View Full Version : Nuclear SA
June 18th, 2008, 09:49 AM
SA's nuclear plans on track
Jun 18 2008 8:12AM
Johannesburg - Nuclear energy offers one of the few solutions to the world's predicament of cutting carbon dioxide emissions in half while doubling energy production to cater for the growth of the developing world.
That's the view of Bertrand Barré, chairperson of the International Nuclear Energy Academy and scientific adviser to French nuclear firm Areva which is one of the bidders to supply new nuclear power stations to Eskom.
Addressing a business breakfast in Johannesburg, Barré said the energy sector stood at a crossroads between the needs of development and the constraints of the environment.
He said the key problem was that the world currently sourced 80% of its energy needs from fossil fuels in the form of oil, gas and coal.
Barré highlighted the surging demand for coal - in particular from China - which has been triggered by rising energy demands over the past five years. Chinese annual coal production has jumped from one billion tonnes in 2000 to current levels around 2.4bn t.
"Coal is back and that is extremely damaging for the environment which is why CCS (carbon containment systems) must be implemented," he said.
Barré said three broad measures could provide the solution. These were to reduce energy demand, particularly in the developed countries; generate more power without creating carbon dioxide which meant using more nuclear power and alternative sources such as wind power and to "sequester" the carbon dioxide emitted from coal and gas-fired stations through CCS.
He said that nuclear was the most economic of the various generation options when it came to large, "base load" power stations although this was not the case when it came to meeting "peaking power" demands.
Turning to South Africa, Barré said the country's proposed nuclear programme was "ambitious" but broad comparisons could be drawn with the situation in France in the 1950s.
The SA government last year announced it intended increasing the amount of power generated from nuclear sources to 20 000MW by 2025 from the current level of 18 00MW generated from the Koeberg station.
In the 1950s, France sourced 75% of its energy from coal while South Africa currently gets 95% of its energy from coal.
According to Barré, France now gets one third of its energy requirements from nuclear, one third from oil and one third from other sources.
Barré said: "My advice would be pick a good design for your next nuclear reactor and then standardise on it for the construction of the other plants to be built."
He estimated that, starting from scratch, it would take about 10 years to bring a new nuclear power station online, of which some three years would be needed for site preparation.
Eskom has already started work on possible sites for additional nuclear reactors and hasso far selected four, all situated on the coast.
Two of them are in the Northern Cape, one is the Western Cape and the fourth is in the Eastern Cape.
August 18th, 2009, 12:06 PM
Eskom's "disaster" decision
Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:12
[miningmx.com] -- ESKOM's decision last December not to go ahead with the country’s next nuclear power station was a “disaster in my view” according to former Eskom CEO Ian McRae.
McRae, who was CEO of Eskom from 1985 to 1994 and chief executive of the National Energy Regulator (NER) from 1995 to 1997, told Miningmx he believed a new nuclear plant was the best option for providing more power to the Western Cape.
He also rejected the reason given by Eskom and the Government for not awarding the nuclear contract last year which was that the country could not afford it.
“They should not have deferred that nuclear plant. Instead, they should have done their damndest to get the financing in place to make it happen.
“The adjudication of the tenders from Areva and Westinghouse also took into consideration the financial packages available as well as the technical aspects.
“I believe Eskom could have got a reasonable financial package from the suppliers of the nuclear equipment if they had negotiated project finance deals with them. It was a brilliant opportunity and I don’t think we tried hard enough.”
McRae’s comments are backed up by observations from energy industry sources who said Areva and Westinghouse would have arranged most of the finance because they were so keen to get the business.
They point out the action of Eskom and the SA government in deferring the nuclear station makes little sense given that government still maintains its strategy is to source more power from nuclear stations.
McRae believes it is crucial that government delivers on this strategy given the global pressures that are building up on large producers of carbon dioxide emissions such as South Africa because of its overwhelming dependence on burning coal to generate electricity.
“ The government says it wants to go nuclear but we are not seeing it. Instead, it looks like the nuclear plans have gone on the back burner,” he commented.
Turning to the subject of independent power producers (IPPs) McRae said this had been a critical factor in the creation of the country’s power crisis and the current situation reflected the lack of leadership in dealing with it.
He pointed out the SA government had announced its intention to source more power from IPPs in 1998, yet 11 years later Eskom was still not in a position to be able to sign a power purchase agreement (PPA) with an IPP.
As a result IPP projects controlled by companies like CIC Energy and Ipsa Plc are either stalled or in limbo as Eskom debates with government over how power purchases from IPPs should be funded.
“I am not anti-IPPs and I accept I may not know all the ins and outs but we simply have not got our act together here,” McRae commented.
In an interview in the August edition of electronic newsletter EE-News, McRae said one of the main reasons given by the SA government for halting Eskom’s generation plan in 1998 was that it wanted to give IPPs greater access to SA’s electricity supply industry.
