans.org/news/article-1043/south-africa-tries-again-to-expand-its-nuclear-program/
  54. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1021-447X2015000200002
  55. https://nnr.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/NRWDI-PID.pdf
  56. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/regulator-oks-south-african-waste-facility-licence-transfer
  57. https://www.nrwdi.org.za/solution/managing-radioactive-waste/
  58. https://www.nrwdi.org.za/
  59. https://infrastructurenews.co.za/2025/08/05/managing-south-africas-nuclear-waste/
  60. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/radwaste1.pdf
  61. https://nnr.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/8.-Koeberg-Solid-Radioactive-Waste-Management-Plan-Rev-1.pdf
  62. https://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/nrwdi-outlines-plan-for-new-facility-to-store-koeberg-spent-fuel-offsite-from-2030-2025-06-19
  63. https://www.nrwdi.org.za/solutions/cisf/
  64. https://nnr.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Redacted-Detailed-Design_20241114-fullysigned.pdf
  65. https://www.eskom.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/GX-0001-Generation-Plant-Mix-Rev-30.pdf
  66. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/south-africas-koeberg-nuclear-plant-refit-boosts-power-supplies-2024-12-31/
  67. https://www.nucnet.org/news/koeberg-2-synchronised-to-grid-after-extensive-long-term-operation-programme-12-2-2024
  68. https://www.power-technology.com/news/koeberg-nuclear-power-plant-south-africa/
  69. https://www.dmre.gov.za/news-room/post/2755/stand-up-for-nuclear-south-africa-2024-remarks-remarks-by-deputy-director-general-mr-zizamele-mbambo
  70. https://www.eskom.co.za/koeberg-operating-licence-extended-for-further-20-years/
  71. https://www.eskom.co.za/eskom-divisions/gx/koeberg-long-term-outage/
  72. https://koebergalert.org/2022/09/30/koeberg-costs-south-africa/
  73. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/south-african-nuclear-power-plant-gets-approval-run-one-unit-extra-20-years-2024-07-15/
  74. https://safcei.org/eskom%25E2%2580%2599s-safety-case-for-koeberg-unit-2-built-on-absent-and-outdated-data-%25E2%2580%2593-regulator-still-set-to-approve/
  75. https://www.newsghana.com.gh/faith-groups-challenge-safety-data-for-koeberg-reactor-licence-extension/
  76. https://koebergalert.org/2022/02/01/modelling-report-koeberg-life-extension-costs-the-country/
  77. https://www.onestopndt.com/ndt-news/ndt-findings-lead-to-extended-koeberg-unit-1-outage-for-quality-assurance
  78. https://www.news24.com/business/companies/court-slaps-eskom-with-r1bn-bill-for-koeberg-generator-replacement-delays-20250722-0544
  79. https://www.powermag.com/second-unit-of-south-africa-nuclear-plant-back-online-after-major-maintenance/
  80. https://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/eskom-insists-delayed-return-of-koeberg-unit-1-wont-increase-loadshedding-risk-2025-07-15
  81. https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstreams/0e5f9c29-3fc1-490c-97f2-c45bafa47ba6/download
  82. https://koebergalert.org/
  83. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/south-africas-eskom-implement-stage-3-power-cuts-2025-03-07/
  84. https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/south-african-government-approves-draft-2025-irp
  85. https://www.gov.za/news/media-statements/necsa-endorses-irp-2025-catalyst-clean-energy-and-industrial-growth-23-oct
  86. https://www.energize.co.za/article/nuclear-takes-centre-stage-with-irp-2025?page=28
  87. https://www.bastionoil.com/south-africa-integrated-resource-plan-2025/
  88. https://www.neimagazine.com/news/nuclear-key-in-south-africas-energy-plan/
  89. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/south-africa
  90. https://www.africa-energy.com/news-centre/article/south-africa-mulls-large-nuclear-plants-and-smrs
  91. https://sightlineu3o8.com/2025/10/south-africa-unveils-nuclear-ambitions-in-new-energy-plan/
  92. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/south-africa-government-reiterates-commitment-to-new-nuclear-and-pbmr
