Recent comments by some energy experts about nuclear energy being too costly, and that South Africa does not even need it, cannot go unchallenged.
To understand the reasons for or against nuclear energy, perhaps we should first establish on what basis should a decision for or against such a move be made? Is it based on demand forecast, environmental concerns or just capital cost? Which seems to be the main focal point being proposed for abandoning the option of nuclear in South Africa?
Read: Winter is coming, but Eskom feels confident
Had this been the case in 2010, when the first Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for electricity supply in South Africa was developed, we would have had a least-cost and unconstrained power plan.
However, this would have resulted in building only coal-fired power stations for base-load and gas/liquid fuel turbines and pumped storage for peaking capacity. Therefore neither renewables nor nuclear would have featured as options.
As a consequence, the highly successful Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Programme (IPP) would have been a non-starter. Important to note that when plans for the IPP were announced, there was significant public debate on the necessity of the programme and “experts” rallied against it.
Costs highlighted
The key concern was the costs that were highlighted in Bid Window 1 that were on average R3 453 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for concentrated solar power, R3 374 per MWh for solar photovoltaic and R1 447 per MWh for wind. For the record, our current cost for the Koeberg nuclear power plant is R433 per MWh. It is noted, though, that the cost of new capacity for nuclear will be higher than R433 per MWh, because the depreciation cost will be higher for the new plant. This notwithstanding, and like our successful renewable programme, nuclear energy is the future.
Electricity demand in South Africa has plateaued over the last 10 years. The demand predictions made in the IRP 2010 have not materialised and the economy has slowed. The cause of this is important as it impacts future growth predictions.
The conundrum that planners are facing is whether the decline in growth is natural, structural or a direct consequence of the constrained supply. It is quite likely that the latter has played a significant role in curtailing demand and as the supply constraints ease, one will start seeing demand increasing above the recent trends. The increased demand, coupled with future decommissioning, will require South Africa to build new capacity. This then leads into the question of what do we build and when?
For this we need to separate dispatchable (generation options where capacity can be increased or decreased on demand) and intermittent (generation options where capacity or availability cannot be controlled, such as wind and solar) supply options. To maintain control of the electrical network system, we require sufficient dispatchable power supplies distributed strategically across the network.
The dispatchable options serve two purposes: namely as a back-up for intermittent supplies (renewables) to ensure demand is met, as well as providing frequency support without which the entire national supply system would be unstable. The larger the capacity of intermittent supply in the system, the more reactive the system needs to be.
The options
The options available for this purpose are coal, natural gas, liquid fuel, nuclear, geothermal, biomass and pumped storage. However, not all of these technologies are suitable for deployment in South Africa, based on the following considerations:
* Geothermal is not available locally.
* Natural gas is not sufficiently available to fill this role and there is uncertainty on long-term costs, though current prices are low. In addition, there will have to be limitations on maximum volumes to maintain security of supply in the event of interruptions.
* Liquid fuels are too expensive to utilise as mid-merit or base-load options.
* Biomass as a fuel source for large power generation is a potential fuel swop for coal in the future.
* Pumped storage has limited future expansion in South Africa, due to water constraints and geography.
Therefore, South Africa has only two real options for base-load and mid-merit operations to manage system requirements. These are coal and nuclear. The decision on which technology to deploy then requires an assessment of lifecycle cost, current and future predicted costs, and COP 21 commitments.
Significant debate
There has been significant debate on current and future costs of both these technologies. There is growing consensus that future cost comparisons will swing in favour of nuclear, given increasing coal-fired plant costs associated with continuously more stringent emission limits and the introduction of carbon taxes.
Nuclear would also offer more certainty on future electricity pricing. Nuclear does have high initial construction costs. However, operationally, nuclear offers one of the cheapest sources of electricity that comes with zero greenhouse gas emissions. This is clearly more favourable than any fossil power generation.
Nuclear power is the largest source of low-carbon electricity in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, with an 18 percent overall share of electricity production in 2013 and second at global levels with an 11 percent share. A total of 72 reactors were under construction at the beginning of 2014, the highest number in 25 years.
According to the latest reports, China would account for the largest increase in nuclear capacity additions from 17 gigawatt (GW) in 2014 to 250GW in 2050. Other growing nuclear energy markets include India, the Middle East and the Russian Federation. For a number of countries like China, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates, this has meant reducing coal reliance and the impact for these countries has been immense.
Finally, though there are a number of alternatives available, nuclear remains the best long-term option for the further development of South Africa’s energy mix that will ensure security of electricity supply while adhering to our various national and international objectives.
* Matshela Koko is the group executive for generation at Eskom.
** The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Independent Media.
BUSINESS REPORT