UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA
Nuclear Energy for South Africa
Johan Slabber
2 September 2015
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
The power shortage in South Africa in reality is caused by historical
long-term contracts with energy intensive industries (Power
guzzlers) which are using their share of the “energy cake” at the
original (low) contract tariffs;
The fact is that, as a result of historical bad planning and discretion,
South Africa needs additional power; the question to be answered is:
“… why should nuclear power be part of the mix?”
This presentation merely serves to put a few statements on the table
for the discussions that may follow;
These statements are related to the well-known anti-nuclear
concerns:
- Safety
- Cost
- Nuclear waste
The presentation concludes with a look into the future needs of South
Africa.
Safety
Statement: Nuclear power is by FAR the safest of the current power
producing technologies to be considered for South Africa.
Motivation:
Power technology
Fatalities per year per terawatt-hour (TWh)
energy produced
Coal (world average)
161
Coal (China)
278
Coal (USA)
15
Oil
36
Gas
4
Wind
0.15
Hydro (world)
0.10
Hydro (world including the Banqiao dam
burst in China)
1.40
Nuclear
?
Safety
Statement: Nuclear power is by FAR the safest of the current power
producing technologies to be considered for South Africa.
Motivation:
Power technology
Fatalities per year per terawatt-hour (TWh)
energy produced
Coal (world average)
161
Coal (China)
278
Coal (USA)
15
Oil
36
Gas
4
Wind
0.15
Hydro (world)
0.10
Hydro (world including the Banqiao dam
burst in China)
1.40
Nuclear
0.09
Cost
•
•
Statement: Application of a Weighted Average Cost of Capital
(WACC) of 6.5% that is adjusted for green-house gas-emitting
technologies and therefore disadvantaging the levelized cost of
electricity (LCOE) for nuclear plants over a short (for nuclear)
recovery period of 30 years, the LCOE compares favourably with
the cost of coal plants.
Motivation:
Plant type
US average LCOE for plants entering service in 2019 ($/MWh)
Capacity
factor (%)
Levelised
capital cost
Fixed O&M
cost
Variable
O&M cost
Total system
LCOE
Coal(Conventional)
85
60.0
4.2
30.3
95.6
Coal (Combined cycle)
87
14.3
1.7
49.1
66.3
Wind
35
64.1
13
0.0
80.3
Hydro
53
72.0
4.1
6.4
84.5
Solar PV
25
114.5
11.4
0.0
130.0
Nuclear (advanced)
90
71.4
11.8
11.8
96.1
Qualification of waste discussion
•
•
•
No reference will be made to the waste that may be produced in
the life-cycles of the renewable technologies;
The discussion will only compare coal vs nuclear technologies and
the volumes generated will be normalized on a per unit energy
produced basis
The waste volumes quoted are indicative of typical values and may
vary depending on the facility design and processes applied to the
waste before storage or release.
Nuclear waste
•
•
•
Statement: Nuclear power, being very high power density energy
generation produces waste which is highly concentrated and contained in
high density fuel material. On the other hand coal fired power generation,
in comparison to nuclear power, is a low power density energy generation
and the quantity waste volumes is compounded by the low density of the
particular waste produced.
Motivation:
Power technology
Volume of waste per Megawatt-hour (m3/MWh)
Coal
1.19 x 10-2 (Fly ash)
Nuclear
3.42 x 10-5 (Low and Intermediate) 2.28 x 10-6 (High Level)
1.69 x 10-2 (Sludge)
The operation of a nuclear facility requires good governance as regards
the packing and storage of the waste. On the other hand the coal waste is
released into the environment. This waste may contain toxic substances
such as arsenic, mercury, chromium and cadmium as well as radioactive
substances to the extent that it will be difficult to obtain a nuclear facility
license for the average coal fired power station in South Africa.
Can South Africa afford NOT to have nuclear
power
•
By default South Africa needs more power and whether the current coal fields
and supply of water in the north can support additional coal stations over and
above the Medupi and Kusile stations is debateable;
•
With South Africa’s long coastline the only other practical option is nuclear
power;
With a good funding model the capital burden of nuclear power on the
consumers should be tolerable;
BUT other similar large (but smaller than the nuclear program) projects proved
that opportunities are created for “hands to wander into the cookie jar”;
Measures should be put in place to avoid such corruptive actions with a high
degree of certainty; This will be one of the bigger obstacles to overcome.
•
•
What holds the distant future?
•
•
•
•
•
•
South Africa is a semi-desert country and with a population of over 50 million
people at a population growth rate of 3% per annum it will take only 16 years to
reach the supportive limit of the water resources;
Desalination of seawater will have to be done;
The most efficient desalination option at present is the reverse osmosis
process which will require electric power to drive the water compressors;
Nuclear power plants of smaller modular size (300 to 600 MWe) will be ideal
on the west coast of South Africa designed to provide for desalination by
reverse osmosis and electricity into the grid;
The north western Cape with its abundance of minerals can then be developed
to its fullest extent;
Once standardized on the smaller reactors they can then be deployed inland
since the secondary cooling requirements will be a fraction of that of the big
“main frame” reactors that is currently the fashion worldwide
What maybe holds the (very)distant future?
•
•
•
Novel jacketing of the spent fuel in a high-temperature resistant matrix
will allow very high temperatures from the decay of fission products;
If high efficiency thermo-electric convertors can be developed and
used in conjunction with the novel spent fuel casks electricity can be
generated;
Symbiosis can then be achieved with renewable power, especially
solar, where the spent fuel nuclear heat generated electric power can
supplement the troughs in energy supply when the sun isn’t shining or
maybe even for wind generators when the wind isn’t blowing.
𝑃(𝑡) = 0.06𝑃𝐸 𝑡 −0.2
The last words
Henry Kissinger once said: “ In decision after decision
policymakers have failed to grasp the significance of the
problem of conjecture, sometimes underestimating the benefits
of pre-emption and sometimes underestimating the COSTS of
in-action.”
(My emphasis added)
Thank you