Creamer Media’s Engineering News Online
Advanced Search
 
 
 
We have detected that the browser you are using is no longer supported. As a result, some content may not display correctly.
We suggest that you upgrade to the latest version of any of the following browsers:
         
close notification
powered by
GOLD 1748.97 $/ozChange: 15.31
PLATINUM 1667.00 $/ozChange: 9.00
R/$ exchange 7.60Change: -0.04
R/€ exchange 10.11Change: -0.08
 
NUCLEAR
Nuclear still ‘firmly’ part of SA power generation plans – Eskom
 
28th August 2009
TEXT SIZE
Text Smaller Disabled Text Bigger
 

State-owned power utility Eskom was hoping that a clear strategy for South Africa’s nuclear plans would emerge in the next few months, as nuclear was still “firmly” part of the country’s electricity generation plans, CEO Jacob Maroga said this week.

He noted in a results presentation on Thursday that nuclear was the biggest opportunity for the utility to limit its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

However, pursuing nuclear would require a collaborated, integrated strategy, given the size of such projects, as well as a number of related issues, such as safety.

Maroga said that he could not say how the utility would likely fund nuclear projects, as it would first have to complete the funding model for its current expansion projects.

The utility, which posted a R9,7-billion loss in the 2009 financial year, was expecting an R80-billion funding shortfall for its expansion programme. It was working on finalising a funding model by end-September.

Eskom had terminated the procurement process for the proposed multibillion-rand Nuclear 1 project in December last year, after the utility’s board decided that it could not make an investment decision to proceed, owing to financial pressures.

The utility generated 221,7-million tons of CO2 in the 2009 financial year, and believed that nuclear and renewable energy projects would play a major part in reducing its CO2 emissions.

Maroga emphasised that the utility had to change its CO2 footprint, not only from a climate change point of view, but also to ensure that South Africa was not put at a huge cost risk, as the cost of carbon would become a big factor, going forward.

Edited by: Mariaan Webb
FULL Access to Mining Weekly and Engineering News - Subscribe Now!
Subscribe Now Login
 
 
 
 
 
Hide Comments  
 
Readers Comments
 
image image
No, the biggest way to reduce our CO2 emissions is through Energy Efficiency which does not require the building of ANY power stations. Having said that, nuclear is so expensive it is cheaper to build gas-powered turbines and use the savings from NOT building nuclear to invest in substantial more carbon offsets in other programmes.
image image 
image
User not found. on 05 Sep 09