Nuclear future for Namibia

[Kurt Mauser]

Mie1

Nuclear is only "theoretically" very clean. Modern systems re-use a lot of what used to be "long term" radio active waste, leaving only mildly, short term radio active waste, BUT.......

This does not take into consideration a worst case scenario - a failure like that of Chernobil or Long Island. Given the age of most "old" reactors, I'm amazed we dont see more catastrphes...

Fast forward to a scenario where HUNDREDS of nuclear power stations exist in Developing Nations, or nations with a history of "poor workmanship" or "corruption" or a disregard for the environment..... Failures are bound to happen, and it will ultimately affect more than just the people at ground zero.

Dont get me wrong - I'm not Anti-Nuclear per se, I just believe we have other options. The case for nuclear becomes stronger for HIGHLY industrialised countries with MASSIVE energy consumption , HUGE populations and HIGH population densities. Namibia does not meet this criteria...

Our total consumption of electricity is low. A lot is already generated by a renewable source (Ruacana) We are more than capable of generating our shortages from renewable sources. All you have to do is to put a policy in place that makes it easy for small "producers" of energy to sell into the national grid, and back it up with a fiew financial incentives..... Private sector will see to the rest!! (and NO, dont use this as another AA scheme - leave it to ANY entrepneur with the knowledge, skill, and drive to succeed. We DONT need another Avid..)

Also keep in mind that Uranium is a FINITE resource....If we were to go all nuclear, 100 years down the line we will once again come to the same dead end we have reached with oil...

[tjommie]

natural gas is very clean too...

i agree; just because we have large deposits of uranium does not imply that we must own and operate a nuke station...

heat geysers with solar energy, cook and heat with kudu gas....

finish n klaar...

[Mie1]

Re: gas from wood: We should ask our comrades of North Korea for details .... most of their (military) trucks and other vehicles run on this ........

[Mie1]

In the mid to late seventies the dr. Wotan Swiegers mentioned in a recent article in the Namibia Economist (and posted in this forum by myself) was the environmental dr/mine dr.... or whatever one would call him. His exact title escapes my mind. What I DO remember, though, is the fact that any employee that had anything to do in the open pit area carried a radiation badge and that this was monitored extremely regularly. Those who exceeded a certain dose were sent on ( paid) leave of absence until the end of the current cycle.

Now, whether we like it or not, Uranium Mines are a feature of our immediate future. I would rather make the best of a bad scenario than kick against the inevitable. As they say crudely, but extremely graphically: "You can't fart against thunder! (I apologise to those embarrassed by the down-to-earth language).

Obviously, anyone already against nuclear energy and the mining of nuclear minerals will never. ever come forth with a completely unbiased report or film. All avenues will be explored to promote and advance their own argument.

Thus, Rössing will always claim that the radiation at the site can be stopped from pentrating to whereever by a piece of newspaper.

LaRRY and other will take the opposite view, ie that the mines are talking absolute PR and that anyone who even comes close to the mines or the mineralisation will die an abject death ... worse than anything Marie Curie and those early scientists experienced.

That is the way of the world. The one is not going to acknowledge the findings of the other! It is not part of the game plan.

[juikk]

natural gas is very clean too...

i agree; just because we have large deposits of uranium does not imply that we must own and operate a nuke station...

heat geysers with solar energy, cook and heat with kudu gas....

finish n klaar...

Tjommie, considering you do study in this field, should you not advocate for inovvtive approach and pioneering/implementation of this inevitable decision by GRN? surprising

[juikk]

Did not watch the full programme, but saw this discussion on The week that was, when some media practitioners tried to make sense of it. An NBC journalist may have mentioned the export of power generated from nuclear option, and a Namibian journalist may have countered this by recouping some current challenges to realize this. anyone being able to provide depth to this debate? Mie1 perhaps? plus you are welcome to add the actual views during this discussion if you watched the programme on NBC.

[Comrade007]

Turns out that the electricity needs of the entire planet could apparently be met by off-shore wind turbines, researchers claim. the feat could be accomplished if the turbines were placed in locations that took full advantage of regional weather patterns - like off the coast of Lüderitz. And output could reportedly be made more consistent by connecting the wind power generators to a shared power line. According to US scientists their findings - which are based on five years' of wind observations on America's east coast, appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...So my vote: It's obvious that wind power is the way to go! It's scalable, it's affordable and we have copious amounts of freely available wind.

