Important but contradictory announcements on nuclear in media

By Hilton Thorpe of the Thyspunt Alliance:

 A bevy of important but contradictory announcements regarding nuclear power appeared in the South African media around 25 April, 2013.  The Mail and Guardian and Business Day reported on the “meltdown”, following a report commissioned by the National Planning Commission (NPC), and undertaken by the University of Cape Town’s Energy Research Centre. Meanwhile Creamer’s Engineering News has reported on discussions between Presidents Zuma and Putin regarding possible nuclear co-operation between South Africa and Russia.

 The NPC Report has provoked a major policy clash between the NPC and the Department of Energy (DOE).  The DOE  bases its support for nuclear largely on South Africa’s commitment at the COP 15 meeting of 2009 to reduce greenhouse emissions by 34% by 2020 and by 42% by 2025.

 Key points in the NPC report are the following:

 •           The report focuses largely on nuclear costs; whether there are other options than nuclear; and whether the energy requirements envisaged in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) produced by the Department of Energy (DOE) in 2010 are likely to be as great as was predicted.

 •           Nuclear costs assumed in 2010 were $5000 per kilowatt hour. This has already increased by 40% to $7000/kW. This could push the price of electricity up by 12% as compared with alternative scenarios.

 •           The IRP envisages installed capacity of 89GW by 2030, of which 9.6GW would be nuclear, whereas present trends indicate that demand is unlikely to exceed 61GW. By building plants too soon, there is a risk of excess supply, which is very costly.

 •           Meanwhile the government is committed to the Medupi, Kusile and Ingula coal-fired power stations, which, together with the 2011 renewable energy programme, will substantially increase our generation capacity (and greenhouse gas emissions). It is therefore proposed to delay the commissioning of nuclear power until at least 2029, and this could even extend to 2040.

 •           In the context of economic and demand uncertainty,  “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 over build”.

 •           The report cautions that stubborn adherence to an out-dated plan could cost the country dearly, and  concludes “South Africa could still meet the Copenhagen commitments without having to install nuclear power”,

 The response by the DOE was predictable:

 •           Ompi Aphane, Head of  DOE’s energy policy and planning, dismissed the report as a “back-of-a-cigarette packet energy modeling”, produced by “a bunch of academics sitting in corner . . .  who do not have a full view of what the government is doing.” He adds: “The NPC would not have any business going into the nitty-gritty of electricity supply-demand analysis. That is not what the national plan is going to be looking at. It is at a much higher level of planning”.

He said that the department would “within days” submit its overall energy master plan (the “Integrated Energy Plan”) to the Cabinet.

 •           A more temperate response came from Public Enterprises Minister Malusi Gigaba, who said that the national energy co-ordinating committee would make its decisions on nuclear commissioning known this year. The government planning process was “more robust”, involved better stakeholder consultation and was better able to draw on data provided by Eskom on electricity supply and demand. “To use the NPC modelling as a basis for assuming that our energy needs are going to be lower than in the IRP, is pre-emptive and has to be dissected in a public engagement process”.

 •           DOE spokeswoman Thandiwe Maimane stated that the nuclear option remained part of the government’s plans. “This is predicated on meeting certain government objectives, including reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. That objective has not changed and we have yet to see an option that excludes nuclear, that performs in line with our greenhouse gas emissions.”

 •           Meanwhile, DOE Director-General Nelisiwe Magubane has told a parliamentary oversight committee that the country’s new nuclear build programme was “non-negotiable”, and has said  that the government would reach the “point of no return” on a new nuclear build decision by June, 2013.

 What the Department of Energy appears to have overlooked is that it will be 5 years at the earliest before Eskom can begin to construct a Nuclear Power Station (NPS), which will typically involve 9 years’ construction time. On this basis, the earliest an NPS could come on line would be 2027, well past both deadlines. In any case, a 3600MW power station such as is envisaged for Thyspunt would only provide a small percentage of South Africa’s power requirements, and would hardly make a dent of greenhouse gas emissions. The greenhouse gas argument would appear, therefore, to be a diversion from the real debate. 

Engineering News reports that at the Brics summit held in Durban in March, 2013, Russian President, Vladimir Putin, told President Zuma that Russia was willing to fully finance South Africa’s planned new nuclear power plant programme, should Pretoria select the Russian bid. This appears to be based on a Generation 111+ VVER-1200 reactor design. A further improved version, known as the VVER-TOI, is currently undergoing licensing and certification in Russia. Putin is reported to have offered different funding options for the programme, stating the Russia would provide the one that South Africa found the best.

 Follow St Francis Chronicle on Twitter: @stfranchronicle

All articles edited or written, all photos taken plus all adverts designed by the Editor and printed in the St Francis Chronicle are protected by the law of Copyright ©. Reproduction or copying of any part of the contents of this newspaper and its concept and design can only be done with the Editor’s written permission.