Slashdot Mirror
Kenya Seeks Nuclear Power Infrastructure
New submitter Snirt writes "Kenya is seeking to develop a viable nuclear energy program within the next 15 years to meet its growing energy demands. A government commission formed last year is conducting a feasibility study and the University of Nairobi is setting up programs to train people for the nuclear program. Critics say they're concerned about plant worker safety and the risk of environmental contamination. Some 86 percent of Kenyans do not have access to electricity, relying on firewood and kerosene to meet their energy needs. Electricity is expensive(1$=KES 90), and the supply is limited."
A standard two room aparment here in Sweden would cost 120 KES + 2KES/KWh*2000KWh per year, that's 50 bucks!
Proximity to the Somali pirates (http://www.google.com/search?q=somali+pirates)... Sigh.
How fun isn't that compared to other nuclear wielding states.
Still, "Kenya optimistic for Somali peace prospects": http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2012-01/09/content_14405037.htm
TL;DR -- what is the feasibility study going to study? Are they going to check for the possibility of tsunamis in Kenya?
Solar is a perfect fit for this climate. New nuclear facilities should no longer be built and remaining facilities should be converted to solar.
The Kenyans - with ample sunlight - going nuclear, and the Germans - with a less favourable climate - hoping solar energy will help them get rid of their nuclear power plants.
With sunshine and 30C+ temperatures throughout the year, can they resort to a faster solution of power generation with solar-energy based alternatives?
Thats', of course, after they fail to find any fossil fuels in their compund..
At least some people see what's going on and what must be done, and those who talk about energy independence and those who talk about the environment cannot escape the reality - nuclear is the way forward and the way to achieve it is to do a lot of it, so that more experience can be gained and more new technologies can be worked on and eventually we must have our nuclear powered cars.
You can't handle the truth.
Kenya has geothermal power plants already so they might want to look further into that.
They're using nuclear power as a front for developing weapons of mass destruction
Kenya should probably go solar since it scales better at the small end, requires less transmission infrastructure. It is interesting that it doesn't seem to have much more sunlight than many American cities, at least according to casual web search:
http://www.climatetemp.info/kenya/
http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-sunshine-by-city.php
It's a good thing that Slashdot told us that Android Phones Sell Like Hotcakes In Kenya. As a firm believer in press releases, I for one welcome the use of firewood for recharging smartphones twice a day...
The sun is not our only asset. Already a significant proportion of our power comes from hydroelectric and geothermal plants, and there is scope for (and investment happening in) much more.
The biggest problem we face is not sourcing energy, but in dealing with the huge inefficiencies and rickety infrastructure that we currently have. Here in Nairobi have power cuts several times a week (not because of lack of supply, but because of regular failures in the poorly maintained grid). As it happens, the transformer right outside my home has exploded (literally) and been replaced four times in the last three months. Most businesses in Nairobi have invested in back up generators because the supply is so unreliable.
One major obstacle to real improvement is the fact that the Kenya Power and Lighting Company operates a monopoly on electricity sales in Kenya, and there is no incentive for it to reduce costs and improve infrastructure. They posted record profits in 2011, at the same time as electricity prices in the country reached record highs.
Energy is VERY expensive in Kenya, and unfortunately so (calculations given are realistic). There are reasons to this, and the situation could be better. Would love it if our Government go solar over nuclear (alot of the country has suitable weather). I don't quite trust the current structures in place - especially regarding adhering to standards rules regulations etc. Not sure though if any other source of energy will meet the obvious needs. Most energy needs are concentrated around Nairobi (capital) and other major towns. Much of rural Kenya has no electricity. For domestic use, I would think solar is ideal especially in areas outside of the grid, just that most cannot afford the components. I'm not sure if many here quite grasp the meaning of living below the poverty line. Yet others in rural areas may not see the use of having energy for say a washing machine or microwave in their homes unless (1) they see the need for it, and more importantly (2) they can afford it. Proximity to Somalia: peace in Somalia would be hugely beneficial to the region, what with the piracy, and the threat of terrorism one would be understandably be nervous. Now replying to some of the spicier remarks: "... if they can steal tarmac off the road to make a floor for the house, I'm sure they'll grab a solar panel and rig a car headlamp to it... " Not quite practical - stealing tarmac - just think about it (and some of the roads are so bad there's no tarmac to steal anyway). However, solar panels do get stolen... "They're using nuclear power as a front for developing weapons of mass destruction" - As a country that has suffered a terrorist attack on more than one occassion, why? In bad taste this. (Kenyan)
Bribes within Kenya is a concern. But the Somali border is even more worrying
"Four killed in rocket attack on vehicle in Kenya"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/8852743/Four-killed-in-rocket-attack-on-vehicle-in-Kenya.html
"Somalia's president has criticised Kenya's military invasion of his country, raising fears of a split in support for the mission to hunt down al-Qaeda-linked Islamists"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/8848537/Somalias-president-questions-Kenyas-al-Shabaab-mission.html
Still, didn't one of these East Africa countries even launch a MadMax space rocket a year ago? Which exploded right after launch?