He told EE-News, “That was not, in itself, the fault – the fault was in stopping Eskom from proceeding before they had an idea of what response they would have from IPPs, thus placing South African consumers at risk.
“The government failed to recognise that IPPs would not rush into South Africa to compete with Eskom’s large, low-cost, coal-fired stations.
“There was also a lack of understanding of the industry dynamics in that the output of IPPs under the current system is determined by the grid which is owned by Eskom.
“Some guarantee of output would have to be given to the IPPs and this was not clearly laid down. The government let users of electricity in South Africa down badly in making this decision.”
“The government has also failed to give answers to questions I raised way back when I was chief executive of the NER, namely ‘what kind of industry do we want for South Africa? A privatised industry; or a government-owned vertically integrated industry or something in between - a quasi privatised industry?
“As a result, the industry has failed to restructure.”
August 19th, 2009, 01:07 AM
Phase 1: 2008 -2010
Maintain and enhance current national nuclear infrastructure
Continue research into advanced nuclear energy systems
Accelerate skills development initiatives in line with expected expansion including increased capacity at institutions of higher learning
Phase 2: 2011-2015
Demonstration of advanced nuclear energy systems
Initiate localisationof nuclear equipment and component manufacturing-construction of heavy machinery infrastructure
Build capacity for nuclear technology transfer
August 24th, 2009, 07:00 PM
State nuclear company hopes to emerge as SA's localisation lynchpin
By: Keith Campbell, 21st August 2009
South Africa's PBMR Company and the Nuclear Industries Association of South Africa (Niasa) hope that the local development of the fourth-generation high- temperature gas-cooled pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR), and national electricity supplier Eskom's intention to also build advanced third-generation pressure water reactors (PWRs), will result in the creation of a South African nuclear industry, which will supply both the international and local markets.
"Our strategic objective with localisation is to assist in the building of a local nuclear industry and so create jobs, improve skills, and have a beneficial impact on the whole of South African industry, beyond just the nuclear sector," says PBMR marketing and localisation manager, and Niasa corporate secretary, Gert Claassen.
"And also create a competitive industry that can be export orientated, towards the global nuclear industry, which is growing."
This intention is being supported by the PBMR Company's reorientation, which is now under way. The company is seeking to become South Africa's nuclear engineering and design authority, as well as developing the PBMR.
"We now have a clear understanding of the role the company should play in the larger nuclear industry, and the skills that we have," affirms PBMR CEO Jaco Kriek. "There is a bigger role for us as a company."
South Africa's National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) has, following what has become international practice, agreed to split the licensing process for the PBMR into two: design and construction. As a result, the design will be approved and licensed separately from construction, and the PBMR Company can be certified as the design authority.
"PBMR will be the home of the technology," Kriek elucidates. "We will design the reactor, the fuel and the fuel plant, and license these designs with the regulators. Then, we will get involved with suppliers to manufacture the components, especially the nuclear island (the reactor and its systems, including containment), the steam generator, and the steam turbine. These are the key elements. We will then provide services to the PBMR operators, just as Areva does to Eskom for Koeberg." (Koeberg is South Africa's only nuclear power station, and comprises two second-generation PWRs).
"The ideal is that South Africa will, one day, build its own nuclear reactors," he states. "For example, South Korea created an entity to be the design authority for nuclear reactors and, so, became self-sufficient in design and manufacture. We need to work out the localisation model that is appropriate for us. Different countries have different models. Indeed, the model may evolve from the first reactor to the second, and so on. It all depends on how much will be done by local companies."
Claassen warns that localisation is a long-term goal and will be coupled with the new build programmes of both PBMR and Eskom. "But, ideally, within the next ten years, we should have an industry that can contribute to the local programmes and export some nuclear components. We should then continue to expand and develop beyond that." He highlights that the scale of localisation is critically dependent on Eskom's new PWR programme, and not so much on the PBMR programme, because PWRs are so much bigger than PBMRs.
"The level of localisation is dependent on the pace of the new build programme."
Eskom's new PWR programme was suspended in December, owing to the financial constraints afflicting the utility. The key questions are: when will Eskom announce the resumption of the programme? And what will they announce? The utility could announce an order for a single PWR, or it could unveil a rolling building programme for many PWRs.
Previously, Eskom had announced its intention to build 20 GW of nuclear power by 2025. This should amount to 30% of the utility's total generating capacity by that date. (Currently, Koeberg, which has a nominal capacity of 1 930 MW, contributes about 5% of the country's electricity.) "If this [plan] is renewed, it would give real impetus to a sustainable localisation programme," says Claassen.
But the clock is ticking. "We need to make decisions as a country, and soon," asserts Kriek. "The later we leave it, the lower the possibility of localisation. Unless your domestic market is big enough - and South Africa's isn't - localisation works only if it is part of globalisation. If we get localisation early, South African industry will form part of the global supply chains for major companies."
