8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES - Eskom · 8. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES . ... This section outlines both the...

8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

The DEAT EIA guidelines necessitate the consideration of various development alternatives or proposals as part of the EIA process. The consideration of project alternatives is a key requirement of an EIA as it provides a basis for choice for the competent authority and I&APs. The NEMA EIA Regulations 2006 define alternatives in relation to a proposed activity as “different means of meeting the general purpose and requirements of the activity, which may include alternatives to the –

(a) property on which or location where it is proposed to undertake the activity; (b) type of activity to be undertaken; (c) design or layout of the activity; (d) technology to be used in the activity; and (e) operational aspects of the activity;”

Alternatives that are considered must be reasonable and feasible and should have the potential to reduce negative impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed project. Alternatives are considered as a means of reaching the same need and purpose as the originally proposed project in a way that minimises the impacts and maximises the benefits. The advantages and disadvantages that alternatives may have on the environment must be described and a comparative assessment of all feasible and reasonable alternatives must be undertaken in the detailed assessment phase of the EIA process.

The no development alternative is briefly assessed in view of the South African power context. Thereafter, the activity alternative is considered synonymous with technological alternatives given that the ultimate objective i.e. to generate 40 000 MW of energy by 2025 can be achieved through various energy generation techniques, which is governed by technological advancements and the ability of the existing power infrastructure to effectively integrate into the power network. This section outlines both the non-renewable and renewable energy production options as well as the associated advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. It must be noted that while there are many alternative methods of energy production, not all are feasible in the South African context. Thus, each form of power generation is discussed in terms of its application in the South African context as well as current initiatives for the implementation of various energy generation options in South Africa. This EIA will identify those options that are feasible only, and assess the feasible alternatives in the detailed assessment phase of the EIA process. The alternative locations of the NPS were considered given the technical requirements associated with the strategic integration of the power through optimal utilisation of existing power corridors and transmission networks in conjunction with the existing baseline data obtained to date for five sites, namely Brazil; Schulpfontein; Duynefontein; Bantamsklip and Thyspunt.

Nuclear 1 EIA: Final Scoping Report Eskom Holdings Limited 8-1 Issue 1.0 / July 2008

8.1 No-Go (no development)

In the context of this project, the No-Go alternative implies that the NPS will not be constructed on any of the proposed alternative sites. The current biophysical, social and economic environments would not be altered by the development of the proposed project. The No-Go alternative would imply that potential benefits that emanate from the proposed project would not be realised. The potential benefits that may not be realised through the No-Go alternative include the following:

• • The supplies of base load power from diverse, secure, sustainable energy

sources, which have zero or relatively low greenhouse gas emissions; • The economic growth targets set by government within the Accelerated and

Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (AsgiSA) (http://www.info.gov.za/asgisa/asgisa.htm), which require that more than 40 000 MW of new electricity generating capacity be provided within the next twenty years;

• The reduction of coal fired contributions to power generation, that would be in line with Eskom’s long-term strategy to reduce GHG emissions; and

• The use of uranium, which apart from coal is the only primary energy source in South Africa that is suitable and available in sufficient quantities for base load applications.

In addition to potential benefits that would not be realised, potential negative impacts that could occur through the project would also be avoided with the No-Go option. The potential negative impacts that may occur as a result of the development of a NPS will be identified and assessed in the EIA Report.

8.1.1 Application of the development option in terms of the proposed project Nuclear energy has the potential to supply the base load electricity required, until alternative forms of base load electricity generation become reliable sources of power in sufficient quantities and which can easily be integrated into the existing South African transmission network. Without the proposed project, given the economic growth rates and existing power generation capacities, Eskom will be compelled to construct more Coal Fired Power Stations to meet the demand. Refer to Section 4.10 for the need and desirability of the project, which elaborates on South Africa’s current energy demand in context of its supply.

8.2 Alternative forms of Power Generation

The South African context provides for the utilisation of a variety of different energy sources. While the most widely used energy source is coal, potential does exist for a host of renewable energy sources to play a role in ensuring sustainable energy production, in response to global climate change. Eskom is in the process of exploring a number of different ways in which to generate electricity and is investing in further development of renewable technologies. Eskom manages the development of generating options by means of a process known as the ‘Project Funnel’ (Figure 66.


http://www.info.gov.za/asgisa/asgisa.htm

The project funnel refers to a broad array of potential projects that are based on different technologies and that can be seen collectively to address the need for increased generation capacity. A key element of the funnel is that it reflects where the different projects (and associated technologies) are in the development process (i.e. the stage of the development of these technologies).

Figure 66: Eskom’s Project Funnel

8.2.1 Application in the South African context In order for Eskom to achieve its objective i.e. the generation of 40 000 MW of power by 2025, Eskom require a reliable source of power generation that will supply a consistent base load that is efficiently integrated into the existing South African power network. Only certain electricity generation technologies are commercially available, although not necessarily financially viable in South Africa based on the availability of resources (fuel) and geographical constraints. The limited range of viable technologies is listed in


Table 17, together with the broad development phases of each.


Table 17: Summary of electricity generation technologies that are commercially available to, but not necessarily financially viable for Eskom

Development phase Technology Conventional coal (pulverised fuel) Nuclear Power Stations

New coal based technologies • Fluidised bed combustion • Supercritical coal stations

Proven (base load)

Imported hydro Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (but insufficient quantities of to fuel are available)

Open cycle gas turbine Pumped storage schemes

Proven (peak load)

Hydro on the Orange River Wind Proven (non-dispatchable45) Concentrated Solar Thermal Nuclear (PBMR) Demonstration Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) Tidal and ocean current Research Biomass

8.3 Non-Renewable Energy

8.3.1 Pulverised Coal

Coal is the primary energy source for electricity generation in South Africa. Approximately 90 % of electricity generation in South Africa is derived from coal-fired power stations. Eskom’s coal-fired power stations are specifically designed to burn low-grade coal, which would otherwise not be utilised and would be a waste product emanating from the coal mines. South Africa has significant coal resources. On average, South Africa produces 224 million tonnes of marketable coal annually, of which 25 % is exported internationally, 53 % is used for electricity generation and the remainder is used for various local industries. The South African Chamber of Mines estimates that South Africa’s coal reserves are at 53 billion tonnes, which has an expected supply of almost 200 years (http://www.bullion.org.za), hence coal will continue to be used in the future. Electricity is produced in coal-fired power stations by means of the combustion of pulverised, fine coal powder in boilers. The heat boils water into steam, which is used to turn the blades of a giant fan or propeller, called a turbine. The turbine is attached to the generator, consisting of a coil made of copper wire (the rotor) inside a magnet

45 Non-dispatchable: A resource whose electrical output is not available at short notice and cannot be controlled or regulated to match the electrical energy requirements of the electric system, and is affected by phenomena such as the time of day or weather conditions.


http://www.bullion.org.za/

(the stator), and causes the rotor of the generator to turn inside the stator, thereby producing an electric current, which is sent to the consumers via power lines.

(a) Advantages

• South Africa has abundant coal reserves; • Coal-fired power stations are reliable; and • South Africa's infrastructure to generate electricity from coal is well

established.

