Dr Kelvin Kemm
During the first two decades of the 21st Century many countries of the world adopted policies of introducing large numbers of solar and wind electricity generating systems. These moves were largely politically induced, as a result of pressure from green activists. These activists believe in a looming world catastrophe induced by a rising level of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The same activists were also anti-nuclear, one has to ask why?
In contrast, the green extremists promote an image of a highly-distributed electricity generating policy in which individual households and municipal districts would generate their own electricity. This philosophy was linked to romantic ideas about not having to rely on large central points of generation, but rather that small groupings of people would just supply their own immediate needs. This philosophy explained their anti-nuclear sentiment, even though nuclear power emits no CO2 whatsoever. Such an approach has not turned out to be at all successful, in comparison to their exaggerated claims about what could be achieved. The performance of wind and solar has not lived up to the romantic claims of the extreme greens.
As the reality of the inadequacy of solar and wind started to dawn on many world leaders, they have realised that to provide electricity reliability and baseload power there is no option but to seriously integrate nuclear power into their national systems.
Big and Small
However, for nuclear power to become available to many countries, a range of different nuclear options had to come into existence.
These include large traditional PWRs of 1000 MW to 1600 MW electrical output, but must also include small nuclear reactors of up to 300 MW output, and even smaller reactors of the microreactor class, of under 10 MW.
Small reactors can be deployed over a variety of geographic locations, and can be very versatile in a wide range of applications. Certainly, the worldwide prospects for small reactors are extremely attractive and exciting. Large and small reactors are not in competition with each other, they are complementary. If you own an earth-moving company, you would own both a 5-ton truck and a half-ton truck. You don’t send the 5-tonner to collect a dozen bags of cement. However, your half-tonner can travel along narrow roads and into tight spaces where the 5-tonner can’t go. Each to his own. It is the same with nuclear reactors.
The Kudu Design of the HTMR-100 Small Modular Reactor designed for African savanna conditions. (Architects JKDA Architects of Pretoria)

Africa calling
But now let us look at African countries. You can’t just replicate a European electricity system into an African country and expect it to work in the same way. Most African countries do not have large supplies of natural primary energy, such as coal, oil, or gas. Even a primary energy source such as hydro is rare, and even when one finds a potential hydro source, for example a large lake, it can be very unsuitable because the water levels in Africa can vary from 100% full to less than 20% full over a year or two, due to the highly variable rainfall cycles experienced in Africa
African countries have to look after their own GDP growth, and the consequent health and welfare of their own people. But what we have seen, far too often, is Western countries coming to Africa and persuading governments to install solar and wind on a large scale, usually with much arm-twisting, telling them how they will be helping to ‘save the planet.’ Considerations of African children dying because of a lack of electricity to essential services are generally not considered as factors worth caring about. Satisfying the European political agenda is seen as far more important.
Then the Western country offers a large loan, (which has to be repaid) on condition that the African country obeys ‘donor’ instructions and purchases equipment from the ‘donating’ country.
Such actions are clear examples of ‘economic colonialism’ in which African countries are forced into financial subjugation.
Reality
The result for an African country is that not only are wind and solar systems highly intermittent, but they are frequently sited very far away from consumers, because of the vast distances inherent in Africa. This scenario then calls for the construction of very long power lines, which frequently were not costed into the ‘attractive’ renewables cost projections originally presented by the Western country. As an illustration, South Africa has a major arterial power line of over 1500 km long. which is unheard of in Europe. That is approximately the distance from Rome to London. Another illustration is that the distance from the bottom of Botswana to the top of the country is the same as Paris to Copenhagen.
Powerlines of over 1500 km carrying 765kV running across South Africa

It is therefore rather irresponsible of certain European countries to persuade African governments to adopt totally unsuitable power systems. What is particularly painful is when this is done to satisfy European political objectives back in the EU.