But early localisation depends on an early decision to go ahead with Eskom's new build PWR programme. Given Eskom's current financial circumstances, that is likely to require government approval and support.
Recently, Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan assured journalists that "government is working on the funding model for Eskom at the moment".
She also affirmed that government remains committed to the PBMR programme, and also assured that government believes that "time is of the essence" in developing nuclear energy in the country.
"Government is gung-ho about localisation," she asserted, adding that the country "could not afford" to import products and skills that could be produced in the country.
Localisation will be heavily dependent on the transfer of technology and expertise from the major international nuclear companies and, warns Kriek, "they can invest significantly in only a limited number of countries". Already, Finland, Canada, China, India, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates and the UK (which allowed its civil nuclear reactor industry to atrophy through decades of neglect) have, or are planning, localisation programmes.
JUMPING THROUGH CERTIFICATION HOOPS
The nuclear industry is like no other. Safety is absolutely critical. "It is tough to make things for the nuclear industry," emphasises Kriek. "There are a lot of regulations and the regulators are tough. You really need to make sure you follow the process."
When it comes to manufacturing components for use in nuclear power stations, and to the construction of such facilities, there are four categories of "safety case" (SC). These are - high (SC-H), medium (SC-M), low (SC-L) and none (SC-N). Under SC-H fall components and systems that are of high importance to nuclear safety, while SC-M covers those that are important to nuclear safety. SC-L and SC-N cover things that are not important to nuclear safety. If South African companies wish to meaningfully participate in the nuclear industry, they must be able to comply with the requirements of SC-H and SC-M.
For many, if not most, companies, ISO 9001 is the quality standard. For companies in the nuclear sector, it is only the beginning. Indeed, South Africa's NNR requires that companies wishing to be part of the nuclear industry must have specifically ISO 9001: 2008. Further, they must comply with NNR requirements document RD-0034, and achieve certification in those inter- national quality codes that meet the standards of this docu-ment. These include OHSAS 18001, NQA-1 (nuclear quality assurance), and, at the top of the list, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code chapter III (ASME III).
It is essential for manufacturers to have ASME III or ASME VIII certification, depending on the specific component or system, in order to operate in the SC-H and SC-M categories.
Business wanting to manufacture pressure vessels for the nuclear sector must also have ASME VIII certification - even if their products are aimed at the SC-N category.
Electrical components for SC-H and SC-M applications must comply fully with International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61225.
Instrumentation and control systems for SC-H must meet IEC 61513 and 61226 Category A/Class 1, while those for SC-M must meet IEC 61513 and 61226 Category B/Class 2. Welders working on components for nuclear reactors, and their support and ancillary systems, must be specially certified.
Companies wishing to do civils works for the SC-H element of a nuclear power station must comply with American Concrete Institute (ACI) 349, for nuclear safety-related concrete structure, as well as US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.142, which covers safety-related concrete structures for nuclear power plants, excepting reactor vessels and containments. For civils work on SC-M sections, the need is for ACI 349 and the South African Bureau of Standards SABS 1200 series specifications. (For SC-L and SC-N, they need SABS 1200).
Getting nuclear certification, particularly the essential ASME III, is neither easy nor cheap; and generally requires a complete culture change in the company seeking certi-fication. It takes good companies, with already high conventional quality-assurance standards, an average of three years to achieve ASME III certification. And companies that have ASME III are audited every year. "Maintaining these standards is expensive," points out Claassen. "If Eskom only builds one nuclear plant every five years, it will not be economically viable for South African companies to retain ASME III certification."
READY, STEADY, GO?
"Niasa is trying to prepare South African industry for the new PWR programme," he explains. "The concern is that, if the local industry is not ready by the time the announcement is made, the first PWR will have almost no localisation. And if the first doesn't, what chance is there that the second would have? And so on."
The point is not that Niasa expects South African companies to be able to supply SC-H or SC-M components for the first PWR, but that they be in a position (regarding certifications) to successfully absorb technologies transferred from the overseas prime contractors. This will then enable them to build, under license, components for the subsequent PWRs, these components increasing in complexity and importance with each new reactor. Ultimately, they would be producing important components, which would be used in the construction of nuclear power plants in other countries. This technology transfer would also assist South African companies to develop the expertise needed to manufacture key components for PBMRs as well.
"All the PBMR test facilities were built by South African companies," highlights Kriek. These facilities, however, involved no nuclear systems. "Thus, these companies must now be accredited as qualified nuclear suppliers if they wish to work on the real PBMR. We want to identify a group of South African companies that want to do this. We need to incubate companies to be local nuclear suppliers. We need to support them to get the required certifications."
