eskom cancels nuclear plans

Submitted by turbosprout on Fri, 2008-12-05 13:36

Yes it sounds too good to be true, but plans to build the next nuclear reactor have been shelved because of cost. This is not to say Eskom have abandoned the nuclear programme completely or that they don't plan on building the PBMR, but for the time being a new pressurised water reactor intended for Koeberg will not be built. Yay!

Or are they calling Westinghouse and Areva's bluff? Perhaps the nuclear contractors will come back to Eskom with a cheaper offer.

According to the Fin24 article Eskom said that it was "not in a position to invest in nuclear", and has terminated the talks it was holding with global nuclear technology providers Westinghouse and Areva.

The utility said it has decided "not to proceed with the proposed investment in Nuclear-1 project due to the magnitude of the investment" required.

Nuclear technology, which is known to demand high upfront capital expenditure, was expected to contribute up to 20 000MW to the country's power grid by 2025.

According to Portia Molefe, director general at the Dept of Public Enterprises, "the South African government remains committed to introducing nuclear because we have to deal with our carbon footprint and we have to diversify our energy mix".

Eskom said in November that the plan to build a nuclear plant had to be revisited in the light of the economic climate.

It then said the project might have to be postponed as the credit crisis and the downgrading of Eskom's credit rating had increased the costs of borrowing and would make it difficult for the utility to afford an investment of that magnitude.

"This is just to confirm government's support for Eskom's board decision to not proceed with the Nuclear 1 procurement as it is not affordable at this present juncture," Molefe said.
[reuters]

( categories: )

Eskom abandon nuclear plans

Too good to be true? So, it doesn't bother you at all that Eskom's only recourse is to build more coal-fired power stations? Very depressing.

Nuclear not the only option

Of course I'm bothered by dirty coal-fired power stations. I just don't think that 20 000 Mw of nuclear energy is the best answer. Renewable energy, energy efficiency, and smart grids that can accept feed-in from privately produced power are the way to go. Put energy in the hands of the people. Viva public power!

Unfortunately, nuclear is.

> Of course I'm bothered by dirty coal-fired
> power stations. I just don't think that 20 000
> Mw of nuclear energy is the best answer.
> Renewable energy, energy efficiency, and smart
> grids that can accept feed-in from privately
> produced power are the way to go. Put energy
> in the hands of the people. Viva public power!

Unfortunately, nuclear *is* the only real scalable alternative to coal.. this is *very* bad news.

All you have to do to see this is to look at the statistics for denmark and germany vs france and sweden. Both denmark and germany have had *very* aggressive energy efficiency (and renewable) programs since the oil shocks of the 70s, and both lag extensively behind France and sweden because they get 80% of their power from coal, and the percentages from wind have plateau'd at 20%.

In fact, the coal industry is one of the biggest supporters of the wind industry because they know that they can appear green without too much competition.

Again, this is very, very, bad news, and I'm ashamed when 'greens' take the attitude that you take. Learn the facts, please, before you spout off this dreck.

Ed

Ed is right

I wanted to comment on this, and wrote quite a bit. But it just sounds like ranting. So to mummarise rather: Ed is right. It is disturbing that someone can write and post an article like this on a respectable site. Shockingly bad. Our kids will reap the impact of the coal-fired plants that will now have to be built.

unfair

I'm sorry, but I have read and reread the original post and still cannot find the part where turbosprout endorses coal-fired power. Speaking out against nuclear does not equal speaking out for coal.

keep nuclear away for good

anyone that knows the impact the nuclear station would have had on the sensitive environment near cape st francis where it was planned will be happy with this news. we can all moan about coal power or we can all invest money in supplying our own power. expecting the government to do the right thing will always end in dissapointment. we can push them to do the right thing by investing in green power but greater results would come from individuals doing it themselves

Nuclear is the future

What makes St Francis an environmentally sensitive area?

Re your other comments, and those I've just read. Please think! I'm all for green power and living of the grid. But currently building a decent house that is also self sustaining in terms of power is an enormously expensive task.

Further there are multitudes of people in South Africa who need power that you just can't supply from solar / wind at the moment and even more who can not afford supplying their own power.

Nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient source of power, we have after solar/wind. Far far better than coal, especially when looking at the total foot print.

Please consider our country and people as a whole before lamenting one of the few good things that Eskom is doing.

however:

Reports on this are extremely confusing. It seems that while govt's nuclear plan A is indeed on hold, plan B is being thrashed out as we speak, and has to do with sticking "with its preference for pressurised water reactors such as Koeberg". There's more talk of "joint ventures" and "the creation of a special purpose vehicle", and other jargony stuff that just means, we aren't going to do it the way we were going to do it but we're still going to do it. Oh, and the PBMR is going to have its focus changed. Whatever that means.
I fear that the pro-nuclear PR campaign has been very effective and that there's no such thing as not enough money, when the spin is on.