Nuclear as an energy resource can be useful for its low cost, low emissions and for countries to develop a self-reliant and independent energy supply. This is according to nuclear energy experts, speaking during a panel discussion about nuclear energy at the PowerGen and DistribuTECH Africa 2016 conference, held in Sandton on Tuesday 19 July 2016. “Nuclear is the cheapest and most environmentally friendly option for Africa,” said Viktor Polikarpov, vice president of the sub-Saharan Africa region of Russian nuclear firm Rosatom. African countries are facing a trilemma when it comes to energy generation. This includes the security of supply, and the impact on the environment and the economy, he explained. “The cost of electricity generated by nuclear is cheapest compared to coal,” he added. Nuclear power has the potential to bring about sustainable development across industries and have a positive socio-economic impact by creating job opportunities and developing skills in communities, he said. Nuclear power generation also adds benefits in other fields such as medicine, isotopes, radiation and water desalination. “By 2050, the total capacity of nuclear power plants will double,” said Polikarpov. A lot of countries are expressing an interest in nuclear programmes, added Oliver Bard, nuclear project director of EDF South Africa. This is because power is imperative for macro-economic development. “There can be no human development without efficient access to power,” he said. Nuclear energy sources can provide power 20 years and beyond. It is also “one of the solutions” to diversify a country’s energy mix. Countries are also looking to nuclear energy as an independent solution for supply, making them more self-reliant and less dependent on other countries for energy, he explained. Opportunities in Africa “Africa is not new to nuclear and nuclear is not new to Africa,” said Polikarpov. There are currently eight countries building nuclear energy infrastructure and South Africa already has a nuclear power generating plant at the Koeberg Power Station in the Western Cape. Nuclear, should be an efficient way to tap base load needs, for the growing energy demands of Africa’s growing population, and economic growth, he said. “South Africa has a strong situation to lead development of nuclear in Africa,” said Bard. The country has the infrastructure, industry and skills. Building a nuclear programme will give momentum for the process across the continent, said Bard. The Koeberg Power Station has been operating for 32 years, added David Nicholls, Chief Nuclear Officer at Eskom. The cost of operating the station for a year comes to 20c/KWH. This is as much as Eskom pays for coal, to make coal-fired power, he said. The problem with existing coal-fired power stations is that as they get older they become more costly to maintain, and they yield poorer performance. The case against nuclear Hartmut Winkler, Physics Professor at the University of Johannesburg said that it was important to reconsider nuclear energy as a source for power generation. Among his reasons was safety and he listed the disasters in Chernobyl and Fukushima. “We can’t guarantee it will happen, but we can’t guarantee that it won’t,” he said. The disposal of nuclear waste was also questionable. Waste is currently buried in Vaalputs in the Northern Cape. This should be reviewed, especially considering transportation to these sites, he said. Winkler made a case for other sources of renewable energy such as solar and wind instead. “There has been a rapid cost decrease in renewable energy technology, especially photovoltaics. Solar energy is no longer expensive,” he said. The construction of these renewable energy power stations also happened quickly and they operate efficiently, he added. The cost of building infrastructure for a nuclear power plant should also be considered. This is linked to the cost of the loans and interest repayments for funding the plant as well as possible deconstruction costs, said Winkler. The cost to provide 9600MW of nuclear energy comes to an estimated R1 trillion, this is equal to governments annual expenditure. “No project of this magnitude is affordable,” he said. “Projects of this scale require the support of the population,” he explained. More transparency is needed for citizens to trust that the best nuclear deal is chosen. Public trust has already been eroded by the Shiva uranium deal, he said. Among the issues impacting public support were earlier reports that suggested Rosatom was selected as a preferred supplier. Rosatom, the State Atomic Energy Corporation of Russia, has been involved in the industry for 70 years. It has more than 160 enterprises, 155 000 employees and a global presence in 40 countries. The company has 44 backlogged power plants, worth more than $110 billion. News24 The true cost of South Africa’s nuclear programme SA nuclear deal has not stalled, it’s just on hold
At the recent Russian power generation and distribution conference, nuclear energy experts discussed the case for developing South Africa's nuclear power programme. Nuclear is "the cheapest and most environmentally-friendly option," according to Rosatom, Russia's nuclear energy company. In addition, nuclear is considered a long-term solution to diversifying South Africa's energy mix and can supply the increasing energy needs of sub-Sahara's growing population and economy. However, a physics professor highlighted nuclear's disadvantages, including waste disposal, the potential for catastrophic accidents, the cost of building infrastructure and deconstruction. Before the country commits to nuclear, he called for a closer consideration of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind.