South Africa, with no way to deal with radioactive waste, must not develop new nuclear power
|
How can we think about more nuclear power when state cannot manage what we have? https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/letters/2021-03-01-letter-how-can-we-think-about-more-nuclear-power-when-state-cannot-manage-what-we-have/– Keith Gottschalk, Claremont 01 MARCH 2021
State must first demonstrate its ability to cope with the existing radioactive waste by building a depository Bernard Benson falsely claims that “nuclear energy is clean and efficient … small modular reactors are safe and clean” (“Energy lessons to be learnt,” February 28.) All of the CSIR modelling has concluded that nuclear power is never the most cost-effective option for SA. And, far from being “clean”, Koeberg now stores a total of 1,000 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste within Cape Town’s municipal boundaries, due to Eskom and the government’s failure for 40 years to build a high-level radioactive waste depositary. It is unthinkable to fantasise about more nuclear power stations until the state first demonstrates its ability to cope with the existing radioactive waste by building that depository. Eskom is supposed to be setting aside funds monthly to cover the costs of radioactive waste disposal and Koeberg’s decommissioning. It has failed to do that for 40 years. This ballooning cost will inevitably be dumped onto taxpayers when it cannot be kicked down the road any longer. “Small modular reactors” is the industry’s latest euphemism for pebble-bed modular reactors, which have unsolved intrinsic flaws, such as neutron embrittlement of the “pebbles”, causing failing structural integrity. The Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters prove the necessity of siting nuclear power stations as far away as possible from major population centres. |
|
New nuclear build for South Africa would face legal stumbling blocks
Court is likely to regard decision to pursue a plant as irrational, regulator told at public hearing, 23 FEBRUARY 2021 –
Any decision to pursue a 2,500MW nuclear build will likely be seen as irrational and unreasonable if tested in court, the National Energy Regulator of SA (Nersa) heard on Tuesday. Should the regulator be given the green light for a nuclear build, it would lead to “severe legal complications”, Anton van Dalsen, legal counsellor for the Helen Suzman Foundation, warned Nersa… … (subscribers only) https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2021-02-23-nersa-warned-nod-for-nuclear-build-would-face-legal-stumbling-blocks/
South Africa: an example of how nuclear waste costs are passed on to later generations
Questions we should therefore all be asking of government, the Department of Energy, the nuclear regulator, Nersa, Nuclear Waste Disposal Institute, Necsa, Eskom and the South African nuclear sector are:
- Who should bear the cost of nuclear plant decommissioning and long-term storage and disposal of high-level nuclear waste – the polluter, the customer or the taxpayer?
- Where are the real asset-based funds set aside within Eskom and Necsa for future decommissioning and long-term storage and disposal of high-level nuclear waste?
- Does the “polluter pays” principle apply in practice, or will the customer and taxpayer end up paying twice through government bailouts?
One can only guess who may end up bearing the real decommissioning, high-level waste storage, disposal and final repository costs in due course – perhaps not the polluter at all, but our children’s children as taxpayers in the next generation.
South African taxpayers exposed to high-level nuclear waste disposal and decommissioning liabilities, Daily Maverick, By Chris Yelland• 21 February 2021
Page 69 of the 8th National Report prepared by the Department of Energy and the SA National Nuclear Regulator, and presented to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in August 2019 in terms of South Africa’s obligations to the Convention on Nuclear Safety, states in respect of Eskom’s Koeberg nuclear power station:
“Financial provision for decommissioning (as well as spent fuel management) continues to be accumulated on a monthly basis since commercial operation of the installation began in 1984. The financial provision is reflected in the annual financial statements of Eskom. These financial statements are audited in accordance with South African national legislation.
“In terms of decommissioning financial plans, the amount of decommissioning and spent fuel provision made each month is determined by the present value of future estimated cash flows. These financial plans are reviewed regularly and adjusted annually, and informed by the South African inflation rate.”
However, the problem with these fine words to the IAEA is that they are misleading, perhaps deliberately so, and that the so-called provision is actually something of a “Potemkin village” to placate and impress the IAEA and the public that all is well and under control.
In fact, no real money, securities or investments of any kind have actually been set aside monthly, annually or at stage and in any fund during operation of South Africa’s nuclear facilities as provision for decommissioning, long-term storage and final disposal of high-level nuclear waste, and/or the construction and operation of a high-level nuclear waste repository.