Currently, the PBMR is being redesigned from the original concept as a single, direct- cycle, electricity-generating machine that would use helium to power a gas turbine, to a more flexible machine that would use a dual, indirect cycle in which the helium would convert water into superheated steam, which would drive a steam turbine and/or provide process heat.
"The PBMR Company will need the next two years to complete the new design of the demonstration plant. But it will take at least two years for a local company to become ASME certified anyway," points out Claasen.
"So, what can we do over the next two years? What kind of incentives or risk-mitigation measures can we put in place to allow local industry to prepare and get certified by the time the PBMR Company places orders for long-lead items?" The answers to these questions will clearly involve, directly or indirectly, government.
"We can never spend too much time on preparing for a nuclear industry. It must, however, be done right the first time," urges Kriek.
"Otherwise, setbacks will be very expensive and the local nuclear industry might not recover from them."
Edited by: Creamer Media Reporter
August 27th, 2009, 03:14 PM
So I'm confused...is Eskom building new nuclear power stations or not?
Getting mixed messages.
August 27th, 2009, 03:39 PM
August 27th, 2009, 07:00 PM
Thanks :) I thought they would lack the competence.
October 14th, 2009, 04:21 PM
Building up South Africa’s nuclear skills base
9th October 2009
The Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa (Niasa) will be publishing its nuclear skills guideline document at the end of the year, which will form the basis of the planning process for South Africa’s eventual nuclear roll-out.
The document, which is the result of an initiative launched by Niasa, will highlight data collected from a number of skills surveys, as well as information from international sources. The document examines the different levels of skills required for each predicted nuclear roll-out scenario. This will assist government and university departments in the planning process, in preparation for the country’s anticipated nuclear roll-out.
“The skills development subcommittee of Niasa met with the deans of all the universities as part of this initiative, which started a year ago, to find a mechanism whereby tertiary nuclear education can be accel- erated once government has announced its intended nuclear energy roll-out programme,” says Niasa secretariat Gert Claassen.
To assist South Africa with the skills needs for a growing nuclear industry, Niasa has developed a collaborative tertiary education model, which aims to structure the way that tertiary education takes place, by increasing the resources available, while reducing the costs.
“To start up a nuclear engineering or nuclear science department is costly. Labora- tories are expensive to build and set up, and skills are in short supply, so obtaining the acade- mics is difficult and costly,” Claassen says.
He adds that, through this col- laborative model, all universities interested in participating will register a core course and resour- ces will be shared to ensure that a student will be able to take a core course at one university and the additional subjects required can be taken at another university that has the relevant facilities.
Claassen emphasises that there are a number of challenges to overcome for this to come into effect, including the existing funding model of universities. “We are, however, excited about the progress that we have made in conceptualising something like this and Niasa has founded a skills secretariat to establish all the types of nuclear-related education requirements that will be needed.”
This year, a new postgraduate degree programme is being initia- ted in South Africa, devoted to the future needs of the local industry and the nuclear regulator. The master’s in the science and organisaion of nuclear energy degree is part of a colla- borative programme being developed by iThemba LABS, the university of Johannesburg, Tshwane University of Tech- nology and the University of South Africa.
Discussions are also under way to have regional variations of this programme involving the Durban University of Tech- nology and the University of KwaZulu-Natal, in Durban, as well as between the University of Western Cape, the Cape Univer- sity of Technology and iThemba LABS, in the Western Cape.
The master’s in the science and organisaion of nuclear energy programme complements the collaborative master’s in nuclear engineering programme, to which engineering schools at the universities of the North, Cape Town, Pretoria, Stellenbosch and the Witwatersrand have strongly committed themselves to.
The new degree, which was created as a result of a report by Niasa on the country’s nuclear sector, is a two-year course that will be accredited by the end of this year.
Edited by: Brindaveni Naidoo
November 1st, 2009, 10:13 PM
SA already has well operating nuclear power plant(s).Does SA have any plan to turn it(them) into nukes production? Just a question nothing more than that.Atleast, SA has the capacity to be the strongest in Africa militarily.
November 1st, 2009, 10:46 PM
^^ we disarmed our nuclear weapons and signed the non prolifitation treats, so no
November 20th, 2009, 01:57 PM
New nuclear power plant by 2020
Nov 20 2009 12:51
Pretoria - South Africa, plagued by chronic power shortages, plans to have the country's new nuclear power plant up and running by 2020, Energy Minister Dipuo Peters told a nuclear conference on Friday.
State-owned power utility Eskom, which operates Africa's sole nuclear power plant with a total capacity of 1 800 MW, cancelled plans to build a new facility at the end of last year, citing financial constraints.
The government has since taken the lead in developing the next power station, saying it wants to develop a local nuclear industry in partnership with a technology firm rather than adopt a commercial bidding process used by Eskom.
Peters said the new nuclear plant would produce about 20 000 megawatts. "It's a huge project, and in any project situation you plan with the end in sight, so we are looking at 2020," she said.
