Small modular nuclear power reactors should be part of SA’s energy solution

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s recently published energy plan received mostly favourable comments, but all commentators pointed out that the test will be the quick and efficient execution thereof. Any country’s power grid needs what is called a “base load” – an energy source that is available 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Presently, this is provided by coal power stations, gas and heavy fuels (like diesel) – and to a degree by the nuclear power generated at Koeberg.

Current renewable energy sources such as wind and solar cannot provide for the base load, because they are not available for 24 hours per day and big enough storing capacity (batteries) is not yet available. If South Africa wants to move away from fossil fuels, other possibilities will have to be investigated.

The one element that was missing from Ramaphosa’s energy plan, is nuclear power. The reasons for this fact were not apparent from the speech, but two factors could have played a role: the concern amongst ordinary people and the so called “greenies” about the safety of nuclear power reactors en nuclear waste (with Chernobyl still fresh in their memories); and the possible prohibitive cost to build or commission big nuclear power stations (such as Koeberg) – remembering the exorbitant costs that former president Zuma was willing to pay Russia’s Rosatom to build nuclear power stations in South Africa.

South Africa’s nuclear power expertise is well-known. Part of the expertise to manufacture nuclear weapons was ordered to be destroyed by former president FW de Klerk before 1994. This was welcomed by the rest of the world and probably played a role in him being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with former president Nelson Mandela. But not all expertise was destroyed and Eskom, with the assistance of a number of universities, continued with research in the 1990’s on the use of nuclear power as a source of energy.

At that time, Koeberg was already part of the grid, built by the French company Areva. The new research, however, focused on a different element of nuclear power: the so called “pebble bed modular technology”. For this purpose, Eskom formed the PBMR company (“Pebble Bed Modular Reactor”) – and the research focused on how enriched uranium in pebble form inside a graphite ball as big as a cricket ball could be used to generate electricity on a smaller scale but safer than the big reactors.

A major part of the research was carried out by nuclear scientists at the Potchefstroom campus of the Northwest University and they, with the PBMR, had built a working prototype of a pebble bed modular reactor on campus by 2008. It was approximately the size of three rooms and generated electricity from uranium.

Then a number of problems emerged. The prototype was at the time not (yet) commercially viable and market opportunities inside and outside the country looked scarce. In addition, a huge amount of funds (probably in the region of R30 billion) had already been spent on the project. And because the project originated in the Mbeki-era, newly elected president Zuma was not keen to continue with it.

The Zuma plans with the Russians were then not yet on the cards. Be that as it may, Eskom cancelled the PBMR project in 2008, probably on instruction of the new Zuma leadership. In hindsight, this was a huge mistake – and a senior former minister from that era confirmed this. Through this, South Africa lost huge expertise in the nuclear power field, like the nuclear scientists who worked at the NWU.

Today, one can see on the website of an American company – X-Energy – the names of South African nuclear scientists like Dr Eben Mulder and Dr Martin van Staden as vice-presidents and researchers. Even the logos of the PBMR and the NWU appear on the website. One of the large investors in X-Energy is Andre Pienaar, a South African who now lives and works in the US and the UK.

The irony is that South African expertise is now developing nuclear power solutions for the Americans – through the same technology that was developed as far as a working prototype in South Africa. The US government recently made a grant of $1.2 billion to X-Energy for the development and building of small modular reactors (SMRs).

It is therefore clear that the US Government (and its Department of Energy) views nuclear power in the form of SMR’s as a safe form of energy. Secondly, it is clear that SMRs is seen as part of the energy solution in the USA. A company called NuScale in Oregon is also actively busy developing smaller reactors.

The older generation nuclear reactors obviously still form part of many countries’ energy generation. The US has a nuclear capacity of 97 Megawatt and generates 771 Gigawatt-hours nuclear power - 20% of all energy generated in the USA. France’s nuclear generation makes up 70% of its energy needs and in Russia it is 20%.

South Africa’s Koeberg has a capacity of 1.86 Mw, with an annual production of 13.6 GwH, constituting 6% of our energy consumption. Most of the bigger and older reactors worldwide are now nearing the end of their productive lifecycles, making the development of the so called “fourth generation” SMRs so important. In addition, experts agree that there is no other way than nuclear to replace the world’s large scale use of fossil fuels. Renewable energy sources are very important, but will not easily be able to carry a national grid. Enough SMRs can provide a solution in this regard.

The difference between large nuclear reactors and modular technology is significant. Older generation reactors are complex, expensive, risky and produces nuclear waste that is expensive and complex to get rid of. The new small reactors are five times more efficient, safe, clean, affordable – and the smaller amount of waste is easier and safe to dispose of.

Back to South Africa and our energy needs. The problems with PBMR at the time were commercial viability, high costs and lack of political will. Against the background of today’s rising prices of fossil fuels, the need to move away from these and Eskom’s problems that will not go away soon, it looks as if the SMR concept may not only be more commercially viable, but that there could even be a strong demand in South Africa and the rest of Africa in countries such as Nigeria, Zambia, Namibia, Tanzania and Uganda.

The cost to acquire SMRs from the USA may be a problem in dollar terms. The other side of the coin is the question whether we really have another option. However well-developed renewable energy sources are and may become, no country would ever be able to run a whole industrial economy on them.

That is the reason why South Africa should now start looking at the concept of SMRs afresh and lure back some of our nuclear scientists. Their experience and expertise will give South Africa a huge boost in this regard. If Eskom is (perhaps?) willing to use hundreds of retirees and retrenched engineers, is not impossible that could do the same with nuclear scientists.

In an article that he wrote earlier this year for Netwerk24, the former communications director of the PBMR, Tom Ferreira, was of the opinion that it may be possible to lure some of the scientists back – if they could do some of the same work and make a meaningful contribution.

The question that has not been answered yet, is whether the political will exists to buy or build SMRs. A senior former minister is of the view that we still have the expertise to do it, as well as to enrich uranium. It is also known that there are still large reserves of enriched uranium at Pelindaba. The Ramaphosa government will, however, have to develop the political will to resist the doubters in its own ranks and develop and implement a long term plan.

One of the senior persons who led the PBMR project at the NWU is of the opinion that it is indeed possible to provide the necessary base load to the grid with renewables. This would require a so called “smart grid” and would require much better coordination of the grid energy sources, as well as a better distribution of wind and solar farms all over the country. But is exactly in this regard that SMRs could supplement the production to the grid, especially where sun and wind sources are not so plentiful.

Although renewable energy is extremely important and can be brought into production relatively quickly, SMRs will have to be part of the solution for us to have any hope to move away from coal and gas in the long term.

The cost may seem high, but there are no alternatives in the foreseeable future. Perhaps the South African government could use some of the financial support promised by the West for a just transition for the development of SMRs – as part of the long term solution. All of this, however, depends on the political will and determination of the government to start this part of the long term solution now.

Theuns Eloff is an independent commentator and was vice-chancellor of the NWU at the time of the work on the PMBR prototype. This article first appeared in Netwerk24.