When all of this is said and done, it indicates clearly to African governments that they must look after themselves for the longer term, because nobody else will. Pursuing simple logic indicates, very clearly, that an undoubted answer for African countries is to follow a pathway of introducing Small Modular Reactors on a large scale. By doing this, they also maintain energy security and can completely control when and where SMR units are placed.
South African development
In South Africa, the HTMR-100 SMR was intentionally developed to be gas-cooled, without the need for a large body of water for system cooling.
So any potential nuclear host country does not need an ocean coastline, or reliable large lake. An HTMR-100 can be sited in the middle of a desert, or on the side of a mountain.
The Oryx Design of the HTMR-100 Small Modular Reactor designed for the Namibian desert. (Architects JKDA Architects of Pretoria)

As African countries contemplate an SMR future we find the usual sad litany of anti-nuclear sentiment directed at them. Not only do we find the extreme green venom unleashed, like; ‘A nuclear reactor can kill millions of people’ or, ‘Your children will have genetic defects,’ but we also find large Western companies and governments pushing not-so-subtle anti-nuclear messages like, ‘You are not ready for nuclear,’ ‘Nuclear is too sophisticated for you, ‘ ‘How will you handle highly-radioactive waste material.’ and so on.
Usually the messages are also linked to, ‘Why don’t you just do a simple quick thing, which is more suitable for Africa, like solar… which we will provide…with a large repayable loan.’
The IAEA reports that over 20 African countries have indicated that they intend to follow a nuclear future. A number of them are now moving, with purpose, towards a nuclear goal. Good for them.
Macro thinking
But now African countries have an opportunity to think in a macro manner. One can look at a large number of countries collectively.
So what comes out of such thinking? Well, many reactors can be connected together, via the internet, known by the silly name of the ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT).
This means, for example, that there can be Monitoring Stations set up at strategic places at which operators can watch critical reactor parameters like; gas flow rates, reactor temperatures, gas pressures, and a host of other parameters. Any parameter which starts to move out of normal range could immediately be detected and reported to various authorities. Such stations would monitor reactors across a number of countries.
A view of part of the South African National Network Operations Centre (NNOC) for telecommunications.

Participating countries would belong to a mutually beneficial nuclear operators network linked, in turn, to a responsible body like the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO). Should any assistance be required at any reactor it could be timeously arranged via the network, long before the event became extreme.
Such a system could also be used for standard reporting to nuclear regulators. Additionally, with such a system in place, individual reactors would not need to each keep a comprehensive inventory of spare parts. An exchange system could be developed, in which the network members could supply each other with parts, or with trained specialists for specific tasks. Such an approach would eliminate the need for each new nuclear country to develop a world-class regulator plus a complete complement of trained technicians, before installing its first SMR. This type of system is currently in place for telecommunications, motor cars, mining equipment, and more, so also doing it for nuclear power would be a logical move.
Of course, with nuclear power, any African country can also rest easy in the knowledge that a reliable fuel supply is no problem. With an SMR the host country can elect to maintain, say, a six-month fuel supply on site. Such a decision would be political and economic in nature, and not limited by a technical limitation like a coal conveyor belt, or oil pipeline. So, no need to worry about the spectre of a major African storm disrupting a constant supply of fuel to the Power Station, by washing away a road, railway line, conveyor belt, or gas pipeline. That really is a major plus!
So African countries should now clearly adopt nuclear power as their future. They owe it to their citizens to provide a clear vision of a stable, reliable, and inexpensive electricity supply as a foundation for national growth. Without such a supply, the future GDP road will be very rocky, with many sharp turns and unexpected twists.
Africa must take the wisdom of its accumulated ages and combine it with a new vision of the future, looking towards nuclear power.

Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and is Past Chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa). He is currently Chairman of Stratek Global, a nuclear project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa. The company carries out strategy development and project planning in a wide variety of fields for diverse clients. They are working towards building an HTMR-100 in Pretoria. Kelvin.kemm@stratekglobal.com.
www.stratekglobal.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
First note, I think nuclear power is great and should be exploited but claiming it as a solution to African power needs seems overly simplistic and frankly self-serving.