Peters said she was concerned by news of delays that could affect two of Eskom's coal-fired power stations, Kusile and Medupi, being built to help plug a power deficit in Africa's biggest economy, which suffered a near-collapse of its power grid in January last year, denting economic growth.
"We are not oblivious to the fact that should there be any delay in commissioning these two plants, consequences will be too ghastly to contemplate," she said.
Kusile and Medupi, both designed to generate 4 800 MW each, are Eskom's first new power plants in more than two decades.
News emerged on Thursday of delays in signing some contracts for Kusile power plant and the company said this would result in the station being commissioned later than the original 2013 start date.
Eskom also said the power system continued to be tight, but the utility did not foresee load shedding - a term used for blackouts - in 2010.
"We have reached a delicate situation, which requires us to take bold and decisive decisions about the type of the current and future energy requirements of our country," Peters said.
"We need to decide whether to build coal fired or nuclear power stations... Coal has clearly become a difficult option as carbon taxes could be imposed going forward."
Eskom has been rationing electricity since early last year after the national grid nearly collapsed forcing mines and smelters to shut for days and affecting industrial production, costing the economy billions of dollars.
Eskom has launched an ambitious expansion programme but still needs to raise parts of the R385bn required to supply fast-rising demand in the country.
February 11th, 2010, 10:27 AM
Hey guys, has anyone heard anything about movements in South Africa's Nuclear programme?? I heard that they were thinking of canning the PBMR programme which is pretty hectic, especially after all the time and money spent so far....
I heard rumors of Eskom planning 3 big new Nuclear plants in SA, one in Northern Provence and the other two in Western Cape, one next to the existing Koerberg and the other in Pearly Beach after Hermanus.......has anyone heard anything similar???
March 9th, 2010, 07:43 AM
Is no one interested in Nuclear Power......:-(
Come on guys, some one's gotta know some inside info or news??? I'd love to know what's the latest.....are they still planning on going ahead with it?? (I actually don't think they have a choice, they HAVE to, coal is of feasible and viable in the long term, especially if carbon tax is introduced!!!)
March 10th, 2010, 09:02 AM
I know, but I can't tell. The Draft EIR is avaible for public comment.
March 11th, 2010, 07:35 AM
I know, but I can't tell. The Draft EIR is avaible for public comment.
Ah come on, dont be like that!! I read Arcus Gibbs Draft EIR but got lost somehwere on page 121....OMG it's massive!!!
Give us an inside scoop!!! :banana::banana:
March 11th, 2010, 12:19 PM
Ah come on, dont be like that!! I read Arcus Gibbs Draft EIR but got lost somehwere on page 121....OMG it's massive!!!
Give us an inside scoop!!! :banana::banana:
Congratulations for getting to page 121.lol. Its three sites that they investigating thats why its so big. This EIA excludes the power line corridors which forms part of a different EIA process. The main report is quite big, but for a project of this size, one would expect no less. The specialsit reports are also quite big and really needs to be read to get a sense of the scope of the project and the seer size of mitigation that must be undertaken, which ever site will be chosen for Nuclear 1.
You can read all the inside scoops in my memoirs. You can twist my arm as much as you want, but I won't talk.
March 29th, 2010, 10:11 PM
$40 million US research boost for PBMR nuclear project
March 29, 2010
Local nuclear company Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Limited stands to benefit soon from a $40 million (R296 million) award by the United States department of energy (DoE) for research into so-called next generation nuclear plant (NGNP).
"One of the recipients is the South Africa-based Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Limited, responsible for research and development into the country's Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)," the US Embassy in Pretoria said in a statement on Monday.
The investment reflected the US's commitment to ensuring a supply of clean energy to power its economy.
"The department will now negotiate the final terms and conditions for the awards with the intention of completing conceptual designs by August 31 [this year]," it said.
The 2010 Budget tabled by Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan last month proposes massive cuts in government spending on South Africa's PBMR project.
According to reports, the company is now considering slashing its workforce by up to 75 percent.
Earlier this month, chief executive officer Jaco Kriek announced his resignation as PBMR head.
On March 8, the US DoE announced it had awarded contracts worth US40m to two consortiums for "conceptual design and planning" for NGNP.
They are headed by Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse Electric Company and San Diego-based General Atomics.
The Westinghouse consortium includes PBMR.
In a statement last week, the Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa (NIASA) expressed its regret at Kriek's resignation.
"NIASA, however, understands the challenges facing the PBMR company as it makes the transition towards becoming purely an engineering design company," it said at the time. - Sapa
March 30th, 2010, 12:16 AM
Good to hear...would be sad to see all that money spent go to waste and the project stalling thanks to a lack of funding.
May 13th, 2010, 05:10 PM
I do not want nuclear power in this country, we are by far underqualified for such projects. As soon as we get used to it, it becomes easy and then people make mistakes, that will cost us dearly. There are far better and more environmentally friendly alternatives. Some people (greedy) just do not care how their actions effect ME.
