Eskom told legislators on Wednesday it might, in the future apply to extend the operating life of Koeberg nuclear power station in Cape Town for a second time.
The power utility was recently granted permission from the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) to extend the operating life of Koeberg unit 1 by 20 years until July 2044, and it is hoping to get similar approval to run unit 2 until November 2045.
Koeberg has two generating units with a capacity of about 930MW each. Unit 1 was first synchronised to the grid 40 years ago in 1984 and unit 2 followed in 1985.
Eskom chief nuclear officer Keith Featherstone told MPs as part of the long-term plan for Koeberg they would start assessing whether it would be possible to extend the plant’s life beyond 2044 within 10 years.
“We have already [made provision] in our technical plan for Koeberg that we will start reassessing within 10 years if we can extend [the life of this] plant [for] longer. It would be stupid to shut down [a plant] that is in good condition. If we can operate it longer, we need to do so,” he said.
The “overall conservative design requirements” that existed when building a nuclear facility together with the “very stringent maintenance, inspection and testing regimes” ensured that plants were always kept in good condition, said Featherstone.
The national nuclear regulator approved Eskom’s request for a licence to extend the operating life of Koeberg nuclear power station unit 1 by 20 years in July and said at the time it was still reviewing some aspects of unit 2 which has a valid licence to operate until November 2025.
In preparation for the 20-year life extension, unit 1 was on an extended maintenance outage which included the replacement of the steam generator for most of 2023. After it returned to service in December unit 2 was taken offline for a similar outage.
Eskom initially expected unit 2 to return in September, but it recently announced the return date had been moved to December to allow time to address “weld defects on the main steam pipes requiring additional inspection and weld repairs”.
The cost for the maintenance and modification that were done for the long-term operation of the plant was originally set at R21bn, but Featherstone said this was now sitting at a maximum of R25bn. The cost escalation was mostly due to delays in the steam generator replacement on unit 1.
In response to questions from MPs about a skills shortage at Koeberg, Featherstone said they have a “robust training programme” and have thus been able to maintain a good pipeline of skills both in terms of engineers and technicians.
Undergraduate studies in nuclear technology are limited in SA, but Eskom runs master’s degree programmes in partnership with some SA universities focusing on nuclear technology.
But, said Featherstone, it was difficult to sustain this programme without any future new nuclear builds in SA.
In August electricity & energy minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa decided to withdraw a determination published in the Government Gazette in January for SA to procure 2,500MW of nuclear power to create another opportunity for public participation.
This was after civil society organisations SA Faith Communities’ Environmental Institute (SAFCEI) and Earthlife Africa applied to the high court in July to review and set aside the minister’s determination, arguing that it was unlawful and unconstitutional because the process had been procedurally unfair.
The decision to withdraw the determination, Ramokgopa said at the time, would add about three to six months to the timeline for going to market with a request for proposals to build nuclear power plants.
Jacob Mbele, director-general of the mineral resources department, told MPs on Wednesday public consultations would “take various forms” and were expected to take place within the next three months.
Activists, civil society organisations and energy analysts have consistently called for more transparency from Eskom and the government which they believe has been lacking on the Koeberg life-extension programme and the proposed new nuclear build programme.
Hilton Trollip, research associate at Energy Systems Research Group at UCT told Business Day there was a lack of transparency on the true total cost of the 20-year life extension and he feared the same would be the case should Eskom apply for a second life extension down the line.
“We need to know in advance what the true costs will be of such a project otherwise it is impossible to compare these costs with what it would cost to implement other alternatives such as renewables in combination with energy storage,” said Trollip.
These sentiments were echoed by Francesca de Gasparis, executive director of SAFCEI, who said the true costs of running Koeberg — the cost of maintenance, repairs and managing the disposal of the different levels of waste — were not being shared with the public.
De Gasparis said SAFCEI was appealing the NNR’s decision to grant a 20-year life extension for unit 1 because the licence granted did not comply with the long-term operations regulations.
“We believe that the NNR failed to look at all the relevant considerations, in particular out-of-date documents, resulting in a decision that we see as irrational and unconstitutional.”
Energy experts have urged the government to hold off on the process of procuring new nuclear energy until the new Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) 2023 has been finalised and published.
This new determination for 2,500MW of nuclear power was issued in terms of IRP 2019 which does not explicitly call for this power to be procured.
The highly criticised draft IRP 2023, which will replace the 2019 version, does not foresee new generation capacity from nuclear to be added by 2030. However, in one of the scenarios for the 2030-50 period, the plan proposes rolling out more than 14,000MW of new nuclear power.
Both the departments of mineral & petroleum resources and electricity & energy have admitted that based on some of the comment received from the industry on the draft IRP 2023 there were flaws and shortcomings in the modelling used to generate the scenarios presented in the plan.
A new version of the IRP 2023, which is expected to be published later in 2024, will use new modelling and draw on the inputs from industry exports.
“In all the independent modelling done which asks the question what makes sense to put onto the grid for a least-cost energy system that provides reliable power, nuclear never comes up. It just doesn’t.”
“I am almost sure ... that when the new IRP comes out, it will show that nuclear is techo-economically irrational,” Trollip said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.