Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Annual Report 2006/7
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
PUBLIC ENTERPRISES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE14 November 2007
PEBBLE BED MODULAR REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT 2006/7
Chairperson: Ms F Chohan (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) Annual Report 2006/07 presentation
Audio recording of meeting
SUMMARY
The Committee was briefed on the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) Annual Report 2006/07. A brief background on the PBMR project and its evolvement into a fully fledged company was provided. Detail into the company itself and its achievements and challenges were elaborated on. PBMR had emerged as a key player in Eskom’s attempts to address the energy crisis in SA. Members were however concerned about safety issues and the ever controversial problem of nuclear waste disposal.
MINUTES
The PBMR company presented its Annual Report 2006/07 to the Committee. The PBMR delegation comprised of Dr Alastair Ruiters (Board Chairperson), Mr Jaco Kriek (Chief Executive), Mr Johan Slabber (Chief Technology Officer), Mr Pat Thema (Manager: Stakeholder Relations), Mr Adrian Paterson, Ms Lynette Milne (Chief Financial Officer), Ms Mercy Ranko (General Manager: Human Resources).
Dr Ruiters gave a brief introduction. He said that PBMR had only for the last four years functioned as a company. Prior to that PBMR had functioned as a project of Eskom. Its Board had representatives from the Industrial Development Corporation, Westinghouse Electrical Company and Eskom.
Dr Ruiters said that the challenge facing PBMR was that it was in the throes of building a reactor and fuel plant. The project was on schedule to be the first commercial High Temperature Reactor in the power generation field. He emphasized that it was not a project doing only research and development (R&D).
Mr Kriek presented the annual report and noted PBMR’s objectives as being to build a demonstration power plant near Cape Town and to build the first PBMR fuel plant at Pelindaba while its overall mission was to successfully commercialise pebble bed technology for the world’s energy market.
It was extracting value from SA’s historically developed nuclear capability and technology as well as assisting Eskom to meet SA’s energy needs by building a 20 000 MW nuclear energy plant. Insight into PBMR’s competitive advantage was provided. PBMR’s achievements for the year were highlighted and amongst them was a review by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of PBMR’s nuclear safety culture.
Although highly scientific Mr Kriek continued with an overview of the technology itself. The PBMR was a helium-cooled, graphite-moderated, high-temperature reactor with a direct cycle turbo generator to produce 165 MW of energy. It was considered to be a relatively small reactor. Mr Kriek explained by the four principles of stability for reactors which had been incorporated into the PBMR design, meant that the reactor could not melt with practically no release of fission products which meant catastrophe-free nuclear energy.
Mr Kriek noted that nuclear energy was considered to be much cleaner than coal and supplied 9.3% of global electricity. The figure had been 16% in the past. Western countries had in the last 20 years not built any new nuclear reactors. The Committee were shown photographs of the Pelindaba fuel fabrication, the helium test facility, the high pressure and high pressure test units.
Its challenges were identified as the licensing of a first-of-a-kind technology and meeting the requirements of the Nuclear Energy Regulator, ensuring strategic manufacturing capacity, skills shortage, localization and expansion of the supply chain and shaping the nuclear environment.
The Committee was given a breakdown of PBMR’s governance features and its financials. Contributions of investors between 1999 to 31 March showed that the SA government had provided 58% of the R4 210 milllion, Eskom 20%, IDC 11% and Westinghouse 11%. PBMR’s staff establishment and its employment equity and capacity-building initiatives were outlined. Mr Kriek showed the network of expertise that PBMR technology programme had developed with local and international universities. This was ongoing and waste minimization research and development was taking place. The Committee was given a description of its international relations developments and initiatives in the global nuclear industry and why market dynamics meant that this technology was the solution for energy needs.
