Education
Communities unite in opposition to proposed South Africa nuclear power station – EnviroNews
– Advertisement –
Communities from across Kouga in the Eastern Cape of South Africa gathered in Jeffreys Bay on Saturday, July 11, 2026, to voice their opposition to Eskom’s proposed 5,200 MW nuclear power station at Thyspunt, a coastal area in Eastern Cape.
At a Speak Out event – hosted by Earthlife Africa Johannesburg – residents, fishers, environmental organisations, heritage advocates and community leaders sent a clear and united message that the development could threaten local livelihoods, biodiversity, cultural heritage, public safety and the regional economy, while adding a substantial financial burden for all South Africans.
“The people who live here understand exactly what is at stake. Many have been opposing this development for around twenty years,” said Makoma Lekalakala, Director of Earthlife Africa Johannesburg. “Throughout the day we heard the same message from small-scale fishers who want protect their livelihoods and First Nations representatives who want to protect their heritage and conservationists, residents and community organisations who are concerned about the environment and the rights of future generations. They all agree, Thyspunt is not a suitable place for a nuclear power station.”
For many residents, the proposal represents far more than another energy project. Thyspunt is home to globally significant biodiversity, irreplaceable Khoisan heritage and a thriving coastal economy built on fishing, tourism and agriculture. Speakers warned that harbour construction, dredging and millions of cubic metres of spoil dumped into the ocean could permanently damage chokka breeding grounds, alter ocean currents and threaten the internationally recognised surf breaks that attract visitors from around the world.
Local fisher Phenius Nkatshuka says that small-scale fishing communities have already experienced the consequences of coastal construction. “We have seen what happens when marine environments are disturbed. Fish stocks disappear and livelihoods suffer. Families here depend on the ocean every day. We cannot risk losing the resources that have sustained our communities for generations.”
Residents also questioned repeated promises that the project would create jobs, arguing that any construction employment would be temporary, while the long-term impacts on existing industries could be permanent. They warned that an influx of thousands of outside workers would place enormous pressure on already stretched housing, healthcare, water and municipal services.
Community member, Zamu Williams, says that local people had spent decades building opportunities through tourism, fishing and cultural activities. “We have created livelihoods that keep young people active and give them hope. We cannot sacrifice those opportunities for promises that disappear once construction is complete. The people who call this place home should not be left carrying the consequences.”
Much of the discussion focused on safety and emergency planning. Residents questioned whether evacuation would even be possible should a serious incident occur, pointing to limited road access, the area’s growing holiday population and the ongoing roadworks on the N2 – one of the region’s principal transport routes. Speakers argued that any emergency response plan would need to account for existing congestion and infrastructure constraints before the project could be considered remotely viable.
Community organiser with the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI), Lydia Peterson, says that communities were being asked to accept enormous risks without clear answers.
“People are often overwhelmed by technical language, but the questions are actually very simple. Is this safe? Can our country afford it? What happens to the waste? Who carries the risk if something goes wrong? Since I live quite close to Koeberg Nuclear Power Station (about 20kms), I have been taking a keen interest in safety issues regarding nuclear power plants. After examining the available information, I believe Thyspunt is too risky, too expensive and entirely the wrong location for a project of this scale.”
Environmental organisations also challenged the need for a large, centralised nuclear facility at a time when energy systems around the world are increasingly shifting towards renewable and decentralised generation. They argued that the proposed 5 200 MW facility would come at enormous financial cost while contributing relatively little to the national grid compared with the risks associated with its construction, operation and long-term waste management.
Gary Koekemoer, from the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA) says that the proposal failed the test of sustainable development. “Thyspunt is one of South Africa’s most significant natural and cultural landscapes. It protects irreplaceable biodiversity, ancient Khoisan heritage and one of the country’s last intact dune systems. Once these resources are destroyed, they are gone forever. We believe South Africa needs reliable energy, but not at the expense of places that cannot be replaced. We should be investing in technologies that are flexible, affordable and fit for the future – not committing future generations to decades of financial and environmental risk.”
Speakers also questioned the economic justification for the project, warning that the true costs would ultimately be borne by ordinary South Africans. Estimates presented during the event suggested the development could cost hundreds of billions of rand, requiring substantial borrowing while locking the country into decades of debt and higher electricity prices.
SAFCEI’s Ntombizodidi Mapapu says that the scale of the proposed investment highlighted the difficult choices facing government. “Imagine what that money could achieve if it were invested in the things our communities desperately need – schools, clinics, housing and opportunities for young people. South Africans deserve an honest conversation about priorities. Before committing taxpayers to one of the biggest infrastructure projects in our history, we should ask whether this is the best use of public money.”
Residents also warned that the construction phase alone would fundamentally change the character of the region. Thousands of heavy vehicle movements, years of construction activity and pressure on already strained municipal infrastructure would affect communities long before a single unit of electricity was generated. Local roads, healthcare facilities, water supplies and housing are already under pressure, speakers said, raising questions about whether the region could absorb such a massive industrial development.
Trudi Malan, from Thyspunt Alliance says that local residents could not afford to accept promises without practical commitments. “People are told there will be jobs and development, but communities have heard these promises before. If thousands of additional workers are expected to come here, where are the schools, hospitals, housing and roads to support them? Those services should exist before construction begins, not be promised afterwards. Our communities should not have to carry the costs while others make the decisions.”
Residents repeatedly returned to the issue of public participation, arguing that communities directly affected by the proposal must play a meaningful role in determining their future. Many said technical reports and complex planning processes should never become barriers that prevent ordinary people from understanding how decisions could affect their lives, livelihoods and environment.
Community member Cynthia Wildscutt said local families were thinking beyond the immediate impacts of construction. “We are thinking about our children and grandchildren. We want them to inherit clean oceans, healthy communities and opportunities to build their futures here. Once our environment is damaged, we cannot simply restore it. That is why we believe this proposal carries too many risks.”
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg said the Speak Out demonstrated that opposition to the proposed nuclear development extends across sectors and communities, with participants united by concerns over safety, affordability, environmental protection and democratic decision-making. The organisation said the event reinforced a simple conclusion: Thyspunt is an environmentally sensitive, culturally significant and economically valuable landscape that should be protected rather than transformed into one of the largest nuclear construction sites in the world.
“Our message is straightforward,” concludes Lekalakala. “Communities have spoken with one voice. They are asking for an energy future that protects people, respects our constitutional rights and safeguards the natural and cultural heritage that makes Thyspunt unique. Decisions of this magnitude cannot be imposed on communities. Nothing about us, without us.”
