Analyst cautions that nuclear construction in SA will not be fast

2nd October 2015

By: Keith Campbell

Creamer Media Senior Deputy Editor

  

Font size: - +

Energy analyst and EE Publishers MD Chris Yelland warned recently against excessive optimism regarding timescales for the proposed construction of new nuclear power plants (NPPs) in South Africa. He was speaking at a nuclear roundtable in Johannesburg.

“I think we need to temper our optimism with a dose of reality and accept that it does take a long time to build in South Africa,” he said. He cited the cases of the Medupi and Kusile coal power stations, currently under construction and running years late. Consequently, Yelland does not expect that a new NPP in South Africa could be operational by 2023, as stated by President Jacob Zuma. “I have serious questions about the economics, the procurement process and the policies [regarding nuclear power in South Africa],” he said. “I have serious questions about [the availability of] skills.”

“My gut feeling is that these are not technological issues we’re facing,” he affirmed. “It’s not a technology problem [with regard to nuclear power] – it may be a management problem. It could also be an economic problem.”

He listed some of the problems with nuclear energy – NPPs are very expensive to build, they take a long time to build, they are inflexible and, after commissioning, they do not directly employ many people. However, he opined that the safety risks with nuclear energy and the environmental risks of radioactive waste from NPPs could both be managed.

He also listed the advantages of nuclear energy. “An NPP has a life of 60 years. A coal power station has a life of 30 years – it can be extended to 50 but with a major refurbishment.” Renewables currently have a design life of 20 years, although it is not yet known if they will meet this or not. “Nuclear has 90% availability. This is very high, compared to other technologies.” Fuel costs, staff costs and maintenance costs are low. “Nuclear is the only [energy] technology that factors in the full cost of decommissioning the power station.” Coal and renewables do not do so. And nuclear creates highly skilled employment as well as developing the science, engineering and technology base of a country.

“Nuclear is ideal to build in coastal areas with big cities, where you’ve got seawater for cooling and lots of it,” he noted. “You’d tend to look at nuclear power for baseload power in coastal areas with large populations and significant industrial demand. And you’d not want to build a coal power station in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth or Durban.” The transport of coal from the collieries in the north-east of the country would be uneconomic and impractical.

At the same event, Nuclear Africa CEO Dr Kelvin Kemm pointed out that the pressurised water reactors (PWRs) that are likely to be chosen for the country’s new nuclear build programme have to be at the coast because they require lots of cooling water and South Africa is an arid country.

He stressed that the seawater would be used to cool the steam used to drive the turbines that generate the electricity; it would most certainly not be used to cool the reactors. The reactors have their own, sealed, water circulation system. This water, kept under pressure so that it does not boil (hence, the name PWR), is superheated in the reactor and then passes through a heat exchanger, where it converts water in a second, separate, circuit into steam, which drives the turbines. This steam is then cooled and condensed in a second heat exchanger, using seawater.

“The [nuclear] technology is mature,” pointed out Yelland. “Without the nuclear new build, it’s hard to imagine how we’d meet our international [climate change] commitments. On its own, nuclear is not the solution to South Africa’s energy problems – nor on their own are renewables, gas or coal. We need a balanced portfolio. I do think nuclear is part of the solution, though.” He noted that the Department of Energy (DoE) was indeed trying to develop a balanced energy portfolio for the country. However, he expressed concern about the DoE’s “central planning approach” and government’s desire to centrally plan the country’s energy system. He believes that, in addition to central planning, a more market-based approach, with a greater involvement of the private sector, would be beneficial for South Africa.

The roundtable was organised by local com-pany Nuclear Africa. It was sponsored by Rus-sian State-owned nuclear group Rosatom.

Edited by Martin Zhuwakinyu
Creamer Media Senior Deputy Editor

Comments

The content you are trying to access is only available to subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, you can Login Here.

If you are not a subscriber, you can subscribe now, by selecting one of the below options.

For more information or assistance, please contact us at subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za.

Option 1 (equivalent of R125 a month):

Receive a weekly copy of Creamer Media's Engineering News & Mining Weekly magazine
(print copy for those in South Africa and e-magazine for those outside of South Africa)
Receive daily email newsletters
Access to full search results
Access archive of magazine back copies
Access to Projects in Progress
Access to ONE Research Report of your choice in PDF format

Option 2 (equivalent of R375 a month):

All benefits from Option 1
PLUS
Access to Creamer Media's Research Channel Africa for ALL Research Reports, in PDF format, on various industrial and mining sectors including Electricity; Water; Energy Transition; Hydrogen; Roads, Rail and Ports; Coal; Gold; Platinum; Battery Metals; etc.

Already a subscriber?

Forgotten your password?

MAGAZINE & ONLINE

SUBSCRIBE

RESEARCH CHANNEL AFRICA

SUBSCRIBE

CORPORATE PACKAGES

CLICK FOR A QUOTATION