(b) Disadvantages

• Coal has one of the greatest waste problems of all energy sources. Waste includes sulphur and nitrogen oxides, organic compounds, heavy metals, radioactive elements, greenhouse gases and large amounts of ash;

• Contributes to climate change; • Building a coal-fired power station is a lengthy and expensive process; • The transportation of coal is very expensive and hence coal-fired power

stations are located as close to the mines as possible in order to maintain their economic viability. Thus, coal-fired power stations are located inland and hence if wet cooling is used, power stations use considerable quantities of scarce water resources, or if dry cooling is used, the power stations are deemed relatively inefficient and water is used in relatively less quantities;

• South Africa's coal fields are concentrated in Mpumalanga (east of Gauteng) and Limpopo Provinces, which limits the location options for power stations; and

• Requires expensive air pollution controls (e.g. Particulate matter). (c) Application in the South African context Pulverised coal-fired power stations currently provide approximately 90 % of the electricity produced in South Africa. Based on the availability of coal in South Africa, and its relative price advantage, coal-fired power stations will continue to provide the majority contribution to the supply of electricity in South Africa. However, in order for coal to be financially viable, coal-fired power stations need to be located in close proximity of the coal mines to avoid the costly transportation of coal over long distances by road or rail. Coal-fired power stations are therefore currently located in the Northern and Eastern parts of South Africa. Future coal-fired power stations are also likely to be located in the same regions of South Africa. Coal-fired power stations are therefore not a viable option for power generation in the Cape. Thus, long power lines are required to transfer electricity from power stations in the coal rich areas to load centres located away from the pitheads46, which in turn implies high capital costs and transmission losses (essentially the energy required to transmit electricity along power lines).

8.3.2 Fluidised Bed Combustion (FBC) Fluidised Bed Combustion (FBC) is a combustion technology used in power plants. FBC occurs whereby coal or biomass is burnt in a bed or dense cloud of aerodynamically suspended particles, resulting in turbulent mixing of gas and solids, which provides more effective chemical reactions and heat transfer. Limestone is used to precipitate out the sulphur during combustion, which allows for more efficient

46 A pithead is a term used to make reference to the entrance to a coal mine.


heat transfer and cooler temperatures. Cooler temperatures result in the emission of less NOx into the atmosphere than conventional coal burning power stations.

(a) Advantages

• These technologies offer improved thermal efficiency and in many cases

improved environmental performance when compared with conventional thermal power plants;

• Wide range of fuel adaptability, which allows for the use of low grade coal, biomass and waste tyres;

• Decreased emissions of NOx and SOx when compared to PF technologies; • Higher combustion efficiency than traditional conventional coal fired stations; • Space saving and improved maintenance ability; and • FBC allows for fuel flexibility as lower grade (high sulphur content) coal can be

used and coal can be supplemented with different types of biomass.

(b) Disadvantages

• FBC has a lower efficiency than that of sub or super critical pulverised coal-fired plants; and

• Increase in GHG emissions per unit of electricity produced, when compared to conventional sub critical PF coal fired stations.

(c) Application in the South African context

FBC technology has not yet been implemented in South Africa. Studies are underway to investigate its viability in the South African electricity supply context. Similar to pulverised coal power stations, FBC technology, if implemented is likely to be located near to the coal fields and hence is not appropriate for power generation on the Cape coast because of the transportation costs associated with the coal derived primarily on the eastern interior of South Africa.

8.3.3 Open cycle gas turbines Open cycle gas turbines consist of a compressor, combustion chamber and a turbine. The compressor takes in ambient air and raises its pressure. Heat is added to the air in the combustion chamber by burning the fuel and thereby raising the temperature. The heated gases emanating from the combustion chamber are passed to the turbine where it expands and thereby does mechanical work. The open gas cycle turbine differs from the Combined Cycle Gas Turbine in that the air that passes through the turbine, is not re-used, but transferred to the atmosphere for cooling. The advantages and disadvantages (Raja et al., 2006) associated with open cycle gas turbines are listed below: (a) Advantages

• Plants are generally limited to a generation capacity of 150 MW per unit; • Once the turbine is brought up to the rated speed by the starting motor and

the fuel is ignited, the gas turbine will be accelerated from cold start to full load without warm up time, thereby favouring peak load generation;

• Low weight and size; • Almost any hydrocarbon fuel from high octane gasoline to heavy diesel oils

can be used in the combustion chamber; and • The plant is independent of a cooling medium.


(b) Disadvantages

• A considerable percentage of the power generated is used to drive the compressor;

• The plant is sensitive to changes in the atmospheric air temperature, pressure and humidity;

• GHG emissions, although the emissions are considerably less than that associated with coal-fired power stations;

• Utilises diesel, oil and gas as a fuel source and is therefore expensive to operate over prolonged periods; and

• High heat losses. (c) Application in the South African context In South Africa, as a result of the absence of large gas reserves, current OCGT plants utilise diesel, rendering these plants extremely expensive to run for extended periods of time. South Africa’s current OCGT plants are only utilised to meet peak demand and for emergency power generation.

8.3.4 Combined cycle gas turbine Combined cycle gas turbine technology increases power-generation cycle efficiency by combining two or more energy cycles, namely: a high-temperature gas turbine cycle and a steam turbine cycle. The exhaust gases from the gas turbine are cooled in a heat-recovery steam generator (HRSG) and the steam is sent to a steam turbine for additional electricity generation. Thus, electricity is generated from the gas turbine generator and from the HRSG. The process is referred to as a combined cycle because the heat generated from the first cycle is used to run a second cycle. (a) Advantages

• These plants generally make use of a natural gas resource as the primary energy input from which the electricity is generated.

• Utilise waste from the combustion chamber and is therefore efficient (b) Disadvantages

• GHG emissions, although such emissions are considerably less than that associated with coal-fired power stations;

• Utilises fuels such as diesel, oil or gas. In South Africa large supplies of gas do not exist, therefore diesel is likely to be the fuel of choice, which renders these plants extremely expensive to run.


Currently, Combined Cycle Gas Turbine technology is not used in South Africa due to the lack sufficient quantities of indigenous natural gas and the cost of importing the natural gas.

8.3.5 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) The integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) produces electricity from a solid or liquid fuel. Firstly, the fuel is converted to synthetic gas (syngas), which is a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Secondly, the syngas is converted to electricity in a combined cycle consisting of a gas turbine process and a steam turbine process, which includes a Heat Recovery Steam Generator (Maurstad, 2005). The combined


cycle technology is similar to the technology used in modern natural gas fired power plants. The technology is associated with the release of GHG, however, it allows for the inclusion of the necessary technologies to potentially remove and store the CO2. (a) Advantages

• Low stack emissions, efficiencies of up to 48 %, very high (98 %) sulphur

removal rates and it also offers the potential to remove CO2 from the syngas for carbon sequestration; and

• Able to convert “difficult” liquid and solid fuels to electricity at high efficiencies and with low emissions.

(b) Disadvantages

• High capital costs; and • Limited availability as the technology is still considered to be in the

demonstation phase of development and is not yet commercially proven.


IGCC technology is not used in South Africa as a result of the high capital costs and because it is not yet commercially proven.

8.3.6 Natural Gas Natural gas contains about twice as much energy per unit greenhouse gas emitted compared to coal, so substantial reductions in emissions, per unit electricity generated, are possible. South Africa has very modest natural gas reserves off the Southern Coast and in the form of coal-bed methane in the Waterberg. The introduction of natural gas into South Africa's mainstream energy supply is an important step in the fulfilment of one of the major objectives of the White Paper on Energy Policy (http://www.dme.gov.za/energy/gas.stm). Based on the fact that proven gas resources off the Western and Southern Cape are not large, and the viability of the reserves off the West Coast have not yet been proven, the development of infrastructure that will allow for the import of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is being considered. Natural gas is currently being imported to South Africa from Mozambique. Approximately 3.5 % of South Africa’s Energy use is currently supplied from natural gas. Natural gas generators convert heat into electricity and produce 40 to 50 % less CO2 emissions for the same amount of electricity generated from Coal (http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/AlterntiveToNuclearPower).

