Its not so much a matter of choice as it is one of necessity :  the inherently safe, meltdown-proof feature of the design can only be met with a reactor size below a certain maximum. Above that limit the surface-to-volume ratio becomes too small and the natural heat dissipation mechanisms (radiation, convection) are unable to cope and limit the maximum temperature below melting (you would need forced cooling with larger units....). Actually, the physical size of these "small" 165 MWe reactor units is quite large -- the power density of the fuel pebbles is very low. A 1,000 MWe version would be absolutely enormous at the same power density !

But I don't see it as such a big disadvantage -- if you can prefabricate the reactor-turbine-generator units on an assembly line, taking advantage of the economies of mass production, rather than the economy of single-unit scale, then it could work. Just plunk a half-dozen or more of them in a single, long powerplant building, with a centralised fuel & waste management system and security.....

here's some additional details on the PBMR news story.....

NUCLEONICS WEEK NOVEMBER 4, 2004
PBMR project to move ahead after South Africa promises funds
The South African government last week gave what supporters termed a
conditional go-ahead to the project to build a demonstration Pebble Bed
Modular Reactor (PBMR) at Koeberg, budgeting 500-million rand (U.S.$81.8-
million) to allow placing of key contracts on the project.
Tom Ferreira, spokesman for PBMR (Pty) Ltd., the company that will build
the reactor, said the long-awaited approval by the South African Cabinet
would "enable us to activate a portion" of the contracts needed to further
develop plant systems, notably with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) for
turbine machinery and for construction of a Helium Test Facility that has been
planned by South African engineering company IST.
Work on PBMR component development had slowed to a crawl since last
year, awaiting government approval to move to the next phase of the project
that would lead to construction of the demo high-temperature reactor (HTR).
In the meantime, PBMR Ltd. has been seeking new shareholders, in part to
replace Exelon, which announced in April 2002 it was leaving the consortium.
Exelon had been steering the pre-application design review work in the
U.S. before it decided to step out of a "reactor supplier" role. However, it said
it supported further development of the design. At the time, one Exelon manager
also predicted the company's departure from the consortium would result in a licensing pause
rather than close-out.
PBMR has not found a U.S. company to replace Exelon,
which held a 12.5% interest in the project. But PBMR Ltd.
officials, including CEO Jaco Kriek, were to meet Nov. 3 with
officials of the U.S. NRC to talk about a future PBMR design certification request.
Company officials were also slated to give presentations
to the NRC staff on the progress of the PBMR program in
South Africa. Plans call for construction of an approximately
165-MW HTR demo module at Koeberg near Cape Town,
where state-owned utility Eskom operates two PWRs.
The official rated electrical capacity for the 400-MW thermal
module is 110 to 125 MW, the level specified in documents
Eskom submitted for an environmental impact assessment
(EIA) process years ago. A final record of decision
(ROD) on that EIA is still pending from the South African
Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, following
appeals of the initial positive ROD issued in June 2003.
But officials involved with PBMR said after the final ROD, Eskom
will file for revision of the EIA to take account of the higher
electrical capacity. A decision on the appeals is expected in
January, said one official working on the PBMR project.
Users group established
Steve Lennon, Eskom executive director, resources &
strategy, said that in addition to the meetings with NRC,
PBMR officials this week were also scheduled to meet with
interested utilities in what he called a "PBMR users group."
Ferreira said the "PBMR Utilities Advisory Group" included
seven U.S. companies.
Lennon said the South African government had "indicated
very strong support" for the PBMR project and had
"given it the go-ahead" in a meeting two weeks ago.
Confirmation of that support came in the Ministry of
Finance's medium-term budget for infrastructure development,
which includes R500-million for PBMR within a five-year
