- SA leads rest of the world in PBMR technology Six years ago Jaco Kriek knew less than an averagely informed layman about nuclear energy.
He had "a vague idea" about the events at Chernobyl but the nuclear disaster at Three Mile Island had passed him by completely. This stuff was simply not on his radar, he admitted last week.
"I knew nothing. Literally nothing."
He was a chartered accountant, after all. Why should he?
Now he is sitting at the apex of a company that is developing some of the most exciting nuclear technology in the world.
It is called Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (Pty) Ltd and is based in Centurion, outside Pretoria. It was started 11 years ago by Eskom which, with more immediately pressing matters on its mind such as finding dry coal, has since withdrawn. But its chief shareholder is still the government.
Since 1999 the government has given PBMR R7-billion to play with, but recently said it might turn off the taps.
A ministerial task team is considering the matter but one might have hoped, given the importance of, in Kriek's words, "the whole energy thing", that President Jacob Zuma would have given an insight into the government's thinking in his address to the nation.
Kriek was not exactly listening to the president's words with bated breath. Indeed, he was not listening to the president at all because he was entertaining a delegation from Algeria. But he will be listening to finance minister Pravin Gordhan when he delivers his Budget on Wednesday.
In addition to R7-billion from the taxpayer, Kriek and his 600-strong team at the company's test facilities at Pelindaba (supported by a staff of 300 in Centurion), have received R2-billion from global investors.
That is an awful lot of money. And, people are asking, for what?
Kriek, 45, who was appointed CEO of the company by former minister of public enterprises Alec Erwin in 2004, says that without expanding its use of nuclear energy there is no chance at all of South Africa meeting the 34% carbon emission reduction undertakings it gave at Copenhagen.
Okay, but why pour billions into this newfangled PBMR technology when we already have tried-and-tested pressurised water reactor (PWR) technology of the kind being used at Koeberg?
PWR technology will be key to our future energy needs for some time, Kriek says. But if nuclear is going to be the name of the game then we have to keep pushing the boundaries, keep researching and developing more modern and efficient technology.
The PBMR technology will enable us to have smaller reactors that can be located where they are needed. They will not be bound by the grid. They will not have to be situated on the coast as is the case with pressurised water reactors.
The tried-and-tested technology is not exportable, so its commercial potential for South Africa is very limited.
"In the PWR market you can't even start to compete with the existing players," Kriek says.
"The market for pressurised water reactors is very well looked after in terms of technology. The US and Europe, Japan, China, Canada have moved on, they are looking at the next generation of nuclear technology."
There is a wide gap in the market and South Africa, which right now is ahead of the game in PBMR technology, would be mad not to exploit it, Kriek feels.
One of the reasons it is more exportable is that it has more applications than PWR technology, which is limited to generating electricity.
"This technology we're developing will have broader applications, for example desalination, (and) extracting oil sands in Canada."
But should a developing country like South Africa, with so many more urgent needs to address, be shouldering this hugely expensive burden?
"It's a question of choice. How much do we want to spend on research and development?"
At the moment South Africa spends less than 1% of its GDP on research and development while countries like Australia spend 4%.
"As a developing country if you feel you can't spend money on this you'll always stay a developing country."
Kriek makes the point that similar questions were asked about Sasol. Now, of course, there is huge global demand for its oil-from-coal technology.
"Can we afford this? Maybe the question should be, can we afford not to do it?"
Technology development "puts you as a country on a different stage. We play on a stage with the US and the big boys. If it were not for PBMR we would not even be considered in the nuclear field."
Kriek talks about the jobs created, but detractors of PBMR say far more jobs would be created developing wind, solar, hydro and other forms of sustainable energy.
"It depends where you make the components," he says.
"If you import them then it's only construction jobs you're creating. With a dam you create jobs for five years but when it's built those jobs are gone.
"If you go this route you must localise, you must manufacture locally."
There is precious little technological development happening in the country, Kriek says.
"We export our minerals with no beneficiation taking place, we import our car components.
"We have a lot of bright minds in this country but if you don't have projects like this you will never get a proper science community."
A greater proportion of these bright minds are to be found in Kriek's company than anywhere else in the country. The 600 at Pelindaba are all scientists and engineers with an average of two-and-a-half degrees each.
Two hundred of them are black and there are potentially many more like them waiting in the wings. The PBMR company plays an active role at six or seven local universities, identifying, nurturing, developing and then employing them.
"We are creating a whole new industry, whether it's engineering, manufacturing, (or) the maintenance of these plants (where PBMR technology will be used)."
South Africa needs to decide if it wants a nuclear industry or not, Kriek says, because if it doesn't then this talent will leave the country.
He believes a nuclear industry would lift national standards across the board. "You're measured by international benchmarks so you operate at very high standards and create a generation of people who are used to these high standards, and they go into other industries. You just become more aware of quality."
Four percent of SA's energy is nuclear at the moment but when proposed new coal power stations are in place it will be less.
Kriek says we should be looking at 20% "initially".
As far as he's concerned it is a no-brainer. There is no other realistic way of reducing our carbon emissions.
What about the danger of nuclear waste? Most of the big countries recycle their spent fuel now, he says. "Ninety percent of your energy is left in the spent fuel."
The waste from coal-fired power stations, which "use the atmosphere as a free dumping ground", is far more problematic.
"There are a lot more health problems coming from CO2 and the other gases that come from coal-fired power stations."
For a relative newcomer to the nuclear game, Kriek, a farm boy from KwaZulu-Natal, talks with relaxed and convincing authority.
So he reckons he is an expert now?
He laughs. "Not in this building. When they look at me they still see an accountant." |