Yes, it may be somewhat true that “Most African countries do not have large supplies of natural primary energy, such as coal, oil, or gas.”…but that leaves out a crucial element “known” or “exploited”. Africa is massive, it was the cradle of life for millenia, every year more fossil fuel reserves of all kinds are being found. They haven’t even begun to exploit the vast reserves they likely have.
So sure, promote nuclear power where it can be useful, but first perhaps lets help African nations unlock the potential beneath their feet. Of course there’s still significant internal political issues across the continent that would need addressing, but rather than jumping from ‘wind & solar’ to ‘nuclear’ without seriously considering the tried and true forms of energy they likely have serious amounts of it seems overly self-serving to promote nuclear. This isn’t to say African’s are incapable of handling nuclear power, I trust they can, but mining coal and building the infrastructure to utilize it to power their nations seems like a quicker way to help get them out of the cycle of poverty they are in.
“Most African countries do not have large supplies of natural primary energy, such as coal, oil, or gas.”
Most African countries also don’t have the concept of “maintenance”. Unless Westerners stick around to keep things running, I don’t see this working very well.
Remotely managed nuclear reactors using the internet. A malevolent hackers dream.
SMRs and small gas turbines are probably better options than large coal fired power plants.
And any power plant is exposed to hackers.
“The Risk Priority Number (RPN) is a crucial metric in the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) process. It is calculated by multiplying the severity (S), occurrence (O), and detection (D) of a failure mode. The RPN score helps prioritize risks and guide corrective actions.”
Anti-nuclear has suffered a lot of alarmism-without-basis. Some cases DO have a basis. I’ll do the world a favor by not writing them here- you know.
I still wonder about the cooling . https://stratekglobal.com/htmr-100/ says 100mw thermal can generate 35mw electric , necessarily following physics .
How is the waste 65mw dissipated in hot dry climates ?
The same way the heat would be the heat from a fossil fuel plants.
Moving lots of air.
The process of using only ambient air for cooling of a fossil fuel or nuclear power plant is known a “dry cooling”.
According to Google’s AI overview (my bold emphasis added):
“Less than 5% of utility-scale fossil fuel plants use dry cooling, though the number is growing, particularly for new natural gas combined-cycle plants. While older plants are more likely to use water-intensive “once-through” or recirculating cooling . . . In the U.S., more than 15% of natural gas combined-cycle plants use dry cooling.”
Why might this be? Well, the cooling in CCGT power plants is only required for the condenser section of the steam “topping cycle” of the plant, which only generates about one-third of the plant’s total electrical output.
5–15% of FF power plants using dry cooling instead of wet cooling. Color me unimpressed.
Plus the consequences of overheating
“Hot” ambient temperatures (likely 55C or less) are far cooler than the operational temperature of the SMR (perhaps 800C to 2000C). Gas cooling with reuse of waste heat for light industry, agricultural or space heating would probably be the best option. SMRs also can reduce distribution costs by placing units near the place where they are needed.
Whether the control systems are localized or remote should be bassed on economics and security evaluations.
If Thorium systems are perfected, that would help minimize waste issues and make fuel more plentiful.
This stated temperature difference is immaterial to the issue of the delta-T required across the condenser section of the steam-driven power loop and how it is cooled: “once-through” water versus dry air.
It is to the point that I don’t know why anyone would look to Europe for advice on anything.
Africa is a huge and diverse continent, there will be no single solution suited for the whole continent.
Each country should be considered on its own. If a country has natural resources those resources should be used first. If the government is notoriously corrupt it should go to the back of the line until it is reformed. The least corrupt nations should be helped first. Large population centers should be served by large power plants. Small populations should be served by small power plants or shared plants. In any case use the power source that makes the most sense for each individual area.