allocation of R84-billion for electricity generation equipment.
The infrastructure program was announced by
Alec Erwin, minister of public enterprises, who also said the
plan is eventually to produce 4,000-5,000 MW from pebble-bed
reactors around the country. That works out to 24
PBMRs of 165 MW each, presumably to be built by Eskom,
in recognition of PBMR Ltd.'s argument that domestic commitment
to more than one module was needed to launch
PBMR commercially (NW, 7 Oct., 3).
Lennon said in a telephone interview Nov. 2 that the
government had "not given an unconditional go-ahead" to
the project, but had decided to provide funding needed to
keep it going. "They will be finalizing full financing" at a
later stage, he said.
The project needs roughly $1.3-billion to build the
Koeberg demonstration module and a related fuel plant at
the Nuclear Energy Corp. of South Africa's (Necsa) Pelindaba site.
Celebrating milestone
Ferreira said there was "a lot of celebrating" at PBMR Ltd.
last week after the government approved the long-awaited
budget boost for the reactor.
However, he said the government "still wants us to get
other investors on board" to continue the project through
construction. He said PBMR Ltd. shareholders-Eskom, the
Industrial Development Corp., and British Nuclear Fuels
plc-are negotiating with "a strong local consortium" for
entry into the project; he declined to identify members of
that consortium, saying some were publicly traded companies.
Ferreira said the government had not given PBMR a specific
time frame for restructuring its ownership. Nor has a
new board of directors been named, he said. Alastair Ruiters,
director general at the Department of Trade & Industry, was
named PBMR Ltd. chairman in late summer (NW, 26 Aug., 7 and 2 Sept., 5).
The government financial backing "should make it much
more attractive for foreign investors" to join PBMR Ltd.,
Ferreira said, noting that the project had been "a little bit
'pie in the sky' until now." He said PBMR Ltd. was "quite
confident we are going to get investors," and did not
exclude the possibility the company would get more offers than needed.
Design evolution
Meanwhile, PBMR Ltd.'s engineering team has made
design changes that could trim the price of the modular
HTR, a key element in its potential commercial success.
Sten Caspersson of Westinghouse Electric Co. told an
audience at NRC's annual Nuclear Safety Research
Conference last week the changes came as a result of what
he called an "engineering evolution." One of the major
changes is a move to a horizontal turbine generator set
rather than the three-shaft vertical configuration that had
been planned. The high- and low-pressure compressors will
be on a single shaft, he said. Caspersson also noted the decision
to use more conventional oil bearings in the shaft
instead of magnetic bearings that had proved problematic
(NW, 25 Sept. '03, 10).
Ferreira said the switch to a single-shaft turbine had been
made possible by development of gear boxes capable of
switching from 50 Hertz (used in South Africa) to 60 Hertz
(used in the U.S.). "We didn't feel comfortable" with previous
gearboxes, he said. But the availability of more advanced
technology allows a "simpler" layout for the PBMR's power
conversion equipment, he said, which logically should trim
the cost, though not dramatically.
The engineering department of Potchefstroom University
and the company M-Tech in 2002 demonstrated that a
three-shaft direct (Brayton) cycle turbine system could be
started up and run stably, using a functional "PBMR Micro
Model" they designed and built under a contract to PBMR
Ltd., Ferreira said. The PBMR power conversion system is
still based on a Brayton cycle, he said, adding, "If
Potchefstroom could make (the multishaft) system work,
they should not have any problems making this (single-shaft) one work."
He said the new horizontal layout "promises reduced
complexity, potentially higher efficiency and reduced costs
compared to the original multishaft design." The changes
were possible, he said, "due to general industry advances in
dry seal technology and compact high-powered gearboxes."
Caspersson said the consortium plans to conduct full-scale
testing of the turbine machinery, in addition to tests of
the fuel handling system developed by IST and the fuel
manufacturing process developed by Necsa.
-Ann MacLachlan, Paris; Jenny Weil, Washington
======================================

