Nuclear energy like bridge too far for EAC

Kenya and Uganda want to set up nuclear energy plants.

Nuclear power has several notable advantages. Although the plants are expensive to build, they are also relatively cheap to run. Once up and running, supplies tend not be disrupted and this is an energy source that can generate electricity without greenhouse gas emissions.

Kenya has plans to have a 1000MW nuclear facility by latest 2027 and Uganda is thinking about having their own facility not long after.

Adequate electricity supplies are vital for economic growth, however a nuclear power agenda now may seem a bit premature. This is chiefly because the costs involved in setting it up seem prohibitive.

This does not mean sweeping the nuclear option away. Merely that perhaps it is too early talk about it in details when there are still other undeveloped sources. Although the Kenyans say the geothermal alternative will not last all that long, there is still solar and the wind.

Nuclear power certainly has its good and bad sides. Nuclear plants operate around the clock safely and reliably, thereby providing stability to the power grid. They also provide forward price stability and are not subject to the price volatility associated with other sources.

Nuclear power is categorised as ‘clean power’ but there continues to be concerns about safety. These concerns include the possibility that a nuclear power plant could accidentally release radiation into the environment or be targeted for a terrorist attack. There is also the issue of what to do with radioactive waste. Experts say nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.

Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but relatively cheap to run. In many places, nuclear energy is competitive with fossil fuels as a means of electricity generation. Waste disposal and decommissioning costs are included in the operating costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, the economics of nuclear power are outstanding.

The most important question both countries have to address, is whether the required supportive infrastructure, including engineers and technicians is in place to cater for these facilities.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IEA) says Kenya successfully completed its pre-feasibility study while Uganda is currently conducting its own. Despite considerable expansion in energy supplies in the recent past, the International Energy Agency reports that nearly 620 million people in sub-Saharan Africa live without electricity. This is fact that demands that African governments explore all options.

Having quantities of uranium is an incentive to think about building nuclear plants. Uranium is a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. One kilogramme of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. But having uranium reserves should not be the only reason to go nuclear.

As the Kenyan representative at the recent talks in Mombasa put it, they are working with the required information to make a “knowledgeable decision” about the implementation of a nuclear power programme.South Africa is the most advanced country in sub-Saharan Africa in terms of nuclear energy plants. These are producing about 1,500 megawatts of electricity.

Anne Starz, head of the integrated nuclear infrastructure group at IAEA, has said it is easy to underestimate the massive investments in education, technology and engineering necessary to get a nuclear power plant up and running.

This is why before any final decision is made, every aspect of nuclear energy is researched thoroughly. Lets not get excited before we are absolutely sure it can be done.

By Editor, Sunday, April 26th, 2015


SHARE: