OPINION: Nuclear will bring energy, water security to SA
Dr Anthonie Cilliers.
RELATED ARTICLES
McWilliams: SA’s nuclear deal with Russia serves only the kleptocracy
Nuclear lesson for SA as Vietnam cancels Rosatom deal
Stalled nuclear plan exposes Zuma’s waning power
Nuclear forced into energy plan - Eberhard
Expert reveals why energy plan should have no nuclear
Govt's gas push for electricity shocks Necsa
SA nuclear academic Dr Anthonie Cilliers explains why he believes nuclear is far better than renewable energy and how it can help produce desalinated water from sea water.
I read with interest the latest in a string of claims made by the supporters of renewable energy sources – wind and solar power. The latest is that it is possible to supply all South Africa’s power requirements with wind and solar, with some back-up from natural-gas turbines. An entire grid made up of solar, wind and natural-gas? Seems logical, we have lots of sun, the wind seems to be blowing all the time at the beach – common sense? Think again, Einstein famously said that common sense is the collection of prejudice and misconceptions collected by the age of 18.
A couple of years ago, the renewable energy industry was kick-started by international agreements such as the Kyoto protocol. It took a while to take off, but suddenly with Germany willing to foot the bill, wind and solar power was being installed all over the world and costs were coming down with falling commodity prices, and manufacturing being moved to China – an entire industry was born. Money came pouring into research and development and great strides was made. If it was not for the commitment to reduce our carbon footprint, we would easily have stayed with good old reliable coal-fired power plants. It is cheaper and we seem to have abundant supplies of coal.
Renewable energy is bad for the environment
The change-over to renewable energy sources was spearheaded by states in the US such as California, and countries like Germany. Yet, the carbon emissions form these areas are on the rise. The reason for this is rather simple. Renewable energy sources have no component of reliability built into the energy source. All other energy sources have this; the controller of the energy grid can decide when and how much of the source is needed with at best a bit of a delay to the supply being online. Since we know the daily demand of the grid, it is very easy to plan the supply ahead of time.
Enter wind and solar. With wind on average being available only 30% of the time (40% at best in very windy areas) and extremely intermittent, the grid now needs to adapt constantly to this change in supply. This means that suddenly the reliable energy sources need to start throttling up and down on a constant basis. The sun on the other hand is a little more predictable on a sunny day, but this is only available 20% of the time at best, and usually gets online right after the morning peak and disappears just before the evening peak.
This means that the reliable sources need to ramp up and down even more than usual. Now, like driving a car, we all know how much fuel is consumed when we constantly accelerate and decelerate – city or rush hour driving – compared to constant speed highway driving. Well, renewable energy sources place all the other energy sources in rush hour traffic on the busiest Monday morning of the year, with a jack-knifed truck 3kms up the road. Studies has shown that any more than 5% penetration of wind energy on a national grid results in higher greenhouse gas releases than without it (the study was done on the electricity grid in Texas). Of course, studies from the CSIR and others do not take the drop-in efficiency of these sources into account.
Increased releases of greenhouse gasses are one thing, but there is one other thing that we seem to forget. In high-school science we learned that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form to another. So, where does the electricity we get from wind energy come from? Well, it comes from the wind – taken out of the environment. The CSIR re-optimised energy mix asks for 77GW of installed wind power capacity. That is 77000MW of energy taken out of the environment – 77000MW of wind that could have carried rainclouds to the Free State or the Karoo. Studies from Denmark has already shown that on- and off-shore wind turbines has an impact on weather patterns.
77000MW of wind turbines will also cover an area of at least 18225km2, that is a square of 135km by 135km of wind turbines – roughly the size of Gauteng – or that of the Kruger National Park if you are thinking about all the wide-open spaces. Of course, the 51333 wind turbines that need to be installed will provide a steady stream of income to the suppliers of the technology, I guess they are mostly German. The CSIR report also asks for 43GW of installed capacity of solar photo voltaic power – this will take up 28666km2 of surface area - one and a half times the size of Gauteng. This demand in surface area is of course due to the extremely low power densities of these power sources.
This also assumes that all this installed capacity will spread itself out evenly to supply the projected peak demand of 68.7GW when needed. If not, we will still have shortages during some hours of the days and a complete over-supply on other times – I suspect the 43GW of solar PV might find itself oversupplying on a Sunny Sunday at noon on a regular basis. I can just imagine the chaos in the control centre when the afternoon peak is coming in, and the sun is going down.
For one moment, imagine that the assumptions work out and we cover 36% of the Free State in solar panels and wind turbines: We must remember that these sources are only available 30% (CSIR assumes 40% for wind) and 20% respectively for wind and solar PV, that is why the over capacity is required. We will still require a back-up system for when these supplies are not online. The solution here is natural-gas turbines, it is quick to build and cheap. It does however still produce large amounts of greenhouse gasses. The CSIR report considers this, but something the CSIR report does not consider are the losses of methane into the environment due to leaks, being burnt off or vented in its production and transportation. Worldwide 14% of natural gas is lost to the environment this way. Methane lost to the atmosphere contributes up to 28% of the global warming effects on earth. Will hydraulic fracturing in the Karoo help with the supply of natural gas? I get the feeling the environment is not the most important aspect in the argument anymore.
