Communities across the Eastern Cape are once again being asked to consider the impact of a proposal to build a nuclear power plant at Thyspunt, between Oyster Bay and Cape St Francis. As government advances plans for 5 200MW of new nuclear generation capacity, many – residents, environmental groups, fishers, farmers, tourism operators, and heritage advocates – are raising serious concerns about what this project could mean for the region.
At Earthlife Africa, we believe that communities deserve access to information and a meaningful opportunity to participate in decisions that will affect their lives, livelihoods, and environment for generations to come.
In the coming weeks, together with partner organisations, we will be hosting a community Speak-Out event in Jeffreys Bay (which you can join online). The goal is to create a platform for affected residents to voice their concerns and engage with the realities of the proposed development.
Here are some of the key reasons that communities oppose the construction of a nuclear power plant in Thyspunt…
- Threats to jobs and local livelihoods
The Eastern Cape coastline supports thriving fishing, tourism, and agricultural industries. Opponents of the project warn that construction could damage critical chokka breeding grounds through the dumping of millions of cubic metres of spoil into the ocean. The chokka industry sustains thousands of jobs and plays a vital role in the regional economy.
There are also concerns that changes to coastal currents could affect the renowned surf breaks around Seal Point, potentially impacting tourism, while agricultural producers fear water shortages, groundwater disruption, and damage to the reputation of local produce.
- Property rights and development restrictions
Residents in Oyster Bay and St Francis Bay may face new restrictions if their properties fall within designated nuclear safety zones. Future development of homes, schools, hospitals, and businesses could require additional approvals and compliance measures, creating uncertainty for property owners and potentially affecting property values and long-term regional growth.
- The jobs question
While proponents often highlight the creation of approximately 10,000 construction jobs, critics point out that these positions would be temporary and many could be filled by specialised workers from outside the region. Once construction is complete, employment opportunities are expected to decline significantly, with highly specialised operational jobs unlikely to benefit most local residents.
- Strain on local infrastructure
The project could place enormous pressure on local infrastructure. Estimates suggest up to 1,770 heavy truck trips per day during construction, potentially lasting between eight and ten years. Local roads, housing, healthcare facilities, electricity networks, water systems, and sewage infrastructure may struggle to cope with an influx of workers and sustained construction activity.
- Water security concerns
Water availability remains a major issue in this water-scarce region. Large volumes of water would be required during construction, yet communities are asking a simple question: where will that water come from? To date, critics argue that no clear plan has been presented that guarantees local communities and farmers will not bear the cost.
- A decade of disruption
If approved, Thyspunt would become one of the largest construction projects in the Southern Hemisphere. Residents could face up to a decade of noise, dust, heavy traffic, and construction-related disruption. Many fear the permanent transformation of a largely natural coastal landscape into a major industrial zone.
- Safety and emergency preparedness
Concerns about nuclear safety remain central to the debate. Critics point to assessments that indicate nearby towns could be affected by a radioactive release within minutes under certain weather conditions. Residents have questioned whether realistic evacuation and emergency-response plans exist, particularly during holiday periods when local populations increase dramatically.
- The cost to taxpayers
The proposed nuclear programme has been estimated to cost hundreds of billions of rand. Critics argue that nuclear energy remains significantly more expensive than many renewable alternatives and could lock South Africa into long-term financial commitments through sovereign guarantees and power purchase agreements. Ultimately, taxpayers and electricity consumers may carry much of the financial risk.
- An irreplaceable natural and cultural landscape
Perhaps the strongest argument against the project is the location itself. Thyspunt is recognised for its exceptional biodiversity, sensitive wetlands, rare fynbos ecosystems, and endangered species. It is also home to significant Khoisan cultural heritage resources, including shell middens, stone tools, rock art, and ancient occupation sites.
Many conservationists and heritage specialists argue that once these natural and cultural assets are lost, they cannot be replaced.
Make Your Voice Heard
The decision about Thyspunt is not simply about energy generation. It is about livelihoods, environmental justice, cultural heritage, public participation, and the future of South Africa’s coastline.
Earthlife Africa stands with communities calling for transparency, accountability, and meaningful public engagement.
On 11 July, we host a Speak-Out event in Jeffreys Bay. This is another way to ensure that the voices of affected communities are heard before decisions are made that cannot be undone.
If you want to read the pamphlet by Thuypunt Alliance you can find it over here: