Securing South Africa’s Energy Future

By Shane Pereira, Business Development Executive at Lesedi Nuclear Services

In pursuit of a sustainable energy future, the Just Energy transition (JET) advocates a shift from fossil fuels to cleaner technology sources. These encompass renewables (wind and solar with battery storage), hydroelectricity and nuclear power. The transition aims to address climate change while ensuring workers in the fossil fuel industry are not left behind as we shift to a low-carbon economy.

However, the one-size-fits-all JET approach, predominantly championed by first-world countries, fails to acknowledge the unique challenges faced by third-world nations, whose populations face severe poverty and economic hardship. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, more than 597 million people lived without electricity in 2021, according to Statista. These challenges and regional specific needs must be considered when discussing a JET. Energy solutions must prioritise people’s quality of life rather than pushing the agendas of those with vested interests.

It’s clear that a rise in temperatures poses a severe threat to our ecosystem, and steps must be taken to mitigate it. However, it is essential to recognise that third-world countries, burdened by poverty and economic challenges, may not be as prepared as their first-world counterparts to transition to renewables and achieve substantial emission reductions. Therefore, first-tier nations capable of transitioning away from fossil fuels must take the lead and do what they can to mitigate against climate change.

Third-world countries must transition from absolute energy poverty to energy wealth with a balanced mix of thermal and ‘green’ technology. Africa contributes just four per cent of global carbon emissions and is not a significant contributor to climate change. w hat is clear is that Africa needs dispatchable power to grow industries.

It is also essential to acknowledge that many first-world countries built thriving economies and industries on the back of fossil fuels and enjoy high employment rates as a result. One must question whether transitioning away from fossil fuels is the optimal short-to-medium-term energy strategy for African countries. Should African nations not have the same opportunities to exploit fossil fuels to fuel their economic growth and uplift their impoverished populations, taking advantage, for example, of the recent rich oil discoveries off the coast of Namibia (said to rival the oil fields in Dubai)? If such significant discoveries were made off the coast of the US, for example, would that country not take advantage of it? There must be an acknowledgement of the varying capacities of nations in the global community to transition away from fossil fuels.

Can renewables solve our energy crisis?

While renewables, especially in the residential and small business sectors, will play a crucial role in South Africa’s energy mix, they alone cannot generate sufficient energy to power the nation. The intermittency of solar and wind energy can be mitigated with battery energy storage. However, the high cost of such storage makes it unviable for large-scale operations requiring continuous power. A hybrid model, combining intermittent renewables with battery storage, supplemented by thermal (coal), gas to power or nuclear energy, should be explored for a sustainable energy solution.

In the short term, coal-fired power stations remain the most viable option for energy security in South Africa. We have significant installed capacity that is not operating anywhere near optimally. Eskom is busy fixing several plants and implementing modifications to increase compliance with emission reduction targets. The progress is slow, however, because big units can’t be taken offline for long periods, with load-shedding crippling the economy. Shutting down coal plants early for the proposed ‘green deal’ is simply not feasible. The short-term priority must be keeping the lights on and the economy afloat. Semi-privatising a portion of the coal fleet may also be a logical decision. if the government does not want to or can’t afford to fix the current assets, it should allow the private sector to do this on its behalf.

The viability of nuclear in South Africa

Koeberg is South Africa’s most costeffective operational power plant with a significantly high energy availability factor historically. It demonstrates the potential of nuclear power to contribute to our energy security. However, several factors hinder the building of nuclear power stations in South Africa. These include the high build costs, lengthy construction periods (eight to 10 years) and the need for substantial financial and technical resources.

Exploring commercial approaches such as the BOO (build, own operate) and BOOT models (build, own, operate, transfer) are viable options that could expedite nuclear power station construction in South Africa, with reduced financial risk for our country. With the BOOT model, an external entity builds, owns and operates the plant and eventually transfers ownership of the reactor to the in-country power utility – in our case, Eskom.

However, we’ve seen a significant shift towards nuclear power globally, with more than 60 nuclear reactors currently under construction. t his may impact resource availability, potentially placing South Africa at the back of the queue for new power stations. And with so many nuclear reactors being built globally, there is also a question mark around whether South Africa will attract nuclear vendors interested in taking on a nuclear portfolio in South Africa.

The modular solution

In the quest for energy security globally, several countries are pursuing the commercialisation of small modular reactors (SMRs) of around 100 MW in size. Modular reactors offer a less capital intensive alternative to large-scale nuclear power plants and take less time to build. They can be strategically placed near coalfired power stations to leverage existing grid infrastructure and create employment opportunities for communities living near these power plants. They can also replace aged coal assets. It’s a far more viable option than renewables. While the coal assets would need to be wholly decommissioned, you could utilise auxiliary infrastructure such as power evacuation and water for SMRs. unlike renewables, it would also create ‘meaningful’ jobs. while it is believed that SMRs will have a significantly higher cost per kilowatt-hour compared to large-scale nuclear, their shorter construction time (about four years) may make them an attractive option to secure additional energy in the short term.

South Africa’s energy future

In considering South Africa’s energy future, a strategy encompassing both immediate and long-term measures is critical. A pressing short-term priority is investment in grid infrastructure to increase our power evacuation capabilities.

South Africa needs tens of thousands of megawatts to provide for our energy needs. It is not inconceivable that we will need 60,000 MW in the next 20 years. In the best-case scenario, it could take 10 years to build a 2000 MW nuclear power station. And while renewable energy sources hold promise by potentially contributing thousands of megawatts to the grid, their capacity remains insufficient to meet the growing demand. We, therefore, need to fix our existing fleet of coal-fired power stations or repurpose them to produce energy from alternative sources such as SMRs and gas. Gas to power would be the quickest option for increasing power generation in South Africa if we can find sufficient gas resources, but we need to invest in gas infrastructure at our ports as a matter of urgency, too.

But we must remember that the global demand for energy security has constrained supply chains. Just like the lack of available resources in the nuclear space, there is a shortage of stock globally of 350 MW gas turbines and equipment shortages in the renewable energy space. therefore, a strategic energy mix is the only viable option for securing our energy future in South Africa.