Chemical Technology May 2016 low res1

5 / 36

COMMENT
Consulting editor:
Carl Schonborn, PrEng
Design & layout:
Colin Mazibuko
Circulation:
Karen Smith
Publisher:
Karen Grant
Director:
Jenny Warwick
Printed by:
Tandym Print - Cape Town
3
Chemical Technology • May 2016
Iam extremely pro-nuclear, not because I
work in the industry. I work in the nuclear
industry because I cannot see a viable
alternative for supplying the country with
clean energy. Maybe I am missing some-
thing; I hear on a daily basis about renew-
able energy being able to supply all the
needs of the country. When I do the calcula-
tions, however, things simply don’t add up.
Based on information from the US Energy
Information Administration (eia.gov) the capac-
ity factor for nuclear was 92,2 % in 2015 in
the US, with wind at 32,5 %, PV at 28,6 % and
solar thermal at 22,7 %. This is average data
over the entire year for a very large country,
so the notion that the wind is always blowing
somewhere simply is not true.
To put this data into perspective we need
to calculate how to install a stable MW of elec-
tricity from these sources. One MW installed
wind will provide on average 325 kW over the
entire year, 1 MW PV 286 kW, thermal solar
227 kW and nuclear, 92 2 kW. This also means
that for an equivalent wind and nuclear MW,
2,84 times the capacity of wind needs to be
installed. (For solar this factor is 3.22, for PV
and 4.06 for thermal solar.) Since these sup-
plies are still intermittent, an equal amount
of storage still need to be installed, thus
these storage mediums are, in my estimation,
80 % efficient, at best. This brings the factor
for wind to 3,408, PV to 3,864 and thermal
solar to 4,872.
When comparing cost, we are talking about
cost per installed kW. We then translate that to
kWh to determine the cost per unit of electric-
ity. From my calculation above it is clear that
installed kW does not translate directly to kWh.
If we make the (very incorrect) assumption that
the storage medium costs the same per kW of
storage as the generating capacity, we see that
the cost to install a nuclear equivalent kW of
wind will rise to 4,408 times that of the peak
capacity installation cost. (For PV this factor is
4,864 and for thermal solar, 5,872.)
While some claim that the cost of wind en-
ergy can be as low as 57c/kWh, the real base
load price rises to R2,51/kWh, for PVs, R2,77/
kWh and for solar thermal, R3,35/kWh. This
is if I assume all sources can provide a kWh
at 57c/kWh when available. Unfortunately,
reliability has a price tag.
The other argument is that renewable en-
ergy (RE) can augment gas turbine electricity
production. Here the calculation is simpler. If,
for every 1 MW of gas turbine supply we install
1MWof RE, it will simply result in a reduction of
one’s gas bill by 32,5 %, 28,6 % and 22,7 % re-
spectively. Based on the additional capital cost
of the installations I am not sure if this viable.
Germany’s case is an interesting one. With a
total installed base of 39 698 MW of solar PVs
in the country, the capacity factor in Germany
for PVs is at 14 %. That results in an average
capacity of 5 557,72 MW over a year. With
storage of 6 000 MW being 80 % efficient,
they would have 4446,18 MW of solar base
load capacity available. Because of this, this
massive PV capacity only contributes 6,2 % of
the consumed kWh in the country.
I am not against RE. Not at all, I believe it
has a place, but when I hear comments that
the uncertainty of the price of nuclear power
will prevent us from moving forward, I cannot
help but wonder how the other energy sources
costs stack up. Nuclear power has unique
capabilities that make it impossible even to
consider a low carbon energy future without it
being part of the mix.
I would welcome any comments. I truly want
to find solutions for the country to be real and
effective.
Email Dr Anthonie Cilliers at:
, or
telephone: +27 18 299 1312.
by Dr Anthonie Cilliers, Pr.Eng
The case for
nuclear power