NUCLEAR NEWS FLASHES - Wednesday, November 3, 2004
U.S.:
--PBMR (PTY) LTD. OFFICIALS WANT TO BEGIN WORKING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE on
preapplication issues for the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) so that they
will be prepared to submit a design certification application in first
quarter 2007. Company executives from South Africa and the U.S. met today
with NRC staff at the agency's headquarters in Rockville, Md. to discuss
resuming work on the PBMR after a two-year respite. No utility has yet
committed to purchase the PBMR in the U.S. However, company officials said
they will meet tonight with members of a utility advisory group, which they
declined to identify. They also said PBMR Ltd. plans to compete to build a
hydrogen cogeneration plant at DOE's newly refocused Idaho National Laboratory.

 

Excellant points. One of the problems of the power conventional large powerplants is dealing with changing load conditions. A cluster of PBMR's would do away with a lot of this. Units could come online and go offline as the needs for maintainance or changing power demand dictate. This should make for a more stable and responsive (and more efficient) energy grid.

Also, I would imagine that because of their small sizes we could actually see PBMR's used in industrial process heat applications for the first time. Water from desalination plants; process heat for increased production of petroleum from tar sands and oil shales; large coal gasification or synthetic petroleum plants; hydrogen production for synthetic fuels or chemical synthesis--the applications are numerous and largely feasible especially with oil prices continuing to move upward.

Also, I can see PBMR's used in commercial shipping. It all largely depends upon how costly petroleum will become, and there is good evidence to suggest that the price of oil will only continue to rise. Even $100 per barrel is not unthinkable--and it will probably go higher than that.

Now is the time to develop the technology--before we have a real economic and cultural crisis on our hands.

Well, there you go!

I like the idea of using nitrogen--it's thermodynamic properties are sufficiently similar to air (air is after all nearly over 70% nitrogen!) that off the shelf gas turbines could be used. Also coolant is cheap and easy to replace (gasifying liquid nitrogen--expensive but serviceable,) or using some kind of gas-diffusion membranes to filter out the oxygen is another possibillity. I can really see this technology going somewhere....

The Russians have long experience with nuclear powered ice breakers--a nitrogen cooled PBR could be an ideal power plant for a similar vessel. Nuclear PBR powered bulk cargo ships--not too unthinkable!

I remember reading an article in Popular Science many years ago when it was once proposed to build enormous submersible cargo and tanker ships. I seem to remember reading something about the Russians proposing building submersible supertankers to ship Siberian petroleum beneath the polar ice. A nuclear PBR would be an ideal apllication for such a behemoth.

I definately can see the advantages of using nitrogen for simplicity--however, for all out efficiency and thermal transfer capacity helium is a good bet. If it weren't for hydrogen embrittlement, its flammability, and reactivity with carbon at high temperatures, hydrogen might actually be a better coolant than helium.

I seem to remember that the British experimented with a gas cooled reactor in the early 1960's that used carbon dioxide--I think that was the graphite moderated reactor that had the problem with Wigner energy, but I could be mistaken.

In his paper, Adams seems to 'hint' that smaller units may be possible. Perhaps small enough to fit into a train or bus? I have my doubts that a system could be made small enough that would still have the desired level of shielding and yet be largel enough to run a train or bus (Atleast without lethally irradiating the occupants!)
As for aircraft, the weight constraints are even more severe. A shielded reactor producing the necessary power to keep a plane aloft would almost surely either kill all of the passengers (no frequent flier miles there!) or would be too heavy to leave the ground. I can see PBR's for ships, but I am skeptical of planes, trains and automobiles!

24 PBMRs on order ?? .....helluva death spiral !

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/24/nuclear.pbmr/

Rethinking the nuclear option

Thursday, November 25, 2004

CAPE TOWN, South Africa (CNN) -- Koeberg Power Station, 27 kilometers north of Cape Town on South Africa's Atlantic coast, is the only nuclear plant on the African continent.

Since its two reactors were switched on in 1984, Koeberg has provided power for one of South Africa's fastest growing regions and now accounts for 6.5 percent of the country's electricity needs.

But it is a new, smaller facility, being built alongside the existing power station, that could put South Africa solidly on the nuclear energy map.

It's here that South Africa's first Pebble Bed Modular Reactor will be built.

Its developers hope that by 2010 the plant will be operational and providing enough electricity for Cape Town's four million residents and beyond.

The gas-cooled reactor uses more than half a million pebble shaped particles of enriched uranium which operate at high temperatures, increasing the amount of energy the reactor can convert into electricity.

The reactor is also small enough to be housed in a three-storey building and can't get hot enough to cause a meltdown.

Unlike conventional nuclear reactors, the "pocket nuke" doesn't need water as a coolant, which means it can be built away from rivers and the coast.

But, as well as convincing the public that nuclear energy is safe, PBMR, the company developing the reactor, also has to convince South African electricity giant Eskom, one of the biggest utilities companies in the world, that it offers a cost effective method of producing electricity.

"One of the things the pebble bed has to demonstrate once we've got it constructed would be that it can compete with any new coal station that we might bring onto the national grid," said Eskom spokesperson Carin de Villiers.

"If it cannot compete with that than we would have to look at other options. One of the things in all the tests they have done up until now from an economic point of view shows that it can actually compete with our coal stations bearing in mind that our coal stations are amongst the cheapest in the world to run.

"They have to be able to demonstrate that at the end of the day, and only then would we be interested in taking it."

