Lamenting the lack of an honest debate in South Africa about the country’s energy mix, Electricity and Energy Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa on Thursday embarked on a drive to explain the ins and outs of nuclear energy to lay people.
He was addressing a nuclear seminar in Pretoria that he called the first step in this process. The seminar brought together the who’s who of nuclear in South Africa, including government entities, industry associations, scientists, contractors, media, and some international vendors.
Listen/read: Why nuclear power will feature large in SA’s electricity future
Ramokgopa said that in the conversation about the country’s energy mix, the coal and renewable industries are vocal, but nuclear is absent. That is despite the country’s nuclear history dating back to 1948.
“Nuclear scientists are old, grey, intelligent, lack social skills, and are not confrontational.” Therefore, they would rather stay in their corners and release papers, he said.
We are, however, in an era where lobbyists have the ability to undermine a technology without any scientific basis, and by not responding, scientists have placed nuclear on the back foot, he said.
Ramokgopa vowed: “South Africa will be evidence-based in its choices about the energy mix. That removes emotion.”
Taking another swipe at anti-nuclear lobbyists, he said that in South Africa, people who have never seen the inside of a laboratory have appointed themselves to talk about nuclear. “Those are not experts. They are commentators who will talk about anything if you put a microphone in front of them.”
Ramokgopa said it is therefore important to put on full display what South Africa has achieved regarding nuclear and what the road ahead is.
Idiot’s guide to nuclear
He said he wants an “idiot’s guide to nuclear” so that those who are interested will understand the science of it.
“Scientists must defend the discipline and show how society can benefit from it and the contribution it can make to economic growth.” In fact, looking at the applications of nuclear in energy and medicine, most South Africans interact with it daily.
Ramokgopa said he interacted with Chris Opperman (operating partner at C5 Capital for Africa and the Middle East) and others formerly from the South African nuclear industry and now leading nuclear development in the US. “They want to come back.”
Read: Ramokgopa seeks nod for nuclear plant: Times
He said political leaders and policymakers soiled nuclear when allegations of corruption and money wasting surfaced, and lobbyists against nuclear have used that in their campaigns.
That is why he recently withdrew the Government Gazette announcing what he considered a flawed ministerial determination for the procurement of 2 500MW of nuclear generation. He had to rectify the process; “otherwise, you invite the legal profession to enter the sphere of scientists”.
Procurement announcements
Ramokgopa promised that announcements will be made in the next week or two about the pace and scale of South Africa’s new nuclear procurement and hinted that the revision of the integrated resource plan that was earlier published for comment may more prominently provide for nuclear in the future energy mix.
Listen/read: Electricity minister outlines SA nuclear power plans
He emphasised that nuclear and renewable energy are not mutually exclusive but must stand together in the energy mix.
He echoed the earlier message Rafael Grossi, general director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), delivered via video link, that after a period of little interest, the world is once again focusing on nuclear as a clean baseload option.
Ramokgopa said the initial high capital cost of nuclear is often raised without looking at the levelised cost over the lifetime of the asset, and referred to the low-cost energy Eskom has been generating at Koeberg.
Read:
Pebble bed nuclear reactor gets a reboot
The proposed 2 400MW nuclear new-build in SA – good idea or not?
Implementing small modular reactors at the point of consumption will reduce the need to construct transmission lines and be more competitive in terms of the amount of capital required.
‘Frivolous’
He considers the arguments against nuclear “frivolous”.
If South Africa’s nuclear programme had not experienced the hiatus it did, the country, being the only one with a nuclear capability on the continent, could have developed its industrial sector and exported skills to other African countries like Egypt and Kenya that are now embarking on nuclear build programmes.
But it is not too late, he said. “I’m more than confident that nuclear has a role.”
He said the best way to train a new generation of nuclear scientists is to provide certainty regarding the build project.
He said science has proven that nuclear energy is a clean and reliable technology. “The only answer we must give is that it mustn’t be too expensive for the consumer.”
Listen to this Moneyweb@Midday podcast with Jeremy Maggs:
You can also listen to this podcast on iono.fm here.
Follow Moneyweb’s in-depth finance and business news on WhatsApp here.
COMMENTS 11
You must be signed in to comment.
SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE
or create a free account.
Free users can leave 4 comments per month.
Subscribers can leave unlimited comments via our website and app.
“That is despite the country’s nuclear history dating back to 1948.”
What is he referring to?
3
Formation of the predecessor to the Atomic Energy Agency.
4
Nuclear has an important role to provide base load, which none of our renewable sources give us. Safety and distrubuted deployability of modular reactors are game changers.
The question remains whether policy allows (and invites) sufficient private sector participation. Without that, any investment of this scale will invite tenderpreneurs and looters en large.
But I’m just an idiot with a microphone and not a scientist, so what do I know.
14
4
There is no such thing as “baseload” in coal or nuclear. Our 100-odd coal and nuclear fleet units operate on basis that at different times, different ones are supplying, broken, under maintenance or deliberately idle.
If we had forty Koeberg units and no coal or solar or wind we would at times run 22 fullspeed and 6 that can ramp up and down. Not the same 22 or 6 all the time. They go down for extended periods (many months) in maintenance and refuel.
1
The scientists are welcome to the debate, but with R800 billion projects please listen to the numbers people
12
1
I’m all for the “numbers” people doing the arithmetic, but I agree with Ramokgopa that scientists and engineers must do the clever stuff and make the decisions.
1
What I meant is
1. Definitely the scientists and engineers must make the technical feasibility decisions.
2. Definitely the numbers people must make the cost feasibility decisions.
Else we end up with political appointees making both feasibility decisions and that is how the new coal stations cost R800b and are STILL not performing.
There is no point to a perfect nuclear plant that must recover R3/kWh in today’s money terms to balance its books. We can do solar and battery storage that supplies 24h a day for under R2/kWh and it can be built in 18 months. Any nuclear will take 12-15 years. If we need that plant nearer existing transmission grid, you need more solar for same GW constant supply, so make it R2.50/kWh. Do a hybrid solar and wind and solar and likely the cost reduces if it is on the plateau where get good evening winds.
3
I’m all for the “numbers” people doing the arithmetic, but I agree with Ramokgopa that scientists and engineers must do the clever stuff and make the decisions.
3
Nuclear in democratic countries seem to be plagued by massive cost and time overruns. So, a Medupe scenario, just worse in the SA context. As consumer, I don’t want to pay for those guaranteed inefficiencies. If they are indeed as cost-competitive as the man says, let us agree upfront on a cost/kWh & /MVA, like we do with other independent power producers, guarantee an off-take. This way ALL the risk on cost & time overruns lies with the builder of said nuclear power station of whatever type, and this may introduce a more realistic pricing proposal in the first place. We do this with the other IPPs, so why not for nuclear.
14
1
This ANC is SO desperate to get Nuclear in, mainly due to the massive pilfering opportunity, as we all know. Taxpayers should not have to take on the corruption, incompetence and ineffificiency risk of a build project of this type. All the State has to do is offer to pay Rxx.xx per MW at a minimum take-up of xxxx amount MW’s per annum, and invite the private sector to submit proposals that involve absolutely zero state participation/funding/tax-breaks/special environmental concessions etc. etc. If the Private sector is not bullish to make Nuclear work under those circumstances, then the State 100% will fail.
13
1
Perhaps the good Minister can give us a solid case to justify nuclear power plant. He appears to be much more enthusiastic about it than most so this should be easy – and the case could be stated as soon as now!
By the way; I don’t think high capital cost, waste fuel disposal and safety are frivolous.
8
Load All 11 Comments
End of comments.