The final nail in the coffin of South Africa's Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) company was in a letter dated 5 July to the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) by Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan.
“The Minister of Finance has clearly stated that there will be no further funding for the company, and I would like to reiterate that this position has not changed.”
Public Enterprises spokesperson Ayanda Shezi explained that government had provided its last funding allocation to PBMR in 2007. Since then, the company had retrenched 75% of staff, and CEO Jaco Kriek resigned. The company was unable to attract new investors or customers in the last few months. The Department of Public Enterprises will in August ask the cabinet to consolidate the work done, and secure intellectual property rights.
Promising start
PBMR company was established in 1999 to develop and market small scale, high temperature reactors for domestic and international clients. The company planned to construct 10 reactors for domestic use and export 20 per year. Although Eskom owned the company, it operated independently and was governed by an agreement between founding investors; Eskom, Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), USA based nuclear company Westinghouse. Eskom initially owned 100%, but managed to secure IDC, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), and Exelon. With local and international backing, development seemed secured.
Technology challenges
But the technology proved more challenging than envisioned, and construction of a demonstration plant was postponed from 2003 to 2020. Design of the reactor was changed five times, with the 2009 version at only 80mW, down from the original 110mW plan.
Then the company marketed the reactor as a heat generator for industry, not for electricity, despite SA having no shortage of industrial heat generation, nor demand for public heat generation.
Disappointing finish
By late 2009, investment in the PBMR had changed dramatically, with Eskom down to 8%, IDC to 5%, Westinghouse to 4%, and government up to 83%.
Even while the SA government and Eskom were backing out, they allowed the company to participate in the USA 'next generation nuclear plant' project as part of a consortium. This project resulted from collaboration talks between USA and SA in October 2009.
Since then, key members of the consortium have pulled out of that project, leaving SA at the dead end of a flunked rainbow.
Huge cost
Despite receiving about R9-billion in funding over 11 years, PBMR had failed to deliver energy. Institute for Security Studies independent energy policy researcher David Fig, argues in an April 2010 paper that failure of PBMR resulted from several factors.
Uncertain future
Government is trying to retain nuclear skills acquired during research and development phases, for the local energy and nuclear fuel sector.
The Department of Public Enterprises said these skills “would contribute significantly in future nuclear programmes, and save the country huge amounts of money”.
Most of these nuclear scientists and engineers would be recruited by other countries, given a global nuclear skills shortage field. Government would hopefully announce its nuclear energy strategy in September.
African lesson
A key lesson that Africa could learn from the SA PBMR experience is that despite several declarations of nuclear power affordability, even an industrialised country with nuclear fuel resources and skills would struggle to secure the massive funding and technology required.
The demise of PBMR raises questions about the future role of nuclear energy in Africa's energy mix.
* Amelia Broodryk is a researcher at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria.
Nuclear developers led public on wild goose chase
The final nail in the coffin of South Africa's Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) company was in a letter dated 5 July to the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) by Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan.
“The Minister of Finance has clearly stated that there will be no further funding for the company, and I would like to reiterate that this position has not changed.”
The company was unable to attract new investors or customers in the last few months. The Department of Public Enterprises will in August ask the cabinet to consolidate the work done, and secure intellectual property rights.
Public Enterprises spokesperson Ayanda Shezi explained that government had provided its last funding allocation to PBMR in 2007. Since then, the company had retrenched 75% of staff, and CEO Jaco Kriek resigned.
Promising start
PBMR company was established in 1999 to develop and market small scale, high temperature reactors for domestic and international clients. The company planned to construct 10 reactors for domestic use and export 20 per year. Although Eskom owned the company, it operated independently and was governed by an agreement between founding investors; Eskom, Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), USA based nuclear company Westinghouse. Eskom initially owned 100%, but managed to secure IDC, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), and Exelon. With local and international backing, development seemed secured.
Technology challenges
But the technology proved more challenging than envisioned, and construction of a demonstration plant was postponed from 2003 to 2020. Design of the reactor was changed five times, with the 2009 version at only 80mW, down from the original 110mW plan.
Then the company marketed the reactor as a heat generator for industry, not for electricity, despite SA having no shortage of industrial heat generation, nor demand for public heat generation.
Disappointing finish
By late 2009, investment in the PBMR had changed dramatically, with Eskom down to 8%, IDC to 5%, Westinghouse to 4%, and government up to 83%.
nuclear plant' project as part of a consortium. This project resulted from collaboration talks between USA and SA in October 2009.
Even while the SA government and Eskom were backing out, they allowed the company to participate in the USA 'next generation
Since then, key members of the consortium have pulled out of that project, leaving SA at the dead end of a flunked rainbow.
Huge cost
Despite receiving about R9-billion in funding over 11 years, PBMR had failed to deliver energy. Institute for Security Studies independent energy policy researcher David Fig, argues in an April 2010 paper that failure of PBMR resulted from several factors.
Uncertain future
Government is trying to retain nuclear skills acquired during research and development phases, for the local energy and nuclear fuel sector.
The Department of Public Enterprises said these skills “would contribute significantly in future nuclear programmes, and save the country huge amounts of money”.
Most of these nuclear scientists and engineers would be recruited by other countries, given a global nuclear skills shortage field. Government would hopefully announce its nuclear energy strategy in September.
African lesson
A key lesson that Africa could learn from the SA PBMR experience is that despite several declarations of nuclear power affordability, even an industrialised country with nuclear fuel resources and skills would struggle to secure the massive funding and technology required.
The demise of PBMR raises questions about the future role of nuclear energy in Africa's energy mix.
* Amelia Broodryk is a researcher at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria.
|BACK| COMMENT | OTHER SHEQ