1. How will SA address the affordability challenge?
Nuclear power is affordable, and we know this from our own experience with Koeberg Nuclear Power Station. It is the only proven baseload electricity that competes with coal, our cheapest option baring the cost of externalities such as climate change, water and air pollution, mining accidents and injuries worker health. What makes nuclear seem “unaffordable” is the high plant construction cost and time. Taking at least seven years of investment and subject to many regulatory safety controls makes nuclear unattractive to short term investors in the power industry. However, the low fuel, operation, and maintenance cost are factors in favour of nuclear power economics. Costs related to ensuring safety through quality and safety culture are all included in these favourable economics.
Private investors typically want quick turnaround times with minimal investment, so they tend to invest in other less capital intensive generation options and pass the risk of high cost of fuel to the consumers. Governments on the other hand try to ensure that the people are protected against volatile fuel prices that could ravage a countries economy. Hence, initial investment in nuclear tends to be a Government led due to the long term benefits.
2. How will South Africa (SA) address the safety aspects of nuclear power?
The South African Government will review and re-enforce current legislation related to nuclear safety to be in line with that of the international nuclear safety organisations. South Africa is also party to the International Atomic Energy Agency Convention on Nuclear Safety, which makes it necessary for us to promote a high level of nuclear safety.
3. What is the estimated cost per kW?
Overnight costs for Generation III+ nuclear power plants have a broad range ZAR30 000 to ZAR60 000 per kWe as we have seen in the literature. However, as more plants get built, the price is expected to decrease as the high construction costs are reduced by experience gained.
With regards to the electricity cost over the lifetime of the plant, the estimated cost per kWh from nuclear power is expected to be below 80c per KWh.
4. How will SA manage the environmental approval process?
The environmental approval process will be managed according to legislation, namely the National Environmental Management Act and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations that relate to it and also other related Environmental Legistations such as National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), Protected Areas Act (No. 57 of 2003), Environment Conservation Act, 1989 etc.
5. How will SA manage the long-term waste problem?
In South Africa, radioactive waste is managed according to the Nuclear Energy Act, the Radioactive Waste Management Policy and the license conditions imposed by the National Nuclear Regulator on operators. Waste Management is also guided by the international best practice, especially that of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). South Africa acceded to the IAEA’s Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management in June 2007. The obligations of this convention include
- the establishment and maintenance of a legislative and regulatory framework to govern the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management
- the obligation to ensure that individuals, society and the environment are adequately protected against radiological and other hazards, inter alia, by appropriate siting, design and construction of facilities and by making provisions for ensuring the safety of facilities both during their operation and after their closure.
The Radioactive waste classification scheme is provided in the National Radioactive Waste Management Policy and Strategy (RWMP&S, 2005)
High Level Waste: At a national level, there is no endpoint decided as yet for this type of waste.
The RWMP&S recognises that deep geological disposal facility is currently the most internationally accepted and as such will require a very careful consideration.
A formal site selection program for geological disposal is envisaged. This will require a countrywide study.
Vaalputs would naturally be considered as one of the candidate sites because of it’s highly favourable characteristics. International guidelines and criteria will be essential for this purpose.
According to RWMP&S, 2005, on-site storage is not suitable for the long term storage of this waste class. Interim storage off-site before final disposal will, however, form part of the waste management plan for this waste class.
Low and Intermediate level Waste (LILW): The endpoint for this is identified as National Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, already in existence at Vaalputs. This is a near-surface disposal facility, which is currently suitable for the LILW (this includes short-lived sealed radioactive sources with limited activity)
Very Low Level Uranium Containing Bulk Waste: Disposal on a mine tailings dam or, with special authorization, disposal in engineered landfill facilities or surface impoundments, general waste landfill facilities and hazardous chemical waste disposal facilities.
Very Short Lived Waste: Exemption/ clearance will be the final endpoint for this material (sealed sources with half-lives < 100 days) after being kept on site until sufficiently decayed.
Government is in the process of establishing the National Radioactive Waste Management Institute (NRWMI) which will assume the responsibility of managing radioactive waste disposal on a national basis. to provide final endpoints for the respective waste classes. It is therefore assumed that an endpoint for all waste categories will exist.
6. Why does government believe nuclear is a technology that should be pursued?
Government believes this for several reasons
- Nuclear power is a proven baseload electricity option
- Nuclear power can effectively reduce our greenhouse gas emissions
- Nuclear power could be used to improve local beneficiation of our uranium by creating jobs across all aspects of the fuel cycle
- Nuclear power is economically competitive, and is second only to coal power in terms of levelised cost of electricity
- Nuclear power is safe when well managed, and we have proven this for over 25 years at Koeberg.
Government is also aware that the following key issues that need to be addressed when embarking on a nuclear programme
- Disposal and/storage of long term radioactive waste
- Non-proliferation of sensitive nuclear technology
- Security of nuclear installations and materials
- Safety of people and protection of the environment
- Public perception and understanding of nuclear technology
- Skills development for localisation of industry
7. What is the job creation and localisation potential?
There is tremendous job creation and localisation potential. Many of today’s developed countries have localised this technology during their development; for example France, Japan, China, and more recently South Korea who has this year successfully won a bid for nuclear new build in the United Arab Emirates.
8. Do we have the skills base to run a large fleet of nuclear stations? If not, what is being done in this regard?
No, we do not have the skills base right now, and neither do we require it today. In this regard, the long timeframes of a nuclear programme allows us sufficient time to develop the appropriate skills.
9. Will Eskom definitely be involved in the build programme?
This is still being considered at Government level, amongst a few other options. We will make this decision based on what is best for the country going forward.
10. Will SA restart the Nuclear 1 selection process, or begin the bidding process again? Why?
This is still being considered at Government level, amongst a few other options. Bear in mind the scope has now made this a national programme and not just a power plant construction project.
11. What technologies will be pursued?
South Africa intends to continue its nuclear power programme using Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) as articulated in the Nuclear Energy Policy of 2008.
12. When is government going to make a decision on nuclear?
Only once the draft IRP 2010 is finally approved, with inputs from all stakeholders, can we make a more firm decision on the total nuclear capacity. Nuclear power is a long term programme, and to meet targets of the draft IRP some work must start more than twelve years before a single Watt of power is produced from new nuclear. There will be many decisions along this road, and not one single decision. For example, one of the biggest decisions have been made in 2008 on promulgation of the Nuclear Energy Policy – which clearly states that South Africa intends to pursue the nuclear energy option for electricity generation.
13. Will government opt for a fleet option?
Government intends to pursue a fleet option, but the final decision thereto has not been made (i.e. no contract has been signed with any vendor for a fleet procurement). It will weigh heavily on the envisaged potential benefits of reduced long term cost vs. that of a smaller commitment single plant by plant approach.
14. What is going to be Eskom's role in the nuclear programme?
See Question 9 above.
15. What steps will be taken to ensure that there are minimal slippages in schedules for the commissioning of the nuclear units?
There are many steps and strategies, especially lessons learnt from other nuclear programmes and risk management escalated at Government level. The International Atomic Energy Agency, nuclear design vendors, construction companies and safety authorities are all sharing information with us to prevent slippages going forward as this is a known concern, especially in the Western world. The east has shown us that nuclear can be built on time and even ahead of time. Cross-pollination of approaches will be a key intervention to our approach going forward.
16. Can we afford nuclear power?
See Question 1 above.