Hopefully it is never completed.
May 13th, 2010, 05:12 PM
September 8th, 2010, 11:22 AM
Six nuclear power stations planned
Sep 08 2010 07:57
Johannesburg - South Africa could get up to six new nuclear power stations.
At an Investec Power Summit in Sandton on Tuesday Energy Minister Dipuo Peters said that the development of a fleet of five or six new nuclear power stations in South Africa could lead to 70 000 new jobs.
An ambitious plan such as this would require many more nuclear energy experts than this country currently has. South Africa therefore needs to train more nuclear engineers.
Nuclear power is a growing global industry, and South Africa must therefore compete with the rest of the world for nuclear expertise.
The country will also have to develop a nuclear-energy support industry.
Fortunately, she said, skills developed in the pebble-bed nuclear reactor programme can be harnessed.
She said that a series of nuclear power stations would be more cost-effective than a single one. It costs three times more to build a nuclear power station than a coal-fired plant of the same size.
Medupi, which will produce 4 800MW, will cost R125bn.
Peters said the availability of uranium in South Africa is a big advantage.
SA just haS to be able to convert this mineral locally into a form that can be used, rather than exporting it and then re-importing the final product, she said.
EDF South Africa MD Frederic Diore said government should not exclude Eskom with regard to nuclear power.
Government is talking about a new, independent entity that will see to nuclear power. But Eskom has had 30 years’ experience in the field and it would be wrong to simply toss aside this experience, he said.
Meanwhile Yousuf Haffajee, the head of Eskom’s new power purchasing division – which will buy electricity from independent power providers – said on Tuesday that Eskom was planning to start a selection process for renewable energy projects in October or November.
These projects will form part of government’s aim of adding 1 025MW of renewable energy to the network by 2013.
Source: Fin24 (http://www.fin24.com/Business/Six-nuclear-power-stations-planned-20100908)
October 3rd, 2010, 04:27 PM
S.Korea, S.Africa to sign nuclear power deal: report
(AFP) – 1 day ago
SEOUL — South Korea will sign an agreement with South Africa in the coming week to design and build nuclear power plants in the African country, it was reported Saturday.
The agreement will be signed when South African Deputy President Kgalema Petrus Motlanthe comes to Seoul Friday for a two-day trip, Yonhap news agency said, quoting an unidentified South Korean foreign ministry official.
"The agreement will lay a legal ground for our advance into South Africa's nuclear energy market," the official was quoted as saying.
Motlanthe will meet with President Lee Myung-Bak and Kim Ssang-Su, chief executive of state-run Korea Electric Power Corp., the report said.
South Korea is seeking contracts in other countries, including Turkey, after it sealed a landmark 20.4 billion dollar deal with the United Arab Emirates to build a nuclear power plant.
South Korea, with few natural energy sources, operates 20 commercial reactors to provide 40 percent of its electricity needs.
October 3rd, 2010, 05:46 PM
They seriously need to hurry up and start building more nuclear power plants. They've been talking about it for ages but nothing ever happens.
October 4th, 2010, 06:57 AM
no deal with Korea
October 8th, 2010, 04:52 AM
SA to get six new power plants
Oct 07 2010 22:14
Johannesburg - South Africa will get six new power stations worth R1.3 trillion in an effort to eradicate power cuts, the SABC reported on Thursday.
China, France and South Korea would help in the construction of the proposed new stations, the energy department's director general Nelisiwe Magubane said.
The power stations, which formed part of the government's new proposed energy plan, would use "different technology".
"This project has actually not yielded the required results... we need them to re-look the research projects.
"But in the meantime we are still going to need additional power plants and we are going to use what we call conventional nuclear power as we use it in Koeberg, in Cape Town," she told the broadcaster.
Source: News24 (http://www.fin24.com/Economy/SA-to-get-six-new-power-plants-20101007)
February 18th, 2011, 04:07 AM
SA to sign €1bn deal with France
Feb 17 2011
Cape Town - President Jacob Zuma will sign a €1bn deal with the French Development Agency during a state visit to France next month that could also touch on a pricey nuclear project, a minister said on Thursday.
The March 2-3 visit, at the invitation of President Nicolas Sarkozy, aims at deepening economic relations with the incoming leader of the Group of 20 (G20) group of nations, as wide differences between rich and poor countries could frustrate France's hope of helping stabilise the global economy.
"There are several agreements that will be signed during this visit; among them would be included the new partnership framework document for 2011 to 2013," Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, told reporters.
France has emerged as one of several countries, including South Korea, whose companies have been courting South Africa as it shops for multi-billion dollar nuclear power plants that could help South Africa avoid a power crunch.
