1. The PBMR, Nuclear Power and Climate Change Thomas Auf der Heyde Technikon Witwatersrand

2. Nuclear power and the PBMR Nuclear power industry in crisis Politics and economics of PWR Nuclear waste Fast breeder technology discredited Fusion a distant possibility only HTR has intrinsic advantages High thermal efficiency Efficient use of U, less waste Passive safety features HTRs subject of considerable R&D

3. International experience with HTRs Poor international record Long construction overruns Long commercialisation leadtimes Poor load factors Irregular performance Development largely abandoned USA, Germany, UK, France, Russia no longer pursuing Japan: 30 MW non-electric prototype China: little indigenous development Technology poses considerable hurdles

4. Economics of nuclear power Nuclear power and electricity liberalisation The cost structure of nuclear power Overhead costs

5. Nuclear power and electricity liberalisation Electricity generation is a risky business Monopoly situations give rise to over-investment in plant (cost/risk passed to consumers) Liberalised markets do not allow costs/risks to be passed on to consumers Risks minimised through proven technology Liberalisation accompanied by turning away from nuclear power

6. Nuclear power cost structures Crucially depend on discount rates, loan periods, assumed lifetime of plant In liberalised economies these are more onerous than in monopoly situations Operating costs difficult to establish US average in 1998 was 1.3p/kWh (US 2.1c) About 25% fuel, 75% non-fuel costs Fixed costs are major component (up to 75%)

7. PBMR economics Eskom’s assumptions Capex = US$1000/kW (£625) Plant life = 40 years Discount rate = 6 % Load factor = 95% (8300 kWh/a) FIXED COST= 0.4 p/kWh OPERATING COST= 0.6 p/kWh TOTAL COST= 1.0 p/kWh Total cost of coal-fired power station = 3.5 p/kWh Total cost of gas power (1996)= 2.2 p/kWh

8. PBMR economics … contd. AssumptionFixed cost (p/kWh) £625/40yr; 6%0.4 £625/20yr; 12%0.8 £625/15yr; 15%1.1 95% load factor (8300kWh/a)0.4 7000kWh/a; £1250/kW;12%; 20yr2.0 7000kWh/a; £1250/kW;15%; 15yr2.5 Operating cost0.6 TOTAL COST3.1

9. Overhead costs for the PBMR Direct costs of engineering barriers, costs of licensing, cost of nuclear regulation Safety requirements are being continuously sharpened - long construction delays Direct costs of licensing Westinghouse AP600: US$400m, 7 years PBMR “feasibility study” R432m, plus licensing R40m? Wide deployment of PBMR will require disproportionate regulatory overhead

10. The market for the PBMR Eskom’s assumption/rationale Annually: 10 units in SA, 20 for export Little real investment in nuclear expansion Europe - many committed to phase out North America In US no new orders since 1974 Canadian technology under fire Asia Mostly committed to PWR (US or own manufacturers)

11. The market for the PBMR … contd. Barrier to nuclear market considerable PWR/BWR the dominant technology On world power market the PBMR competes with gas US safety license likely to be costly; German license no option Innate conservatism of power market militates against technological innovation

12. The nuclear fuel chain U mining & millingConversionEnrichment Waste management & disposal Power reactorFuel fabrication Reprocessing

13. Under highly favourable assumptions for nuclear power … we find that even if large nuclear plants (1 000 MW) could be built every one to three days from now until 2025 (which is impossible in the Third World), global CO 2 emissions would still continue to grow. In the USA - the world's largest producer of CO 2 - each dollar invested in electric efficiency displaces nearly seven times as much CO 2 as a dollar invested in nuclear power. Even if the most optimistic aspirations for the future economics of nuclear power were realised today, efficiency would still displace between 2.5 and 10 times more CO 2 per unit investment. We conclude that revitalising nuclear power would be a relatively expensive and ineffective response to greenhouse warming, and that the key to reducing future C0 2 emissions is to improve the energy efficiency of the global economy. Bill Keepin & Gregory Kats Energy Policy 1988

14. Although nuclear energy is a low CO 2 energy system, it is not a very efficient tool for rapidly reducing carbon emissions. Global climate change does not justify a considerably increased global nuclear programme for the next two to three decades. Even if for other political or socioeconomic reasons such an intensive global nuclear programme were initiated, its impact on CO 2 emissions would be only marginal. This is true irrespective of the costs and feasibilities of alternative emission reduction strategies, such as energy efficiency measures, or the availability of other low CO 2 energy supplies. Janos Pasztor Energy Policy 1999

15. The nuclear industry and climate change Key strategy to renew industry Only contributes to CO 2 reduction where nuclear is major component of energy system Studies suggest nuclear power is a very inefficient substitute for increased energy efficiency

16. Conclusion HTR technology not yet fully developed Discrepancies in cost modelling could have strong impact on viability of project Market for nuclear power and innovative technology is not favourable Nuclear power is unlikely to make meaningful contributions to CO 2 reduction Dispassionate and independent review of PBMR should be commissioned