[Mie1]

We (here in Namibia and probably elsewhere in our region and on our continent) all have to make up our own mind on Nuclear Power and, as the discussion have been going, we are not going to achieve any kind of consent or agreement. In this argument we remain as separated as the Israelis and the Palestinians ... and probably always will. That is the reason for the essay below:

Swedish declaration on the elimination of nuclear weapons

Ingvar Carlsson, former Prime Minister of Sweden, Karin Söder, former Foreign Minister of Sweden, Hans Blix, former Foreign Minister of Sweden, Rolf Ekéus, SIPRI Chairman and Chairman of the Swedish Pugwash network

Nuclear weapons kill immediately and kill over time. They cause devastation and environmental disaster. Twenty-five years ago a UN scientific commission warned that even a limited use of existing nuclear weapons could result in a nuclear winter over large areas over the earth. Recent findings conclude that such temporary climate change could cause the death of many millions of people. Massive use of existing nuclear arsenals would destroy all life on earth, a global suicide.

The legality of nuclear weapons has been addressed by the International Court of Justice in 1996, which held that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. The matter of launching a nuclear attack is thus a question of law and morality and a threat to the survival of mankind. Consequently the same is true also for threat of using nuclear weapons.

This has not prevented the nuclear weapon states parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—and the four other states in possession of nuclear weapons—India Pakistan, Israel and North Korea—from claiming a right to make use of their nuclear weapons.

Although many political leaders and experts on security both within and outside these states admit that no political purpose could justify the use of nuclear weapons with all the consequences that such action would have, it appears that all nuclear weapon possessors insist that they need to maintain their nuclear weapon capability to be able to threaten another state with retaliation in the case of a attack from that state.

To the bilateral function of deterrence—a mutual assured destruction—there must be added the notion of extended deterrence, which implies assurances by the USA to its allies world-wide that a nuclear attack on any one of them would result in a nuclear retaliation against the attacker. Thus, in the global security equation a set of states under a nuclear umbrella must be identified in addition to the states possessing nuclear weapons.

Another extension of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence flows from the calculated doctrinal ambiguity about what a state possessing nuclear weapons considers an attack meriting retaliation by nuclear weapons. The UK, France, Russia and the USA have explicitly granted themselves the option to use nuclear weapons to respond to attacks using chemical or biological weapons.

The concept of deterrence embraced by the nuclear weapon states has the unhappy implication that it not only encourages continued possession by the established nuclear weapon powers but also breeds proliferation by additional states and discourages steps towards weapon reductions—ultimately elimination.

The reasons for the possession of and reliance on the deterrence of nuclear weapons was challenged in a path-breaking essay published in 2007 in the Wall Street Journal by four senior US statesmen—former US secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of Defense, William Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn. They declared that the end of the cold war had made the doctrine of deterrence obsolete between the two major nuclear weapon states, the USA and Russia. They recognized that, although the deterrence could remain relevant for many states to threats from other states, even in such situations reliance on nuclear weapons was increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.

With all that in mind we conclude with the four US statesmen that only the elimination of nuclear weapons could provide an adequate guarantee against their use.

In the essay in 2007 and in two following complementing articles in the Wall Street Journal, one in January 2008 and the other in January 2010, Shultz, Kissinger, Perry and Nunn developed a broad strategy to achieve a World Free of Nuclear Weapons. To that end they proposed a number of concrete steps both to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and to reduce existing nuclear arsenals. Their fundamental idea is that without the vision of elimination, the necessary actions will not be seen as fair and without these actions the vision will not be seen as attainable.

We fully endorse the Vision of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons as presented by the four US statesmen. At the same time we encourage and support concrete and practical steps towards achieving that aim.

The steps we recommend are similar to the 13 steps outlined in the 2000 NPT Review Conference final document, resulting from the successful work of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) in negotiations with the nuclear weapon states. The 13 steps have later been adjusted and elaborated on by the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Commission in its report 2006. The NAC states—Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden—are once more well placed to play an important role in the upcoming NPT Review Conference in May this year. Their engagement is essential to mobilize the large majority of the parties to the NPT, the members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), to exercise their worldwide influence in matters of non-proliferation significance.

The most important immediate task in the diplomatic field should be to create conditions for a constructive outcome of the NPT Review Conference in May this year. Here the USA has to take the lead.

