Community Administrator
Should Namibia build its own nuclear power plant? 
Namibia has one key ingredient for nuclear power generation and it has it in abundance: Uranium. "Why not take advantage of this natural resource and build a nuclear power plant", the supporters of nuclear power would argue. "After all, the technology is mature and Namibia has ample space to store the by- and end-products as well". Some of the other advantages of nuclear power are:
- Nuclear power plants are more efficient than they have ever been and technology has made them more reliable and safer.
- Since nuclear power generation uses no coal or fossil fuels, no carbon dioxide is released into the air and subsequently nuclear power plants don't contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases.
- Although the initial cost of building nuclear plants is high, the running costs are relatively low.
- One reason the costs are low is that nuclear plants need only a small amount of uranium to produce a lot of energy. In fact, if the cost of uranium doubled, costs would only be increased by 7%. 1 truck of uranium produces as much energy as 1000 trucks of coal.
- Nuclear wastes can be safely stored underground.
But opponents to nuclear energy would argue strongly that recent events at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, and the Chernobyl disaster in the former soviet Union, should serve as constant reminders that the risks associated with nuclear power plants remains huge, and the potential costs (financial, health, environmental and otherwise) if something goes wrong are not worth the initial investment. Also uranium has to be mined and transported to the nuclear plant and both these activities require burning of fuels, so carbon dioxide is in fact also released.
The Fukushima accident is already contributing to a slowdown in anticipated reactor construction worldwide, since it will add to investors’ concerns about risk and return on investment. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists concludes: "The most challenging nuclear events in 2011 transpired at different speeds. Fukushima was a sudden and dramatic shock. The deterioration of the nuclear security environment in Iran, North Korea, and South Asia happened in slow motion. The cumulative impact of these developments, however, will make the world’s nuclear future more uncertain."
What do you think? Send a link of this poll to your friends so they can also cast their vote
Senior Member
Awards:
Re: Should Namibia build its own nuclear power plant? Namibia should not build its own nuclear power plant. Reason is simple, we do not have the human capital/expertise nor the technological advancement needed to maintain such hazardous plant. We also still see things with tribal lenses or buddy lenses(all in all corrupt lenses), so we train minds based on tribe or favoritism and not ability or agility. I say no to this, its management is bound to fall in foreign hands and not Namibians.
Senior Member
Awards:
Re: Should Namibia build its own nuclear power plant? Thank your a balanced introduction to the topic. Like so many other issues its easy to get lost on emotions and let our brain be carried away in the process. Fact is nuclear energy has advantages. Fact is also it may not be the right choice for Namibia at the present time. Let us evaluate this rationally and weight up all the options in the interest of the nation. Personally, I think the time is not right for nuclear energy in Namibia. We have abundant sunshine and wind to exploit more economically and cleanly and without having to make such huge initial investments.
Senior Member
Awards:
Re: Should Namibia build its own nuclear power plant? When things go wrong with nuclear power, the risks are huge. If anything the crisis in Fukushima is far from over and in fact getting worse and more challenging, and should serve as a stark reminder why we don't need a nuclear power plant. This IPS article is as worrying as it is a rallying call to do more to contain the environmental damage Fukushima is causing. It appears that TEPCO and the Japanese government either don't realise the scale of the problem, or don't know what to do, or there is a huge cover-up. It's probably the latter. Is it not time for an international response on a huge scale to contain this? TEPCO would have us believe otherwise, but then they would, wouldn't they? And so would the nuclear industry which, like the oil industry, is basically a vertical monopoloy that supplies goods and services when all works well, but also does the cleanup in the case of a disaster and in the process earning billions. It's when profits are put before people....
Why Fukushima Is a Greater Disaster than Chernobyl and a Warning Sign for the U.S. - IPSThe radioactive inventory of all the irradiated nuclear fuel stored in spent fuel pools at Fukushima is far greater and even more problematic than the molten cores. In the aftermath of the world’s worst nuclear power disaster, the news media is just beginning to grasp that the dangers to Japan and the rest of the world posed by the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site are far from over. After repeated warnings by former senior Japanese officials, nuclear experts, and now a U.S. Senator, it is sinking in that the irradiated nuclear fuel stored in spent fuel pools amidst the reactor ruins may have far greater potential offsite consequences than the molten cores.
Fukushima's Nuclear Nightmare Is Far From Over (or the Disturbingly Deadly Act of Placing Profits Before People)
Fukushima - The Crisis Is Not Over
Last edited by Comrade007; 2nd May 2012 at 10:12 PM.
"Nothing is complete and thus nothing is exempt from criticism." - James Luther Adams:
1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks