REVIEWS
Shem Oirere is a journalist based in Nairobi, Kenya
South Africa
Nuclear intent S
outh Africa’s Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) has announced plans to restart production of nuclear pebble fuel at Pelindaba near Pretoria. In September
South Africa currently generates 1.8GW of its electricity from Africa’s only nuclear power station at Koeberg near Cape Town. It plans to generate an additional 6.8GW of nuclear power by 2041
2017, Necsa said it plans an initial $3.6m reac- tivation phase of fuel production at the Pebble bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) facility. Necsa CEO Phumzile Tshelane told South Afri- can media that the revival of the project is in re- sponse to interest shown by potential buyers in the US, Indonesia and Russia. He expressed hope of full reactivation by the second half of 2018 and firm purchase agreements by June 2018. ‘The interest from the US in pebble fuel from Necsa is very strong,’ he said. Despite this optimism, however, South Africa does not seem to have ad- dressed the challenges that led to the mothball- ing of the PBMR project in 2010 by former Public Enterprises minister Babara Hogan. The PBMR project was South Africa’s version
of safer high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactor technology pioneered in Germany, where helium gas was used as coolant and graphite as a moderator, according to a previ- ous project brief by Necsa. Apart from electric- ity generation, South Africa had initially hoped to benefit from the project’s coproducts of hy- drogen for fuel, desalinated water and process heat for industrial and residential use. Hogan announced the closure despite the
government having already spent $728m on its development, with requests for another $2.1bn to complete it. The minister argued the project was not viable because it had failed to attract any lo- cal or international financiers; repeatedly missed deadlines; and the project’s nuclear build tech- nology was considered Generation IV yet what the country required was Generation II or III. Securing a buyer for the pebble fuel remains a major challenge for Necsa, especially when Tshelane admitted in September 2017 that no country except China is currently constructing PBMR. Even in the US, where he said some buyers have shown interest, ‘there are designs supported by the US Department of Energy and one of the designs is likely to be built in the short term,’ but no existing PBMR or firm commitment on when the proposed reactors would come on line. The uncertainty surrounding the viability of
the proposed reactivation of pebble fuel produc- tion by Necsa resonates across the entire nuclear energy sector in South Africa. The country is grappling with the tricky balancing act of meet-
South Africa is debating plans for increased nuclear generation while ramping up renewables
ing its National Development Plan and acceding to the growing pressure to shift to less costly renewable energy – especially now the country’s own nuclear demand projections remain low. South Africa currently generates 1.8GW of
its electricity from Africa’s only nuclear power station at Koeberg near Cape Town. It plans to generate an additional 6.8GW of nuclear power by 2041, revised from the previous target of 9.6GW. Total nuclear energy capacity is expected to increase to 20.4GW by 2050, according to Department of Energy’s revised draft Integrated Resource Plan of November 2016. The twin pressurised water reactors at
Koeberg are scheduled for closure in 2024 and 2025, respectively, but the government, through power utility company Eskom, has launched a tender for six new steam generators to be installed before the end of 2018 to extend the facilities lifespan by another 10 years. Earlier, in December 2015, Eskom had issued
a request for proposal (RFP) for the develop- ment of 9.6GW new nuclear power capacities. The RFP attracted nuclear energy developers including Russia’s Rosatom, China’s State Nu- clear Power Technology Company, South Korea’s Korea Electric Power Corporation, France’s EDF/ Areva and Westinghouse in the US. Although formal responses were expected at the end of April 2017, South Africa’s Ministry of Finance withdrew authorisation for the RFP and rel- egated the tender to a ‘non-binding request for information (RFI)’ to be handled by Eskom. But progress to achieving new nuclear power capacity was dealt a blow in April 2017 when a High Court in South Africa invalidated the minis- terial determination, signed in November 2013, for the development of 9.6GW extra capacity, and also set aside the appointment of Eskom as sole procuring agent in South Africa. The court also set aside intergovernmental nuclear cooperation agreements between South Africa and Russia, the US and South Korea. Although South Africa has said it will do
fresh intergovernmental nuclear cooperation agreements, this will have to wait until a new Integrated Resource Plan outlining South Africa’s future energy expansion targets is issued. With South Africa currently in economic recession, meanwhile, Eskom is struggling with dwindling financial fortunes that threaten to put paid to any plans for fast-tracking the country’s nuclear energy development.
42
09
09 | 2017 17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