  93. https://energyforgrowth.org/article/2025-update-who-in-africa-is-ready-for-nuclear-power/
  94. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/htmr-100-team-aim-for-pbmr-smr-in-south-africa
  95. https://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/602381-south-african-small-nuclear-power-station-project-gets-land.html
  96. https://www.necsa.co.za/2025/08/11/necsa-welcomes-confirmation-of-a-nuclear-site-for-south-africas-next-nuclear-power-station/
  97. https://www.nuclearbusiness-platform.com/videos/v/wenc56efljxt5fxmdc27tcapr65szz
  98. https://www.africanleadershipmagazine.co.uk/south-africas-nuclear-ambitions-the-path-to-realisation/
  99. https://www.dmre.gov.za/news-room/post/2806
  100. https://www.news24.com/business/climate-future/energy/sa-seeking-to-develop-its-own-nuclear-fuel-in-the-next-decade-says-govt-official-20250502
  101. https://www.esi-africa.com/research-and-development/south-africa-nuclear-at-the-heart-of-the-energy-mix/
  102. https://www.sanuclearbuildplatform.co.za/news-1/south-africa-%27aims-to-be-self-sufficient-across-nuclear-value-chain%27
  103. https://energiesmedia.com/south-africa-to-build-nuclear-plant-in-the-cape/
  104. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-launches-outlook-on-nuclear-power-for-development-in-africa-at-g20
  105. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/strategic-partnership-plans-to-develop-advanced-nuclear-energy-in-south-africa
  106. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202204/state-capture-commission-report-part-iv-vol-1.pdf
  107. https://issafrica.org/iss-today/nene-and-the-complex-truth-of-state-capture
  108. https://earthlife.org.za/5-years-after-the-corrupt-nuclear-deal-was-stopped-sa-still-waits-for-improved-energy-decision-making/
  109. https://www.greenbuildingafrica.co.za/koeberg-nuclear-power-plant-life-extension-costs-vastly-underestimated/
  110. https://www.news24.com/business/climate-future/energy/koebergs-long-term-operation-to-cost-r21bn-but-its-a-good-investment-says-eskom-20240722
  111. https://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/504120-the-ugly-truth-behind-koebergs-delays.html
  112. https://theconversation.com/south-africas-nuclear-sector-has-failed-its-test-the-koeberg-nuclear-plant-life-extension-188013
  113. https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2018-11-20-r1-trillion-nuclear-deal-was-beyond-sas-financial-reach-says-pravin-gordhan/
  114. https://www.newsweek.com/south-africa-nuclear-deal-590035
  115. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39717401
  116. https://koebergalert.org/costs/
  117. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2415-04872020000100005
  118. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2015/06/why-nuclear-power-would-be-a-bad-option-for-south-africa/
  119. https://earthlife.org.za/news-civil-society-launches-legal-challenge-against-the-south-african-government-plans-for-new-nuclear-energy/
  120. https://koebergalert.org/2021/12/17/anti-nuclear-protest-highlights-safety-concerns-at-koeberg/
  121. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/africa/08/24/safrica.greenpeace.glb/
  122. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/south-africa-delays-nuclear-power-procurement-allow-more-consultation-2024-08-16/
  123. https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/download/11343/6011/28149
  124. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354061115_South_African_Attitudes_About_Nuclear_Power_The_Case_of_the_Nuclear_Energy_Expansion
  125. https://www.esi-africa.com/industry-sectors/generation/nuclear-energy-a-political-football-in-south-africa/
  126. https://www.nuclearbusiness-platform.com/media/insights/public-perception-of-nuclear-energy-in-africa
  127. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/24/02/cns_national_report_2022_south_africa.pdf
  128. https://www.dw.com/en/study-finds-safety-concerns-over-south-african-nuclear-power-plant-proposal/a-36532207
  129. https://saiia.org.za/research/from-koeberg-to-chernobyl-the-challenge-of-nuclear-safety-in-sa-and-ukraine/
  130. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-energy-and-public-opinion
