Nuclear Plant UnaffordableI

READ in The Namibian of March 3 that “Cabinet granted approval to the Ministry of Mines and Energy to develop a Nuclear Regulatory Framework and to pursue the nuclear power and beneficiation strategy”.

Nuclear Regulatory Framework Generally speaking, a regulatory framework for the nuclear industry is desirable for Namibia, but should, in my opinion, concentrate on the safety aspects of nuclear devices used in hospitals, mining, power stations etc. When the briefing paper continues stating “to pursue the nuclear power and beneficiation strategy”, my opinion is that this is a waste of time, money and resources – resources which could be better utilised elsewhere.Nuclear Electricity Generation The Namibian correctly states further down in the article that a 3 000 MW nuclear power station could cost in the order of N$120 billion.1.A 3 000 MW nuclear power station is presently approximately the optimum (cheapest per kWh produced) standard design.The power station will have either 3×1 000 MW generators, or 2×1 500 MW generators – probably the latter.Even in 10 years’ time and even with a considerable rate of growth in the electricity consumption, a serious mismatch will exist in the size of machines versus the total consumption.Remember, generally speaking, nuclear generators run at a constant 100% load.Although the French design does allow for running down to 70% of generating capacity, this is expensive and not desirable.Also to bear in mind is that, when a nuclear plant suddenly trips, even for a very minor problem, mainly due to safety features it takes 1-2 weeks to get it back on line.2.I totally fail to see where the GRN or NamPower could find the N$120 billion to construct such a power station.Possible lenders will immediately see the mismatch mentioned above.They will also demand to see in the order of 20 years fixed power purchase contracts from reputable electricity purchasers (only Eskom qualifies in southern Africa), which will ensure a suitable return on investment.The IRR (internal rate of return) of the capital invested must be “bankable”.If such a PPA (power purchase agreement) with Eskom could be concluded AND the necessary transmission lines be constructed, then and only then would such a power station be considered viable and possibly bankable.One must remember that the so-called N-1 criteria for the transmission facilities would be applicable.This implies that when one power line is unavailable (say due to lightning), the rest of the lines must be able to transmit ALL the generated power.There is also a distinct possibility of sub synchronous resonance between the power station and the long transmission lines.(I shall not attempt to explain this concept to the general public – very complex).3.Experienced operating and maintenance staff need to be acquired both for the power station and for the transmission lines, or an international operating licence will not be issued.Also this aspect must be “bankable”.Whilst, I suppose, this staff can be acquired, it will be a serious problem to retain them as they are internationally extremely marketable.Nuclear Beneficiation Background: There are, to my knowledge, only three methods of enriching uranium.Of the three, once again to my knowledge, only two of the three are done commercially.They are: * Gaseous Diffusion (more common) * Gas Centrifuge (largely pioneered by South Africa, Pelindaba and Valindaba) Without going into too much detail, both make use of the heated gas UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) by which, by means of diffusion through membranes or separation of gas molecules through centrifuges the ratio of U-235 to U-238 is increased from 0,7% to approximately 5%.This is then called enriched uranium.The UF6 gas is then allowed to cool and solidify before it is turned into fuel assemblies for power station reactors.Ironically, both types of plant require enormous amounts of electricity.Namibia: Superficially, it appears the right thing to do to rather produce the final product of whatever is produced from our mines which sells at a high price versus exporting a raw product, in this case yellow cake.Certainly, in the case of diamonds, diamond-cutting plants in Namibia make sense.However, in the case of uranium enrichment, it is a totally different scenario.When one looks at the United States of America, one finds that JUST ONE enrichment plant (diffusion) is operating, even with the present boom in uranium production.They had two diffusion plants, but one was closed in 2001.A licence was issued for a centrifuge plant in 2004, but only for test and demonstration.The plant is still under construction.Without going into further examples or details, my question is: If the wealthiest country in the world operates just one plant, how on earth can little Namibia design, construct and operate such a technically complex and expensive plant? Where will the electricity to run such a plant