Bantamsklip- The Way Forward

Thank you for coming to our event and for all your interest and questions!

We have created a mailing list from all the emails you provided, but it is not always possible to decipher what you wrote correctly. If you have not received an email from us by now and wish to be included in future communications regarding Bantamklip, please send an email to nonukes@bantamsklip.org and indicate such.

With regards to the way forward, it should be stressed that the Public Participation Process with regards to the proposed nuclear power station at Bantamsklip has already started, and the first online meeting was held on the 1st of December 2025. This is the stage in the process where you have the best chance to influence the decision of whether Pearly beach will get a nuclear power station or not.

It is therefore of vital importance that you register as an Interested and Affected Party by emailing Nuclear-PP-EIA@wsp.com and indicating that you wish to be registered for the Thyspunt/Bantamsklip process.

Once registered, we will happily guide you through the process as it unfolds. In case it is not clear by now, we will be opposing the project, but what you do is entirely your own decision. We will circulate our main concerns on social media and via the emailing list.

Yours sincerely

Anton Kruger

The Big 5 reasons

Why we do NOT want a Nuclear Power Station at Bantamsklip

1. Safety: Nuclear poses a very real safety risk and a major accident would be devastating to the residents of the Overstrand, the unique environment and South African tourism in general. Simplistically, given that there have been three major accidents worlwide to date, the next expected accident would be 15 years after Fukushima, i.e. in 2026. This risk is compounded by:

1.1. Several geological fault lines identified in the Overstrand

1.2. Climate change – rougher seas and sea level potentially rising

1.3. ESKOM’s track record of corruption, poor maintenance and safety, overspending and general incompetence

2. Tourism/Brand damage to the Overstrand: The Overstrand markets itself internationally as a pristine coastal retreat with “champagne” air. Tourism also happens to be the primary source of revenue for the Overstrand. A nuclear power station, even one under extended construction, can severely damage that brand and may also have a detrimental effect on property values. Do we really want to abandon this way of life in favour of industrialization?

3. Environmental Sensitivity and Biodiversity: The Overstrand region boasts of unique fauna and flora that has been earmarked for protection and restoration by international biodiversity treaty. Plants here are found nowhere else in the world, and the marine ecosystem is also unique due to the two ocean currents meeting on our coast. The nuclear site happens to be smack bang between 2 nature reserves that would suffer not only during a prolonged construction process, but also during normal operation as warm water used to cool the reactors is pumped out to sea. If, heaven forbid, something were to go wrong, the environmental loss would be devastating.

4. Cost: Nuclear power is by far the most expensive electricity worldwide. We would all carry the burden in our monthly bills and taxes. Keep in mind that you cannot intermittently switch a nuclear power station off during sunny and windy days when renewables are producing lots of electricity. ESKOM will need to finance its operation 100% of the time, therefore they will have to give preference to power produced by nuclear power. This will undermine the transition to renewable energy sources for as long as the nuclear power station is in operation. The cost of building such a power station is astronomical, and estimated to be as high as 1 trillion rands. Given the South African government’s track record, it is very likely that this project will experience corruption and overspending at a very high level, with the bill being picked up by everyone that pays taxes and buys electricity.

5. Time: Construction of a Nuclear Power Station takes many years, some have taken longer than 40 years to complete. Allow for overspending, government incompetence and corruption, and many of us will not see the project completed or reap the “benefits” of having nuclear power, but we will still have to finance it. At the same time, technology with regards to renewable energy is moving forward in leaps and bounds, and it is very likely that a much better solution will be available at a much cheaper price long before the power station has been completed. All over the world people are moving away from nuclear technology as a technological dinosaur, why not us?

Anton Kruger