Renewable energy is bad for the economy
So, having unreliable energy sources on an electrical grid has another effect. It pushes up the cost of the reliable sources. The reason for this is of course as stated, the reduction in efficiency of these sources, but not only that. It also reduces the up-time of these sources required to pay back the capital costs.
This makes sense for supporters of renewable energy sources, as it makes it even more cost competitive on paper. The reality however is that renewable energy sources will always require reliable backup power, and thus, the average cost of the energy mix goes up per electricity unit. The solution for this is simple: each energy source should supply its own reliability. For renewables that would be either battery storage or pumped storage hydro schemes. This inevitably results on the quadrupling of the capital cost of the renewable energy source. The CSIR report claims that renewable energy is cheaper than coal and nuclear, but coal and nuclear is picking up the bill for renewables in that case. Curiously enough, the report also assumes a 30-year lifespan of a nuclear power plant – Koeberg was designed for 40 years, just passed the 30-year mark and on course for a life-extension to 60 years. All new nuclear plants are designed today with an initial life-span of 60 years. A 60-year life-span essentially halves the cost of nuclear per electricity unit from that of the CSIR report.
Renewable energy also relies on the fact that we should use electricity sparingly. I am an advocate for efficient energy use and not wasting, but for economic growth and increase of the quality of life of our people, we need and abundance of energy. All people in this country deserves to have a washing machine at home, they deserve to have safe heating during winter and they deserve a television to stay up to date with current affairs. They also deserve clean water…
The only way to reverse the effects of climate change
Nuclear power has the potential to produce clean and virtually greenhouse gas free electricity at an affordable cost – becoming cheaper over time. Koeberg today produces the cheapest electricity in South Africa. France (70% nuclear) produces the cheapest electricity in Europe, whilst producing the lowest greenhouse gasses, at the same time the greenhouse gas emissions in Germany is going up. Did I mention that the costs of nuclear includes that of provision for spent fuel management and decommissioning of the plant – the only energy technology sector that does that.
It is no secret that South Africa is still in the grips of one of the worst droughts it has ever faced. The recent flooding in large parts of the country has brought some welcome relief, but the drought is far from over. The effect of climate change can be seen worldwide by an over-pronounced effect of weather phenomena such as the El Nino and La Nina effects, and it will get worse. We can expect to have deeper longer droughts and more floods in future, especially in Africa. On that point, other countries in Africa have realised in the past two years that over-reliance on hydro power will also prove problematic in future due to rivers running dry. Probably the biggest concern for Africa and the world is clean water, this problem is getting worse by the day with climate change effects.
I read about water restrictions in many parts of the country. The reality is that 80% of our water consumption goes to agriculture. This means that limited water supply inevitably affects our food security and thus, also our economy and the well-being of our people.
As a by-product of nuclear generated electricity, nuclear technology is perfectly suited to produce clean desalinated water from sea water. This is due to the excess heat the plant produces. This heat is the perfect temperature for a desalination plant. Nuclear plants built next to the coast of course does not use any fresh water sources for cooling, and gets its water supply from the ocean. By coupling it to a desalination plant, it becomes a net producer of clean water rather than a consumer of water. The CSIR report missed that point.
While water is in finite supply in our atmosphere, we still rely on rainfall patterns for that supply. Now, for the first time, have the opportunity to take control of our water supplies.
Can you imagine nuclear power plants dotted along our coast line (surrounded by a nature reserve with hiking trails and game such as at the Koeberg plant) supplying and abundance reliable electricity and clean drinking water to the country. We will again be able to promote the smart use of electricity to make our industries grow, we will find more places to use electricity for the quality of the lives of our people. We will have clean drinking water and water for our crops.
I would much rather see 36% (or more) of the Free State covered in irrigation systems, than solar panels and wind turbines. This is my biggest dream for South Africa, my biggest fear is the opposite.
On the issue of corruption
The issue of corruption seems to be the biggest fear of South Africans. I do not deny that corruption exists in all spheres all over the world. Where a deal is made, there is an opportunity for corruption. Where big deals are made, there is an opportunity for big corruption. This is, however, not unique to the nuclear industry. I would also argue that many small deals that passes unnoticed allow for more corruption.
The nuclear plans in South Africa have been well documented and written on – more than any other proposed infrastructure development plan in the country ever. The nuclear “deal” is often compared to the arms deal. Well, the arms deal happened out of the public eye and was brought to light by a whistle blower. The nuclear “deal” on the other hand is played out in the media. The main (and only) source of the allegations – an announcement (made as an open press-release) by the Russian company Rosatom that it signed a contract with South Africa to investigate the opportunities of supplying South Africa with nuclear power plants. I find it difficult to see the similarities.
It remains our duty as civil society, political parties, industries, academia, the media and all stakeholders to scrutinise every deal that is done, whether it is nuclear, or any other technology or industry. We need to hold our leaders to task, to ensure that we can make our dreams for our country a reality.
* Dr Anthonie Cilliers is the programme manager of nuclear engineering at the School of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering at North West University.
* This story was first published on ESI Africa.
* His views do not necessarily represent those of Fin24.
* Join the debate on South Africa's energy future. Write to Fin24 now.
No comments:
Post a Comment