NUCLEAR ENERGY
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Nuclear Power
A reality for Africa
T
he South African government has announced that an additional 9600 MegaWatts of nuclear power will be added to the South African electricity grid. The intention is to do this as soon as possible. Before going further let us contemplate this issue in a much broader context. Germany has announced its intention of trying to reduce its total electricity consumption, whereas in contrast South Africa has stated that it intends to double its electricity consumption over about the next 25 years. The objective of Germany and South Africa concerning electricity production is so vastly different that one must be most careful when comparing two such countries. Many people are far too simplistic when it comes to making such comparisons. All too often people merrily compare European countries with African countries and then come to the conclusion that African countries must follow some ‘good example’ as set by Europe. Let us look a bit deeper at other African states. Many African countries are only five or ten percent electrified. It is well known that the provision of electricity is a major factor in economic advance, and therefore in the consequent social advance of the people of any country. In considering the advanced European countries, and for that matter other advanced countries of the world, one can imagine that most of their citizens have access to electricity. Therefore for them the provision of large scale electricity, over a short period of time, is not in their planning objectives. In the case of many African countries there is a desperate need to double elec-
28
tricity production as soon as possible, and then to double it again, and then again. This scenario is true of many countries worldwide and not only African countries. Such a rapid increase in electricity production is a moral necessity for many governments. In 1984 the world was using about half the total electricity that it uses now, and that was just over a quarter century ago. I imagine that the future rate of increase in consumption will be about the same, if not higher. Existing electric devices are tending to become more energy efficient, thus leading to overall energy saving. On the other hand the developing world will develop rapidly and will require much more electricity, such that the demand will no doubt easily exceed any savings in the first world. The net effect will probably be that the total world consumption of electricity will double in the next quarter of a century. In other words the historic graph will continue to rise as before, if not faster. The Renewable Ghost Over the last couple of decades there has been a first world move towards so-called ‘renewable’ electricity production which has largely been based on solar and wind power. This sentiment has been driven largely by those countries which have an objective of reducing their overall electricity consumption. They have been aiming at producing electricity from ‘renewables’ of five to ten percent of national supply. Not 80-90%! If five or 10% of the total electricity supply is intermittent or fails entirely it is a nuisance, but not a national disaster. One can take chances with figures of under 10%. One cannot take chances with
figures above 50% let alone above 80%. It is these European countries who are advising African countries to aim at producing 50-80% of their national electricity supply from renewables. One has to ask; is this a moral stance? So how should African countries plan for major electricity production expansion? Such future electricity must be reliable and affordable. That is fundamental for economic stability. A fossil fuel, such as coal or oil, fits the bill, but most countries have neither coal nor oil. The logistics of moving coal or oil great distances to far inland African countries is staggering. To base the economies of African countries on solar or wind power is just far too risky. Both are very expensive and very unreliable. Solar and wind are intermittent, and that is an unchangeable fact of nature. An answer is to base a country’s major expansion requirements on nuclear power. Nuclear Large and Small In thinking of nuclear power one tends immediately to think of large scale nuclear plants of say 2000MW in size. Some African countries have total national electricity consumptions of below 2000MW, many even below 1000MW. So a 2000MW plant is rather large and expensive for the national requirements of many countries. South Africa pioneered the development of a smaller reactor of about 100MW in size which is an ideal size for very many countries, and also for larger consumption
