Here's some info on the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor that I mentioned.. An Excellent step up in safety and production....
THE PEBBLE BED MODULAR REACTOR: ESKOM?s BRAVE NEW NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY
Lindsey Collins, SAEP intern
April 4, 2001
While South Africa relies upon its cheap and available coal supply for 93% of the country?s energy demands, the manifold environmental problems inherent in a coal-powered economy illustrate the need to develop new and sustainable energy sources, for both economic and environmental reasons. In a country where nuclear power is historically connected to the apartheid regime?s weapons programme and, given the international stigma surrounding nuclear plants, it seems unlikely that nuclear power could re-enter the political landscape as a viable energy alternative. Yet Eskom, South Africa?s state-owned electric utility and foremost energy supplier, asserts that the development of its Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) holds the potential to not only produce a clean, low-impact, affordable and sustainable form of energy, but make South African technology competitive in the international market and create new jobs domestically.
The PBMR is a relatively small (110 MW) nuclear power station. It combines helium coolant, a graphite moderator, and ceramic fuel pellets, which allow the reactor to operate at higher temperatures, increasing the amount of energy it can convert to electricity. The PBMR also creates less spent fuel than the pressurized water reactor (PWR), which is the design of the Koeberg nuclear power station operated by Eskom near Cape Town. Koeberg, the only nuclear-fired electricity plant on the African continent, is comprised of 2 965-MW reactors (actual total net capacity is 1,840 MW). In 1998, Koeberg generated 13.6 billion kilowatt-hours (bkwh) of electricity, accounting for 7.1% of South Africa's electricity generation.
The initial phase of the PBMR project, which was given the go-ahead by the South African government in April 2000, involves undertaking a feasibility study, an environmental impact assessment, and a public participation process. The test facility would probably be built near Eskom?s existing plant at Koeberg. The Environmental Impact Assessment is due to be completed in mid-2001, but has been somewhat delayed to provide greater opportunity for public participation. Although a final report has not been published, critics, most notably environmental activists from organizations such as Earthlife Africa, have voiced their concerns about what they deem to be Eskom?s hasty building plans, short-circuiting of the public participation process, and nuclear waste storage problems. On the other hand, another major environmental NGO, the Endangered Wildlife Trust, has come out in support of giving the PBMR "a fair and objective hearing" of its possibility as an alternative to fossil fuels.
The PBMR?s technology differs from conventional nuclear plants in many favourable ways. The proposed PBMR reactor, which is currently slated for construction at Koeburg near Cape Town, takes less time to build than standard reactors, takes up considerably less space, and, due to its design, is inherently accident-proof, thus eliminating the risk of disasters such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The system, classified as a high-temperature reactor (HTR), is unique in its reliance upon small, graphite-encased "pebbles" of uranium oxide for fuel. The pebbles? physics ensure the PBMR?s smaller-scale and less expensive production, largely due to eliminating a need for the expensive safety backup systems found in standard nuclear power plants. Despite the apparent advantages of the new nuclear technology, PBMR plants still produce nuclear waste, the storage of which remains a major obstacle. The current plan is for storage to occur on-site because a permanent waste facility has not yet been located.
Proponents believe other nations will recognize the PBMR system as a solution to their own CO2 emissions problems and wish to buy the technology from South Africa. In the meantime, the plants will create new manufacturing jobs and, according to the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), one of South Africa?s leading environmental NGOs, protect against the continued loss of biodiversity related to the burning of fossil fuels. Some advocates of the plant, such as Dr. Roger Wedlake, have suggested that the surplus of land surrounding a PBMR could be used "to maintain a largely undisturbed example of local flora and fauna." EWT contends that the PBMR will "provide a much-needed component to the South African economy, provide new jobs and new training skills, provide valuable foreign currency and, importantly, maintain a leadership role for South Africa in Africa and the world."
These optimistic speculations, however, rely upon the assumption that South Africa can finally make safe and cost-effective nuclear technology available worldwide, where so many other similar projects have failed. Steve Thomas, a senior research fellow with the Energy Policy Programme of SPRU, University of Sussex, notes the troubled history of international PBMR development and casts doubt on the viability of a lucrative nuclear energy market. Thomas writes, "the USA, Germany, the UK and France have now abandoned all interest in HTRs, while Japan's development programme is very slow and there are no plans to build commercial power plants." Critics also cite Eskom?s mislabeling of their "test" site, as construction and funding has already begun, as evidence of the PBMR programme?s "continuing disproportionate funding allocations, a lack of coherent energy policy and questionable application of law," according to Thomas.
Eskom, with an estimated R132m already invested in the project, has, however, been successful in lining up some international investors for its venture. In November 2000, Pennsylvania-based PECO Energy announced its investment in the development stage of the PBMR project. PECO joined British Nuclear Fuel as the two international investors in the project. Eskom and its South African partner, the Industrial Development Corporation, jointly hold over 50% of the shares in the project. A 10% stake is reserved for a black empowerment company.
While both sides of the environmental debate acknowledge the need for Eskom?s continued research into solar power, opponents of the PBMR claim that SA does not currently have the necessary facilities and resources to make nuclear power sustainable; thus investments in solar power are much more economically feasible.
Whether or not the PBMR technology?s benefits outweigh its risks, neither South Africa?s economy nor its citizens will benefit from hasty legislation and funding that would derail a thorough public participation process. Meanwhile, the results of the environmental impact assessment process are eagerly awaited by all parties.