Nuclear power fell out of political favor following the meltdown of the Soviet nuclear plant at Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986. At least 30 people died in that explosion while millions more were affected by fallout from the accident with a dramatic rise in local cases of thyroid cancer, leukemia and birth defects.

But PBMR believes the time is right to re-think the nuclear option, stressing financial benefits that will benefit both the country and individual utility companies.

"If we only export 10 reactors per year we can add 57,000 jobs directly and indirectly from skilled to unskilled to the South African economy and add up to 8 billion Rand to the GDP and 10 billion Rand to export income," says PBMR's Geraldine Bennett.

"Now that's only 10 and we are already looking at a potential order that's about to be signed for 24 reactors."

Financial arguments alone, however, are not enough to convince environmental lobby groups.

"If nuclear power is to produce a contribution to meeting our energy needs it needs to pass a number of tests," says Roger Higham of Friends of the Earth.

"It needs to be cost effective, it needs not to produce waste for tens of thousands of years and it needs to insure against nuclear proliferation, the misuse of nuclear facilities to make bombs or terrorist weapons."

Nuclear energy will undoubtedly encounter opposition, but dwindling supplies of fossil fuels are forcing people to look for alternative energy sources.

South Africa already supplies two thirds of Africa's electricity. From 2010 onwards it could be making an impact far beyond its own continent.

more "death spiral" news....

South African Government Plans To Appeal Ruling On PBMR Consultation

NucNet

Source: PBMR / DEAT

Editor: Editor: Daniel MacIsaac

2005 January 27

The South African department of environmental affairs and tourism (DEAT) has said that it will appeal a court decision from 26th January 2005, which ruled that there must be more consultation on the final environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the country’s Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project.

In making the ruling, the Cape High Court set aside the authorisation given by DEAT director-general Dr Chippy Olver for national utility Eskom to proceed toward the construction of the PBMR. The court, ruling in favour of the environmental group Earthlife Africa, said that the project authorisation must be preceded by a second round of consultation and stakeholder submissions.

PBMR communication manager Tom Ferreira said the approximately four-year EIA process has already involved considerable consultation. Interested parties had the opportunity to comment on the draft EIA in 2002, and the resulting feedback was incorporated into the final version of the EIA, which was submitted to the government at the end of 2002. Dr Olver gave his authorisation to the project in June 2003, and a two-month appeal period followed (see New No. 216, 30th June 2003). Since that time, PBMR has been awaiting a final government decision by Dr Olver’s superior, minister of environmental affairs and tourism Marthinus van Schalkwyk.

In its reply to the ruling, DEAT also described the assessment process as having been "highly inclusive and participatory" and announced that it has decided to appeal against the decision of the high court. DEAT chief director of communications JP Louw said the result of the ruling as it stands "is that the country’s development programme will be hamstrung, in a manner that could undermine good intentions of ensuring that environmental concerns are taken into account in the country’s reconstruction and development programme".

Mr Ferreira, however, also played down the significance of the 26th January 2005 ruling, noting that the ruling concerned "the process and not the merits of the PBMR". He said: "We do not see it as an insurmountable obstacle. At worst, it might cause a slight delay in the project schedule, and maybe not even that." He said near-term priorities for the PMBR project include submitting a construction-licence application and attracting new investors.

S.Africa to press ahead on nuclear plant - minister
Fri April 15, 2005

CAPE TOWN (Reuters) - South Africa is to press ahead with the development of a controversial highly advanced nuclear reactor that will put nuclear power at the heart of its energy sources, Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin said on Friday.

South Africa is scrambling for new energy sources to meet rising demand for power, forecast to outstrip supply within three years, and sees nuclear energy as crucial to meet future needs.

"Given the urgency with which we now have to address climate change and the hopes for future hydrogen energy sources the PBMR (pebble bed modular reactor) now assumes a key place in our long term planning," Erwin told parliament.

But the government's plans to build a multi-billion rand pebble bed modular reactor near Cape Town to add to its existing nuclear facility has faced opposition from environmentalists.

The pebble bed reactor is an advanced design that claims to dramatically improve safety and efficiency, but which environmentalists say is unsafe and creates radioactive waste.

A South African court suspended the project in February following a challenge by Earthlife Africa, and demanded the government give environmentalists more time to comment on its impact.

Erwin said the reactor was factored into South Africa's future energy planning and the government was negotiating a major purchase agreement between the company running the PBMR and state-owned electricity utility Eskom.