South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa omits mention of nuclear in his State of the Nation Address
Experts speculate on meaning of Ramaphosa’s nuclear omission in SONA https://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/news/experts-speculate-on-meaning-of-ramaphosas-nuclear-omission-in-sona-fe6bd6f4-15da-496d-88b7-0009b080661c
By Mwangi 15 Feb 21, Githahu Cape Town – Energy experts and commentators are speculating on the the significance of the omission of any mention of nuclear energy by President Cyril Ramaphosa in his State of the Nation address, with one suggesting this might be a sign that the government may have dropped its commitment to the nuclear power option.
In his speech on Thursday night, Ramaphosa said: “The fourth priority intervention of the recovery plan is to rapidly expand energy-generation capacity.
“Over the last year, we have taken action to urgently and substantially increase generation capacity in addition to what Eskom generates. The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) will soon be announcing the successful bids for 2 000 megawatts of emergency power.
“Government will soon be initiating the procurement of an additional 11 800 megawatts of power from renewable energy, natural gas, battery storage and coal in line with the Integrated Resource Plan 2019.”
Mark Swilling, Distinguished Professor of sustainable development at the School of Public Leadership, Stellenbosch University, said: “It is significant that nuclear wasn’t mentioned. It’s not like government forgot about nuclear.
“The DMRE has after all been pushing nuclear power very hard. What is more likely is that the department failed to get its way, and that can only be a good thing, as nuclear is expensive and risky, especially when there are cheaper alternatives.
“What the president announced is a very good start, but not enough. Instead of the procurement of an additional 11 800 megawatts, what we need is at least 20 000MW if we are to be free of load shedding by 2025.
“There is a problem if the 11 800 includes coal because it’s not as though you can build a new coal mine. Nobody is funding them anymore. Around the world even new coal stations are shutting down. The 11 800MW should be strictly from renewables.”
Executive director of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (Safcei), Francesca de Gasparis, said: “The president’s speech was silent on nuclear power, yet we know from recent developments that the government has been pushing on with its nuclear plans, despite more nuclear not being needed and being one of the most costly electricity generation options.
“In terms of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which lays out our energy choices, this risky and outdated technology is not even identified as a necessary part of the solution to the country’s ongoing energy crisis. Renewable energy is significantly quicker to install and a more cost-effective choice.”
The Climate Justice Charter Movement lobby group said in a statement: “The economic recovery plan calls for more off-shore extraction of oil and gas. If the president is serious about the climate crisis he would make it clear that nuclear energy plans are also off the national agenda. In this context, we would have taken his climate change commission more seriously.”
South Africa’s Koeberg Nuclear Power Station has suffered severe corrosion
Koeberg has suffered substantial damage, according to Koeberg Alert Alliance. (with audio) https://www.capetalk.co.za/articles/408514/koeberg-nuclear-power-station-radioactivity-containment-building-is-severely-damaged?fbclid=IwAR1HSyt2Tw6lrsbwJxlEQW5m4i4YT18_Hl0MgVzEQV0f24h31btTVN150g4 Eskom says the containment building is ‘leak-tight’.
RELATED: We’ll extend Koeberg lifespan from 40 to 60 years. It’ll be safe – Eskom
Koeberg Nuclear Power Station has suffered substantial damage to its containment building, according to Koeberg Alert Alliance (KAA).
The containment building is designed to contain the escape of radioactive steam or gas in an emergency.
A nuclear accident at Koeberg will have devastating consequences for hundreds of thousands of people who live close nearby.
Eskom says it is aware of “deterioration” and that it is managing the issue by implementing a modification.
Like all other nuclear power plants around the world, we do get deterioration… We’re managing this issue… Recent tests show… It’s leak-tight. The building works…
Riedewaan Bakardien, Chief Nuclear Officer – Eskom
Sea air has severely damaged the concrete structure, highlighting the significant risk the facility poses to nearby residents, according to KAA.
A concerned insider at Koeberg brought the alarming structural problems to the attention of KAA.
The insider informed KAA of a crack so large it goes right around the entire 110-metre circumference of the containment dome.
The community group says it is struggling to access information from Eskom about the damaged containment dome.
KAA claims that a 31-page Eskom report (about the damage), has eleven pages entirely blacked out while various other sections, photos and tables were censored because, claims Eskom, it contained “sensitive technical information”.
Lester Kiewit interviewed Peter Becker, a spokesperson for KAA.
The salt in the sea air… has caused accelerated rust in the rebar in the concrete of the containment structures… which caused cracking… About 10% of the surface of the containment building has delaminated [split into layers] …
Peter Becker, spokesperson – Koeberg Alert Alliance
Eskom blacked out about half of the report before releasing it to us…
Peter Becker, spokesperson – Koeberg Alert Alliance
Eskom is surprised by the speed at which it’s deteriorating… Koeberg was not well constructed, and the effect of sea-air was not well understood.
Peter Becker, spokesperson – Koeberg Alert Alliance
Koeberg is far too close to densely populated areas. If they tried to get approval to build it in that location today, it would be refused…
Peter Becker, spokesperson – Koeberg Alert Alliance
Koeberg was designed to last for 40 years… We get to that in 2024… but Eskom wants to keep it going. It’s a really bad idea…
Peter Becker, spokesperson – Koeberg Alert AllianceThis problem will remain. We’re implementing a modification… which will retard the deterioration.
Riedewaan Bakardien, Chief Nuclear Officer – Eskom
It’s the building around the reactor. Yes, there is corrosion… We’re well aware of it…
Riedewaan Bakardien, Chief Nuclear Officer – Eskom
Koeberg Nuclear Power Station containment buildings damaged by prolonged exposure to sea air
Koeberg Nuclear Power Station containment buildings suffer damage, ESI Africa, Feb 12, 2021 A recently released Eskom document has revealed that 40 years of exposure to sea air at Koeberg Nuclear Power Station has damaged the concrete of the containment buildings, according to Koeberg Alert Alliance.
At one stage the concrete containment dome was found to have cracked around the entire 110-meter circumference, states the Koeberg Alert Alliance.
“The containment buildings are the outer shells of the reactor buildings, built as pressure vessels to withstand the pressure if the reactors inside them ever malfunction and therefore prevent harmful radiation being leaked into the environment,” says DR, a member of Koeberg Alert Alliance and a retired analytical chemist.
“Where the chloride salts have entered, they have caused corrosion of the reinforcing steel bars, resulting in spalling and delamination of the concrete – it is even more alarming than I thought,” he says. Spalling results from water entering concrete which forces the surface to peel, pop out, or flake off. ……..
According to the Koeberg Alert Alliance, the provided 31-page report which refers to repairs done up until 2018, has eleven pages entirely blacked out and various other sections, photos and tables redacted with the reason given as “sensitive technical information”.
“The interesting parts are clearly those that have been redacted,” says University of Johannesburg Physics Professor, Hartmut Winkler. “The first big redact is titled History/Background and presumably describes past failures and recent damage that Koeberg Alert Alliance’s PAIA was interrogating. Why should the ‘History’ be sensitive due to technical information when the less redacted sections are full of technical details.
“The most puzzling redact to me are the references which are supposed to be publicly available documents, so why are they all being hidden? Do they expose some entities that Eskom does not want anyone to know have been involved with Koeberg and why? I would also query why the financial information would be redacted. Surely the public has a right to know how much money certain components cost, and what Eskom paid for them?” says Winkler.
