South Africa would have to spend R25-billion on the proposed pebble-bed nuclear power project before it would be viable, Independent Online reported on Monday.
It said this emerged from an international report on the economic impact of the envisioned pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR).
The report says if the project goes ahead, South Africans might have to pay for ”a series of expensive white elephants”.
The cost of a PBMR demonstration plant, planned to be built at Koeberg, has risen from R2-billion in 1999 to R14-billion now.
This excludes the decommissioning costs, which would be at least R5-billion.
The report, written by Steve Thomas of the public service international research unit at the University of Greenwich, was commissioned by the Legal Resources Centre.
It will be part of a submission by Earthlife Africa to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.
The department was ordered by the Cape High Court six months ago to reopen the environmental-impact investigation for the pebble bed, but has not yet done so.
Thomas said economic forecasts by the PBMR company have not been updated since 1998 and are ”implausibly optimistic”.
He said because the demonstration plant would only incur costs, building it would only make sense if there was a high probability of a ”stream of orders” from overseas.
Thomas said there is ”nothing remotely close to a firm order” from overseas for a pebble-bed reactor.
The main expected export market is China. Despite several years of discussions, Beijing has made no commitment.
South Africa has not been able to find another international partner since United States company Exelon pulled out in 2002.
Exelon chief executive John Rowe said the reason for the withdrawal was that ”the project was three years behind schedule and was too speculative”.
French nuclear company Areva also indicated it was not prepared to fund the demo plant. Britain’s BNFL, the only foreign partner, is in financial difficulties.
Thomas said the project’s economic risks are likely to fall squarely on the South African public.
”It is particularly regrettable that a report by an international panel of experts, commissioned by the Department of Minerals and Energy to review the overall project, has not been made public,” he wrote.
Thomas, a member of the panel, said panellists had been ”required to promise not to disclose any information” about the report.
The Legal Resources Centre has tried under the Access to Information Act to get the Department of Minerals and Energy to release the document, but it has refused to do so.
Peter Bradford, former commissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, peer-reviewed Thomas’s report this month. His only criticism was that Thomas had been ”conservative” in his concerns.
Bradford said Thomas had not considered the negative impact on the South African economy from electricity-bill increases or tax increases to fund the project.
He had also not considered that the Chinese pebble-bed design or the Areva prismatic nuclear design were likely to be competitors for whatever market developed for the pebble beds.
Earthlife Africa will make its presentation on the PBMR to the environmental portfolio committee on Tuesday. — Sapa