Gotta love de idea. known risks manageable. Africa let's pool resources. build massive nuc power plant in KE (prefer desert country) and share the energy (KE lies in rift valley, quake prone)
With sunshine and 30C+ temperatures throughout the year..."
This is a lie. A big one sadly. Despite being on the equator, Kenya and other countries that the equator crosses never have temperatures beyond 30 degrees Celsius for more than 3 months in a year.
In fact for Nairobi, their capital, you will freeze at night and temps never go beyond 28 degrees Celsius for most of the day. Google Nairobi weather (I just did) and you'll find temperature now (it's almost noon there) at 23 degrees Celsius.
Why is it that most people in the west (who are supposed to be the best informed), are misinformed about Africa? Why?
This BBC link should help educate you to an extent.
if Kenya wants cheap electricity, then nuclear is the worst option. It only appears cheap because of massive government subsidies.
According to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists:
"Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away"
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html
why don't they just take Germany's or Japan's reactors off their hands? I'm sure, on the German/Japanese side, shipping a plant is cheaper than safely neutralizing and decommissioning it, and on the Kenyan side paying them for the trouble of doing so is surely far cheaper than developing a nuclear power plant from scratch.
Bribes within Kenya is a concern. But the Somali border is even more worrying
True. Moreover, brazen attacks by Somali bandits in Kenya are scaring away the tourist trade, which makes a sizable dent in the country's finances. Tourism had already been hit by the violence after the 2008 elections, but recent events, like the kidnappings of foreign tourists in Lamu, have made it even worse. It's really a pity because Kenya is a beautiful country(*) , and it has followed a fairly responsible path of conservation and sustainable use of their natural resources (especially compared to other African countries).
(*) Seriously, if you're planning a vacation, consider an African safari. It's a very special experience. Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa are good places, and the price isn't as exorbitant as you'd expect.
Maybe we should start sending folks in Africa electricity, instead of gadgets that use electricity?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
In a previous post I made an erroneous referral to an East African space program - http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2610112&cid=38635706.
Now I recall it was from the Congo - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=591_1249254184. Strangely, this has not been reported by Slashdot.
At least one rodent still is missing in action.
Ok so when is the US going to declare war on Kenya ?
We can't have those african bastards have access to nuclear technology.
God only knows what they would do with it.
I want one to. Plated in rhodium of course.
I don't understand why this always has to be an either/or argument. Personally, I'm of the opinion that solar, wind, and nuclear all have a role to play in providing energy.
If Kenya had a small modular nuclear reactor or two, they could provide baseload power to their own country, and possibly even have enough surplus to export some electricity to neighbors (bringing net revenue to the country).
Solar and/or Wind can provide energy, but they don't really provide any kind of guarantee that you'll have electricity all the time - the Sun doesn't always shine. Yes, you can do things like molten salts to store some of the Sun's energy, but there's a limit to how much you can store. You might have enough storage to last you through the night, but will the salt still be hot enough in the morning, if it's cloudy?
Solar is a good peaking power source - the Sun's energy tends to peak around the same hours that human demand for electricity peaks (because people are doing business, and running washers, dryers, and stoves, which they don't tend to do after dark). Nuclear is a good baseload power source.
People pointing out that solar can come online faster are correct, so that's partly why I favor a combination of both nuclear and solar/wind for both developing nations, and developed nations - get the solar built quickly and start benefiting from it, while also beginning the process of building some reactors.