(a) Advantages

• The use of natural gas will introduce an internationally well tested and tried

technology, which will be an important tool towards cleaner energy in South Africa; and

• The introduction of a LNG terminal will also open alternative energy sources for other high-energy users (i.e. industries), which if used in direct heating, will increase the efficiency of energy usage in South Africa.

(b) Disadvantages

• Limited availability; and • Expensive to generate electricity.


http://www.dme.gov.za/pdfs/energy/planning/wp_energy_policy_1998.pdf

http://www.dme.gov.za/pdfs/energy/planning/wp_energy_policy_1998.pdf

http://www.dme.gov.za/energy/gas.stm

(c) Application in the South African context South Africa currently does not have power stations fuelled by natural gas, based on the non-availability of sufficient quantities of indigenous natural gas, and the cost of imported natural gas. The DME and the South African Gas Development Company (iGas, which is the national gas infrastructure company) have been investigating the feasibility of developing an integrated power project within the Coega Industrial Development Zone (IDZ) located near Port Elizabeth. The construction of a LNG Terminal planned at the Port of Ngqura, will facilitate the supply of gas to industries in the Coega IDZ, and at a later stage to the region. Gas, together with the electricity supply in the region, will establish an energy hub for all users. The EIA process for this project is currently underway.

8.4 Renewable Energy

Renewable forms of electricity generation are highly desirable in terms of minimising the impact on the environment. The White Paper on Renewable Energy (2004) set a target for the implementation of renewable energy in South Africa. With this goal renewable energy options have been included since into the Integrated National Energy Planning (INEP) as complementary supply-technologies. However, renewable energy is not adequately developed to achieve Eskom’s current objective.

8.4.1 Solar In South Africa, most areas average more than 2 500 hours of sunshine per year and the average solar radiation levels range between 4.5 and 6.5 kWh/m2 in one day. This renders South Africa’s local solar resource one of the highest in the world. Solar energy is safe, ‘environmentally friendly’ and produces no emissions. It is the most readily accessible resource in South Africa and lends itself to a number of potential uses. South Africa’s solar-equipment industry is developing, for example, the annual photovoltaic (PV) panel-assembly with a total capacity of five MW. In addition, there are a number of solar water heater manufacturing companies. Water-heating accounts for a third to half of the energy consumption, in average households. Modeling indicates that the introduction of solar water heating can ameliorate the situation substantially and switching from electrical to solar water heating can, therefore, have significant economic and environmental benefits (http://www.dme.gov.za/energy/renew_solar.stm). As part of a six-month pilot project, the Central Energy Fund (CEF) commenced a rollout programme of solar heaters in March 2007, with the focus on middle-to high-income households in Gauteng, the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. Eskom fully supports such initiatives. (a) Solar Photovoltaic The Photovoltaic (PV) effect is a phenomenon that depends on quantum physics, and allows specific materials to directly convert solar radiation to electricity in solar panels (Figure 67). The panels, however, are much more expensive than the equivalent amount of coal, petrol or gas. A number of different solar cell materials exist, but the most promising PV materials, based on the potential for cost reduction, is the thin film


http://www.dme.gov.za/energy/renew_solar.stm

materials, such as Copper-Indium-Gallium-Diselenide (CIGS). The application of PV systems is most suited to building integrated or stand-alone off-grid systems.

(i) Advantages

• During operation, the technology contributes nothing to carbon dioxide

emissions; • The energy used to make a panel is recovered within 1-2 years of operation,

beyond which a further 13-18 years of net energy production remain; • The supporting materials, i.e. glass could in principle be recycled into new

panels at the end of the lifetime of a panel; • Solar photovoltaic technology can be produced in any desired amount, from a

few milliwatts to many megawatts; and • Suitable for very remote areas, where grid access is marginal

(http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/november/energy.htm).

(ii) Disadvantages

• Without battery storage, the energy is not available all the time; • High capital costs; • Demand can be highest when least available, e.g. winter solar heating; • Does require special materials for mirrors/panels that can affect environment;

and • Current technology requires large amounts of land for small amounts of

energy generation.

(iii) Application in the South African context: Solar thermal plants are a mature technology but have a relatively high cost per kilowatt-hour when compared with coal and nuclear power. However, the Department of Physics at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa have developed and patented a novel manufacturing technique that makes it possible to construct CIGS solar panels at a lower cost. While remaining much cheaper to produce than conventional silicon solar panels, the method is theoretically easy to scale up to industrial output levels. A 60 W panel would cost around R 490, or R 8 a watt, compared to imported panels entering local soil at R 35 to R 40 a watt (http://www.eskom.co.za/live/content.php? Item_ID=702andRevision=en/0). The prototype has been made and the pilot plant has produced its first units. A full-size plant is being constructed in Germany, with the possibility of the panels reaching SA shores towards mid 2008.


Figure 67: Stirling Dish (b) Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) The CSP technology being considered by Eskom is a molten salt-type, Central Receiver technology that is based on the concept of thousands of large two axes tracking mirrors (known as heliostats), which track the sun and reflect the beam radiation onto a common focal point (receiver) (Figure 68). This receiver is located on a tower well above the heliostat field in order to prevent interference between the reflected radiation and the other heliostats. A central receiver is situated on the top of the central tower transfers the heat to the working fluid (the molten salt circulated through it), which in turn is used to generate steam. Electrical power is then generated through a Rankine cycle (steam turbine process) (http://www.eskom.co.za/content/GFS0042%20ConcentrSolPowRev0.doc).


Figure 68: Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Plant (i) Advantages

• No fuel cost; • MW scale power generation possible, up to potentially 200 MW per CSP plant; • The power generated is potentially dispatchable through built-in energy

storage; and • High potential for local content. •

(ii) Disadvantages

• Production cost still higher than conventional sources; • Commercial maturity of the technology. Current technology requires large

amounts of land for small amounts of energy generation; • Without battery storage, the energy is not available all the time; and • Demand can be highest when least available, e.g. winter solar heating.

(iii) Application in the South African context Solar thermal plants have higher availability than wind generators because the heat can be stored, but the plants require large areas of mirrors to adequately concentrate the solar energy to generate power. CSP technologies have been identified as having the potential to be employed on a large scale. Environmental and technical studies previously undertaken identified the Upington area (which has one of the highest solar resource values in the world) in the Northern Cape as a viable site for the establishment of a CSP. Eskom is assessing the feasibility of constructing a CSP Plant in the Northern Cape. An EIA has been completed and Eskom have received all the necessary environmental authorisations. The facility will have a maximum capacity of 100 MW, which requires approximately four square km of terrain.


8.4.2 Wind

Harnessing the wind, through wind turbines, produces wind energy. It is an energy source that is only practical in areas that have moderate strong and steady winds. South Africa has a moderate to strong wind potential, particularly around coastal areas of Western and Eastern Cape.

(a) Advantages

• Wind energy is clean and non-polluting, as it does not produce any by-

products that could be harmful to the environment; • Wind energy can be generated during the day and at night; • Well suited to rural areas; • Wind turbines make use of simple technology in terms of design and building; • Wind energy is competitive compared to other renewable energy sources; and • It is safe if properly maintained.

(b) Disadvantages

• The inconsistent nature of the wind results in non-dispatchability; • Limited to small generator size; need many towers and thus large tracts of

land; • Need expensive energy storage (e.g. batteries); • Relative low usage factor; and • Not cost competitive with conventional sources.

(c) Application in the South African context Wind power is a relatively expensive form of power, with limited availability (periods in which power is generated). In 2003, Eskom installed three wind turbines for demonstration and research at Klipheuwel, located near Cape Town (Figure 69) with a total capacity of 3.2 MW. Overall, the total annual production has been just over four Gigawatt hours (GWh). Based on the positive results from Klipheuwel, Eskom is currently busy with the development of a 100 MW wind farm on the West Coast, located near Vredendal.