French nuclear company Areva signed an agreement during Sarkozy's 2008 state visit to South Africa to boost nuclear skills development in South Africa.
Areva in 2007 also submitted a proposal to power utility Eskom to build several nuclear plants, in a tender process later scrapped due to its steep cost.
"Looking at energy security as one of the agenda points that President Zuma will discuss with President Sarkozy, the answer is yes, but this is not the only issue," Nkoana-Mashabane said.
February 19th, 2011, 02:34 PM
a case of playing nice with the new bricS member?
March 16th, 2011, 10:37 AM
The nuclear world is on edge, following the Japan incident...
Koeberg sitting alongside geological fault
March 16 2011
Koeberg Power Station near Melkbos as seen from the air. Photo: Sam Clark
Cape Town - Koeberg nuclear power station is sitting alongside a geological fault which gave rise to an earthquake in 1809 that was the same magnitude as last month’s earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand.
The Milnerton fault lies about 8km offshore of Koeberg.
New Zealand’s earthquake, which killed 145 people, measured 6.3 on the Richter scale. Cape Town’s earthquake 200 years ago, which had its epicentre in present-day Milnerton, is estimated to have measured between 6.3 and 6.5.
Several earthquakes in Cape Town have been recorded from this fault, including a small one in May 2009.
Seismic experts have rated the earthquake risk as “rare, but a very real threat for Cape Town”.
The government intends doubling South Africa’s nuclear power capacity and, in spite of the earthquake risk, Koeberg has been selected as one of the sites for more nuclear stations.
Eskom says it is aware of the fault line, but has built Koeberg to withstand an earthquake of 7.
According to a paper published by the Council for Geoscience in Pretoria, the Milnerton fault has given rise to several earthquakes, the first of which occurred “very close to Cape Town” in 1620. There was another in 1811, but the strongest was on December 4, 1809. The epicentre was at a place called Jan Biesjes Kraal, the site of today’s Royal Ascot housing estate in Milnerton.
A visiting naturalist, Wilhelm von Buchenroder, recorded the events five days after the earthquake. He wrote: “Near the Kraal I found rents and fissures in the ground, one of which I followed for about the extent of a mile. In some places they were more than an inch wide.”
Liquidification of sediments occurred in Milnerton as it did in Christchurch.
Chris Hartnady, an international expert on geotectonics and technical director of the Umvoto science consultancy in Muizenberg, wrote on the company’s website that he estimated the size of the 1809 quake to be 6.5.
The website states: “Earthquakes are a rare but a very real threat for Cape Town... increased public awareness of this hazard is needed.”
John Rogers of UCT’s geology department said the sediments surrounding Koeberg were the same as those at Christchurch. When shaken, sand grains in both sediments moved, releasing water from between them, which rose to the surface, as seen at Christchurch. This liquidification was seen at Blouberg in 1809, Rogers said.
He said because of the Milnerton fault Eskom dug out these sediments to get to hard bedrock before building Koeberg. They had then laid a 6m foundation of cement, placed pillars on this with neoprone rubbers on top to absorb vertical movement. Above that they put a metal plate designed to allow sideways movement. Koeberg was built on top.
Eskom spokesman on nuclear matters, Tony Stott, said the design would mean Koeberg could withstand an earthquake of 7. “It is designed as if the epicentre of the earthquake were right under Koeberg, although the Milnerton fault line is 8 to 9km away,” Stott said.
But geologist Nik Wullschleger believes Eskom should not be taking this risk. “(Japan) shows in the final event anything can happen, despite risk assessments.” - Cape Times
March 17th, 2011, 07:00 PM
S. Africa Commits to Nuclear Power as China Halts Expansion
March 17, 2011, 8:43 AM EDT
March 17 (Bloomberg) -- South Africa, the continent’s largest electricity producer, approved a 20-year plan that will see an increased reliance on nuclear energy even as Japan battles to prevent a meltdown at one of its plants and China halts all atomic-power expansion plans.
South Africa needs to “diversify the energy mix” away from coal, Collins Chabane, a minister in the presidency, told reporters in Cape Town today. Under the so-called Integrated Resource Plan, 23 percent of newly generated power should come from nuclear sources by 2031. That compares with 2.1 percent in 2009, according to BP Plc statistics.
The decision comes amid fears of radiation leaks from a stricken atomic facility north of Tokyo, after a magnitude-9 earthquake and 7-meter (23-foot) tsunami hit Japan on March 11. China, building more nuclear reactors than any other nation, will stop approving new atomic plants “until safety and improved long-term development plans are cleared,” it said.
Nuclear power has a role to play meeting those energy needs, Brian Dames, chief executive officer of state-owned power utility Eskom Holdings Ltd., said yesterday. “From a South African perspective, our geological conditions are distinctly different” to those in Japan, he said.
“We haven’t chosen a technology” for the nuclear plants, South Africa’s Nelisiwe Magubane, director-general of the energy department, told reporters today.
