By Thuita Gatero, Managing Editor, Africa Digest News. He specializes in conversations around data centers, AI, cloud infrastructure, and energy.
Load shedding and coal dependence have long defined South Africa’s energy crisis, a double bind that keeps the nation’s lights flickering.
More than 80 % of the country’s electricity is still generated from coal-fired plants, and the state utility Eskom accounts for roughly 90 % of electricity generation.
As Pretoria charts its next energy phase, it aims to raise the combined contribution of nuclear and gas to 16 % of total generation up from around 4 % currently, effectively a four-fold increase. The country currently has two operational nuclear reactors and plans to add more than 5,200 MW of further nuclear capacity.
Understanding nuclear reactors
A nuclear reactor is a facility where nuclear fission typically of uranium-235 generates heat in a controlled chain reaction. That heat produces steam, which drives turbines and generates electricity.
The green appeal of nuclear:
- It emits virtually no greenhouse gases during operation, making it a powerful tool in climate mitigation.
- It runs continuously, complementing intermittent renewables.
- It has a small land footprint relative to large solar or wind farms, and supports energy security.
That said, critics point to high capital costs, long build-times, waste disposal challenges and safety issues as drawbacks.
Even as South Africa pivots to gas and nuclear, it has signalled it will not abandon coal entirely but rather attempt to make it “clean”. The government’s term for this is the deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology at coal-fired plants.
CCS works in three main steps: capturing CO₂ from emissions sources (post- or pre-combustion), transporting it (often via pipeline), and storing it underground in geological formations.
In theory, CCS could allow a coal plant to drastically reduce its CO₂ output. But in practice:
- The technology is expensive and complex.
- Storage capacity for CO₂ is more limited than once thought, raising questions about scalability.
- Critics argue it may simply prolong fossil-fuel dependence rather than drive a true transition.
South Africa is the largest greenhouse-gas emitter on the African continent. In 2022, the energy sector alone accounted for about 78-86 % of its total emissions. According to regional data, South Africa is among the top three emitters in Africa alongside Egypt and Algeria.
The funding gap and the politics of transition
Despite lofty plans, funding remains a major constraint. South Africa has so far secured approximately US$13 billion towards its transition plans, a small fraction (around ~10 %) of the estimated US$127 billion required for its IRP. Meanwhile, Eskom itself is burdened by about US$21.5 billion in debt.
Even when finance is secured, the transition faces domestic resistance: courts and civil society groups have challenged major fossil-fuel projects, including a 2017 court ruling that quashed a proposed US$76 billion deal with Russia’s Rosatom to build nuclear plants. The political and legal terrain complicates the technical and financial ambitions.
The cost of building new nuclear plants, gas infrastructure and CCS-equipped coal plants is high and the burden may fall on taxpayers, industry or consumers. If not managed well, South Africa could face a scenario where the lights are on, but the economic bills are too heavy for many households or businesses to carry.