I don't really know for sure, but I suspect that Kenya and other developing nations might want newer, cheaper, safer, more efficient technologies, such as the small modular reactors which should start coming on the market in 10 or 20 years.
There's a quote from Al Gore to the effect that the problem with nuclear power is that it only comes in one size - extra large. That is how our current nuclear plants are built: $3Bn - $10Bn (the range reflects that construction costs are different in different countries - China is building reactors for about $3Bn, and I bet the chinese might end up building reactors in Africa) reactors that produce 1GW or more.
That reactor from Japan might be 800MW or 1GW, and might be "too big" for Kenya's current and near-future needs. They might prefer a 150MW small modular reactor which costs a fraction of the price, and is based on safer technology (like High Temp Gas-Cooled Pebble Bed reactors, which China has been doing R&D work on: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/china-210-mwe-pebble-bed-reactor-starts.html ).
More to the point, I believe the thinking is that having a large supply of reliable, and relatively affordable power may help strongly stimulate the Kenyan economy, thus making it so that a lot more people can afford the electricity.
We know that energy is used to make stuff, transport it, and preserve it. It follows that access to affordable energy is required for any economy to grow. Too often our discussions about energy revolve around "creature comforts", but this is about more important things than air conditioning, televisions, and computers.
One thing that we can expect is that a portion of solar power installed in the west will need to be removed when a building is refurbished or reroofed. When reinstalled, new panels will be used to match the renewed condition of the building (and the lower present cost of panels). That makes an aftermarket in used panels which may be very attractive in Africa.
If this gets mainstream media coverage, we'll see how the USA thinks of Kenya behind closed doors. If the media says this is great for the poor of Kenya, and this will bring Africa out of poverty, etc, then we'll know Kenya is an ally. If the media says, like Iran, that this will just be used to make nuclear weapons and threaten its neighbors, we'll know Kenya is not an ally. Lack of media coverage might tell us something, too.
Well, the Chinese are building reactors like crazy, and working on new ones. I guess, for lack of American or European initiative, it will be the Chinese that build the first LFTR around 2020 or so; if those work as well as imagined, by 2030 everybody will be wondering why we thought of any other power source - and the Chinese will have locked up the market. And if not the LFTR, it'll be some other Generation IV design that takes off.
The technology, for all its faults, works. Ask the French. LFTRs and other GenIV ideas are evolutionary improvements, not revolutionary.
While we dither about the horrendous dangers of it, (as we die at the rate of 24,000/year from coal), others will simply move ahead without us.
Bummer to be out-tech'd by Kenya, though. (No offense, Kenya).
A nuclear plant needs to be secure constantly, it's a very bad idea to build one in an unstable country. What will happen is that the UN will have to guard it every time some fights break out.
How often is geothermal electricity an option?
Barack Hussein Obama should offer to contribute some of his vast financial resources to this project. After all, Kenya *is* the country where he was born.
If Kenya Power Co can barely maintain an electrical grid, who's to say that they will do better with a nuclear reactor?
The electricity isn't expensive, the Kenyans are poor.
I'd imagine that the Kenyans are poor only because they don't make goods for export. The Balassa-Samuelson model explains how lack of an export sector depresses the value of a currency.
Why waste our time on it when if we invent a nuclear power station that is actually desirable (which has been 5-10 years off for 40+ years) we will just give away the knowledge in the form of patents that the Chinese will unofficially ignore? Then we will out source all the relevant jobs to China and they will corner the market; why would it be any different than all the other markets? Those were back when we had the ability to say no. If we are going to do it for ourselves; we should work with the planet to progress it. I'm still seeing 15 years minimum before we have a new proven design. Nuclear fuel is running out; somehow the USA used up its 3+ million tons and now imports the stuff with about 2 million tons left worldwide-- I've seen estimates of 10 years left before it is too expensive to use; so if you build something now (takes 10 years) it better run on a different radioactive fuel source. Again, its all talk-- somebody show me a working alternative; I'm sick of HEARING about Thorium. Prove it.