This is a developing story, ESI Africa will do a follow up to give Eskom an opportunity to respond to the claims. https://www.esi-africa.com/industry-sectors/generation/koeberg-nuclear-power-station-containment-buildings-suffer-damage/
South Africa’s new nuclear power plan would be a costly mistake
|
The National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa), has issued a consultation paper and called for public input, comment and response to a determination by the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, in terms of Section 34(1) of the Electricity Regulation Act, 2006, to procure 2,500 MW of new nuclear power in South Africa. The ministerial determination was sent to Nersa for its consideration and concurrence, which is a necessary step before the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) can issue a request for proposals to nuclear vendors following an open, transparent and competitive procurement process. I am opposed to new nuclear power in South Africa, and this is definitely not because I am ideologically against nuclear energy or nuclear technology per se, but for sound, pragmatic reasons and the absence of a valid business case, including, amongst other factors:
This ministerial determination comes at a time when the world of energy and electricity is undergoing rapid change when the prices of renewable and flexible generation technologies are plummeting when new energy storage technologies are emerging, when the future of large-scale, centralised generation is changing and when the demand for electricity over long-distance transmission grids is decidedly uncertain and declining. The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2019 indicates that a nuclear build programme “is a no-regret option in the long term”. I disagree and consider that a nuclear new-build programme is exactly the opposite – very high risk and high-regret option indeed. This is not the time to be making extremely expensive 100-year commitments. So, I urge thinking people to oppose new nuclear power in South Africa – because this is clearly not a national priority, and a new nuclear procurement cannot prevent the current electricity crisis from becoming a catastrophe in the course of the next decade. DM Written comments on the ministerial determination for 2,500 MW of new nuclear power in South Africa should be sent by email to Nersa at irp-procurement.newcap@nersa.org.za. The closing date is for written comments is Friday – 5 February 2021, but generally, Nersa does accept written comments after the closing date too. The dates for public hearings on the ministerial determination will be announced by Nersa shortly. Chris Yelland, energy advisor to OUTA, and managing director at EE Business Intelligence. |
|
South Africa the only country to have nuclear weapons, then abandon them
|
The Story Of The Jet That Would Have Delivered South Africa’s Nuclear Bomb, The British-made Buccaneer strike aircraft was adapted to carry apartheid-era South Africa’s guided nuclear bomb. The War Zone, BY THOMAS NEWDICK JANUARY 18, 2021
“………South Africa, an international pariah for much of the Cold War due to its apartheid policy, remains the only country to have developed nuclear weapons and then voluntarily given them up. Before it did so, the main focus of these developments was an air-launched weapon that was intended to be delivered by a Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer strike aircraft. This combination could potentially have struck targets in other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, as partof South Africa’s long-running campaign against regional rebel groups, or even hostile revolutionary governments.
……..The final death knell for South Africa’s nuclear weapons program was the presidency of F. W. de Klerk, who came to power in 1989, deciding to do away with it. There was apparently no significant opposition from the military, whose experience in years cross-border campaigns had not revealed any requirement for a weapon of this type. Ultimately, the actual utility of a nuclear weapon in the conflict in Angola was always negligible, and its use would represent an unprecedented escalation while further ostracizing the South African regime. Moreover, the end of apartheid now seemed to be in sight, and possession of weapons of mass destruction would do nothing to enhance South Africa’s international position then, or in the future. While a veil of secrecy remained over the program, de Klerk oversaw the removal of enriched uranium from the weapons that had been completed. In 1991, South Africa finally signed the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty and, two years later, de Klerk acknowledged the existence of the nuclear weapons program. Survivors of the SAAF Buccaneer fleet were withdrawn in the same year, by which time only five examples were reportedly still airworthy. …
|
|
|
Ten compelling reasons to stay away from nuclear power
|
Ten compelling reasons to stay away from nuclear power Proponents of nuclear power argue that it is safe, clean, infinite and the way of the future. They are wrong. Here are ten good reasons. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2021-01-07-ten-compelling-reasons-to-stay-away-from-nuclear-power/
The South African government recently released an invitation for comments on its proposal to instal 2.5 gigawatts of new nuclear power. There are at least 10 compelling reasons not to – a few of which you may not have thought of before. Described briefly below, they are arranged in what I consider to be a rough order of importance.
If a nuclear power station – such as Koeberg – blows up, we might have to abandon the City of Cape Town for 200 years. Nuclear plants can’t be too far from urban centres due to the high cost of transmitting power over long distances. So, even if better sited, there is low risk, maybe, but unimaginable consequences, as well as long-term and, in the case of radiation, invisible ones.
At least equally important, however, is the risk of mismanagement and corruption. Nuclear is simply out of the question as a safe option in a state characterised by any degree of dodgy tendering and procurement, corrupt construction, or incompetent leadership and operation. We have seen enough issues within Eskom to say that this is a major and real concern — incompetent design checks, cheating on materials, and so on. Even just faulty welding in constructing a coal-fired power station – which we have heard about recently – is simply not an option in the case of a nuclear reactor. Cost is basic common sense, but the current South African governance context is perhaps the strongest single argument against the nuclear option.
Constructing a nuclear power station creates a lot of jobs, but only for a few years. It has long been established that renewables, as well as energy efficiency measures, create far more jobs on a long-term or permanent basis. They also create jobs which are spread out regionally, as opposed to a huge project at just one location. One example: making homes and buildings more energy efficient requires thousands of jobs, spread all over the country and, in addition, these are conventional jobs for building trades, including for unskilled and semi-skilled workers.
