By Theophilus Mujoro
Nuclear power technologies interact in their development process with public health and safety, the environment, foreign policy and energy security, as well as the economy. As a result nuclear programmes have increasingly cut across institutional lines of individual state governments, regulatory agencies, nuclear vendors, electric utilities, nuclear fuel-cycle providers, R&D centres and the general public. Nuclear power is a proven technology that emits no sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides or greenhouse gases in power generation, thereby providing a means of responding to a number of environmental challenges now confronting the planet. Renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal could play valuable roles, but their potential contribution is limited by constraints of geography, intermittency and cost-efficiency.
In this context, the ongoing debate on nuclear power should not concern ‘if’ but ‘how’ best Namibia could develop its nuclear power programme.
Namibia’s stated intention to consider nuclear power to meet increasing electricity demands should be viewed as a positive step – at the right time, for satisfying various policy objectives, including energy security of supply, reducing import dependence and reducing greenhouse emissions where applicable and generally for sustainable development.
However, building nuclear power capability should not be done exclusively on a turnkey basis but should be based on a long-term strategy that embraces technological localization in the sense of an imitative catching up process.
Building technological capability in LDCs involves various activities ranging from the acquisition and assimilation of external knowledge to the modification and improvement of acquired knowledge through indigenous R and D efforts. Such a strategy would aggregate the course of developing Namibia’s absorptive capacity of foreign technology which depends on prior knowledge and intensity of effort. Technological localization would enable Namibia in the long run to develop further non-electrical nuclear capabilities, through concerted indigenous R&D efforts, such as desalination of seawater. This technology is currently applied in India and Japan through reverse osmosis.
In OECD countries alone, nuclear power generation accounts for 80% of the world total. In these countries, it has played a major role in the marked reduction of reliance on imported oil. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20 000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal.
Despite its huge growth potential and the substantial contribution it can have for sustainable development in developing countries, nuclear energy has been the exclusive domain of the world’s industrialized nations for a greater part of the last half century. In newly industrializing countries and in transition economies, additional market barriers are created by the capital intensity of nuclear power (and thus by the additional barriers to investment), lack of adequate technical and institutional infrastructure, and restrictions associated with concern over nuclear proliferation. Included in nuclear fuel cycle technologies are all activities ranging from exploration, mining and uranium ore concentration, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication through to spent fuel transport and storage, let alone specialized architecture engineering and the development of the nuclear steam supply (NSSS) design technology. Technically, these activities can be carried out within safety limits. The major concerns are with the complexity, economics and the resource base. This is also the reason why nuclear power has not been an attractive choice in developing countries.
Nuclear power has the advantage of not producing carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. The attention paid to combating global warming has indeed increased the attention paid to nuclear power as a near-zero carbon-emitting technology. In some markets, nuclear is already receiving an economic benefit from this, through carbon trading regimes. The fact is that the contribution of nuclear power to electricity supplies has grown rapidly since the 1970s. As of May 1997, 436 power reactors were in operation in 32 countries. Nuclear power provided over 2300 TWh in 1996. This is about 17% of the world’s total electricity, or 7% of total primary energy. In France, for instance, about 75 percent of the electricity is generated from nuclear power.
This contribution avoids the emission of about 2 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, assuming it would otherwise be provided mainly by coal-fired plants. This represents nearly one-third of the CO2 presently emitted by power generation. Since electricity generation accounts for about 30% of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, total emissions would be about 10% higher if it were not for nuclear power.
The highly capital intensive nature of this energy form, its technological complexity, and the shortage of suitably qualified personnel, imply a very high reliance upon external sources and a drain on resources and currency.
Nuclear accidents at Chernobyl in the Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the United States (Class 7 and Class 5 events respectively on an international scale of nuclear accidents and incidents) have significantly increased public concern over nuclear safety. Literature reveals that IEA Member countries have good safety records and their successful experience in overcoming abnormal occurrences can be interpreted as a demonstration of the excellent employment of defence-in-depth measures. Specific and urgent safety concerns are associated with Russian-designed nuclear reactors in central and Eastern Europe, where nuclear reactor concepts, operating entities and oversight institutions have acted outside the mainstream of international practices. As a world leader in nuclear power technology, Russia has since made significant strides and is at the forefront in leading efforts in dealing with the problem of expanding the worldwide growth of nuclear power while reducing the proliferation threat.
However, safety concerns can be addressed in order to maintain the viability of the nuclear option. This can be done by ensuring that procedures for the safe disposal of radioactive wastes are not only technically feasible but also publicly acceptable; requiring adequately funded and publicly acceptable decommissioning of nuclear power plants; achieving uniform health and safety standards, and increasing public participation and integration of energy security and environmental goals.
As a signatory to the NPT, Namibia’s status as a Non-Nuclear Weapons State holds serious responsibilities and obligations.
The IAEA introduced new nuclear weapons proliferation safeguards under INFCIRC/540 which give the IAEA the authority to assure itself that no undeclared nuclear activities go undetected and unsafeguarded in Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNWS).
The crucial event in harnessing nuclear energy, whether in a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb, is the splitting of the atom. Nuclear fission releases tremendous energy – millions of times more than that of a chemical reaction.
In fact, the fissioning of atoms in one pound of uranium releases as much energy as the burning of 6 000 barrels of oil or 1 000 tons of coal. It makes it relatively easy to transform nuclear technology meant for peaceful purposes into military use.
The nuclear science is thus at the heart of the non-proliferation challenge and that is where the NPT is of utmost significance to the nuclear power debate. Namibia’s nuclear ambition could benefit from the IAEA’s ‘Integrated Assistance Package’ provided she meets the set requirements.
According to the UNDP Human Development Index, Sweden ranks 5th, Canada 6th, Finland 11th, and South Korea 26th. All these countries operate nuclear power plants, not because they care less about their environments or public health and safety, but based on a meticulous cost and benefit analysis and the possibilities presented by nuclear power. Similarly, countries such as Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Georgia and Nigeria are all countries where nuclear power is under serious consideration.
The debate over the future of nuclear power has become increasingly dominated by dedicated advocates and opponents of this source of energy. New improved technologies can help place nuclear power and energy in a realistic perspective in relation to Namibia’s broader energy security, and environmental and economic objectives, while also developing further opportunities and options.
– This article is an adaptation from my master’s thesis: The Yellocake Factor: Nuclear Power in the ‘Third World’, the Case of Namibia