  131. https://www.eskom.co.za/koeberg-unit-1-return-to-service-extended-due-to-additional-steam-generator-maintenance-passes-structural-integrity-tests-no-increased-risk-of-loadshedding/
  132. https://www.esi-africa.com/industry-sectors/asset-maintenance/eskom-no-loadshedding-despite-delay-to-koeberg-unit-1-return/
  133. https://gga.org/what-the-budget-and-us-climate-policy-shift-mean-for-sas-energy-sector/
  134. https://www.nuclearbusiness-platform.com/media/insights/south-africa-nuclear-power-surge
  135. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-economic-surveys-south-africa-2025_7e6a132a-en/full-report/reforming-south-africa-s-electricity-sector_05fdccb6.html
  136. https://infrastructurenews.co.za/2025/07/16/no-risk-of-load-shedding-as-koeberg-unit-1-return-delayed/
  137. https://dailyinvestor.com/energy/106431/south-africa-going-nuclear-to-avoid-new-load-shedding-disaster/
  138. https://businesstech.co.za/news/energy/805095/another-nail-in-the-coffin-for-load-shedding-in-south-africa/
  139. https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/attachments/68335_eskom_booklet_20170327.pdf
  140. https://www.gov.za/speeches/minister-lynne-brown-release-kpmg-report-koeberg-power-station-30-mar-2017-0000
  141. https://aidc.org.za/nuclear-power-empty-promise-jobs/
  142. https://www.eurasiareview.com/07072025-the-economic-imperative-for-nuclear-power-oped/
  143. https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/South_Africa
  144. https://energycapitalpower.com/south-africas-baseload-energy-challenge-balancing-tradition-with-a-sustainable-future/
  145. https://iol.co.za/business-report/energy/2023-07-05-strategic-insights-why-baseload-power-is-central-to-any-well-informed-statement-on-energy/
  146. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/p15896-PAT-011_web.pdf
  147. https://weplanetafrica.org/africa-should-adopt-nuclear-energy-for-a-low-carbon-footprint/
  148. https://www.wiltonpark.org.uk/app/uploads/2024/08/WP3330-Report.pdf
  149. https://www.neimagazine.com/news/eskom-nuclear-plant-authorisation/
  150. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/utility-moves-forward-controversial-plans-043000169.html
  151. https://www.necsa.co.za/
  152. https://nationalgovernment.co.za/units/view/176/south-african-nuclear-energy-corporation-necsa
  153. https://neutronsources.org/neutron-centres/africa-asia-and-oceania/necsa/
  154. https://nnr.co.za/
  155. https://nationalgovernment.co.za/units/view/138/national-nuclear-regulator-nnr
  156. https://www.outa.co.za/projects/energy/nnr
  157. https://www.crown.co.za/latest-news/electricity-control-latest-news/32143-necsa-celebrates-60-years-of-nuclear-research
  158. https://www.csir.co.za/necsa-and-csir-sign-mou-on-research-and-technology-development-initiatives
  159. https://www.pbmr.co.za/index2.asp
  160. https://www.necsa.co.za/2025/02/18/necsa-aims-for-r50bn-to-spearhead-nuclear-innovation-and-medical-isotope-production/
  161. https://www.dsti.gov.za/index.php/media-room/latest-news/4267-nuclear-medicine-research-infrastructure-numeri-is-a-world-first-for-cancer-and-tb-drug-development-and-clinical-research-in-south-africa
  162. https://tlabs.ac.za/
  163. https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-africa-south-2023-12-south-africa-s-nuclear-sector-haemorrhaging-skills/
  164. https://www.necsa.co.za/service/necsa-learning-academy/
  165. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/third-nuclear-energy-management-school-in-africa-opens-hosted-by-south-african-nuclear-sector
  166. https://www.crown.co.za/latest-news/electricity-control-latest-news/33550-skills-development-in-sa-s-nuclear-energy-sector
  167. https://engineering.nwu.ac.za/research/research-innovation-engineering
  168. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Occasional-Paper-332-velichkov.pdf
  169. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-launches-outlook-on-nuclear-power-for-development-in-africa-at-g20
  170. https://www.nuclearbusiness-platform.com/media/insights/africa-nuclear-dream
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.