Nuclear energy results in hundreds of tons of incredibly hazardous waste, which our descendants will have to police for thousands of years after our time. This is simply irresponsible to the human race (and to the environment). After more than 50 years, almost no “permanent” safe storage facilities for nuclear waste have ever been created. We don’t need to talk about “nuclear fear”; it’s just a disgusting thing to leave to our children.
The risk of nuclear material getting into the hands of violent states or terror organisations is considerable. We have already seen dissidents being poisoned with polonium, probably with the backing of the Russian state. And North Korea making noises about nuclear bombs? How great is this threat? Even in light of strict international controls, this is still a powerful threat.
Hence, it would take decades — time we don’t have — for nuclear to become the major world energy source. Even longer in the poor countries, which are in most need. And that delay will also enable the “dirty energy” guys, the oil, coal and gas multinationals, to carry on wrecking the planet and making billions for a few more decades.
Nuclear energy is based on uranium. But uranium, like coal, gas and oil, is a limited resource; there’s only enough for a few decades, perhaps for 100 years. So why not go straight to the renewables, which are here forever?
Let us add that various newer forms of biomass energy can also become a major source of energy. There is a huge emerging industry of plant-based materials, including bioplastics, already used for many motor vehicle parts, textiles and consumer goods; as well as for renewable bioenergy. In many countries, very productive plants can be grown as “energy crops” — without competing with agriculture, as the US ethanol industry unfortunately did. One might also recall that South African John Fry was a world pioneer of biogas in the 1950s. Much of Brazil’s “petrol” is produced from waste from the sugar plantations. Bioenergy is thus also a new potential source of income for farmers and rural areas.
This is a common false argument in favour of nuclear power. For sure, the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. But that has long been recognised as a minor problem. If the energy system as a whole contains both wind, solar, hydropower, biomass and some other option such as gas (or even, for some more years, a little coal) – then the energy system as a whole is diverse and robust all year round. We might remember that the wind blows mainly in winter, when we need the power most, and that we enjoy far more sunshine hours than many other countries that are “going solar”. The key point is that any energy system needs a certain amount of “base-load” power for times when there is neither wind nor sun, and if the dams are nearly empty too. This is where fossil fuels like coal, gas and oil are so useful because we can burn them when needed to produce power. And quickly, if there is a sudden surge in demand. But nuclear, on the other hand, is not very flexible; it takes 10 to 14 days to close down a nuclear reactor or fire it up to maximum output.
Other arguments against renewables Even after all these years, the nuclear lobby continues to spread fake arguments. For example:
As for “clean fossil fuels”, it’s fiction: coal is never clean, carbon capture and storage, as well as oil sands and fracking, are very expensive and environmentally damaging.
The low climate emissions from nuclear power are often cited as a reason in its favour. Yes, the emissions of climate gases such as carbon dioxide are low. But so are those of the renewables. Even cleaner are energy-efficiency measures. So why make a nuclear pact with the devil in order to reduce the carbon emissions? Reducing consumption A final point that must be made, is that the way out of the energy crisis is not, and can never be, endless continued growth in energy supply, or in resource use generally. All state-of-the-art research and policies are now turning towards the challenge of reducing our consumption; of meat, petrol, electrical gadgets, air miles and consumer goods. We know that with today’s solutions we can have exactly the same standard of living, the same life quality, with just a quarter of the energy. That means no need for more power stations — and certainly not nuclear. Hence, energy authorities are starting to turn their focus far more towards ways of reducing our consumption of energy. And this path, by the way, is in many cases free. |
|
NuScam pushing to sell its ”small” nuclear reactors to South Africa
S. Africa Regulator to Consider Approving Nuclear Power Plan, Bloomberg, By Antony Sguazzin,10 November 2020,-
- Program envisages addition of 2,500 megawatts of atomic power
- Country’s renewable-energy lobby opposes expansion of industry
The National Energy Regulator of South Africa will on Nov. 11 consider approving the procurement of 2,500 megawatts of nuclear power, marking another step toward the expansion of the industry.
The regulator will consider approving a so-called section 34 determination for the program, which enables the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy to undertake a bidding process for private producers to build nuclear-power facilities, it said in a Twitter posting outlining the agenda for the meeting.
South Africa, which destroyed its atomic weapons prior to the end of apartheid, already operates Africa’s only nuclear-power plant, the 1,800 megawatt Koeberg facility in Cape Town, as well as the Pelindaba research facility north of Johannesburg.
