- Ex-SA president Jacob Zuma stands firmly by his belief in nuclear power as a solution to the country’s energy crisis, yet experts disagree
- Greenpeace have put down Zuma’s claims, saying that nuclear power would have put SA in even more debt
- Another energy expert says that Zuma’s proposed plan would take up to a decade to complete
Former South African president, Jacob Zuma, recently made claims that his proposed nuclear deal with Russia could have saved SA from load shedding.
However, expects are dispelling this grandiose statement.
According to IOL, Greenpeace say that Zuma’s nuclear plans would have been too costly for SA.
The organisation goes on to outline that renewable sources of energy would be much cheaper for the country, as well as easier and quicker to install.
Greenpeace have also made a subtle suggestion that Zuma may be promoting nuclear power due to deals which could result in his personal gain.
“The former president’s remarks are based on ignorance or denial of the facts, and vested interests to promote nuclear at all cost.”
Energy expert, Tobias Bischof-Niemz, pointed out that turning to nuclear could plunge SA into a state of crisis for up to 10 years, eNCA reported.
Although all evidence positions nuclear as unviable for South Africa, Zuma is adamant that his deal could have helped the country drastically, Briefly.co.za reported.
To hear more about Bischof-Niemz's analysis on the matter, watch below:
Enjoyed reading our story? Download BRIEFLY's news app on Google Play now and stay up-to-date with major South African news!