Discussion
Ms Chohan referred to the technology aspect of the presentation and said that there was a feeling amongst the public that nuclear energy was unsafe. She was specifically interested in the safety aspects of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. Ms Chohan said that the feeling was that it was old technology being offered in new packaging. She asked for a response that was contextualized in terms of historical development. She also asked what things could go wrong. She asked that the explanation be given in layman’s terms.
Mr Slabber responded that in any energy-producing environment, there was waste and the nuclear energy environment was no different. When energy was extracted from uranium, it changes the uranium into new products. Mr Slabber said that PBMR uranium was stored in graphite silicon carbide material. He noted that in the fuel itself lies the main part of the safety. SA had based its pebble fuel on the configurations used by the Germans and had obtained the rights to produce pebble fuel from them. He pointed out that fuel was the mainstay of safety of any reactor. He noted that even if a reactor was switched off heat was still present and needed to dissipate. Safety was the key consideration in the design of the PBMR.
Mr Slabber conceded that it was old technology and said that in the 1970s and 1980s nuclear power was seen to be dangerous. He noted that the Germans had made some design flaws in their design and it resulted in the shutdown of their reactor back then. There was a great deal of anti-nuclear sentiment at the time and it was too costly for the Germans to make repairs. The German fuel technology was nevertheless the best in the world and SA had made improvements on where the Germans had failed. The challenge was to improve on its design.
Ms Chohan noted that the safety issue was about the fuel itself and the casing used to contain it. She was concerned about the safety aspects of the uranium used during the fission process.
Mr Slabber stated that fission reactions were induced. The result of the reaction was two new unstable elements. The two elements were actually the radioactive fuel. The idea was to control the elements at the point of where they were created in a nuclear reactor. Mr Slabber said that one pebble contains a great deal of energy. The aim was to contain the elements at high temperatures. He pointed out that in the huge nuclear disasters that had occurred the barrier of the fission products had been compromised. In the Three Mile Island disaster in the US the metallic pipe used to house the products had been the problem. The probability of a similar disaster happening in SA was highly unlikely but could never be ruled out.
Ms Chohan said that a slide presentation in the future would go a long way to give the Committee insight into the matter.
She asked for detail on actual generation of energy, specifically on the design of core generation of energy.
Mr Slabber said that a single fuel pebble did not make a reactor. To obtain a self-sustaining critical reaction there needed to be a splitting of the atom which caused two neutrons. Each fission reaction created new neutrons. To achieve criticality, 450 000 spheres were needed. Each reaction created a great deal of heat which was usable energy, that is, helium. The helium in turn expands and turns turbines which generate electricity. The heat from the core converts it to generate electricity.
The Chair pointed out that the last aspect of safety was waste containment and asked what plans were in place to deal with it.
Mr Slabber stated that the design was such that it allowed for fuel that no longer could be used, to be removed. Fuel could even be removed whilst the reactor was operating. He said that if a fuel could not be reintroduced it was sent to spent fuel tanks. The spent fuel was stored under helium pressure. Mr Slabber noted that the design of the facility was such that spent fuel was stored on the premises. He conceded that the issue of spent fuel was important for the acceptability of nuclear energy. A programme had been embarked on to try to reduce the volume of spent fuel.
Mr Kriek noted that a visit by the Committee to Pelindaba would shed light on the matter.
Mr L Gololo (ANC) asked how helium was used to cool the nuclear reactor. Was it safe? His understanding of the use of helium was that it was used in hot air balloons.
Mr Kriek said that helium was used as a coolant to drive the turbine. The challenge attached to using helium was that it leaked easily. Mr Patterson added that helium was safe and that it did not burn. It was inert and was commonly used in children’s’ balloons.
Ms N Kondlo (ANC) asked what PBMR’s competitive advantage was. She was not sure what to believe. The presenters had stated that nuclear energy was inherently safe whereas those opposed to it said that it was unsafe. Ms Kondlo asked what the reason was for the decline in the use of nuclear energy from 16% to 9%.
