Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan has given the assurance that government remains committed to South Africa’s pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR) nuclear power programme.

Speaking to journalists after addressing the PBMR workshop on localisation opportunities, last week, she also stated that government believes that “time is of the essence” in deve- loping nuclear energy in the country.

In her address, Hogan affirmed that, with the energy crisis, “there can be little doubt that nuclear is going to be one of the most important components” of the country’s energy base in the future. Moreover, the PBMR could provide the South African economy with not only electricity, but also other benefits, including clean process heat. Hogan highlighted that the PBMR Company was “home to the largest South African cluster of nuclear engineering and design skills” and that it had created the platform for a strong nuclear industrial base in the country.

“The government is gung-ho about localisa- tion,” she asserted, adding that the country “could not afford” to import products and skills that could be produced in the country.

“South Africa has been one of the few countries which has not erected protectionist tariffs in this downturn. Instead, we should be looking at driving a localisation programme in the country.” She stated that one of government’s most important instruments in dealing with the current recession was infrastructure development, including energy infrastructure.

Hogan pointed out that a nuclear industry required “functionalities which far exceed those of other industries” and that the PBMR project and company played “an extremely important role” in skills development in this country, highlighting that skills development was very important for both South Africa and for government policy. Also, referring to the fact that, for many decades, the balance of payments “has always been our Achilles heel”, she asserted that the PBMR was an ideal programme to increase the country’s exports.

However, Hogan cautioned that the PBMR was a long-term project – “with energy, you have to talk 30, 50 years forward; with the PBMR, you cannot talk [just] 10, 15 years forward” – and that the short-term requirements of an economy in crisis “always play against long-term interests”. She reported that she had discussed with the PBMR Company the need “to look at a paradigm which keeps long-term interests in the face of a short-term recession”.

In her remarks to the media afterwards, Hogan reported that “government is work- ing on the funding model for Eskom at the moment”. National power utility Eskom would host the PBMR demonstration power plant at its Koeberg nuclear power station, near Cape Town, and was meant to be a major customer for the PBMR. She also clarified that while the PBMR Company, like Eskom, fell under her department, the development of energy policy was the responsibility of the Department of Energy.

Eskom’s funding was important for the local nuclear sector because the utility’s project to build a new nuclear power station had been suspended in December because of the financial constraints it was experiencing. Eskom had plans to have 20 000 MW of nuclear generating capacity by 2025, which should amount to 30% of the utility’s total genera- ting capacity by that date. Currently, Koeberg (with two reactors), which has a nominal capacity of 1 930 MW, contributes about 5% of the country’s electricity.

The construction of a new, third-generation, pressure water reactor (PWR) would be the first stage in Eskom’s nuclear expansion programme. The competitors to build this new PWR, which would be the country’s first new nuclear power station in more than 20 years, were Areva, of France, and Westinghouse, of the US, part of Japan’s Toshiba group. Areva was offering its European PWR (better known as the EPR) design, and Westinghouse its AP1000.