Nuclear power is neither reliable nor ‘green’ and is not suitable for the just transition

28 May 2023

The very public push by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy for nuclear power must be seen within the context of an ongoing public relations campaign currently being waged in South Africa by supporters of nuclear power.

In April 2023, the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) publicly criticised a major new draft report from the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC) on South Africa’s electricity future. The DMRE stated that the report was “highly questionable” because “there is not sufficient funding allocated for nuclear energy”.

Nuclear energy, it claimed, was a “reliable” source of energy because “nuclear power plants can operate continuously for long periods” while having the added advantage of being “a zero-emission clean energy source”.

So outraged was the DMRE by the alleged lack of support for nuclear power that it demanded the PCC’s report “be amended before it is published”.

This very public push by the DMRE for nuclear power must be seen within the context of an ongoing public relations campaign currently being waged in South Africa by supporters of nuclear power.

In recent months, numerous opinion pieces and social media posts have suggested that nuclear power is the solution to South Africa’s ongoing energy and climate challenges. These opinion pieces and social media posts are punting traditional large-scale nuclear power stations (NPS) like Koeberg, small modular reactors (despite none yet being commercially viable) or even floating NPS (despite there being only one in existence) as viable options for South Africa.

While much of this new-found confidence from the nuclear industry in touting its alleged solutions in South Africa comes from the urgent need to address our deepening electricity crisis, this confidence also comes from the European Union’s highly controversial decision (49% of EU lawmakers opposed the move) last year to declare nuclear power as a “green energy” source under its so-called “taxonomy” rulebook – a decision which has since prompted the British government to begin the process of classifying nuclear power as “environmentally sustainable”.

But is nuclear power “reliable” and “green” as its proponents suggest?

Are nuclear power stations reliable?

The advocates of nuclear power regularly claim that it is the most reliable form of electricity generation because it supplies stable baseload power (the ability of a power plant to continually provide the minimum amount of power demanded by ongoing industrial processes like smelting, or domestic appliances like fridges). This argument in favour of baseload power is one which is repeatedly made by the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, Gwede Mantashe, and now by the new Minister of Electricity, Kgosientsho Ramokgopa.

The problem with the argument is that the very concept of baseload power is hopelessly outdated. Simply put, there is no longer any need for large-scale, highly centralised and “always on” power stations like NPS.

International evidence demonstrates that new “smart-grid” technologies that provide system operators with real-time data about supply and demand can match demand accurately and rapidly with power generated by a variety of widely distributed renewable energy sources with backup power provided by different forms of energy storage, such as pumped hydro or battery power.

For example, Germany has one of the most reliable grids in Europe despite generating half of its electricity from renewable sources. It aims to generate 80% of its electricity from renewables by 2030, and is so confident that it does not need baseload power that it recently closed down its last nuclear power station.

Denmark currently generates nearly 70% of its electricity from renewables, Ireland 65%, and South Australia 63%. Leading on the African continent is Morocco, which generates 37% of its electricity from renewables, with a target of 52% by 2030.

These examples, and more like them, clearly and convincingly indicate that baseload power no longer needs to be part of an energy mix. It is only the proponents of outdated technologies like nuclear that claim otherwise.

In addition, it is becoming increasingly clear that NPS are not the predictable sources of electricity their proponents claim them to be. The world’s aging fleet of nuclear reactors are becoming more unreliable as time passes.

Last year, French electricity output hit a 30-year low because of ongoing corrosion and maintenance problems at its 18 NPS. In August 2022, only 35% of its 56 nuclear reactors were working properly, forcing France to import electricity from other countries. Despite hastily undertaken repairs, France started 2023 with 12 reactors still shut down.

We have experienced similar problems in South Africa with Koeberg. Because of ongoing maintenance issues, including cracks in its containment dome, and delays in installing new steam generators, its ability to generate electricity has been shockingly poor. In 2022, it only generated 62% of the electricity it could have done during the year if it were operating properly, while this year to date it has delivered only 41% of its potential capacity.

These problems will only worsen with the negative impacts that climate change is having on the ability of NPS to function properly. In recent years, NPS in Finland, Sweden, Germany and France have had to be switched off due to heat waves which have either dried up water used for cooling or made water too warm for cooling.

The situation has become so serious that in March this year the French government’s supreme audit institution, the Court of Accounts, warned that climate change risked the viability of France’s entire fleet of NPS, stating that no new NPS should be built in France until the issue of water supply was addressed.

To this challenge can be added the additional problem of sea level rises caused by climate change, which threaten the viability of NPS that are located on shorelines and use sea water for cooling purposes. It hardly needs to be mentioned that South Africa is already a water-scarce country, a problem which is predicted to worsen as the impacts of climate change deepen.

Is nuclear power ‘green’?

While it is true that during their day-to-day operations, NPS emit very limited amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG), it is necessary to consider the entire life of a NPS to properly assess its “green” credentials. NPS generate GHG throughout their life cycles, from the materials needed for their construction and maintenance, to the mining, milling, enrichment, fabrication, and transportation of their uranium fuel, to waste disposal, and, finally, to their decommissioning.

Numerous research studies have shown that these life cycle emissions far exceed those of renewable energy sources. This is especially so given the enormous task of decommissioning highly contaminated nuclear power stations which takes decades, and around which little certainty exists.

There is also little certainty about how to store high-level nuclear waste which must be kept safe for hundreds of thousands of years. Because of the serious uncertainty surrounding decommissioning and long-term nuclear waste storage, it is likely that lifecycle GHG emissions from NPS will be more than they are currently estimated to be.

Given this, it is no wonder then that the Austrian government has begun legal action against the EU decision which it calls “an attempt to greenwash nuclear power”.

Nuclear power is, therefore, neither reliable nor “green”. If we add to this the tremendous costs of nuclear power which are far in excess of renewable energy sources, the decades new NPS take to build, and the potentially catastrophic consequences of a major nuclear accident, it is abundantly clear that nuclear power is not and cannot ever become a solution to South Africa’s electricity problems. DM

Dr Neil Overy is an environmental researcher, writer and photographer. He has worked in the non-profit sector for more than 20 years and recently completed an MPhil in Environmental Humanities South at the University of Cape Town.

Ulrich Steenkamp is a Programmes Officer at Earthlife Africa Johannesburg. He was the inaugural President of the Karoo Environmental Justice Movement, a community-based organisation in the Eastern and Western Cape that opposes hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and uranium mining in the Karoo.

Categories:

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...

Politics

Are nuclear power stations reliable?

Is nuclear power ‘green’?