| |
Warming to nuclear
David McKay
Posted: Tue, 11 Nov 2008
[miningmx.com] -- GIVEN THE LONG-TERM BENEFITS it’s remarkable that nuclear power still needs to be championed. But that’s exactly what Bertrand Barré has been doing.
A veteran of the nuclear energy industry, Barré – who is also chairman of the International Nuclear Societies Council (INSC) and a consultant to French nuclear group Areva – acknowledges the nuclear industry’s roots in devastating weaponry is still a perception burden. “It’s unfortunate, but that’s history,” says Barré.
These days anti-nuclear lobbyists place their focus on the threats of disposing of spent nuclear fuel, or long-lived radioactive waste as it’s termed.
There’s a disposal site in New Mexico but that’s dedicated to the US military. In fact, there are no civilian sites for disposal of nuclear fuel, although a number of European countries – many of them Scandinavian – are preparing them.
More certain is the technology to deal with waste, which involves burying it within certain geological strata. Barré is convinced the technology is safe but, again, the biggest obstacle to adoption of nuclear energy is perception.
Other issues about nuclear fuel include the perennial one of reactor meltdown. But the Chernobyl disaster was 23 years ago and nuclear reactors have come a long way
since then, says Barré.
In South Africa the need for nuclear energy is pretty much accepted by Government. In November 2007 Eskom invited Areva to negotiate the building of two new major reactors: Nuclear 1 providing a 3 000 to 3 500MW capacity and a second, larger, operation known as Fleet, which must produce 20 000MW by 2025.
For the resources sector, the prospect of Eskom wanting to spend billions of rand on nuclear technology is a promising developing.
It uses uranium, which SA has in abundance, and it will remove the future risk of electricity rationing which badly effected SA’s mining industry earlier this year.
The prospect of nuclear energy will also make SA’s significant coal industry more competitive and help the country reduce carbon emissions. But for broader political reasons SA could never abandon its coal industry, which earns foreign exchange and employs thousands.
Barré is of the view that nuclear power isn’t a “silver bullet”
solution and that SA, and other nations, will continue to be reliant on their fossil fuels resources, as well as other alternative sources, such as hydroelectric power. However, the question is how the fossil fuels industry is able to contain emissions. The world’s developing markets, particularly in China and India, have to find ways of containing emissions “or we’re in trouble,” says Barré.
Speaking in Johannesburg recently, Barré said: “To put the one degree Celsius temperature increase experienced during the 20th Century in perspective, let me remind you that only five degrees make all the difference between the temperate climactic era we’ve been enjoying for the past 8 000 years and the previous ice age, when the polar ice-cap covered half of France.”
About 95% of SA’s electricity comes from the combustion of fossil fuels, mostly coal. Although that’s logical, particularly given SA’s large reserves of inexpensive coal, it’s not sustainable in terms of
emissions.
Returning to hydroelectric power, it presents a real alternative for Africa. Inga 3, the massive extension of the Congo River hydroelectric scheme, could help supply large sections of Africa, including SA’s grid. But it, too, isn’t the silver bullet. “Hydro and nuclear have the same expense profile,” says Barré. “They involve large capital development but are then relatively cheap to operate.”
But the problem with hydroelectric power is that it’s reliant on the position of the water source, such that dams have to be in specific locations. They’re also distant from consumers and involve transmission across political boundaries with obvious political risks. “Security of supply is therefore a different matter,” says Barré. “SA is uniquely positioned in the African context. It’s one of the few industrialised nations in the continent and it has the trained people.”
In fact, SA is the only African state that’s mastered nuclear technology and has a producing nuclear facility at its two Koeberg reactors, supplied by France and operated by Eskom.
“SA has been over the past few years the ninth largest uranium producer. But your uranium ‘identified’ reserves are number five in the world,” says Barré. “You have also long experience in making synfuels from coal, which may well demand a significant supply of nuclear power in the
future.”
However, SA isn’t the only African nation considering nuclear power. A Reuters report in September said Kenya is seeking investors and technical knowledge to build a small nuclear plant to meet its growing electricity needs. East Africa’s biggest economy can generate 1 100MW of electricity compared with peak time demand of 1 050KW. That capacity includes emergency supplies from independent power producers.
“We’re thinking of a small plant to generate about 1 000MW initially. From very rough castings, initially it will cost us about US$1bn,” Kiraitu Murungi, Kenya’s Energy Minister said in an interview with Reuters. Murungi said Kenya could become a major electricity exporter to the region if its plans succeed. “Use of nuclear power for civil and peaceful uses is now accepted globally. So we in Kenya shouldn’t be afraid when the word nuclear is mentioned.”
Kenya wants to add 1m new connections to its electricity grid over the next five years,
doubling its electricity consumer base. Its government is holding a national energy conference next month to discuss ways to boost cost-effective energy supplies.
Returning to SA, there’s also the development of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), technology that’s been under wraps for more than a decade. The technology has attracted criticism because some believe it will never become commercial.
Barré says if the PBMR starts operating it will plug a niche in the nuclear industry because it’s able to produce industrial heat as well as nuclear energy. “It’s also intrinsically safe technology. It has a more forgiving design and makes meltdown almost an impossibility,” he says.
However, it’s currently unfair to compare it with existing operating reactors because it’s still a research project. The technology is also not particularly scaleable. “You need a very large plant to produce a lot of power,” he says. “But it does have a market.”
There’s
also the question of efficiency with he PBMR. It’s like the so-called “light water” nuclear reactors that use less than 1% of the potential energy of the uranium mined to fuel them.
“In some decades we shall need a new breed of reactors – the so-called ‘Generation 4’ – with at least the same level of safety but with much improved performances in uranium use and less generation of long-lived radioactive waste.”
Barré says only nuclear power helps settle the dilemma between development and environment. It’s estimated energy production has to double to allow sufficient development of vast regions of the world. But from an environmental point of view, potentially catastrophic climate changes required a halving of CO2 emissions. Given that 80% of energy comes from oil, coal and gas, nuclear energy poses itself as a solution.
The notion of “peak oil” – that there will soon come a time when the world will be unable to produce more oil – is also making the case
for a world of nuclear energy. “Eventually, oil will service a market where it’s most applicable,” says Barré. “That will be in the manufacture of plastics and in fuel for aircraft. But it won’t be used in fuel for cars. In fact, there’s already a replacement for that available today.”
BOX
OF THE 10bn metric tons of primary energy consumed worldwide in 2000 more than 80% came from the combustion of fossil fuels: oil, coal and gas. Around 10% was supplied by the traditional biomass and 10% came from nuclear power, hydropower and all the other renewable energy sources.
In the year 2000, 6bn human beings have used the equivalent of 10bn metric tons of oil to meet their needs in primary energy.
In 2006, 6,5bn people have consumed close to 12bn metric tons of oil. Over those mere six years the increment in the world population has been roughly one additional Europe or 11 additional South Africa’s.
And despite that huge energy
consumption, 1,6bn people – a quarter of mankind – have no access to electricity and roughly 2,4bn people must rely on traditional biomass because they have no access to modern fuels.
In 2007, 439 nuclear reactors operating in 31 countries generated more than 2 600bn KW hours. That’s roughly the same quantity of electricity as the total production of all the hydro dams in the world – ie, 16% of world electricity production. Generating the same quantity in modern fuel-fired plants would require more than 600m t/year of oil – more than the output of Saudi Arabia.
| |