"This is probably a world first and forms the foundation for further development and industrialisation of this technology. It will place South Africa at the forefront of energy technology," he said.

South Africa hopes to produce a commercial pebble bed reactor within 10 years, exporting the technology internationally.

Nuclear energy from its Koeberg plant currently accounts for about 6 percent of South Africa's energy supply, with 88 percent sourced from coal.

South Africa's PBMR Signs 'Key Contract' With German Supplier
NucNet
Source: NucNet / PBMR
Editor: John Shepherd
2005 August 22

Germany's SGL Carbon group is to provide graphite material for testing at South Africa's Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), it was announced today.

The PBMR company's chief executive Jaco Kriek said a contract signed by both companies represented "yet another milestone in the development of the inherently safe PBMR technology".

SGL Carbon, which manufactures products made of carbon, graphite and composite materials for industrial and aerospace applications, will provide graphite components for testing the reactor's graphite reflectors.

The PBMR is being developed as a power source by South African utility Eskom, the South African Industrial Development Corporation and British Nuclear Fuels (see also News No. 49, 11th March 2005).

The reactor comprises a vertical steel pressure vessel measuring six metres in diameter and about 20 metres high. It is lined with a one-metre thick layer of graphite bricks, which serves as an outer reflector and a passive heat transfer medium. The graphite brick lining is drilled with vertical holes to house the control elements. The carbon components also act as a neutron moderator and shield against heat radiation.

Particles of enriched uranium oxide coated with silicon carbide and pyrolitic carbon are encased in graphite to form a fuel sphere or 'pebble' about the size of a tennis ball. When fully loaded, the PBMR core would contain 456,000 fuel spheres.

A South African division of Germany's Thyssenkrupp Engineering has been contracted to design and build a pilot fuel plant for the PBMR at Pelindaba near Pretoria by 2007 (see News in Brief No. 49, 2nd May 2005). Construction of a demonstration reactor is scheduled to start at Koeberg near Cape Town in 2007 and be completed by 2010. The first commercial PBMR modules are scheduled to be available from 2013.

South Africa's public enterprises minister Alec Erwin said recently that the PBMR would place the country at the forefront of energy technology, adding: "The project is now factored into our future energy planning, and we are negotiating a major intention-to-purchase agreement between Eskom and the PBMR company."

Meanwhile, South Africa's deputy president, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, will be one of the speakers at the first PBMR suppliers' conference starting on 24th August 2005 in Pretoria. Enterprises minister Mr Erwin will deliver the conference's opening address and Ms Mlambo-Ngcuka will address the gala dinner on 25th August.

PBMR communications manager, Tom Ferreira, will be one of the speakers at NucNet's 15th anniversary international symposium in Prague on 27th September 2005. For further details about the symposium, including registration forms, visit the home page of NucNet's web site (http://www.worldnuclear.org).

I wish the US would get on the PBMR band wagon. With the damage in Louisinia and Mississippi just beginning to be understood, petroleum supply for energy is getting to be a scarier problem everyday.

We need to find a different way to generate prime power instead of relying blindly on foreign oil. Nuclear is definately an option we need to exploit if we want to survive as a country...not to mention as a species...