In his important speech in Prague last year President Obama endorsed the Vision of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons. In this context a first step should be to reduce the more than 21 000 nuclear warheads still held in Russia and the USA two decades after the end of the cold war. Progress in their negotiations on an agreement to succeed the now expired 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is important to bring their deployed strategic nuclear forces to lower numbers as well as to preserve a fully functional verification regime for monitoring their respective forces. However, this marks only a beginning step. Russia and the USA should now be encouraged to verifiably eliminate the nuclear warheads withdrawn from deployment.

The two sides should also seriously engage in negotiations on limiting and ultimately eliminating non-strategic nuclear weapons, starting with transferring them from deployed status and putting them in centralized, highly protected storage. To diminish mutual suspicions and the risk of accidental use, the two governments should be encouraged to change the posture of deployed nuclear weapons to increase warning time and to take the weapons off alert posture.

The three other legally recognized nuclear weapon states—the UK, France and China—should be engaged in discussions on reductions. The matter of verification of nuclear weapon reduction and elimination should be tackled early, addressing both technology and questions of how to deal with weapons material in secure and safe manners.

As regards multilateral treaty arrangements, the immediate and most urgent task is to bring the landmark 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) into force. Of the nuclear weapon states, France, the UK and Russia have already ratified the agreement. Now it is the turn of the US Senate to give advice and consent to the CTBT. In the article in the Wall Street Journal in January 2010 the four statesmen presented a number of proposals to facilitate ratification of the treaty by the Senate. It is likely that once the US ratifies, China and several other states will follow.

The establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East was called for already in the resolution on the Middle East adopted by the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference as an integral element of the decision to indefinitely extend the duration of the NPT. Such a zone would provide an indispensable framework for simultaneously addressing concerns about possible nuclear ambitions in the greater Middle East as well as the suspected nuclear arsenal possessed by a regional state not party to the NPT.

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, which showed its capacity when negotiating the Chemical Weapons Convention and the CTBT, should now get down to speedily negotiate a treaty on the verifiable halting of the production of fissile material for weapons and address the issue of existing stocks of such material in a manner which should be fair and equitable to all states. In the interim, as a step toward promoting transparency and irreversibility, all of the nuclear weapon states should undertake to declare and verifiably eliminate their excess military fissile material holdings.

An important element of non-proliferation is the control of the enrichment process and of the activities of separation of plutonium from spent reactor fuel. In this context the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) must have a role to play with its established safeguard system. That system can and should be strengthened through the ratification by all states of the Additional Protocol, which provides the IAEA inspectors with more effective tools for monitoring compliance with safeguards agreements.

Proposals for the development toward a multilateralized fuel cycle are needed. Tangible progress in the field of nuclear disarmament would help to make such a treaty more equitable to non-nuclear weapon states joining. To be viable and acceptable it would also need to be universal and subject all states to the same verification.

In multilateral nuclear disarmament regulated in international legal instruments, verification is of the essence. The strengthening of the IAEA safeguards will be crucial but it is far from enough. One could consider setting up an international expert committee tasked to identify the problem in all its aspects. In addition to the methods agreed upon in the bilateral US–Russian negotiations and the experiences of inspections in Iraq, the experts could make use of the results of the joint British–Norwegian work on nuclear verification. The forum, for detailed negotiations could be the CD in Geneva. The Security Council should systematically be kept informed about the progress in the CD, given that the Council in its resolution in September 2009 on President Obama's initiative made clear that nuclear disarmament and proliferation are elements of international peace and security and thus the responsibility of the Council and of the United Nations.

The risk of nuclear confrontation in Europe should be diminished and eliminated by the intensification of the consultations and negotiations on a broader dialogue on security in Europe.

The Canberra Commission stated in 1996 that as long as nuclear weapons exist they sooner or later will be used. It would not be wise to allow passivity test the validity of that statement. Science has provided humanity for the first time in its existence with a capability to self-destruction.

The question now is if we have the collective will and wisdom to step out from the shadow of annihilation and transform the Vision of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons into reality.

[Patriot007]

I believe that no country that have nuclear arms will ever give them up entirely.

I believe that we should look into a variety of enery sources and look also at alternative ways to utilize unexplored sources as well. The reason is that current fossil fuels will run out sometime due to depletion.

I have seen on CNBC Africa Kenya is looking into Geo Thermal electricity. It is viable for them because the eath`s crust is relative thin at their location.

