nuclear-news

It also warned that the department’s commitment to a massive nuclear push could ratchet ­electricity prices up by as much as 12% compared with alternative scenarios……..The policy battle is an early test of the fledgling commission’s mettle, which has been entrusted with developing government’s guiding socioeconomic framework, the national development plan, over the next 20 years. The early indications are that the report has been met with irritation, if not outright hostility, by the energy department, which has hitherto been the undisputed custodian of the country’s energy policy…..

The report runs headlong into the department’s stance on nuclear energy. Department director general Nelisiwe Magubane told a parliamentary oversight committee last week that the country’s new nuclear build programme was “non-negotiable”.

Point of no return
Magubane has raised the stakes in the past, stating that the government would reach a “point of no return” on a new nuclear build decision by June this year.

In direct contrast to Magubane’s urgings, a key finding of the NPC report is that “there is more time for South Africa to make this decision … it is by no means a matter of urgency. The analysis also shows that even with a higher demand and lower nuclear costs, new capacity in nuclear is required only in 2029 and not in 2023 as per [the department’s current plan].”….

the research, which was conducted by a team of energy systems analysts from the University of Cape Town’s Energy Research Centre, has called into question many of the assumptions contained in the integrated resources plan 2010 and urges the government to update its entire energy road map before embarking on any new procurement.

“Electricity demand growth has been much lower than forecast. It is still below 2007 levels, and future growth is expected to be lower than projected. If followed, the existing plan would result in surplus, stranded and expensive generation capacity,” the analysts said… the analysts’ report drops a bombshell: “South Africa could actually still meet the Copenhagen commitments [for carbon emissions from the power sector to peak in 2025] without having to install nuclear plants.

“Many of the low-emission alternatives to nuclear capacity (imported hydro, wind and natural gas) can be installed at lower cost, with shorter lead times, in smaller increments, thus reducing the risk of overbuild.

“The consideration given to flexible options allows rigorous testing of a proposed plan against various outcomes rather than just planning doggedly for one outcome. This approach has a great deal of merit, especially in the context of economic and demand uncertainty.

“The analysis performed clearly shows the importance of updating the IRP2010. Ignoring this new information and fixing decisions, including a large nuclear roll-out of large units on an outdated plan, is going to be costly to the economy.

“Due to the lower demand growth and the committed investment plans [Medupi, Kusile, Ingula and the 2011 renewable energy ministerial determinations] very little further investment is needed before 2025.”…..

An extensive public consultation process will follow, after which the integrated resources plan will also be amended. But what nobody in the department is able to guarantee is that a nuclear decision will not be taken before the department has thoroughly retested its own assumptions and decided upon its overall energy master plan. http://mg.co.za/article/2013-04-26-00-nuclear-warning-sparks-meltdown