While the expansion of nuclear power has the support of the ministry and labor unions, it’s opposed by environmentalists and backers of the country’s expanding renewable-energy program.
NuScale Power LLC, a U.S. nuclear-energy firm, has said it will propose small, modular reactors for installation in South Africa. The U.S. International Development Finance Corp. has announced that it will support a bid by NuScale, approving the procurement of 2,500 megawatts of nuclear power, marking another step toward the expansion of the industry.
The regulator will consider approving a so-called section 34 determination for the program, which enables the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy to undertake a bidding process for private producers to build nuclear-power facilities, it said in a Twitter posting outlining the agenda for the meeting.
South Africa, which destroyed its atomic weapons prior to the end of apartheid, already operates Africa’s only nuclear-power plant, the 1,800 megawatt Koeberg facility in Cape Town, as well as the Pelindaba research facility north of Johannesburg.
While the expansion of nuclear power has the support of the ministry and labor unions, it’s opposed by environmentalists and backers of the country’s expanding renewable-energy program. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-09/south-african-regulator-to-consider-approving-nuclear-power-plan
Covid-19 divides and weakens the nuclear sector in South Africa
 Covid-19 divides and weakens the nuclear sector in South Africa, Daily Maverick, By Chris Yelland• 5 November 2020
The coronavirus crisis is undermining the business plan and turnaround strategy at the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa. The resulting losses are creating debilitating divisions between labour, middle and senior management, executives and boards of Necsa and its subsidiaries – as well as wage increases Following a tumultuous operational and management period for several years, with massive financial losses, new Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) chairperson David Nicholls and acting CEO Ayanda Myoli presented a restructuring and turnaround plan to Parliament on 20 May 2020……… While many considered the turnaround plan to be hopelessly optimistic even before the Covid-19 crisis in South Africa from March 2020, the impact of the national and international lockdowns are estimated to have resulted in the Necsa group taking a massive hit, which would increase the expected loss for 2020/21 to more than R300-million. …… While many considered the turnaround plan to be hopelessly optimistic even before the Covid-19 crisis in South Africa from March 2020, the impact of the national and international lockdowns are estimated to have resulted in the Necsa group taking a massive hit, which would increase the expected loss for 2020/21 to more than R300-million. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-11-05-covid-19-divides-and-weakens-the-nuclear-sector-in-south-africa/ |
|
Trump’s USA is pushing NuScale’s small nuclear reactors for South Africa
The US nuclear company with an eye on South Africa just got a R23 billion boost, courtesy of Donald Trump, https://www.businessinsider.co.za/nuscale-nuclear-which-has-plans-for-sa-gets-a-big-us-subsidy-to-test-its-design-2020-10 Phillip de Wet , Business Insider SA Oct 22, 2020,
- American nuclear energy company NuScale has been citing Cape Town as an example of an ideal customer for its still-theoretical generators.
- It has now received in-principle financial support from the American government to build a nuclear power station in South Africa.
NuScale’s pathfinder project for its new technology, in Idaho, just got a promise of an infusion of US government cash worth some R23 billion.- While South Africa abandoned plans to create next-generation PBMR systems, the administration of Donald Trump has pushed small-scale nuclear development.
NuScale, a company with roots in US-funded research, this week received assurances that the American government will provide up to $1.4 billion (around R23 billion) in subsidies for a 12-module reactor it hopes to start building in Idaho by 2025.
The project is a commercial one, with municipal buyers lined up for the electricity, but the cash from the US department of energy is intended to bring the cost of that electricity down to $55 per MWh on a levelised cost of energy (LCOE) basis, making the project at least vaguely competitive with other forms of power generation.
Without the subsidies, the supposedly once-off cost of building a first-of-its kind power station would make the NuScale project commercially unviable, its planned customers say.
Just how once-off such costs are, and how much money the US government ends up actually spending on the project, will be closely watched in South Africa
Last week the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) announced it had signed a letter of intent to support NuScale “to develop 2,500 MW of nuclear energy in South Africa”.
NuScale has cited Cape Town as a purely theoretical customer for a 12-module version of its nuclear energy system, saying that such an installation could desalinate enough water to keep the entire city going.
But the 2,500MW number cited by the DFC suggests its South African ambitions are substantial. That is the full generating capability the South African government now envisages adding to the national grid from nuclear stations – but the government plan calls for a mixture of the conventional pressurised water reactors (PWRs) such as Russia’s Rosatom sells, and the type of small modular reactors (SMRs) NuScale is developing.