[Mie1]

Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily but not dramatically, with over 40 reactors under construction in 12 countries:

Most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though plans are firming for new units in Europe, the USA and Russia.

Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading. Plant life extension programs are maintaining capacity, in USA particularly
.
Today there are some 439 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of over 370 GWe. In 2007 these provided 2608 billion kWh, about 15% of the world's electricity.

Over 40 power reactors are currently being constructed in 11 countries, notably China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has significantly increased its projection of world nuclear generating capacity. It now anticipates at least 70 new plants in the next 15 years, making 470 to 750 GWe in place in 2030 - very much more than projected in 2000 and 27% to 103% more than actually operating in 2008. OECD estimates range up to 680 GWe in 2030. The change is based on specific plans and actions in a number of countries, including China, India, Russia, Finland and France, coupled with the changed outlook due to the Kyoto Protocol. This would give nuclear power a 17% share in electricity production in 2020. The fastest growth is in Asia.

It is noteworthy that in the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days. These included 47 in USA, 42 in France and 18 in Japan. The average power was 923.5 MWe. So it is not hard to imagine a similar number being commissioned in a decade after about 2015. But with China and India getting up to speed with nuclear energy and a world energy demand double the 1980 level in 2015, a realistic estimate of what is possible might be the equivalent of one 1000 MWe unit worldwide every 5 days.

Increased Capacity

Increased nuclear capacity in some countries is resulting from the uprating of existing plants. This is a highly cost-effective way of bringing on new capacity.

Numerous power reactors in USA, Belgium, Sweden and Germany, for example, have had their generating capacity increased. In*Switzerland, the capacity of its five reactors has been increased by 12.3%. In*the USA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved 124 uprates totalling some 5600 MWe since 1977, a few of them "extended uprates" of up to 20%.

Spain*has a program to add 810 MWe (11%) to its nuclear capacity through upgrading its nine reactors by up to 13%. For instance, the Almarez nuclear plant is being boosted by more than 5% at a cost of US$ 50 million. Some 519 MWe of the increase is already in place.

Finland*Finland has boosted the capacity of the Olkiluoto plant by 29% to 1700 MWe. This plant started with two 660 MWe Swedish BWRs commissioned in 1978 and 1980. It is now licensed to operate to 2018. The Loviisa plant, with two VVER-440 (PWR) reactors, has been uprated by 90 MWe (10%).

Sweden*is uprating Forsmark plant by 13% (410 MWe) over 2008-10 at a cost of EUR 225 million, and Oskarshamn-3 by 21% to 1450 MWe at a cost of EUR 180 million.

Nuclear Plant Construction

Most reactors currently planned are in the Asian region, with fast-growing economies and rapidly-rising electricity demand.

Some 16 countries with existing nuclear power programs (Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Japan, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, South Africa, Ukraine, USA) have plans to build new power reactors (beyond those now under construction).

In all, over 100 power reactors with a total net capacity of almost 120,000 MWe are planned and over 250 more are proposed. Rising gas prices and greenhouse constraints on coal have combined to put nuclear power back on the agenda for projected new capacity in both Europe and North America.

In the*USA*there are proposals for over twenty new reactors and the first 17 combined construction and operating licences for these have been applied for. All are for late third-generation plants, and a further proposal is for two ABWR units.

In*Canada*there are plans to build up to 3500 MWe of new capacity in Ontario, and proposals for similar capacity in Alberta and one large reactor in New Brunswick.

In*Finland, construction is now under way on a fifth, very large reactor which will come on line in 2011 and plans a re firming for another large one to follow it.

France*is building a similar 1600 MWe unit at Flamanville, for operation from 2012, and a second is to follow it.

Romania's second power reactor istarted up in 2007, and plans are being implemented for two further Canadian units.

Slovakia*is completing two 470 MWe units at Mochovce, to operate from 2011-12.

Bulgaria*is about to start building two 1000 MWe Russian reactors at Belene.

In*Russia, six large reactors are under active construction and due for completion by 2012, one being a large fast neutron reactor. Seven further reactors are then planned to replace some existing plants, and by 2015 ten new reactors totalling at least 9.8 GWe should be operating. Further reactors are planned to add new capacity by 2020. This will increase the country's present 21.7 GWe nuclear power capacity to 50 GWe about 2020. In addition about 5 GW of nuclear thermal capacity is planned. A small floating power plant is expected to be completed by 2011 and another by 2020.