NUCLEONICS WEEK SEPTEMBER 1, 2005
PBMR shareholders' accord sees state taking 30% direct stake
The South African government will take a direct 30% stake in PBMR (Pty)
Ltd., the company developing a small high-temperature gas-cooled reactor
(HTR) for the domestic and export market, under a shareholders' agreement concluded Aug. 24.
The agreement, which covers the period until a demonstration Pebble
Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is on line, expected about 2012, leaves state-owned utility Eskom with a 41% share.
But Eskom CEO Thulani Gcabashe said his company's stake would dilute over time to around 5%.
South Africa's Industrial Development Corp., also state-owned, will have a 14%
stake in PBMR Ltd., and British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL), the only foreign share-holder,
will retain 15% during the demonstration phase, according to PBMR Ltd.
Eskom's share includes a minimum of 10% set aside for black-owned businesses
under the country's Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) policy.
The agreement reflects the government's desire to allow the demonstration
reactor project to go forward despite the failure of PBMR Ltd. to
attract one or more additional investors. Pretoria and PBMR have
been courting Areva for two years, but the French vendor has said it isn't interested
in participating in the construction of the planned 110-MW PBMR
demo module at Eskom's Koeberg site.
For funding of the initial feasibility phase, the shares were given as: Eskom,
30%; BNFL, 22.5%; IDC, 25%; and Exelon, 12.5%, plus the
10% reserved for BEE. Exelon left the project in April 2002,
saying it didn't want to be a reactor supplier.
But as spending went on and the demo project was
delayed by technological and administrative issues, Eskom
essentially kept the PBMR project afloat. Eskom top management
expressed support for the project early last year, after a long silence.
But there was considerable dissent within the utility as to
the wisdom of supporting PBMR development, and "ene-
mies" within Eskom were working against the project, a senior
official said. Two years ago, PBMR's former chairman, a
senior Eskom executive, said the PBMR board was asking the
government to fund the demonstration phase in order to
reduce the risk for other investors (NW, 28 Aug. '03, 1).
Last year, the government decided that Eskom's role
should shift from that of developer to that of customer, and
for the first time allocated direct funding for the project,
totaling 600-million Rand (U.S.$91.6-million currently), to
allow placing of key strategic development contracts.
The government has said a domestic order for 4,000-
5,000 MW of PBMR capacity, translating into 20-30 reactor
modules, could be the basis for commercialization of the technology.
The shareholders' agreement means that "PBMR will no
longer be owned 100% by Eskom," said Jaco Kriek, CEO of
PBMR Ltd., in a telephone interview Aug. 29. The government's
stake will likely be held by the Department of Public
Enterprises, he said. DTI Director General Alistair Ruiters
became PBMR Ltd. chairman last year.
It also means the government and PBMR are "not relying"
on an injection of equity from a new foreign share-holder
like Areva "at this stage," he said.
Export incentives
The agreement was signed on the first day of a PBMR
Suppliers Conference held last week in Pretoria, which drew
348 people, including "a lot of very senior people," in addition
to PBMR management and staff, according to Kriek (NW, 25 Aug., 4).
Three cabinet ministers addressed the conference, plus
the new Deputy President, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngucka, who
as minister of minerals and energy set the PBMR project on
the road some years ago. In a dinner address, Mlambo-Ngucka
said PBMR fell into "the category of public entity
that we refer to as state-owned enterprises." That means
they have to operate within capital markets and "commercial
practices," she said. "The funds injected by the state
into the project will be considered as capital injections.
Accordingly, we are moving to ensure there will be a commercial
future for the PBMR and its ancillary products."
She said anticipated South African orders for the modular
HTRs would "provide the basis for this business case."
The ministers for trade and industry (DTI), minerals and
energy (DME), and public enterprises (DPE) also addressed
the PBMR suppliers' conference.
DTI minister Mandisi Mpahlwa emphasized the government's
desire for partnerships that would promote local
business participation in PBMR development and production.
"Our localization strategy will be evolved systematically
as the design and construction of the PBMR demonstration
unit progresses," Mpahlwa told the conference. Export
would also be encouraged, he added. "Once PBMR commences
delivering plants in other countries, the DTI will
consider support mechanisms such as export incentives,
credit guarantees and overcoming barriers to entry."
The ministers all stressed the potential for PBMR to raise
South Africa's scientific and technological level and create
jobs-as many as 57,000 new jobs would be created assuming
export of 10 PBMR modules a year, said Mpahlwa.
Mpahlwa said Pretoria aims for "establishment of an economically
viable and sustainable nuclear industry in South Africa."
DPE minister Alec Irwin said the funding approved last
year had enabled PBMR Ltd. to secure "strategic contracts for
the development of key components such as the turbine
machinery ... and a Helium Test Facility at Pelindaba."
A further key contract, for detail design for manufacturing
the planned reactor's spherical fuel elements, was signed
with RWE Nukem GmbH during the conference.
Irwin also said that the "energy model" the government
has crafted for South Africa, including introduction of the
PBMR, "rests on the use of Eskom as the anchor for the system
whilst allowing independent power producers into the system."
Kriek told Nucleonics Week the shareholders' agreement
concluded last week would take the PBMR project through
demonstration, now expected about 2012. He said that the
total project cost through then was projected at more than
R16-billion, of which about R14-billion remains to be spent.
About R500-million has been spent since November, when
remaining costs were estimated at R14.5-billion.
Eskom's contribution will amount to about 5% of the
total at the end of the demonstration phase, Kriek said. That
works out to about R800-million.
The shareholders' agreement encompasses spending for
the demonstration power plant and the planned pilot fuel
plant at Pelindaba, which is under the responsibility of the
Nuclear Energy Corp. of South Africa; the design of a multi-module
reactor plant; design of a commercial fuel plant; the
equity component of that plant; and "some commercial" activities, Kriek said.
Coega Development Corp., a state-owned entity that
manages the industrial port of Coega on South Africa's eastern
coast, may be involved in PBMR manufacturing activities
but "won't be an investor in PBMR," Kriek said. The
company had been rumored as a potential shareholder.
Kriek said the makeup of PBMR Ltd.'s board of directors
"will change" with the advent of additional directors expected
to be appointed by the government.
He estimated that the "outstanding issues" involved in
putting together the new PBMR Ltd. would be "wrapped up
in the next month," before the next board meeting in October.
No net savings
The PBMR design has changed significantly over the past
two years, and company officials say the modifications will
both increase the output of each PBMR module-the target
is now 400 thermal MW, or 165 electric MW-and bring the
cost down through simplification. They have cited the
switch from a vertical multi-shaft turbine to a more conventional
horizontal single-shaft design as one source of cost
savings, as well as lower technological risk.
But asked how much the new turbine design had lowered
the cost of a PBMR module, PBMR officials said there
were no net savings because the project had incurred additional
unexpected expenses.
"Any savings achieved by the new single-shaft design has
been absorbed by expenses incurred due to the delays caused
by the [Environmental Impact Assessment] process that needs
to be redone, as well as overhead costs due to later-than-anticipated
project release," PBMR Ltd. spokesman Tom Ferreira
said in an e-mail to Nucleonics Week. "It should be noted,
however, that the new design has also reduced the risk profile
of the design and therefore (of) the project," he added.
Kriek said that the upfront government funding for the
PBMR demo phase would reduce the risk of the whole venture,
meaning that once the reactor is operating, government
"could then sell equity off at a better price."
-Ann MacLachlan, Paris