come from? I shall be the happiest person around if someone could prove my conclusions wrong and shall publicly admit it, but I somehow doubt being wrong.Our very scarce resources could certainly be better deployed.Imker Hoogenhout Via e-mailWhen the briefing paper continues stating “to pursue the nuclear power and beneficiation strategy”, my opinion is that this is a waste of time, money and resources – resources which could be better utilised elsewhere.Nuclear Electricity Generation The Namibian correctly states further down in the article that a 3 000 MW nuclear power station could cost in the order of N$120 billion.1.A 3 000 MW nuclear power station is presently approximately the optimum (cheapest per kWh produced) standard design.The power station will have either 3×1 000 MW generators, or 2×1 500 MW generators – probably the latter.Even in 10 years’ time and even with a considerable rate of growth in the electricity consumption, a serious mismatch will exist in the size of machines versus the total consumption.Remember, generally speaking, nuclear generators run at a constant 100% load.Although the French design does allow for running down to 70% of generating capacity, this is expensive and not desirable.Also to bear in mind is that, when a nuclear plant suddenly trips, even for a very minor problem, mainly due to safety features it takes 1-2 weeks to get it back on line.2.I totally fail to see where the GRN or NamPower could find the N$120 billion to construct such a power station.Possible lenders will immediately see the mismatch mentioned above.They will also demand to see in the order of 20 years fixed power purchase contracts from reputable electricity purchasers (only Eskom qualifies in southern Africa), which will ensure a suitable return on investment.The IRR (internal rate of return) of the capital invested must be “bankable”.If such a PPA (power purchase agreement) with Eskom could be concluded AND the necessary transmission lines be constructed, then and only then would such a power station be considered viable and possibly bankable.One must remember that the so-called N-1 criteria for the transmission facilities would be applicable.This implies that when one power line is unavailable (say due to lightning), the rest of the lines must be able to transmit ALL the generated power.There is also a distinct possibility of sub synchronous resonance between the power station and the long transmission lines.(I shall not attempt to explain this concept to the general public – very complex).3.Experienced operating and maintenance staff need to be acquired both for the power station and for the transmission lines, or an international operating licence will not be issued.Also this aspect must be “bankable”.Whilst, I suppose, this staff can be acquired, it will be a serious problem to retain them as they are internationally extremely marketable.Nuclear Beneficiation Background: There are, to my knowledge, only three methods of enriching uranium.Of the three, once again to my knowledge, only two of the three are done commercially.They are: * Gaseous Diffusion (more common) * Gas Centrifuge (largely pioneered by South Africa, Pelindaba and Valindaba) Without g
oing into too much detail, both make use of the heated gas UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) by which, by means of diffusion through membranes or separation of gas molecules through centrifuges the ratio of U-235 to U-238 is increased from 0,7% to approximately 5%.This is then called enriched uranium.The UF6 gas is then allowed to cool and solidify before it is turned into fuel assemblies for power station reactors.Ironically, both types of plant require enormous amounts of electricity.Namibia: Superficially, it appears the right thing to do to rather produce the final product of whatever is produced from our mines which sells at a high price versus exporting a raw product, in this case yellow cake.Certainly, in the case of diamonds, diamond-cutting plants in Namibia make sense.However, in the case of uranium enrichment, it is a totally different scenario.When one looks at the United States of America, one finds that JUST ONE enrichment plant (diffusion) is operating, even with the present boom in uranium production.They had two diffusion plants, but one was closed in 2001.A licence was issued for a centrifuge plant in 2004, but only for test and demonstration.The plant is still under construction.Without going into further examples or details, my question is: If the wealthiest country in the world operates just one plant, how on earth can little Namibia design, construct and operate such a technically complex and expensive plant? Where will the electricity to run such a plant come from? I shall be the happiest person around if someone could prove my conclusions wrong and shall publicly admit it, but I somehow doubt being wrong.Our very scarce resources could certainly be better deployed.Imker Hoogenhout Via e-mail