Poland*is planning some nuclear power capacity but initially is likely to join a joint project in Lithuania, with Estonia and Latvia.

Nuclear power will continue to play a major role in the future electricity supply mix in both South Korea and Japan.

South Korea*plans to bring a further eight reactors into operation by the year 2015, giving total new capacity of 9200 MWe. Following them are planned Shin-Kori-1 & 2 and Wolsong-5 & 6, to be improved OPR-1000 designs. Then come Shin-Kori-3 & 4 and Shin-Ulchin 1&2, the first of the Advanced PWRs of 1400 MWe, to be in operation by 2016. These APR-1400 designs have evolved from a US design which has US NRC design certification, and have been known as the Korean Next-Generation Reactor.

Japan*has two reactors under construction and another ready to start building. It also has plans and, in most cases, designated sites and announced timetables for a further 10 power reactors, totalling over 13,000 MWe which are expected to come on line 2012-18.

In*China, now with eleven operating reactors on the mainland, CNNC is well into the next phase of its nuclear power program. The second of two Russian 1000 MWe PWRs at Tianwan in Jiangsu province was grid connected in May 2007.

China NNC and Guangdong NPC have six more indigenous reactors under construction at Lingdong, Qinshan, Hongyanhe and Ningde. Ten more are due to start construction by July 2010 at these sites plus Yangjiang. Four large Western third-generation ones are due to start construction at Sanmen and Haiyang, with two more at Taishan. China aims at least to quadruple its nuclear capacity from that operating and under construction by 2020. The Shidaowan high temperature gas-cooled reactor will start construction in 2009 at Rongcheng , Shandong province.

On Taiwan, Taipower is building two advanced BWRs at Lungmen.

India*has six reactors under construction and expected to be completed by 2010. This includes two large Russian reactors and a large prototype fast breeder reactor as part of its strategy to develop a fuel cycle which can utilise thorium. Further units are planned. Ten further units are planned, and plans for more - including western and Russian designs - are taking shape following the lifting of trade restrictions.

Pakistan*has a second 300 MWe reactor under construction at Chasma, financed by China. There are plans for more Chinese power reactors.

In*Kazakhstan, a joint venture with Russia's Atomstroyexport envisages development and marketing of innovative small and medium-sized reactors, starting with a 300 MWe Russian design as baseline for Kazakh units.

In*Iran*nuclear power plant construction was suspended in 1979 but in 1995 Iran signed an agreement with Russia to complete a 1000 MWe PWR at Bushehr. Construction is well advanced.
The*Turkish*government plans to have three nuclear power plants total 4500 MWe operating by 2012-15, a US$ 10.5 billion investment.

Indonesia*plans to start constructing a 2000 MWe nuclear power station in 2010.

Vietnam*is also considering its first nuclear power venture, to be commissioned by 2017.

Fuller details of all the above contries curently without nuclear power are in country papers or the paper on*Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries.

Plant Life Extension

Most nuclear power plants originally had a nominal design lifetime of up to 40 years, but engineering assessments of many plants over the last decade has established that many can operate longer. In*the USA*nearly 50 reactors have been granted licence renewals which extend their operating lives from the original 40 out to 60 years, and operators of most others are expected to apply for similar extensions. In Japan, plant lifetimes up to 70 years re envisaged.

When the oldest commercial nuclear power stations in the world, Calder Hall

and Chapelcross in the UK, were built in the 1950s they were very conservatively engineered, though it was assumed that they would have a useful lifetime of only 20-25 years. They were then authorised to operate for 50 years but due to economic factors closed earlier. Most other Magnox plants are licensed for 40-year lifetimes.

The Russian government in 2000 extended the operating lives of the country's 12 oldest reactors from their original 30 years, for 15 years.

The technical and economic feasibility of replacing major reactor components, such as steam generators in PWRs and pressure tubes in CANDU heavy water reactors, has been demonstrated. The possibilities of component replacement and licence renewals extending the lifetimes of existing plants are very attractive to utilities, especially in view of the public acceptance difficulties involved in constructing replacement nuclear capacity.

On the other hand, economic, regulatory and political considerations have led to the premature closure of some power reactors, particularly in the United States, where reactor numbers have fell from 110 to 104, and in eastern Europe.

vaec.gov.vn