I say let the Chinese invent them and maybe we'll copy them for a change... That is if they can invent a working nuclear power plant which I highly doubt because nobody has made progress in over a generation despite all the hype about the next big thing. I'm highly skeptical; even when the 1st plant is proven I'll still be somewhat skeptical because of HISTORY. The more dire the situation the easier it is to sucker people.
Meanwhile, the solar industry has managed to cut costs to the point where 2011 was the year solar SURPASSED nuclear; this despite a generation of intentional neglect. It also doesn't take 10 years to build or some unproven new technology; not to mention they can get insurance instead of forcing the government to have the tax payers insure and constantly inspect it as well as put up the billion dollar loans that never seem to get payed off fairly (plant owners can spend decades with lawyers and bribes hacking away at that government financed debt.) Nuclear power has a poor track record and I'm not just talking about the disasters. It would take less time to figure out a solution for nighttime if we just put the resources into it (create a market of buying daytime power and selling it at night; power would cost more at night....supply driven instead of demand driven. If we had been seriously working on this 40 years ago our battery tech would be more advanced than it is today and probably be impacting the electric cars too.)
Kenya has a lot of SUN. But nobody is going to send them aid if their solar plants are at risk...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
In the first half of 2011 Germany got 20.8% of eneergy from renewable sources. (German source: http://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/DE_20110829-PI-Erneuerbare-liefern-mehr-als-20-Prozent-des-Stroms)
Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
The problem is that no matter how effecient the solar panels get the output per square meter will always be limited by the amount of sunlight hitting that particular location, which at night is zero. While solar certainly does have niche applications, and as the technology gets better those niches will get bigger........BUT it will never be the panacea its been made out to be because of its fundemental deficiencies in reliability (or lack of it) and energy density (or lack of it).
Now to demolish the myth of wind. Wind is even worse than solar. Not only is it far more [url=http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/wind-vs-nuclear-energy-wind-power-deemed-far-more-dangerous.html]dangerous[/url] it also has all of the disadvantages that solar has but none of the niche applications. We stopped using wind more than 100 years ago for anything other than recreation because of its unreliability and very low energy density. Show me a commercial or military ship (the USS Constitution doesnt count) that in this day and age uses only wind and I'll take this a lot more seriously.
As for the myth that these things are sustainable, they dont last forever. While a generation 3 nuclear power plant lasts for a full century, and coal power plants last for at least 50 years, solar and wind only have a designed lifespan of 25 years, after which the whole solar/wind farm needs to be replaced. Now because the capacity factors are very low, to get anything close to the nameplate capacity of nuclear you'd need to build significantly more than the nameplate, and that is a lot of panels and turbines.
It is reasonable in the next 10 years to expect a 10 fold increase in energy storage capacity. However, these systems wont last forever either, and it is also reasonable to expect them to last only a few decades at most. However, to power an entire country, or anything close to it, you'd need tens of MILLIONS of tons of batteries. The cost for this is truely astronomical.
So does wind and solar still look good? I dont think so.
I would think a vital part of that model would be how much a country has to import, whether what you are importing is natural resources (fuel, raw materials), or finished products. If you import more than you export, you'll probably end up broke, no?
I mean, theoretically, if a country had sufficient resources, they could be completely self-sustaining with no exports at all (though very few countries have access to every resource they need).
Anyhow, I do agree with you generally - exports are good, to help you pay for your imports. With nuclear power, Kenya might be in a good position to export power, as well as maybe increase whatever manufacturing they might have, or maybe they have natural resources they can export more than they already are, if they had access to more energy.
And it's all paid for via birth certificate conspiracy tourism. Hawaii should try it also.
Table-ized A.I.
I guess we have to invade Kenya like Iran then.
Face it, you never know. (In this case, isn't that frightening? And I'm not talking about Kenyan nukes.)
Nuclear power: only in Kenya!
But your point is valid.
As a Kenyan myself I appreciate the high cost of electricity. WE depend largely on Hydroelectric power which is dependent on the erratic rainfall patterns so oil based generation has to be used as a backup. This really drives up the cost due to international oil prices. We need to look into other more cost effective sources. Right now a lot is being done in the area of Geo-thermal and wind power which will help plug the gap in production. As efficient as nuclear power may be my biggest concern is safety, unlike developed countries like Japan we don't have a very good industrial safety culture and that's what I'm afraid of. another question is the funding...