African Nuclear - Part 1

Nuclear energy is present in national debates on a global scale. Africa is seen to be increasingly considering nuclear in this current period of expansion and investment. This topic arose from a recent piece in the IOL Business report (Magubane 2015) and the push for nuclear energy within South Africa. The group “Nuclear Africa” is central to this ambition with desires for the national energy to be nuclear produced – yet the group also acknowledges the restraints from public opinion which were noted in one of my earlier posts. Dr Kemm the CE of the organisation looks at public exaggerations (Drottz-Sjoberg 1990) to have been driven by the media and the dramatised oppositions of groups such as Greenpeace – which I have already noted as being heavily bias and blind to the potential nuclear benefits. These environmental groups are spreading, what could be termed “propaganda” of nuclear disasters, limiting public support and consequently diminishing the scope of possibility. Despite this Africa’s nuclear growth has begun, 10 nations have projects with a further 20+ undertaking serious considerations of promoting a nuclear sector (Magubane 2015).

Greenpeace nuclear protects in South Africa (Greenpeace 2015).

Greenpeace (2015), once again is a major oppositional actor, that looks to drive public disapproval and nuclear removal. They have a particular campaign for the potential expansions of nuclear within South Africa - with critiques of the R1 trillion costs and the lack of transparency. They claim secrecy is detrimental to public accountability – yet surely costs etc. are needed to be kept secret in order for the best price to be obtained by the developer? Dr.Kemm makes the same point:

“This is a bidding process. If you were building a house, you would not tell a builder how much another builder was quoting you” (Magubane 2015).

Greenpeace (2015) also brings forward more general issues to the potential South African growth, by highlighting the obstacles of security risks and waste storage. Furthermore, the organisation claims energy requirements are needed now – the start-up time for nuclear construction can be decades and therefore it is not solving the energy requirement issues of today.

Interest is clear from other sub-Saharan nations such as Uganda, Nigeria and Senegal (IBT 2013); however whether such ambitions are actually attainable is another question. Many may be deterred by the failure of the first African reactor in the Democratic Republic of Congo which shut down due to overheating and the consequent safety concerns. This has led previous plans in Ghana for example to be questioned, not only due to safety – but as mentioned the exponential costs may be out of reach for many of the African nations. Kenya – has $3 million put aside for an energy planning committee, alongside planned construction sites (IBT 2013), however once again it would appear as if public and environmental group resistance is central to slowing the potential within the nation.

The closed nuclear plant in DRC, security and safety concerns are vast (Amoore 2013).

Many would argue that if the nuclear disaster was capable of occurring within the 3^rd largest global GDP of Japan (World Bank 2014), then the potential for disaster surely must be higher within the Sub-Saharan nations that have far less experience and monetary resources.