Creamer Media’s Engineering News Online
Magazine in Store Now!
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 1252.31 $/ozChange: 6.67
PLATINUM 1556.00 $/ozChange: 24.00
R/$ exchange 7.22Change: 0.08
R/€ exchange 9.27Change: 0.07
 
 
Nuclear
PBMR future now in very grave doubt
9 COMMENTS  |  
ADD A COMMENT PRINT
 
 
4th June 2010
TEXT SIZE
Text Smaller Disabled Text Bigger
 

South Africa’s pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR) programme appears to be at death’s door. Sources have told Engineering News Online that the PBMR Company is in grave danger of being reduced to a staff complement of just 25, which would put into a “care-and-maintenance” status.

Officially, the PBMR Company is still busy with the restructuring – and downsizing – process announced early this year, in terms of which the workforce of 800 was to be cut by 75%, to 200, and is still negotiating with the unions. The board and management are also awaiting directives from the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE).

The publicly announced cuts were the result of the very severe budget cut inflicted on the predominantly State-owned PBMR Company in the national budget in February. But, it seems, that the funding available to the company would, even with only a 200-strong workforce, last just to the end of the year. The company would then completely cease to operate and have to dismiss all its staff.

Reducing the complement to just 25 would allow the company to continue to exist for another two or three years, albeit at a low level of activity. It seems that the PBMR board recently decided to do just this, to try and save something of the programme, but their plan was vetoed by the DPE.

However, the DPE has, so far, offered no practical alternative. It is hoped that it will soon come up with its own proposals – and the necessary funding – to ensure that the PBMR Company continues into 2011.

Staff morale is reported to be very bad, and it seems a number of highly-skilled people have already left and taken up nuclear posts overseas.

The PBMR is a Generation IV high-temperature gas-cooled reactor design, capable of both generating electricity and providing process heat for industrial uses. With the PBMR programme, South Africa was a world leader in Generation IV technologies.

The country was a founder member of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), which brings together countries from around the world that are developing, or interested in developing, Generation IV reactors. The other founder members were Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland and the UK. (China is also developing PBMR technology, which was originally pioneered in Europe). Subsequently, Argentina, Brazil and the UK became “inactive members” of the Forum while Russia formally joined the GIF last year.

The cuts inflicted on the PBMR programme have come just as a much-heralded global nuclear renaissance is getting under way. Across the world, at the moment, there are 45 nuclear reactors under construction, plus 131 in the planning stage and another 282 being proposed for licensing. (Currently, worldwide, there are 436 nuclear power reactors in operation).

Edited by: Creamer Media Reporter
 
 
 
 
 
Hide Comments  
 
Readers Comments
 
image image
This is a complete DISASTER and in this era where new energy sources are required as soon as possible makes it an even bigger disaster.......how to go from a world leader in this technology to care and maintenance in a few easy steps.....South Africa is currently spending more on vehicles for its traditional leaders than on the PBMR programme.......
image image 
image
Snowmaneasy on 05 Jun 10
image image
I am very disappointed in South Africa. How can we halt R&D in the field that is the future of Genaration. This would mean that 10 years of research in the field has gone to waste. I think this could be due to appointing clueless people into positions of power. As a result their decisions harm everyone. We will be paying huge sums of money in future to buy this technology, which was our brain power afterall. How long will it take for us to stop this Third-World mentality.
image image 
image
Zulu on 07 Jun 10
image image
Look to the German experience, their PBMRs failed completely, allthough they spent some ten bn Rand. The dismantling of the German PBMRs is extremely difficult and will be finished (perhaps) 100 years after shut down. The PBMR technology is very far away from realization and will require some additional ten bn of rand whether a decision about feasibility can be done. Have in mind: At the end not the government has decided about the future of PBMR but the market: There was simply no customer or investor for this unproven technology.
image image 
image
Rainier on 07 Jun 10
image image
how can this be .... terrible, terrible waste of brainpower ... south african mentality to the core ...
image image 
image
johan on 07 Jun 10
image image
Rainer, you are TOTALLY wrong, the technology did not fail in Germany (Germany pulled in total out of nuclear after Chernobyl, the responsible minister later admitted it was a mistake...). Also the German AVR reactor is now being dismantled (normal to let reactors that are shut down "cool down" for a decade or so, refer also to the French examples). Point is, the cost to date on PBMR was largely spent on developing infrastructure such as test facilities, know-how, R&D, etc. The first components were already in manufacturing when the SA Government decided (with their normal short-sightedness) to pull the plug. So we are now supplying the world with some highly trained and experienced skills (which we paid for). Compare the cost to date with a coal-fired station (only about 5%)... and u get the picture.
image image 
image
Anonymous on 07 Jun 10
image image
Imagine how pebble nuclear power could have changed South Africa: 1. Sasol would no longer burn coal to produce oil 2. 60% of Eskom's carbon dioxide would be changed into methanol 3. Electricity could be generated in the Kalahari, because the PBMR doesn't use water for cooling 4. Port Elizabeth could get desalinated seawater AND electricity 5. More than 100 000 jobs would be created 6. South Africa could reduce global warming significantly by exporting reactors. 7. SA could have developed into a 21st century powerhouse! What a huge, huge opportunity that has been missed! But at least we have the SWC! So, everything will be fine...
image image 
image
Morena Seiso on 08 Jun 10
image image
Johan, the AVR dismantling process has just started. Current official cost estimates for dismantling of this tiny reactor (electric power only 15 MW, whereas PBMR was planned for 165 MW) are in the range of 4 to 5 bn Rand, not including disposal and cleaning of the heavily contaminated soil and ground water at AVR site.There is however at present no way to dismantle the reactor vessel itself, so it has to stored, filled with concrete (a method developed for wrecked Soviet submarines) for 60 years in an intermediate storage. A further substantial rise in AVR dismantling costs is expected. German utilities strictly refused since 1990 to deal with this type of technology because of the bad experience with both German pebble bed reactors .
image image 
image
Rainier on 08 Jun 10
image image
Eh Rainer, we are living in 2010. The german AVR was built in the 80's. Looking at how the regulatory frameworks have changed, comparing the two is a huge fail. It's like trying to compare koeberg to today's latest light water reactors build in the EU. Wasted opportunity.
image image 
image
Anonymous on 09 Jun 10
image image
Bugdet alone is not enough to dismantle the PBMR if it is a feasible technology and if they are making progress. I believe, the media does not report the whole reason to pull out the PBMR deliberatly. What about competition of resources ? I also beleieve the PBMR guys just forgot about lobbying to the hand that feeds them. Remember the AirBus they had financial difficulties as well but they had strong lobbyst in the EU. Goverment has a number of competing projects, prioriites dynamical change. To stay on top you continualy need to lobby for your project. Thats the terrain, you don't assume Gov will always see your relevance.. lobby lobby throughout ..ask Coca cola they don'tsit back and say we are now in every village of the world thefore lets relax our advertisement.
image image 
image
Phila on 29 Jun 10
 
A computer generated image of a PBMR module
 
A computer generated image of a PBMR module