Figure 69: Klipheuwel Wind Generator

The Darling wind farm is a private initiative, also located in the Western Cape. This facility is expected to produce a total output of 5.2 MW.

8.4.3 Biomass Biomass energy is the energy obtained from the methane gas captured from landfill sites; farm, industrial, and household organic waste; plant material either raw or processed; agricultural residues; wood waste; paper trash; organic municipal solid waste; energy crops; from specially cultivated organisms and trees. Biomass is considered as renewable, given that only a short period of time is required to replace what is used as an energy source. Electricity, heat or liquid fuels can be generated from biomass. (a) Advantages

• It is a renewable energy source; • It reduces the emissions of NOx and SOx in power generation; • If waste is used, the cost of fuel is low; and • The use of waste optimises the usage of the biomass resource.

(b) Disadvantages

• The biomass units are generally quite small; • If dedicated fast growing crops are used it must compete with other

agricultural activities for land. It can therefore be an expensive fuel; • Could potentially promote mono-agriculture in specific areas; • Fast growing crops need substantial land areas; • Inefficient if small plants are used; and • Transport of fuel can be expensive, even if it is free. Proximity of the power

plant to the fuel source is therefore an important consideration in terms of siting (http://www.eskom.co.za/live/content.php? Item_ID=278andRevision=en/0).



Various independent projects are currently underway to look at the use of bagasse, wood wastes and landfill gas for power generation projects. Biomass is used successfully where there are large quantities of biomass available such as in the sugar cane industry, but is limited by the volumes of biomass required to generate an adequate power supply. The System Johannesen Gasifier, which makes use of wood and other biomass, produces a virtually “tar free” gas, which is then used to power an electricity generator. This System Johannesen Gasifier was constructed in conjunction with Eskom’s Research Department in an effort to utilise small waste streams in the vicinity of rural communities. The System Johannesen Gasifier was developed as a self contained, efficient and reliable alternative source of convenient energy for use in remote areas that are removed from the grid supply. A pilot plant at a rural sawmill in the Eastern Cape is currently being developed. The bio-energy initiatives are in the early stages of project development, for example Eskom has participated in a pilot project led by the DME, which investigates green power trading. Eskom is also currently investigating whether these options can be utilised for large-scale power generation.

8.4.4 Ocean power Ocean power can manifest itself in wave, current, tidal and ocean-thermal sources. In the case of wave power, energy is produced through the creation of waves by wind blowing over the ocean surface. This energy is stored until it reaches the shallows and beaches of the coast, where it is released. Wave energy technology involves two basic elements, a collector to capture the wave energy and a turbo generator to transform the wave power into electricity.

(a) Advantages

• The oceans represent a vast natural energy resource in the form of waves, currents and other phenomena;

• The World Energy Council estimates that two terawatts of energy could be harvested from the world's oceans, the equivalent of twice the world's electricity production; and

• If less than 0.1 % of the renewable energy within the oceans could be converted into electricity it would satisfy the present world demand for energy more than five times over

• (http://www.eskom.co.za/live/content.php?Category_ID=126).

(b) Disadvantages

• Individual wave power machines only generate small amounts of electricity; • The various options are not commercially mature; • High costs compared to conventional technologies; and • Possible high environmental impacts.


Eskom is currently investigating the resource availability of wave power along the eastern and western coastline of South Africa. Wave data was captured and


manipulated to determine the feasibility of wave energy as a future primary resource. The feasibility study provided positive results, and Eskom then considered different ocean energy conversion technologies in order to determine the best technology to be used on our coastlines. Thus far, no local or international technology has been found to be commercially viable for possible implementation in South Africa. However, Eskom will continue monitoring these technologies until such a time as technology proved to be technically sound and economically feasible for inclusion into Eskom's energy generation mix. Ocean current technology is presently being implemented on a pilot scale only. The Agulhas Current is one of the strongest currents in the world and is therefore a suitable candidate for ocean current technology.

8.4.5 Fuel cell Fuel cells use a chemical reaction (in which hydrogen and oxygen are combined, with water being the by-product) to produce electricity. Chemical energy from a fuel, such as hydrogen, is converted into electricity and heat, with water being the only waste product. It is similar to a battery in that it also produces direct current electricity. However, unlike a battery, which is limited to the stored energy within it, a fuel cell is able to generate power as long as fuel is supplied (http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php? a_id=106454). This technology consumes fewer resources and produces energy without combustion and is environmentally friendly. It has been used in prototype applications to power vehicles, cell phones, laptops and other appliances and even homes and industrial machinery.

(a) Advantages

• No emissions are produced through the use of fuel cell technology; • Only water and heat are emitted as a by product; • No noise is produced; and • Fuel cells use fuels with low or neutral carbon content at high electrical

efficiencies, and thus have the potential for significant GHG emission reductions.

(b) Disadvantages

• The technology is largely in its research phase; • High cost; and • Small sizes ensures that limited energy is produced.


Theoretically hydrogen, as an energy carrier, has unlimited potential to supply future energy needs, but cost-effective production of hydrogen from renewable sources has not yet been accomplished. Fuel cells will also require considerable investment in hydrogen infrastructure. Eskom, Intelligent Agency and Afrox are undertaking a pilot project for the implementation of fuel cell technology in remote rural areas not served by the national electricity grid. The fuel cells could be used to run medical appliances, communications equipment, water pumps, radios, televisions and computers. Fuel cell technology is well placed to become a major contender in the provision of cost-effective, decentralised heat and power to rural and remote communities.


8.4.6 Hydro-power

(a) Conventional hydro power In a hydroelectric scheme, water is stored in a dam and passed through a turbine and generator set before being released back into the river downstream. It is important to note that the power station does not consume any water in this process. It only uses the energy contained in running water to turn its turbines. A characteristic of hydroelectric power stations is their ability to react very quickly to changes in consumer demand. (i) Advantages

• Water is a renewable source of energy; • Very inexpensive once dam is built; and • The process of electricity generation has no emissions.

(ii) Disadvantages

• Very limited source since it depends on water elevation; • Dam collapse usually leads to loss of life; • Dams have effects on ecological processes and restricts migration of species;

and • Environmental damage as a result of inundation by the reservoir and potential

for downstream flooding.

(iii) Application in the South African context South Africa currently has two relatively large hydro power stations located on the Orange River, and some mini hydro power stations located in the Eastern Province. South Africa is a dry country with few rivers suitable for hydroelectric plants and hence it is unlikely that additional large hydro power stations will be constructed in South Africa.

(b) Micro-hydro power This technology diverts water from a river using a dam or a weir, while protecting the intake by use of a screen. The water is transported to the fore bay using a canal or pipeline, from which it is taken to the penstock. The turbines drive a generator either directly or by means of a mechanical transmission. Electricity can be transmitted by means of an underground cable or overhead line. The amount of water and the height it falls through will determine the amount of power available, with 9,8 kW of power available from each cubic metre per second of water falling through one metre (http://www.eskom.co.za/live/content.php? Category_ID=123).

(i) Advantages

• Power is continuous and available on demand; • The process is environmentally friendly; • Limited maintenance, low running costs; and • The technology is long lasting and robust.


(ii) Disadvantage • Micro-hydropower is highly site specific.

(iii) Application in the South African context Eskom has concluded that microhydro is not a feasible option for South African circumstances as it is not economically viable at this stage.