From the above article:
Well, let’s test that sales hype. A typical ICE dissipates roughly 10–15 kilowatts (kW) of heat power through its air-cooled radiator at a steady 60 mph cruise. And that radiator probably has a cross-flow inlet airspeed of 40 mph maximum, whether from ducted flow or with electrically-powered fan assist. Estimating the typical ICE radiator physical size at about 24 inches high by 30 inches wide, that’s equal to about 5 square feet of cross-flow area.
Now the HTMR-100 nuclear reactor has a design output power rating of 100 MW thermal and 35 MW electrical, meaning that it has to dissipate into the local environment about 65 mW of waste heat power during steady state operation. That’s equivalent to about 5,200 typical car radiators, or about 26,000 square feet of just radiator area. Allowing for a 50% coverage factor to permit the free circulation of ambient air between the numerous forced-air cooling radiators required for a HTMR-100 SMR and your looking at about 1.2 acres required for the radiator array.
The typical inlet water temperature to an ICE radiator is in the range of 195°F to 220°F (90°C to 105°C), with a typical outlet temperature in the range of 122–140°F (50–60°C). So if a HTMR-100 requires a larger temperature reduction than this, the required area for air cooling will likewise proportionally increase.
Just imagine the noise that will be generated from that area due to operation of the fans required to force ~40 mph air across all those individual radiators. YIKES!
Not unexpectedly, the nice artist illustrations of SMRs presented in the above article fail to portray the large area and number of radiators needed for ambient-air-cooling of a HTMR-100 SMR, and the text of the article fails to mention the problem of noise generated by the forced air cooling. On both accounts, not at all surprising.
When there is tribal warfare continuing within many African countries, it seems unlikely that any large systems can be built. They will inevitably cross tribal boundaries and getting agreements to build would be difficult.
Africa must take the wisdom of its accumulated ages and combine it with a new vision of the future, looking towards nuclear power.
Anyone who has visited Sub-Saharan Africa or done business with its inhabitants will know this is pure wishful thinking.
Meanwhile, back in the real world…
https://energyinafrica.com/news/eskom-cuts-power-supply-in-limpopo-province/
“Africa must take the wisdom of its accumulated ages”
Before the arrival of Dutch settlers in then uninhabited South Africa the tallest buildings in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa were made by termites.
Please give us one example of that “wisdom” you mentioned.
Well the Springboks sure have a lot of wisdom in how to beat the world at rugby.
“In South Africa, the HTMR-100 SMR was intentionally developed to be gas-cooled, without the need for a large body of water for system cooling.” HTMR-100 is steam engine just as all fission reactors are. The hot gas from the reactor is used to boil water to steam to feed a steam turbine generator to make electricity. The steam part of the machine requires cooling water in abundance. Why do journalists not understand this simple principle?
Simply not true. “Dry cooling”, the use of air-cooled condensers (ACC), is currently being employed in both fossil fuel and nuclear utility-scale power plants.
According to Google’s AI overview:
“Less than 5% of utility-scale fossil fuel plants use dry cooling, though the number is growing, particularly for new natural gas combined-cycle plants. While older plants are more likely to use water-intensive “once-through” or recirculating cooling . . . In the U.S., more than 15% of natural gas combined-cycle plants use dry cooling.”
BTW, you may be interested to know that many (most?) steam-powered locomotives of earlier railroad era used air-cooled condensers in the engine cycle.
Africa can’t maintain and run railways or power grids, never mind nuclear reactors which are THE most expensive way to generate electricity.
If only… if only the worship of “Climate change” were ended, we could all get back to cheap electricity from coal and gas.
To determine the expense of electricity to a user, one must consider all of the ancillary equipment and services needed to convert the electricity that any machine generates to the stable (in voltage and frequency) electricity delivered to the user. And the ancillaries cost money. You can see pretty much what those ancillaries cost normal consumers by looking at your electricity bill although that bill will not show the cost of government subsidies provided to the various companies involved. When all such costs are considered, wind and solar power are by far the most expensive of all.