nuclear-news

The Pebble Bed Modular Nuclear Reactor – a black hole for public funds

No Amount of Redesign Will Save the PBMR

Earthlife Africa Tristen Taylor
18th of Feb. 2009

With the PBMR Company seeking to redesign the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor
(PBMR) to focus more on heat applications, it is imperative to note that
disadvantages of continuing with the PBMR remain.

The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor has become a black hole for public funds. The
costs involved in the PBMR saga are illustrative of the financial risks
inherent in nuclear power in general.

In 1999, the PMBR (165MW capacity) construction costs were budgeted at R2
billion. By 2005, these construction costs had risen by a factor of seven,
to R14 billion without a single PBMR being constructed. These costs do not
include the decommissioning costs, which will be considerable.

Based upon the 2008 Environmental Impact Assessment for the PBMR
Demonstration Reactor and the decommissioning costs for of the predecessor
to the PBMR-the German AVR-the costs to decommission a single PBMR range
from R1.5 billion to R70 billion. It is nearly impossible, due to the
lifespan of the reactor and the variable rates of contamination, to be more
exact than this. Hence, the decommissioning costs of the PBMR are uncertain
and could incur a heavy burden on future generations, absorbing funds for
vital social programmes.

An additional expense will be the waste storage costs, which are impossible
to calculate due to the long-term nature of storing waste; for example,
uranium-235 has a half-life of 704 million years, plutonium-239 a half-life
of 24,110 years, and caesium a half-life of 30.2 years. These kinds of
timeframes defy economic planning, and, given our pressing social needs,
should not be entertained.

The costs for the PBMR are not efficient in terms of power generation. For
example, Eskom is seeking finance of R5 billion to build a concentrated
solar plant (100MW) in the Northern Cape; R14 billion for 165MW or R5
billion for 100MW capacity, economic sense favours the solar plant. This
also excludes the costs associated with the security apparatus necessary for
the PMBR.

Nuclear materials and equipment need to be protected and highly regulated,
due to the threat of contamination and theft. The consequences of
radioactive material in the hands on malicious organisations could have
profoundly negative consequences and has to be avoided at all costs. While
currently unquantifiable at this stage, these security costs will be passed
onto the state and are unique to nuclear power. Other forms of energy
generation (including heat generation) do not require these increased
security costs.

No matter how much the PBMR Company and the Department of Minerals and
Energy seek to spin the matter, the PBMR has been a waste of vital public
funds and will continue to be so until abandoned.

February 20, 2009 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, South Africa