Nuclear Power in Africa Energy Mix

Energy is the backbone for developed and developing nations. And what are the sources of energy? There are hydro, thermal, fossil fuels, and local gas—but these are declining. They are not unlimited; fossil fuels could run out. And the prices are unstable.

Recent nuclear technologies could help power the future of Africa and promote sustainable energy. In the distant past, nuclear energy was an expensive option limited to the western world. Progressively, nuclear could be an energy source for much of Africa, but currently only South Africa has a nuclear power plant.

Socioeconomic growth comes with a rise in energy demand—and a need for a reliable and sustainable energy supply.

African countries are vulnerable to climate risk so is the rest of the world. Therefore, they must play an active role in the global transition to low carbon energy in the way others will have to.

Much of Africa has considerable natural advantages concerning renewable electricity generation technologies such as solar. Nevertheless, the disadvantage for any modern economy primarily heavily depending on intermittent sources of electricity are increasingly apparent. An important component of reliable baseload low carbon electricity capacity is essential to enable emerging market countries to reach net-zero without hindering economic development.

For many, and possibly for most African countries, this should mean including an element of nuclear power in their energy mix. Unfortunately, only South Africa currently has commercial-scale nuclear reactors producing electricity for a continent very rich in uranium reserves. The two reactors operating there were built in the last century – an evident reminder that industrialised Europe is not the only place where nuclear development has declined.

High upfront capital cost of nuclear plants and safety are obvious explanation for this underdevelopment. It may have been a deterrent for governments that needed to secure a quicker return on their spending than could be achieved by investment in nuclear energy.

For Ghana, cost-effective, reliable electricity is the entry point to higher-value-added manufacturing and export-led growth. For example, the country’s reserves of bauxite—the ore used to produce aluminium—are an important source of income, but for now it is exported raw. if we have a cost-effective electricity, we would not be exporting raw bauxite but exporting smelted bauxite at a much higher price. This would be a big move for Ghana.

Kenya is considering nuclear to meet the demand generated by hooking up households nationwide, which is expected to contribute significantly to the 30% increase in electricity demand predicted for the country by 2030.

Kenya depends mostly on renewables fuel for energy; about 60% of installed capacity is from hydropower and geothermal power.

Without proper financing, nuclear is nonstarter. Majority of African countries will find it difficult to invest in a nuclear power project.

Another aspect to consider is the burden on the electrical grid system of the country. Nuclear power plants are connected to a grid through which they deliver electricity. For a country to safely introduce nuclear energy, the IAEA recommends that its grid capacity be around ten times the capacity of its planned nuclear power plant. For example, a country should have a capacity of 10,000 megawatts already in place to generate 1,000 megawatts from nuclear power.

Few African countries currently have a grid of this capacity. Example in Kenya installed capacity is 2,400 megawatts—too small for conventional, large nuclear power plants.

Many different factors play against the development of the nuclear power segment in Africa. However, all of these challenges can be traced back to a fear that the challenges and risks associated with the African continent are unbearable. A sentiment that has been overcome in other sectors and will likely be overcome here. These concerns include:

1. Timelines. In addition to the large capital investments that nuclear plants require, these are usually accompanied by five- to ten-year-long periods of construction and testing. In potentially unstable regions, projects with long time horizons are often unattractive for investors. Although over the lifetime of a plant, costs are on par when weighted against fossil fuel plants (especially with local nuclear fuel resources) (World Nuclear Association 2020), the significant period between investment and revenue returns is often enough to sour investors. On top of this is a legacy of over-budget projects—another uncertainty negatively affecting the prospects of investment in traditional nuclear plants.
2. Regulatory Frameworks. Further, fears surround the potential inability for Sub-Sharan African countries to provide clear regulatory and financial frameworks with adequate risk provisions in case of extended construction periods and uncertain electricity demand growth. This leaves investors without a degree of project life-cycle clarity, nor a sense of urgency from governments to accelerate nuclear projects. Historically, these countries tend to lag in schedules of project development.
3. Infrastructure. Additionally, lack of transmission infrastructure and trained personnel leads to a decreased perception of prosperity for new generation projects. The success of generation projects is dependent on additional infrastructure including electricity transmission. If a legacy grid is not built to transmit a sufficient multiple (generally 10x) of the production capacity of the nuclear plant, further investment will have to be made into grid upgrades and renewal (International Energy Agency 2014).
4. Maintenance. There is also the necessity for local maintenance expertise. For contracts where construction and operation are managed by one corporate partner, a degree of cultural understanding must also be taken into consideration. Thus, the importance of training locals cannot be understated. New energy sources are only likely to be accepted if they cost less than current methods. While long-term returns might outweigh those of other fossil-fuel generation methods, short-term barriers such as these often cloud future benefits and lead to project resistance.
5. Safety. Finally, safety concerns are ever present when considering the idea of nuclear technologies. This is exacerbated by potentially unstable political situations, as well as by a lack of local expertise. Internationally, concerns of events such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima have been cited as reasons that Germany is rolling off of nuclear power.

However, despite these challenges, there are many good examples that can serve as fundraising models to the nuclear industry. Hydropower plants in Africa are broadly comparable to nuclear power projects, as they present similar elements of difficulty. These projects have both been financed by tax payers and by international organisations. However, large hydro projects present similar issues of scale and long payback prospects.

To address these challenges and concerns associated with old-style large-scale nuclear power reactors, small modular reactors (SMRs) present an option for wider use and application for nuclear power generation. The IAEA defines SMRs as, “advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 MW€ per unit, which is about one-third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear power reactors.” SMRs are designed using modular factory fabrication technology. The case for SMRs is strengthened by the interest in building smaller units for generating electricity, which address the challenges of traditional larger nuclear power reactors.

Advantages of SMRs can be connected to the nature of their design—small, modular, and capable of harnessing nuclear fission to produce energy. SMRs have displayed flexible power generation options, enhanced inherent safety features, require lesser capital cost, and have a smaller physical footprint than larger traditional nuclear power reactors. They also have a wide range of applications in the electricity sector as well as cogeneration and non-electrical applications. Given their size, SMRs can be located in areas that may not be suitable for traditional, large nuclear power plants. Additionally, the modular aspect of SMRs means that an SMR unit may be manufactured and assembled in factories and then installed at a site as opposed to large power reactors, which are conventionally designed for a specific location. These reactors generate less radioactive waste and can re-use uranium making reactors essentially self-sufficient once started.

Conclusion

Given the opportunities SMRs present, there is a need to push for SMR technologies as a feasible nuclear energy option to meet the growing energy needs in Africa and the search for low-carbon energy options. In comparison to large-scale nuclear power reactors, SMR technology provide a simpler and fundamentally safer opportunity for the expansion of the nuclear energy sector. SMRs have lesser fuel requirements, smaller physical area requirements and hold the potential for large-scale factory production, transportation, and installation in Africa and the world at large.

By Philip Kyeremanteng

Nuclear Energy and Environmental Sustainability

Reference

https://www.edfenergy.com/about/nuclear/what-is-nuclear-energy

https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/nuclear-power-the-case-for-small-modular-reactors/

https://www.cgdev.org/publication/atoms-africa-there-future-civil-nuclear-energy-sub-saharan-africa