By seeking development finance for the full 2,500MW, NuScale appears to be signalling a plan to bid for the whole thing, rather than seeking to build only part of a new set of nuclear generators in SA alongside companies from China or elsewhere.
That matches the aggressive posture of the US government under the administration of Donald Trump. The DFC letter of intent is the first time the organisation has supported any nuclear project; a ban on its involvement in nuclear energy was lifted on the recommendation of a working group formed by the White House.
The state funding for the NuScale project in the US, meanwhile, comes after consistent and determined efforts under Trump’s presidency to “revitalise” nuclear energy in America, both in production and through research and development on next-generation systems.
South Africa, though determined to buy new nuclear power stations, has not had a similar political appetite to invest in research. In 2010 it mothballed work on the pebble bed modular reactor, a project launched in the late 1990s to create a safe, small, modular reactor system for both domestic use and sale abroad.
Russia once thought it had a done deal to build new nuclear reactors in South Africa. Half a decade later, thanks to its sheer political weight, China seems to be a serious contender for the job. Both France and South Korea have, at various points, been in the running too.
But as of this week, an American company with no track record of actually building commerical nuclear reactors yet is lining up the kind of money from the US government that could make its plans for South Africa viable – replacing a dream of home-grown next-generation nuclear with an imported version.
As of this year there are still vague plans to revive the project, in one form or another, but even if those were to succeed, the pace of development would have to be improbably fast for it to have any place in South Africa’s current round of explorations.
South Africa the first sucker to get American experimental nuclear reactor + $billions in bribes?
 US firm ‘aims to build a nuclear power plant’ in South Africa, https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/us-firm-aims-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant-in-south-africa/What pandemic? An American investment group is looking to pump billions into South Africa, with one eye on a new nuclear power plant for Mzansi.by Tom Head 2020-10-18
The future of South Africa’s energy supply could be shaped by a cash injection from the United States of America. The government, in their ongoing discussions with NEDLAC and foreign investors, has entertained the idea of letting an international development firm finance and build a new nuclear power plant in Mzansi.
AN AMERICAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN SOUTH AFRICA?As Bloomberg has confirmed, The US International Development Finance Corp (DFC) has signed a letter of intent to support plans laid out by NuScale, an American technology group that are ready to kick on with this project. Amongst the billions of dollars they’ve pledged to South Africa, a ‘secure, reliable energy supply through the construction of new nuclear plants’ is their major priority. A CONTINENTAL FIRST FOR SOUTH AFRICA?
The DFC released a statement last week, confirming that they would be pioneering in their ambitious blueprint. Should a new nuclear plant get the green light, this would be the first IPP funded by the USA throughout the whole of Africa. The future of South Africa’s energy supply could be shaped by a cash injection from the United States of America. The government, in their ongoing discussions with NEDLAC and foreign investors, has entertained the idea of letting an international development firm finance and build a new nuclear power plant in Mzansi. further R4.5 billion would be spent on public transport development over the next 12 months. |
Southern African Faith Communities oppose extending the life of Koeberg nuclear power plant
 SA faith leaders against extending the life of Koeberg nuclear power plant https://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/news/sa-faith-leaders-against-extending-the-life-of-koeberg-nuclear-power-plant-e02fb49d-8b22-413b-95ef-165d7f31a5e4By Mwangi Githathu , 12 Aug, 20, Cape Town – Campaigners are urging a rethink on extending the life of the Western Cape’s Koeberg nuclear power plant, while the period for public comment on the draft regulations on the long-term operation of nuclear installations closes next Tuesday.