Mr Kriek said that the reactors to be built by PBMR were relatively small and was aimed at those countries who could not afford to buy large ones. PBMR was flexible depending on the needs of a specific country. The cost per MW was however higher than the larger reactors. He stated that after the Three Mile Island disaster in the US, nuclear reactor building had stopped in the West. Nuclear power stations took longer to build as there were many safety issues. It also took longer to phase in than coal power stations.
Dr Ruiters said that the issue of nuclear safety had shifted. In the past many countries had preferred not to discuss the issue, today discussions were more open. He noted that getting the technology right had gone a long way to address many of the problems. There was an underestimation of the scientific work that had been done on the technology in SA. Dr Ruiters pointed out that SA had registered over a hundred new patents on the technology. SA had used its old capacity to good effect and had leap frogged every other country in the sector. SA was 4-5 years ahead of the rest.
Dr Ruiters explained that the reason why more new coal energy plants were built than new nuclear energy plants was because nuclear energy plants took too long to build ie 10 years. Most countries like the US and in Europe had opted for nuclear plant life extensions in order to increase output. Upgrading existing nuclear plants only took 2-3 years.
Prof I Mohamed (ANC) said that the aim of the company was to supply the market with pebble bed reactors. He asked what was to be done with the waste that goes along with each reactor. Where was it to be stored? A deep geological site was yet to be found. He asked what the lifespan of the casing was. How many reactors were to be built to meet SA’s energy needs?
The Chair also wanted figures on the numbers of reactors to be built. She said that Eskom had alluded to the fact that nuclear was part of its plans to generate more electricity. She asked whether the plans included pebble bed reactors.
Dr Ruiters said that Eskom, PBMR, the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (NECSA) and the Department of Minerals and Energy were all working together on nuclear waste policy. He stated that PBMR would endeavor to reduce the amounts of nuclear waste generated. The emphasis now was on how to deal with waste.
Ms Ngobo (ANC) asked what arrangements had been made with foreign countries to deal with waste ie waste export. The concern was that the incident at Koeberg had taken place unexpectedly. Her fear was that similar incidents could happen again. Ms Ngobo asked what if nuclear waste amounts became excessive. She asked when was the project expected to be implemented in SA.
Dr Ruiters said that PBMR had good working relationships internationally on the issue of waste. He stated that in the 1990s many countries had done quiet research on nuclear. Consequently a great deal of research had been done up until today. In 1992 only R20 000-R50 000 had been invested in the project. When the development of the technology had been halted in Germany, SA had taken the opportunity to buy the technology and to develop it further. By 2004 the project had grown to such an extent that it could no longer be part of Eskom. Government had made the decision to make the project self standing and the result was the formation of the company. Dr Ruiters emphasized that at no point had government considered closing down the project. The discussion was more about where the project should be placed.
Mr Kriek said that Eskom was PBMR’s customer. Eskom had requested PBMR reactors to be built. The company was thus a supplier of Eskom. The licensing of the reactor was a challenge. The aim was to obtain a license in two years time. The licensing was an issue between the National Nuclear Regulator and Eskom. Construction could only commence once a licence was granted. Public participation had however already commenced.
Dr S Van Dyk (DA) stated that it seemed that the pebble bed reactor would only be operational by 2015. He asked whether lack of research or lack of infrastructure was the reason for the delay. A concern was raised as to why the company’s technical committee had a bad attendance record at meetings. He felt that PBMR was a research facility and that there was no corporate structure to speak of as yet. He added that there were no foreign investments and that National Treasury had stated that PBMR lacked business plans.
