The South African government plans to complete a separate energy-mix modelling exercise to assess whether the base-load alternatives exist to enable South Africa to affordably meet its climate-change commitments without the inclusion of a 10 000-MW nuclear fleet.

South Africa has indicated that it will seek to limit its carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions to below 275-million tons by 2025, despite an expectation that it will have to add 41 346 MW of generation capacity to the supply system, based on an economic growth trajectory of 4,5% a year over the period.

Department of Energy deputy director-general for electricity, nuclear and clean energy Ompi Aphane says that the current preferred scenario is based on an assessment of how the country can achieve its greenhouse gas (GHG) emission-reduction targets, while still guaranteeing affordable security of supply.

This favoured scenario, which is outlined in the draft second integrated resource plan, or IRP 2010, which is currently being canvassed at public hearings, envisages the introduction of at least 9 600 MW of nuclear energy between 2023 and 2030.

But Aphane says that a commitment has subsequently been made for government to “model” a separate scenario, which assesses whether South Africa’s CO₂ thresholds could be obtained in the absence of a nuclear fleet.

“One of the objectives of the IRP is to reduce GHG emissions. The specific scenario that was modelled, indicates that one of the only ways in which we can reduce GHG emissions in South Africa in line with the Long-Term Mitigation Scenario (LTMS) and perhaps even in alignment with our Copenhagen commitments last year, is to introduce nuclear,” he explains.

The LTMS provides a government outline for how it intends contributing to dealing with the threat of climate change, while at the Copenhagen climate negotiations in 2009, South Africa undertook, with conditions, to pursue mitigation actions that will result in a deviation below the current emissions baseline of around 34% by 2020, and by around 42% by 2025.

“The question we have not answered, is whether [the preferred scenario] is the only way to achieve the [GHG emission-reduction] outcome. Could we achieve 275-million through an option other than nuclear?

“We have made a commitment that we will model an additional scenario that completely excludes nuclear to try and see if that reduces the emissions to those threshold levels,” Aphane reveals.

In the meantime, though, Energy Minister Dipuo Peters says that planning for a nuclear roll-out will continue in line with the Nuclear Energy Policy approved by Cabinet in 2008.

BEYOND NUCLEAR 1

But she has also offered the clearest signal yet that the procurement process is unlikely to involve the restarting of Eskom’s so-called ‘Nuclear 1’ process, which had involve only Areva, of France, and Westinghouse of the US.

Instead, it would be pursued as a 'national' programme, with Eskom’s role still to be finalised. Government says that it has also taken lessons from the Nuclear 1 process, the learnings from which will be applied to lower the overall financial and technical risk associated with any possible fleet deployment.

The State-owned utility is currently making a strong case for it playing a central role in partnership with others, with CEO Brian Dames having indicated recently that nuclear and renewable energy are integral to its future growth plans.

Aphane indicates that the government-drive process will seek to lower the financial risks as well as open the procurement process, which could begin during 2011, to a greater array of technology choices.

Peters even hints to an investor conference for potential nuclear participants along the lines of the recent solar park investor conference, which was hosted in Upington.

PRICES AND COSTS

Government still believes that, over the full life of a new nuclear power plant, electricity could be delivered into the national grid at below 80c/kWh – nearly double the current wholesale tariff of around 42 c/kwh, but below the long-term price of around 100 to 110 c/kWh outlined in the IRP2010.

It is also banking on capital costs of between R30 000/kW and R60 000/kW, or around R120-billion for a 4 800-MW nuclear reactor. However, this is a highly contested domain, with some antinuclear lobbyists warning that such programmes are prone to cost and schedule overruns. These campaigners even argue that there has been a “negative learning curve” in the delivery of new nuclear facilities, with projects being far more expensive than first advertised.

But Aphane says that the examples cited are generally to narrowly based, and centre on recent experiences in Finland, rather than the better delivery patterns being achieved elsewhere, including in China.

Currently, the draft IRP2010 proposes that nuclear comprises 14% of South Africa's base-load energy mix by 2030, with the first new capacity proposed to enter the system from 2023.

However, government has also admitted that the country does not have the skills base immediately in place to enable it to pursue it 'national' nuclear energy programme.

Nevertheless, Peters says she is confident that, owing to the long lead times involved in deploying nuclear projects (typically longer than a decade) this skills problem can be dealt with, noting that the fleet roll-out could require an average of 13 000 workers to implement.