Department of Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe published the request which is intended to lead to a nuclear programme delivering new installed capacity of 2.5 gigwatts in June. Mantashe said: “The plan also provides for the extension of the life of Koeberg, which is due to be decommissioned in 2024 after 40 years in operation.” Leading the charge against the extension of the plant’s life span is the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute, Safcei. In a statement, Safcei said: “As South Africa faces another push for nuclear energy when the country is in crisis from the Covid-19 pandemic, faith communities call for no more nuclear energy. “Nuclear power is not climate resilient, cheap, competitive, quick to build and deliver, safe or able to solve our immediate energy needs.” Safcei said lessons need to be learnt from the country’s past experience with nuclear energy, including what it claims were 14 years of research and billions of rands “wasted on small nuclear energy systems known as the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR).” “The level of trust in Eskom is at an all-time low. South Africans are tired of load-shedding and annoyed that tax revenue continues to be diverted from essential services to bailout dysfunctional state owned enterprises. What reassurance do we have that a new state-owned nuclear project will be any different?” asked Safcei. Last year Eskom’s attempt to see whether there was a market and potential for the previously abandoned Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) PBMR project was dismissed as “unrealistic” by the South African Independent Power Producers’ Association (SAIPPA). SAIPPA general secretary Dave Long said: “I can’t believe it has any real chance to succeed now. It has been overtaken by technology and nobody is that interested in nuclear any more.” |
|
South Africa- financially ruinous coal and nuclear power proposals – will muck up post-Covid-19 recovery
New coal and nuclear power proposals undermine prospects of a post-Covid-19 economic recovery, Daily Maverick, By Anton Eberhard• 17 June 2020
The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy’s attachment to ‘clean coal’ and new nuclear as immediate options for a post-Covid-19 economic recovery would be comical if they were not financially ruinous. Their fixation on these non-competitive, non-commercial technologies is now wasting scarce public resources.
South Africa is beginning to see the consequences of an energy ministry trapped in the past, beholden to interest groups and oblivious to global innovations in energy technologies and markets. Submissions by the minister and his energy department to Parliament in the past month reveal an economically disastrous commitment to policy, procurement and investment options that have no hope of contributing to our post-Covid-19 economic recovery.
The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) in its strategic and economic plans is promoting the role of nuclear energy (mainly small modular reactors) and clean coal (with carbon capture and storage), but these technologies are neither price competitive nor, in the case of small nuclear, are they currently commercially available.
In a presentation to Parliament on 26 May 2020, Minister Gwede Mantashe proposed several medium-term (6-12 month) interventions in response to the economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. …….
In the same presentation, the minister proposed a number of interventions (also 6-12 months) to enhance electricity supply security, including acceleration of a nuclear build programme, conversion of Eskom’s diesel-fired turbines to gas and the building of a new oil refinery. None of these, of course, can be accomplished within a year and it’s highly unlikely that even contracts for these projects will be placed any time soon, if ever. Implementation of South Africa’s IRP electricity plan, which identifies wind, solar and storage as the next least-cost options to ensure electricity supply security, was evidently not regarded as a priority although – almost as an afterthought – it was offered as a long-term option.
Over the past weekend, DMRE launched a Request for Information (RFI) to commence preparations for a nuclear build programme. Of course, an RFI is non-binding (unlike a Request for Proposals, RFP, in a competitive tender or auction) and participants are perversely incentivised to put forward unrealistically attractive offers and prices which they’ll probably seek to alter when contracts are negotiated. In short, an RFI is not particularly helpful unless you don’t know what you’re doing and want technology and service providers to shape your procurement.
The minister has now appointed a new board chairperson, the retired nuclear chief officer of Eskom, an ex-British navy nuclear submariner, someone who continues, on social media, to rubbish renewable energy alternatives.
The minister has also entertained plans for expanded investment at the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA), despite the institution recording unprecedented financial losses. ……..
It’s time for a reality check. No country or private company currently offers commercially proven exports of land-based, small modular nuclear reactors. South Africa tried to develop one – the pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) – but after spending more than R20-billion (in today’s money), the programme was closed after a decade without even a pilot demonstration plant being built. …….. Clean coal is also a mirage. …….. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-06-17-new-coal-and-nuclear-power-proposals-undermine-prospects-of-a-post-covid-19-economic-recovery/#gsc.tab=0
1.This Month
Demystifying Nuclear Power Blog
EVENTS
11 March ONLINE Ten Years Fukushima Nuclear Disaster: Rio de Janeiro International Uranium Film Festival Free Online Screening and Debate.
********
13 – March – Protest – France ROUEN (76) – HAUTE-NORMANDIE – RASSEMBLEMENT] Fukushima plus jamais ça : arrêt du nucléaire civil et militaire
*******
SAFECAST 10TH ANNIVERSARY ONLINE EVENT, SAT. , MARCH 13, 2021
-
Archives
- March 2021 (14)
- February 2021 (271)
- January 2021 (278)
- December 2020 (230)
- November 2020 (297)
- October 2020 (392)
- September 2020 (349)
- August 2020 (351)
- July 2020 (280)
- June 2020 (293)
- May 2020 (251)
- April 2020 (273)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