Dr Ruiters responded that PBMR had in fact moved on from only R&D to being a commercial company. The company had in the last four years built test facilities and had placed orders for parts from suppliers. PBMR had partnered with countries like Japan and Spain to supply parts. The orders for parts had been placed two years ago and the parts were being constructed in those countries. He pointed out that PBMR would always be involved in R&D. It was an ongoing process. The parts for the construction of the plant at Koeberg would be delivered in 2-3 years time. Safety issues were still high priority. Dr Ruiters said that delivering a plant within a specific period depended on cost and budget. PBMR’s focus was at present more on issues of commercialization. SA had made an R18 billion investment in the technology and the issue was whether PBMR could leverage the investment. He said that nuclear energy had gone through a renaissance and that many had seen the benefits thereof. Suppliers to PBMR wished to engage in partnerships and negotiations were ongoing. Dr Ruiters said that product would only be produced in SA. The issue was about localization. He reacted that PBMR had a strong sense of proprietary knowledge and that it had business plans. Negotiations would be impossible without business plans. PBMR had consistently produced budgets and business plans. Dr Ruiters explained that business plans were ever evolving and changed every 18 months. PBMR was currently on version six of its business plan.
Mr Blanche (DA) congratulated PBMR on the progress made in the sector and could see the benefit of nuclear power in Africa. He felt however that in SA far too little was being spent on research and development. He asked to what extent the World Bank was involved given the work that could be done in Africa.
Dr Ruiters said that the World Bank had shown interest in having discussions with PBMR. Discussions with various parties were always ongoing. The idea was for PBMR to become the energy provider of choice. Mr Kriek noted that the World Bank did not currently support nuclear energy. The World Bank was needed if construction was to take place in Africa.
Ms Kondlo asked why had there been resignations on the PBMR Board. She pointed out that attendance at board meetings seemed to be a problem.
Dr Ruiters said that government representation at PBMR was by way of government departments. He noted that in Eskom as people’s jobs change, the representatives to PBMR change. The core members of PBMR had remained quite stable. Dr Ruiters said that there were occasions when board members would send someone else to attend a meeting because they felt that they lacked technical knowledge. He said that such issues would be addressed.
Ms Ngobo said that the Annual Report should have information on the PBMR’s budget. She asked why the distinction between non-permanent and full-time employees. What was the difference? She also asked whether there any of the students to whom PBMR had provided bursaries, had graduated.
Mr Kriek noted that the point was taken over the issue of the budget not being in the Annual Report.
Ms Ranko stated that once students complete their studies, PBMR offered a two-year internship programme.
Ms Chohan requested a written report on PBMR’s education programmes which Ms Ranko agreed to furnish.
The Chair commented that on the internet one finds extremes in terms of arguments for and against nuclear power. She said that much had been said on the portability of pebble bed reactors. Ms Chohan was concerned about comments that had been made that a nuclear scientist was not needed to run a pebble bed reactor but rather that people could be skilled to do the job. The fact that people could be skilled was perhaps a good thing but it was still a worry nevertheless. The question remained as to who would run the reactors once they were built.
The Chair also made the point that a great deal of R&D was taking place in trying to reduce coal fire emissions. She noted that in perhaps 20 to 25 years time, R&D in coal emission reductions could impact upon the nuclear power industry as a whole.
Mr Kriek said that Eskom was training individuals to operate the pebble bed reactors. Such persons needed to be properly qualified and skilled to do the job. Mr Kriek conceded that there was progress being made in reducing coal emissions. The developments were however in the early stages and costs were high. He said that competition in any industry was good.
Mr Blanche asked if the Chinese market was not an untapped market for PBMR. The Chinese were apparently building power stations on a weekly or monthly basis.
Mr Kriek responded that the Chinese also had pebble bed technology. The Chinese apparently followed PBMR’s tracks to its suppliers. PBMR was however protected by confidentiality agreements with its suppliers. PBMR had taken steps to protect its intellectual property. He noted that entering the Chinese market would be difficult. Perhaps if PBMR was more successful in the future, technology transfer with the Chinese was possible.
The Chair commented in closing that there was a need to interrogate the detail in detail. The presentation had been informative but the matter of nuclear waste disposal remained an issue.
The meeting was adjourned.