countries which want to place smaller electricity generating units in specific places. Many of the new generation of smaller reactors fall collectively into a category known as high temperature gas cooled nuclear reactors. In other words they do not use large volumes of water, and so do not need to be built on coastlines or on very large lakes. There is therefore a potential nuclear power future for any country. The Current South African Scene South Africa is now moving ahead with the decision to build a number of large water cooled nuclear power plants which do have to be situated on the coast. This suits immediate planning requirements because all of South Africa‘s coal is situated in the north east of the country, and that is where the coal-fired power stations are. This means that South Africa has to run power lines to the southern regions of the country which are so long that they are equivalent to transmitting electricity from Rome to London. To cover such long distances is a major technological challenge. New nuclear power plant will therefore be situated in the Cape areas where South Africa‘s current nuclear power plant Koeberg is situated. That makes strategic and economic sense. There is a public perception that South Africa will now award a single tender to one foreign nuclear power plant supplier. This would be a major mistake. There is also a public perception that building a nuclear power plant is very complex and is far beyond the capability
of local industry. Such a view is incorrect. Consider that South Africa has built the largest coal-fired plants in the world, and is currently building the world’s largest coal-fired plant. Nuclear Way Ahead There is not that much difference in building a nuclear power plant compared to a coal-fired power plant. Both have large scale concrete works, both have pipes, electric cables, electric controls, pumps, meters and much more. In both plants steam is produced to drive turbines which in turn drive electrical generators. In both cases all of this is very similar. The real difference lies in how the fundamental heat is produced. In the case of coal heat is produced by the burning of coal in a furnace, but in a nuclear reactor heat is emitted from a nuclear reaction typically using uranium. The conclusion that one arrives at is that there is no reason why South Africa cannot control and manage the construction of nuclear power plants. The entire construction of nuclear power plants can and should be project managed by South Africans. We do it with coal plants, why not nuclear? We have the technical capability. What we now need to see is the business courage and strategic foresight that is required as well. Local Nuclear Industry People will ask; if South Africa takes con-
trol of nuclear power construction, can this be done economically. Valid question. One approach is to develop a nuclear export industry in South Africa. Such moves are already underway. This is a simple trade concept that is already carried out in the local production of items such as motor cars. South Africa exports cars all over the world. Top brands of cars in fact. These cars are built in South Africa from a mixture of locally manufactured parts and sub-assemblies and imported parts and sub-assemblies. South Africa also exports parts and subassemblies. The same should be true of nuclear power. South Africa is perfectly capable of manufacturing and exporting items such as pumps and valves, and much more, to nuclear power plants all over the world. South Africa has the capacity to manufacture parts and sub-assemblies to the required nuclear standards. We should develop along this path just as we did in the development of the local aircraft industry which also requires a particular set of stringent manufacturing standards. South Africa now exports a large number of aircraft parts to such companies as Boeing and Airbus. Nuclear Psychology In forging ahead with a nuclear power programme one has to take public opinion into account. Unfortunately an antinuclear lobby exists worldwide which acts against nuclear power. This lobby fre-
29
NUCLEAR ENERGY
quently uses emotive language combined with information that is far from accurate, to bolster its position. In turn the nuclear power practioners have all too often been far too silent in putting the true picture to the public. Let us now look at some reality. By far the worst nuclear power accidents that occurred in the west were Three Mile Island in the US in 1979 and Fukushima in Japan in 2011. So what were the numbers of nuclear casualties from these two incidents? They were: Deaths:0, Injuries:0, Health Effects:0, for both incidents. Meantime, tens of thousands of people have been killed in accidents in coal, oil, gas, hydro and wind power production. No source of electricity production comes anywhere near close to the safety record for nuclear. An Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) study looked at energy accidents from 1969 to 2000. The number of accidents which killed five people or more for each source was the following: coal 1119; oil 397; natural gas 135; hydroelectricity 11, and nuclear 1. The single nuclear case was Chernobyl which occurred in the former Soviet Union (USSR). The USSR at the time built nuclear power plants in a manner that would never have been permitted in the west. Many safety features were just ignored or given very low priority. The USSR did not have a voting electorate to answer to. After the major Chernobyl nuclear accident of 1986 the total number of deaths to date is less than 60. Figures quoted by anti-nuclear activists of thousands are pure fantasies. At this point in the evolution of mankind, nuclear power has proven itself to be the safest source of electricity that we have. Nuclear Fuel For historic reasons nuclear fuel around the world is mainly uranium. However another nuclear fuel thorium, is very important, and in many respects is better than uranium. Contrary to some arguments there are vast quantities of uranium and thorium on the planet, certainly enough to last for