(c) Pumped Storage Scheme The turbines in pumped storage schemes function as conventional hydro turbines in the generating mode. However, the turbines of a pumped storage scheme can reverse direction to pump the water back again to the upper dam. In the pump mode the generator becomes a huge motor, which absorbs electricity from the network in order to drive the machine in the pump direction. The power station is located between an upper and lower dam and water runs from the upper dam through the station's turbines and into the lower dam where it is stored. During periods when there is sufficient electricity available, the machines are put into pump mode to pump water from the lower dam back into the upper dam where it is stored until the station needs to generate again. Pumped storage schemes are suitable for meeting peak electricity demand.

(i) Advantages

• Water is a renewable source of energy; • The process of electricity generation has no emissions; • Pumped storage schemes allow energy to be stored in the form of the water in

their upper and lower dams; and • The pumped storage schemes operate around the clock, meet the morning

and evening peaks and can be used to regulate the voltage.

(ii) Disadvantages

• Pumped storage is not considered a regular power generation facility since these stations are net users of electricity;

• South Africa is a dry country with few sites suitable for pumped storage schemes; and

• The construction of dams associated with the pumped storage schemes has impacts on the environment that must be mitigated.

(iii) Application on the South African context

There are two pumped storage schemes, listed below, in South Africa that are owned by Eskom and operated in conjunction with the DWAF as part of water transfer schemes.

• Pumped Storage Scheme in the Western Cape (Palmiet). This scheme can

also be used to pump additional water from the Palmiet River via the Rockview Dam to the Steenbras Dam to supplement the Cape Town water supply; and

• Drakensberg Pumped Storage Scheme in the KwaZulu Natal Drakensberg. This scheme is able to transfer 20 m3 of water per second from the Kilburn


Eskom is currently constructing an additional pumped storage scheme on the Free State / KwaZulu Natal escarpment and an additional pumped storage scheme is also proposed for the Limpopo area.

8.5 Nuclear Power Plant Types

8.5.1 Nuclear fission

With nuclear fission, certain nuclides can react with slow neutrons (meaning those with kinetic energies less than 1 electron-volt = 1.6 x 10-19J), and undergo nuclear fission. U-235 atoms contained in the fuel are converted to a very unstable isotope, U-236, which then breaks up into smaller atoms as well as an average of 2-3 neutrons that are produced for every atom of uranium (Figure 70). These neutrons then cause the fission of more uranium atoms, which is called a nuclear chain reaction. Through this process, a vast amount of energy is released as heat, which NPSs harvest by controlling the reaction in nuclear reactors (http://www.physchem.co.za/Atomic/Radioactivity.htm#Fission).

Figure 70: Graphic Depiction of Nuclear Fission Koeberg NPS uses nuclear fission technology.

8.6 Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) Technology

Two power plant type alternatives belonging to the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) technology family are under consideration by Eskom for the proposed NPS. Nuclear fuel is used to heat water in a reactor in a similar way that the heat from burning coal in a coal-fired power station is used to boil water and create steam. A very high pressure is maintained in the primary circuit of PWR to prevent the water from boiling. The typical pressure in the reactor pressure vessel, which forms part of the primary circuit, is approximately 150 bars, and the temperature in the reactor is approximately 300°C. Water is boiled in a secondary circuit to create steam.

As depicted in Figure 71, the pressurised water in the primary circuit indicated in yellow passes through separate steam generator loops, giving up some of its heat in the process, from where it is pumped back into the reactor (primary circuit) where it


picks up more heat. The water in the secondary circuit indicated in red is converted into steam, which turns the turbine and the electrical generator. After the steam has passed through the turbine it is condensed back to water so that pumping it back to the steam generators’ secondary circuit side where once again it is converted into steam, which can be reused. The steam is condensed to water by cooling water, which is in a third separate circuit indicated in green.

Figure 71: Basic plant layout of Koeberg Nuclear Power Station (NPS)

(www.eskom.co.za/education/visit/koeberg_body.htm)

8.6.1 Application in the South African context PWR are the most commonly used nuclear reactors both locally and globally. The existing NPS, Koeberg, uses PWR technology and it is therefore a proven, reliable and tested form of power generation. Eskom is therefore familiar with the technology from health and safety as well as operational perspectives based on its experience with Koeberg. Eskom’s preference for a PWR is based on the following principles:

• There is no good reason to depart from the family of PWR technology, currently being employed at Koeberg, with which Eskom is experienced;

• It is advantageous to have two similar nuclear power types in South Africa as the PWR has already been used successfully;

• Standardisation in terms of world trends in technology is preferred; • 70 % of the 30 nuclear units currently under construction worldwide are of the

PWR technology; and • Utilities in China, Finland, France, USA have either signed memoranda of

understanding or placed orders for PWRs.

8.7 Pressurised Water Reactor Types

There are a number of current designs for PWRs available in the market today, and Eskom has identified two potential designs to meet their need for the new NPS, being


the Franco-German designed EPR and the US designed AP1000. These two designs represent the two principle approaches used in modern PWRs. The key difference between the designs is the philosophy of management of severe plant events. In the case of the EPR the design makes use of multiple (4), independent systems to ensure that reactor is kept supplied with cooling water, with these systems being electrically powered by separate diesel generators. In the case of the AP1000 the plant is kept supplied with water by gravity feed from water tanks, with recirculation by condensation against the steel containment structure. The pressure in the Primary Circuit is lowered by vent valves (into the containment) to allow the low-pressure water in. The EPR and AP1000 are some of the very latest designs on the market and are currently on order in China (4 AP1000 and 2 EPR), France (1 EPR) and Finland (1 EPR). The Finnish EPR is under construction and due for completion in 2011. The other ordered reactors will be in operation before the first Eskom reactor is proposed to be complete. The comparison of the EPR and the AP1000 will be undertaken during the detailed assessment of the EIA phase as these are regarded, by Eskom, as two viable and well recognised options to meet Eskom’s objectives. Some important elements of these two plant types are described below (information supplied by Eskom Holdings Limited).

8.7.1 EPR (a) Introduction The EPR pressurised water reactor design was created by the Franco-German nuclear plant manufacturer Framatome ANP (66 % owned by the French AREVA Group). This is an evolutionary design based on years of operating experience from French and German NPS (Figure 72).


Figure 72: European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) Power Station

(b) Overview of EPR Design The EPR is a four-loop plant with a rated thermal power of 4,500 MW and an electrical output in the order of 1,600 MW. The EPR design features include:

• Four redundant trains of emergency core cooling; • Containment and shield building; • A core melt retention system for severe accident mitigation; and • An expected design life of 60 years.

The EPR has four loops each with one Steam Generator and one reactor coolant pump. The Primary Circuit is contained within a concrete containment building. A shield building encloses the containment building with an annular space between the two buildings. The pre-stressed concrete shell of the containment building is furnished with a steel liner and the shield-building wall is reinforced concrete. The containment and shield buildings comprise the reactor building. Four safeguard buildings and a fuel building surround the reactor building. The internal structures and components within the reactor building, fuel building, and two safeguard buildings (including the plant control room) are protected against aircraft hazard and external explosions. The other two safeguard buildings are not protected against aircraft hazard or external explosions; however, the reactor building, which restricts damage from these external events to a single safety division, separates them. Redundant 100 % capacity safety systems (one per safeguard


building) are strictly separated into four divisions. This divisional separation is provided for electrical and mechanical safety systems. The four divisions of safety systems are consistent with an N+2 safety concept. With four divisions, one division can be out-of-service for maintenance and one division can fail to operate, while the remaining two divisions are available to perform the necessary safety functions even if one is ineffective due to the initiating event. In the event of a loss of off-site power, each safeguard division is powered by a separate emergency diesel generator (EDG). In addition to the four safety-related diesels that power various safeguards, two independent diesel generators are available to power essential equipment during a postulated station blackout (SBO) event-loss of off-site AC power with coincident failure of all four EDGs. Water storage for safety injection is provided by the in-containment refuelling water storage tank (IRWST). Also inside containment, below the reactor pressure vessel (RPV), is a dedicated spreading area for molten core material following a postulated worst-case severe accident. The fuel pool is located outside the reactor building in a dedicated building to simplify access for fuel handling during plant operation and handling of fuel casks. The fuel building is protected against aircraft hazards and external explosions. Fuel pool cooling is assured by two redundant, safety-related cooling trains. Licensing Status The EPR has received a construction license in France and Finland and is in the process of obtaining a Design Certification from the US NRC.

8.7.2 AP1000 (a) Introduction The AP1000 pressurised water reactor design (Figure 73) was created by the USA nuclear plant manufacturer Westinghouse (majority owned by Toshiba). It is a development of the previous AP600 design, which was designed to meet the EPRI Advanced Light Water Reactor requirements, laid down in the 1980s after TMI and Chernobyl accidents. This is a revolutionary designed plant with passive safety features and a simplified design.


Figure 73: Advanced Pressurised Water Reactor (AP1000) Power Station (b) Overview of AP1000 Design

The AP1000 is a two-loop plant with a rated thermal power of 3,400 MW and an electrical output in the order of 1,200 MW. The AP1000 design features include:

• Passive reactor core cooling system; • Modular construction to reduce costs and delivery time; • Major reduction in safety related pumps, valves, piping and electrical

components; and • 60 year operating life.

The AP1000 plant configuration consists of two steam generators, each connected to the reactor pressure vessel by a single hot leg and two cold legs. There are four reactor coolant pumps that provide circulation of the reactor coolant for heat removal. The AP1000 is based on proven pressurized water reactor technology. Its power train in identical in basic design to conventionally design pressurized water reactors, but with many detailed improvements coming from the extensively operational experience gained worldwide on this system. A key and innovative feature of the AP1000 safety systems is the utilization of passive cooling using gravity, natural circulation, convection, evaporation and condensation rather than depending on AC power supplies and motor-driven components. These features assure that the cooling water level will not fall below the top of the core in the event of a severe accident and that no operator action is needed is such emergency conditions for three days. The natural (or passive) emergency cooling systems also have effected a major simplification in the plant by the


elimination of the power driven pumps and their associated lines, valves and controls in the emergency cooling system. This use of passive emergency cooling permits substantial simplification of the plant: 60 % fewer valves, 75 % less piping, 80 % less control cabling; 35 % fewer pumps and 50 % less seismic building volume as compared to present operational PWRs. All safety-related electrical power requirements are met by Class 1E batteries, which eliminate the need for safety grade on-site AC power sources and thereby greatly reduces dependence on off-site power. Licensing Status The AP1000 has received Design Certification from the US NRC in January of 2006.

8.8 Location of the Nuclear Power Station

8.8.1 Role of the NSIP in alternative site identification

Eskom has undertaken comprehensive studies with the aim of finding the most suitable sites for the NPS in South Africa. The studies were undertaken as part of the NSIP and included a large number of specialists, including a range of scientific, engineering, and social science fields, including geologists, ecologists, engineers, town planners and sociologists. The NSIP was undertaken along the West Coast, Southern Cape and Eastern Cape Coasts and comprised of three phases. Phase 1 and 2 involved desktop studies of suitable areas along the coast only. After suitable regions were identified, sites within those regions were earmarked for more detailed investigations. Those sites that were identified were then further considered in Phase 3 through field investigations. These field investigations were undertaken in order to determine the suitability and sensitivity of the regions identified, and subsequently the sites identified. Thus, as part of the NSIP, the following studies were undertaken:

• Regional Suitability Study: o Geology; o Seismicity; and o Geohydrology • Regional Sensitivity Study: o Preliminary Impact Assessment and o Socio-psychological and Socio-economic Baseline Study • Site Specific Suitability Studies: o Physiography; o Geology; o Geohydrology; o Seismology; o Meteorology; o Corrosion; o Demography; o Water Supply; o Power Transmission; o Coastal Engineering; o Access Routes;


o Heavy Load Route Investigation; o Transport of Nuclear Waste; o Terrain Cost Comparison; and o Sources of Construction Materials.

Recommendations were then made based on site-specific suitability studies.

• Site Specific Sensitivity Studies: o Terrestrial Environment; o Intertidal and Offshore Marine Environment; and o Social Environment.

Recommendations were then made based on site-specific sensitivity studies.

• Communication Programme; and • Property Acquisition.

The five proposed alternative sites that were identified through the NSIP are (Figure 74):

• Brazil (Northern Cape); • Schulpfontein (Northern Cape); • Duynefontein (Western Cape); • Bantamsklip (Western Cape); and • Thyspunt (Eastern Cape).

Figure 74: Potential Nuclear Power Station Locations (Eskom, 1994) Each of the above alternative locations (Figure 74) is described in detail from a biophysical, social and economic perspective in Section 5 of this report. Brief locality descriptions of each alternative site. (a) Brazil Site – Northern Cape The Brazil site is situated in the Northern Cape, within the jurisdiction of the Nama-Khoi Municipality, West Coast Division. It is approximately 5,850.43 ha in area. The terrace for the NPS is likely to be located at the coordinates shown in Figure 75.



(b) Schulpfontein Site – Northern Cape Schulpfontein is situated south of Brazil, in the Northern Cape. It falls within the jurisdiction of the Nama-Khoi Municipality, West Coast Division and is approximately 8,941.52 ha in area. The terrace for the NPS is likely to be located at the coordinates shown in Figure 75. (c) Bantamsklip Site – Western Cape The Bantamsklip site is located approximately 5 km east of Pearly Beach and approximately 50 km northwest of Cape Agulhas. The site is on the Southern Cape coast and falls within the jurisdiction of the Overberg Municipality. The proposed site is approximately 2,428.56 ha in area. The terrace for the NPS is likely to be located at the coordinates shown in Figure 76. (d) Thyspunt – Eastern Cape The Thyspunt site is approximately 2,486.73 ha in extent and is located on the Kouga Coast of the Eastern Cape Province, approximately 80 km west of Port Elizabeth. The Kouga Coast is located within the jurisdiction of the Humansdorp Transitional Representative Council. The terrace for the NPS is likely to be located at the coordinates shown in Figure 77. (e) Duynefontein – Western Cape The existing Koeberg NPS is at Duynefontein, which is 30 km north of Cape Town on the Atlantic coast. The Duynefontein site is situated within the Western Cape Province Municipality is approximately 2,849.61 ha in area and falls within the jurisdiction of the City of Cape Town (Blaauwberg Area).

Figure 75: Brazil/Schulpfontein Site Areas


Figure 76: Bantamsklip Site Area



Figure 77: Thyspunt Site Area

8.8.2 Integration of the generated power The power generated by any technology must be integrated into the existing networks in an efficient and strategic manner. Thus, the EA must consider the impact of the actual NPS as well as the impacts associated with the infrastructure required to integrate and export the power as required. There are two primary aspects pertaining to the integration of power i.e. integration into the local area network and exportation of the excess power to areas outside of the local network. Integration of the power on a local level, to supply the local area network requires a number of transmission lines, mainly 400 kV, linking into the main load substations or transmission nodes. The export of power requires either the construction of new power corridors or the utilisation of existing corridors through the necessary reinforcements.

The following information was taken from Eskom’s 20 GW Nuclear Transmission Grid Draft Impact Report (2007). Figure 78 provides an overview of the power transfers that will be required in order to integrate nuclear generation into the existing Cape transmission network, which is simplified into a number of main transmission power corridors. Schulpfontein and Brazil are approximately 30 km apart and therefore from an electricity perspective are considered as located at the same point. The local load in this geographical area is very limited, consisting primarily of the following areas, Oranjemund, Gromis and Aggeneis. Duynefontein and Bantamsklip would inject power into the Greater Cape Peninsula area of the Western Grid, which will consist of the loads from Saldahna, Cape Town extending down to Mossel Bay. From a Transmission MW Demand balance perspective, Duynefontein and Bantamsklip may also be viewed as being located in the same geographical area. Thyspunt is a stand-alone site, which would provide a base load generation injection into the Southern Grid consisting primarily of the Coega, Port Elizabeth and East London loads.

Figure 78: Map indicating the nuclear site locations and the major Cape

power corridors (Eskom, 2007)


The solid lines on Figure 78 indicate the power corridors that Eskom has proposed to meet the necessary supply and demand requirements by 2017. These are the Main Perseus to Gamma Corridor (marked as C1), the Gamma to Cape Peninsula Corridor (marked as C2) and the Gamma to Coega Corridor (marked as C3), which form the main Cape Corridor, the Cape Peninsula Corridor and the Southern Grid Corridor, respectively. The corridors consist of a combination of both 400 and 765 kV transmission lines.

The dashed lines on Figure 78, marked as A and B represent the new power corridors that will have to be established in the event that the proposed NPS is located at either Brazil or Schulpfontein. Corridor A represents the West Coast to Gauteng corridor and Corridor B represents the West Coast to Peninsula Corridor. At present, there is a single 400 kV line in this area, which is insufficient for consideration as a major power corridor required for exportation of the base load generated by the proposed NPS. Corridor B links the sites to the Cape Peninsula area both to provide a route for exporting power, providing a link for off site supplies and system stability. Corridor A links the sites directly to the network in the north, either in the North-West or Central Grid. There is no point in linking a central corridor as there is no major load and it will only result in the reinforcement of Corridor C1 in order to transport the power where it is required. Thus, routing the power in this manner necessitates transportation over longer distances, resulting in higher power losses. The following information outlines the infrastructural requirements associated with the five proposed sites:

(i) Brazil and Schulpfontein The location of the NPS at either the Brazil or Schulpfontein sites will require the establishment of new Power Corridors, namely A and B. The local load, taking into account the exportation to NamPower (a Namibian Power company that South Africa exports power to), is not considered significant. In order to safely integrate the power generated, the Power Corridor will have to consist of a minimum of three power lines for the initial units. The number of circuits required will increase as the number of units increase.

Corridor A will link the sites directly to the Central or North-West Grids in order to supply the power to the areas in demand. The transmission of the power from Brazil and/or Schulpfontein will entail the construction of a power corridor ranging between 1400 and 1600 km in length, which constitutes a significant investment and additional potential for significant environmental impacts. Corridor B will provide a secure off site supply and system stability mechanism. The construction of two 400 kV lines of 400 km linking to Aurora is believed to be adequate to perform this function.

(ii) Duynefontein, Bantamsklip and Thyspunt At the Duynefontein, Bantamsklip and Thyspunt sites there is a need for local integration of the generated power, which will consist of 400 kV lines to the major sites in the respective areas. The cost associated with local integration is considered ‘common’ for all three sites, although the actual distances will result in variations to the anticipated costs. In addition, it will also be necessary to link major power corridors to export the power to other areas of demand. The major power corridors consist primarily of 400 and possibly 765 kV lines. The main issue will be the distance to the nearest Major Corridor point and the access difficulty.

The accessibility from a transmission perspective associated with Duynefontein, Bantamsklip and Thyspunt is outlined below. Duynefontein site will be relatively easy



based on its proximity to the Omega 765 kV substation and the relatively short distance to Kappa 765 kV substation. This will enable access to two major in feed points on the Power Corridor C2. In the case of Bantamsklip the access to the Power Corridor C2 will entail a lengthier line with a greater degree of difficulty. The closest substation is Kappa 765 kV, which also provides a link to local load, but access to Omega 765 kV will be very difficult. The only other alternative will be to link to the Droërivier substation, which is relatively far away and at 400 kV only. In terms of the Thyspunt site, the local load and Power Corridor access are at the same point electrically. If required, the additional 2 x 1600 MW units could be installed at the available locations, at the Thyspunt site, and the excess 3200 MW exported directly to the Eastern Grid via a High Voltage Direct Curent HVDC link along the coast. This would be done instead of reinforcing Corridors C3 and subsequently C1. Thus, the Brazil and Schulpfontein sites require the construction of new power corridors and the exportation of the majority of the power to areas of demand given the limited local demand (Figure 78). Thus, the Brazil and Schulpfontein sites are deemed unfeasible for the proposed NPS based on the following reasoning:

• Optimal, strategic and cost effective utilisation of existing infrastructure associated with the Duynefontien, Bantamsklip and Thyspunt sites, with respect to local integration and exportation of power via existing power corridors;

• Prevention of lengthy time delays associated with the authorisation and construction of the new power corridors applicable to the Brazil and Schulpfontein sites, which will prevent Eskom from providing the power within the required timeframes;

• Unnecessary environmental impacts associated with the construction of new power corridors given that there is existing infrastructure; and

• Cost implications associated with the development of new power corridors.

It is therefore recommended that the Brazil and Schulpfontein sites be excluded from further comparative assessments and consideration as sites for the proposed NPS. It should, however, be noted that despite Brazil and Schulpfontein’s proposed exclusion from the EIA phase for the proposed NPS, this does not preclude these sites from development in the future.

8.8.3 Baseline environments

The preliminary baseline information obtained from the relevant specialists, to date, show that specific components of the baseline environment indicate varying degrees of sensitivity amongst the five proposed sites. Other specialist studies could not infer relative sensitivity levels until detailed investigations are undertaken during the detailed assessment phase of the EIA process.

Table 18 provides a preliminary indication of the varying sensitivity associated with each site based on the information provided to date, excluding the above-mentioned studies. It must be emphasised that the information contained therein is based on preliminary studies and therefore cannot be used to draw confident conclusions pertaining to a preferred site until further detailed studies are undertaken as part of the EIA process.

Table 18: Preliminary Comparative Assessment of the Baseline Environments associated with the Five Proposed Sites

ASPECT (Reference)

BRAZIL SCHULPFONTEIN DUYNEFONTEIN BANTAMSKLIP THYSPUNT

Climate (Tadross and Rock, 2007)

Characterised by suppressed vertical motion and offshore transport for most of the year

Characterised by on-shore flow, upwards vertical motion and advection towards the interior

Characterised by on-shore flow, upwards vertical motion and advection towards the interior

Most intense summer rainfall with the highest vertical advection of air masses. High potential for the dispersal of emissions into the interior or towards Port Elizabeth.

Geology (CGS, 2007a)

Least studied sites 1809 / 1810 seismic events and the existence of the proposed Milnerton fault require resolution

Regional geology and tectonics are well understood, but detailed studies must be undertaken

Seismology (CGS, 2007a)

Insufficient data

Geohydrology (SRK, 2007b)

Regionally, aquifers are classified as poor. Aquifers are considered to be potentially least vulnerable47

Regionally, aquifers are classified as major. The aquifers are considered as potentially most vulnerable

Regionally, aquifers are classified as major. The aquifers are considered as potentially most vulnerable

47 Vulnerable is defined as the tendency or likelihood for contamination to reach a specified position in the ground water system after the introduction at some location above the upper most aquifer (SRK, 2007b).


ASPECT (Reference)


Geotechnical (CGS, 2007b)

Overburden (two to six metres thick) should not induce geotechnical problems and the sites contain excellent founding conditions

Thick horizons of variably consolidated sands up to 19 m thick Potential for soil liquefaction48 Groundwater located seven metres below surface, which will require dewatering and permanent protection measures, as well as influence geotechnical structures

Down graded bearing capacity49 as a result of variability and erosion as well as slope stability, which could be problematic and therefore requires specific engineering techniques

Flora (Low and Desmet, 2007)

Well represented, under conserved, with relatively low habitat quality

Well represented and under conserved

Presence of existing development and moderate rarity

High diversity with marked rarity

High diversity of habitat and species

Invertebrates (Picker, 2007b)

Valuable, near pristine representations of arid adapted species associated with the Cape Floristic Region

Least sensitive site based on the presence of the existing development

Considerable habitat diversity, good representation of relictual and other sensitive taxa

No special bio-geographic importance

Vertebrates (Harrison, 2007a)

Insufficient data Relatively low sensitivity Several threatened species identified and degree of vulnerable ecosystems Inland portion considered highly sensitive

High number of threatened species and degree of vulnerable ecosystems

Hydrology (SRK, 2007a)

Insufficient data

Fresh Water Supply (SRK, 2007c)

Insufficient data

48 Liquefaction describes the behaviour of loose saturated cohesionless soils i.e. loose sands, which are transformed from a solid state to that of a heavy liquid as a result of increasing pore water pressures (www.wikipedia.org). 49 Bearing capacity is defined as the carrying capacity of soil / rock materials as an indicator of what loads can safely be placed on such materials (CGS, 2007b).


ASPECT (Reference)


Fresh Water Ecology (Day, 2007)

No wetlands identified Occurrence of wetlands of high conservation importance

Extensive occurrence of wetlands of high conservation importance

Oceanographic (Shillington, 2007)

Insufficient data

Marine Biology (Griffiths, 2007)

Sites are remote, contain less biodiversity and have few localised endemic species when compared with rocky shores located on the south coast

Presence of an existing development and location on a sandy shore, which is less diverse and sensitive when compared with rocky shores

Generally, rocky shores on the south coast contain high species richness, and higher levels of endemism when compared with the rocky shores located on the west coast

Air Quality (Burger, 2007)

Insufficient data

Social (Dippenaar, 2007)

Insufficient data

Economic (Maasdorp, 2007b)

Sites are potentially associated with significant direct costs50 and development constraints

Presence of existing infrastructure could limit direct costs. Development could result in potentially positive development impacts

Neutral, no overriding positive and / or negative impacts or cost implications

Thyspunt is an established tourist growth point and a high-potential agricultural area, which will need to be carefully assessed in the EIA

Human Health (Niekerk, 2007)

Insufficient data

Agriculture (Maasdorp, 2007a)

Insufficient data

Noise (Jongens, 2007)

Insufficient data

50 The term costs encompasses the following: commercial and industrial goods and services such as plumbers, electricians, bricks and cement; water, roads and electricity; schools, clinics and recreation; skilled labour and costs associated with attracting skilled labour; transport and connectivity to the network grid.


ASPECT (Reference)


Visual (Cave and Klapwyk, 2007)

Medium visibility as a result of low landforms partially obscuring the site from the coast road, but the visual intrusion on the site character is high. Communities do not really feature, because there are none that will be directly visually exposed to views of the NPS. This, however, may change in the long-term

Highly sensitive to visual change because of its high visibility, the total change to the ambience of the site and the view onto the site is totally unobstructed

Not considered visually sensitive, because of the distance from major roads. The visual intrusion on the character of the landscape is tempered by the presence of Koeberg NPS and the many transmission lines that converge on the area. The visibility of the site will be high, because of the existing communities of Duynefontein and Atlantis

Both sites have high visibility, but mainly from along the coastal edge. Thyspunt cannot be seen from any local or major roads, but visual intrusion on character and visibility to local communities is high as for Bantamsklip

Heritage and Cultural Resources (Hart, 2007)

Archaeological sites are shallow and occupy single horizons, which are easy to mitigate

Heritage sites are buried below surface, which are difficult to mitigate

Sites contain deep complex sequences and maritime archaeological heritage, which entails lengthy, expensive and difficult mitigation measures

Tourism (Maasdorp, 2007c)

Normal operation of a NPS could promote tourism locally, with economic benefits accruing at the local level. A substantial nuclear incident is unlikely to permanently diminish the Namaqualand tourism asset as a whole assuming that no major tourism developments are in the planning process at present

Normal operation of a NPS is likely to have a minor positive impact on the Western Cape economy. It is possible that a substantial nuclear incident at Duynefontein could have a serious negative impact on tourism in the Western Cape, with significant national economic costs

Normal operation of a NPS could limit future tourism development with significant negative implications for the local and provincial economies, particularly for the Eastern Cape. A substantial nuclear incident at these sites could have significant economic costs for tourism and the associated Eastern Cape and Western Cape economies

Transport and Accessibility (Bulman, 2007)

Insufficient data



ASPECT (Reference)


Power Infrastructure (Eskom, 2007a)

Limited local power demand, consisting of Oranjemund, Gromis and Aggeneis No existing power infrastructure and corridors to export the power

Sufficient local demand as the power will be injected into the Greater Peninsula area including Saldahna, Cape Town extending down to Mossel Bay Existing power infrastructure and corridors to export the power

Sufficient local demand as the power will be injected into the Coega, East London and Port Elizabeth areas Existing power infrastructure and corridors to export the power

Cumulative Impacts

Insufficient data.

Cumulative Impacts on this site will arise primarily due to the presence of the existing Koeberg NPS and the potential proposed Pebble Bed Modula Reactor. An additional NPS will result in added air emissions and increased pollution to surrounding ecosystems. Construction of new buildings may increase the barrier between ecosystems and the coast and movement of animals. Increased abstraction of seawater and the release of warmer water into the immediate environment may impact marine ecosystem.

Insufficient data The potential cumulative impact such as: pylons, pipelines, sewage treatment works, township developments and the effects of the increased population density on existing infrastructure and municipal services will be discussed in the Environmental Impact Report.

8.9 Conclusions and Recommendations

Given the urgent power demand based on economic growth in South Africa, the No-Go option is not considered to be a logical alternative, as Eskom must provide power. Eskom, would in all likelihood, apply to develop more coal fired power stations if the No-Go alternative is adopted. Other technological alternatives of power generation involving coal as a resource are not viable options for the Cape coast, at present, although Eskom is committed to identifying ways in which renewable energy may be utilised to assist in the supply side of its operations. Identified renewable forms of energy are inadequately developed to provide large scale power generation facilities that can supply a reliable base load and easily integrate into the existing power network in South Africa. Pressurised Water Reactors are the most commonly used nuclear reactors both locally and globally. The existing NPS, Koeberg, uses PWR technology and it is therefore a proven, reliable and tested form of power generation. Eskom is therefore familiar with the technology from health and safety as well as an operational perspective based on its experience with Koeberg. The comparison of the EPR and the AP1000 will be undertaken during the detailed assessment phase of the EIA process as these nuclear plants are regarded, by Eskom, as two viable and well recognised options to meet Eskom’s objectives. The information provided in Table 18, with respect to baseline environment merely provides a preliminary indication of the varying sensitivities associated with each site and therefore was not used to draw confident conclusions regarding a preferred site. However, in terms of optimal, strategic and cost effective utilisation of existing infrastructure associated with the Duynefontien, Bantamsklip and Thyspunt sites, and the provision of the power within the required timeframes, it is recommended that the Brazil and Schulpfontein sites be excluded from further comparative assessments and consideration during the detailed assessment phase of the EIA process. It should, however, be noted that despite Brazil and Schulpfontein’s proposed exclusion from the EIA phase for the proposed NPS, this does not preclude these sites from development in the future.


Date post:	01-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buikhuong
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES - Eskom · 8. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES . ... This section outlines both the...

Documents