M'bishi Heavy Wins Order for Key Structure of S. Africa's Nuke Plant

Tokyo, Dec. 6 Kyodo -- Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. said Tuesday it has received two orders for the core structure of a demonstration reactor of an advanced nuclear power plant to be built in South Africa.

The contracts are worth approximately $15 million or 1.8 billion yen in total. One is for the basic design of a key structure called a core barrel assembly (CBA), part of the pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR), and the other is for provision of forgings and procurement of items for the CBA.

Mitsubishi Heavy will start constructing the core structure for the PBMR with 165,000 kilowatt output in 2007 and will deliver the structure in 2011 to South Africa's national power utility, which plans to introduce the reactor into the country's grid system in 2013, the company said.

The South African government intends to increase the number of PBMRs in commercial use to 24 by 2020, according to the company.

According to Mitsubishi Heavy, the PBMR is a safe and cost-efficient reactor that uses silicon carbide-coated uranium particles encased in graphite for fuel, making it free from risk of reactor core meltdown. Helium gas is used as the coolant and energy transfer medium to a closed-cycle gas turbine and generator.

Spain's Equipos wins S.Africa nuclear contract

Reuters News, 24 January 2006

CAPE TOWN, Jan 24 (Reuters) - South Africa has awarded Spanish manufacturer Equipos Nucleares a 312 million rand ($51.90 million) contract to supply components for its advanced nuclear reactor, officials said on Tuesday.

The group will design and manufacture the main power system pressure boundary, the steel backbone for the proposed pebble bed modular reactor's (PBMR) demonstration power plant.

"We have been in lengthy negotiations wil the Spanish group and are confident that their international expertise and commitment to localisation initiatives will prove that we have made the best choice," Brent Hegger, project director for South Africa's PBMR company, said.

South Africa plans to build a multi-billion-rand pebble bed reactor near its only existing nuclear facility Koeberg, north of Cape Town, as it scrambles to find new energy sources to meet growing demand for electricity, with demand fast approaching supply.

The reactor is an advanced design that claims to dramatically improve safety and efficiency, but which environmentalists say is unsafe and creates radioactive waste.

The government sees nuclear power as central to meet future demand and hopes for a commercial pebble bed reactor within a decade.

The PBMR company has already signed contracts for components with a number of companies, including Germany's ThyssenKrupp Engineering and Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries .

The new reactor is being developed by electricity utility Eskom, the state-controlled Industrial Development Corporation and British Nuclear Fuels Limited.