hundreds of years. There are two major advantages of nuclear fuel. One is that so little is required, and the other is that a fuel assembly that goes into a nuclear reactor looks exactly the same when it comes out. In other words it does not turn into ash or waste gas, or waste liquid or anything else. What actually happens is that uranium or thorium atoms are converted into other atoms, but all the atoms, old and new, stay contained within the original fuel element. As far as the volume of fuel is concerned, a large nuclear power plant like Koeberg would use six train loads of coal per day if it were a coal-fired plant, whereas in fact it only uses one truck load of nuclear fuel per year. Therefore in principle the total nuclear fuel needed for a nuclear plant for an entire decade could be stored in a building that could house 10 trucks. In contrast, to operate a coal-fired power station a coal mine needs to run continuously 24-hours a day. Nuclear power production is very resilient to price fluctuations in uranium or thorium because the quantities of fuel are so small. Before nuclear fuel goes into a reactor it is very mildly radioactive. It is so mild that it is very easy to handle and to store. In fact the radiation emitted is so mild that a person could sit in an office with an exposed fuel element and suffer no ill effect at all. Nuclear Waste When a nuclear fuel element comes out of a nuclear reactor, having been in the reactor core for a year or two, it looks exactly the same as when it went into the reactor. It is like taking flat batteries out of a torch, used ones and new ones look the same. Where a used or spent nuclear fuel element differs from a new one is that it is highly radioactive. If a person were to sit in an office with a spent nuclear fuel element it would kill the person in moments. Spent nuclear fuel is very dangerous and so it needs to be handled professionally. Military ammunition needs to be handled professionally too, and so do explosives used for mining. High voltage electricity also needs to be handled professionally and so do dangerous industrial chemicals.
In the case of all of these, if they are handled professionally they are safe in the context of an industrial society. Nuclear fuel is no different. Radioactive nuclear waste reduces in activity as time passes. Some radioactive materials take thousands of years to decay away. In contrast waste from coal, wind and solar power includes such toxic materials as arsenic, cadmium and mercury which do not decay away, they last forever. The public have been unduly scared by fantasy stories of the potential dangers of nuclear waste. If need be the entire nuclear waste produced by a nuclear plant during its entire lifetime could be stored in a building smaller than the nuclear plant itself. Such a visual picture is not a final policy of any government but in the case of Koeberg all of its spent nuclear fuel, generated over a period of more than 25 years is still stored indoors on site, waiting for a political decision on where to store it permanently. Nuclear Future In a century and possibly half a century’s time I am convinced that the world will be running on nuclear power. People then will look back at the history of the turn of the 21st Century and wonder why the people at the time had any doubts about moving towards nuclear power with great speed. We now need the courage to have the vision to imagine a range of nuclear power stations from large to small, placed all over the world, running all sorts of operations, from small to huge. Dr Kelvin Kemm Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and business strategy consultant. He is CEO of Stratek Business Strategy Consultants based in Pretoria, South Africa. He is a member of the International Board of Advisors of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), based in Washington DC. Dr Kemm has received the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa.
M E T S Y S E N I S L R E N Y O O F L I P U M E FOR Doing Business with the UIF at the click of a Button www.ufiling.gov.za As an employer you can now register, pay contributions and amend your employee’s declarations at the click of the button. U-Filing facilitates secure online services for: • Declarations • Amendments to declarations • Contributions • Activating a receipt for payment of contributions
Benefits for using the system are as follows: • Instant update and access to U-filing data • A secure and convenient online service • Reduce data errors • Improved service delivery
For any assistance on U-Filing contact our call centre on 012 337 1680 (select option 3) or 0860 345 464 Alternatively send an email to: ufilingsupport@uif.gov.za Report fraud @ Hotline 08000601148 or fraud@uif.gov.za
30