Independent Power Producers
“We’re not in a position to say how many plants are going to be built,” who will build them or what the cost will be, she said.
Under South Africa’s latest energy plan, 15 percent of newly generated power will come from coal, 42 percent from renewable sources and 6 percent from gas.
In 2009, South Africa got 78.3 percent of its energy from coal, 19.2 percent from oil and 2.1 percent from nuclear power, according to BP. Hydroelectric power accounted for less than 1 percent of the nation’s energy supply and natural gas none.
South Africa’s Cabinet also today approved a draft law to establish an agency that will buy power from independent electricity producers. Eskom, based in Johannesburg, currently provides about 95 percent of South Africa’s electricity.
The agency will facilitate “participation by the independent power producers,” Energy Minister Dipuo Peters told reporters. “We have a policy in the country that says 30 percent of power in the country must be generated” by independent companies.
--Editors: Alastair Reed, Karl Maier.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Cohen in Cape Town at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew Barden at firstname.lastname@example.org
March 18th, 2011, 09:01 AM
From what I know there are five plants in the pipline, two in the western cape, two in the northern cape and 1 in the eastern cape. It is likely the eastern cape site will be developed first with the rest to follow. The northern cape sites i imagine will be the last to be developed, even though these 2 sites are from an environmental point of view the better options.
March 18th, 2011, 11:21 AM
What about the CPT Nimby's? they're going to bos over this...
March 18th, 2011, 12:55 PM
The preferred locations have already been decided. I am not certain if anyone can do something about that. What is not certain is which generation they will be using. There is a 100 % probability that Eastern Cape will get the first one, then it will probably be Koeberg.
September 16th, 2011, 10:41 AM
Nuclear plans to go before Cabinet soon, bidding to start in 2012
By: Christy van der Merwe
15th September 2011
South Africa will announce a decision on its nuclear energy plans before the end of the year, Energy Minister Dipuo Peters said on Thursday, adding that she had signed off a proposal, which would go before Cabinet soon.
Peters said that the documentation contained “well thought out” nuclear plans for South Africa, with a strong focus on safety and environment, as well as the localisation and job creation opportunities for the country.
Peters noted that South Africa was set to start a nuclear bidding process in April this year, but that it was halted when concerns over the safety of nuclear power arose after the nuclear power disaster at Fukushima in Japan. Cabinet insisted that the Department of Energy thoroughly research and reconsider nuclear power.
“After Fukushima we were sent back to the drawing board,” said Peters, noting that she visited various nuclear plants worldwide, as well as the International Atomic Agency in efforts to better understand the technology.
She said that it was likely that the nuclear bidding process would start in 2012, and that the first power from new nuclear plants in South Africa would come on line in 2024 or 2025.
This was slightly later than the initial estimation of 2023, because of the delays experienced owing to the safety concerns.
She added that the delay in nuclear power coming on line was compensated for by the additional renewable energy that was requested in the first round of bidding in the renewables process. The renewable energy allocation sought by government increased from 1 025 MW, to 3 725 MW of capacity by 2016.
She stressed that because of safety and environmental concerns, private companies could not develop nuclear power on their own, and that the State, through the utility Eskom, would control the plant.
She said that Eskom had a good track record of operating a nuclear plant through its experience at Koeberg in the Western Cape.
Nuclear power equipment vendors have been eagerly awaiting the announcement on when South Africa might start the bidding process for new nuclear capacity.
Edited by: Mariaan Webb
Source: Engineering News (http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/nuclear-plans-to-go-before-cabinet-soon-bidding-to-start-in-2012-2011-09-15)
September 16th, 2011, 03:39 PM
I live about 4km from Koeburg and it doesn't bother me. Ok my piss is blue and I have a third ear but apart form that its cool
October 7th, 2011, 10:55 AM
SA mulls mega nuclear tender - report
Johannesburg - South Africa may solicit bids worth R1 trillion for the construction of six nuclear power plants by 2030, the Mail & Guardian newspaper reported, citing unnamed government and industry sources.
Energy minister Dipuo Peters said last month she had signed off on a proposal for the new power plants, meant to fill a dire power shortage in Africa's biggest economy, adding that the bid process would start in early 2012.
Peters also said last month the proposal would be presented to cabinent soon.
French and Chinese companies are among those preparing a joint bid, the newspaper said. Potential bidders could include Areva, EDF, Toshiba's Westinghouse Electric Corp, China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group, South Korea's Korea Electric Power Corp and Russia's Rosatom.
South Africa operates the continent's only nuclear power plant, near Cape Town. A previous tender for a new nuclear plant was scrapped in 2008 due to financial woes at state-owned utility Eskom.
Source: Fin24 (http://www.fin24.com/Economy/SA-mulls-mega-nuclear-tender-report-20111007)