Skip to main content

Who’s Afraid of Nuclear Energy?

Khartoum The Patriot-Journal in Pennsylvania sees a solution:

We talk and hear a lot about solar and wind power — in fact there are many government-backed programs providing grants and tax incentives for homeowners and companies willing to use these forms of energy production. But another part of our energy equation that is just as important but discussed far less is nuclear power.

The only way the United States will ever become less dependent on other countries for our energy is to increase our commitment to nuclear energy.

True. And it sees some of the problems with making this happen.

Our government has yet to deal with the important issue of disposing of the nuclear waste. Incredibly the federal government has not disposed of any civilian nuclear waste and has no plan for doing so. Estimates show the government is more than 10 years behind schedule in its contractual obligations for waste disposal.

And then it offers some advice:

When he talks about green energy, President Obama must throw ample support behind nuclear power. This means doing more than giving lip service to its importance in the future. It is a key component to the United States becoming more energy independent and more environmentally sound.

Nuclear Notes has spotlighted a lot of editorials, and this one’s pretty good – it lays out the issues clearly and realistically – but it doesn’t seem all that special.

Except that the Patriot-Journal publishes out of Harrisburg and includes in its coverage area the Three Mile Island plant and all its neighbors. That sound you hear is the last domino falling. To pilfer from Edward Albee, Who’s Afraid of Nuclear Energy?

---

And now, Sudan:

Sudan plans to build a four- reactor nuclear power plant to fill a gap in the energy needs of Africa's largest country by 2030 costing between $3-6 billion, the head of Sudan's atomic energy agency said on Tuesday.

Why nuclear energy?

"We did energy planning for forecasting supply and demand and we found that hydro alone is not sufficient to meet the demand alone of the electricity of the country so we are thinking of mixed generation of power -- hydro, fossil fuels and maybe nuclear if things go as planned," he said.

Speaking in this article is nuclear chief Mohamed Ahmed Hassan el-Tayeb.

There are several reasons to doubt that Sudan can do this.

Sudan is not a notably electrified country, so it’s intriguing to know whether the country plans to go for full electrification – it’s the 10th largest country in the world and has a widely dispersed population. (But see this chart from the World Bank, especially from 2000 on, that shows electricity use growing.)

Answer: yes, it does want to electrify:

"Now around 20 percent of the country has electricity -- we need to reach 80 percent by 2020," el-Tayeb said, adding they would also be developing dams for hydro-electric power, fossil fuels and alternative energies including bio fuels such as ethanol, solar power and wind power in the east of Sudan.

That’s a very ambitious goal for a country that has existed from antiquity to now without much electricity – well, the brief period in its history when there has been generated electricity. Sudan appears to require considerable help from the international community to move this goal forward. We found some information on this effort from USAID:

On Tuesday, May 27 [2008], the Government of the United States and the Government of Southern Sudan will join members of the Yei community to celebrate completion of the first community-built and -operated power generation and electricity distribution system in Southern Sudan.

The pilot project is part of USAID’s Southern Sudan Rural Electrification Program, implemented by the National Rural Electrical Cooperative Association (NRECA) International since 2004. With funding from USAID, NRECA has trained Yei residents in the wide spectrum of skills needed to build and operate a small utility.

That gives you a notion of how close to zero the starting point is. Let’s try for zero, though, with this report from a USAID partner The Louis Berger Group, an engineering and construction firm that specializes in economic development:

As USAID’s implementing partner, we work in collaboration with the Government of Southern Sudan to provide support for a full range of physical and institutional needs, capacity building, developmental assistance, institutional strengthening, and sustainable infrastructure development in the transport, urban water and sanitation, public buildings, and energy and natural resources sectors.

Good work, of course, but also the signs of a modern society being built from the ground up. These are worthy goals – assuming this is what the southern Sudanese want – but they are also immensely challenging. (Also, southern Sudan – the Yei - may be breaking off from Sudan after a referendum on the issue in 2011.)

Beyond the issue of modernization is Sudan’s government, not very modernized itself - an authoritarian regime with a ghastly human rights record. Several of its officials have been charged with war crimes due to genocidal activity in the Darfur region of the country.

Finding a partner to build nuclear energy plants beyond a research reactor will be very difficult. The U.S., for example, has had sanctions in place since 1997.

So, nuclear energy? Well, anyone can make an announcement. Sudan seems a poor candidate to be able to bring off such a large project.

Khartoum at night. I suspect that flood of electric light doesn’t extend much outside Khartoum.

Comments

Bill Rodgers said…
Good assessment that Sudan is probably a poor place right now to go nuclear considering the status of their national infrastructure and their government issues.

However, considering the international political issues would the Russians step in and fund a reactor? Could this be the reason Sudan is considering nuclear?

Also how much fossil fuel will Sudan have to buy on the open market if they go natural gas turbines or diesel generators? They are cash strapped as it is so nuclear may seem appealing to them from that standpoint?

Alternately, is Sudan a place where a SMR company could showcase their technology? A high risk proposition considering the long standing government turmoil. But a self contained SMR system would be a good fit from a power output standpoint as Sudan builds a grid.

Popular posts from this blog

Knowing What You’ve Got Before It’s Gone in Nuclear Energy

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

Nuclear energy is by far the largest source of carbon prevention in the United States, but this is a rough time to be in the business of selling electricity due to cheap natural gas and a flood of subsidized renewable energy. Some nuclear plants have closed prematurely, and others likely will follow.
In recent weeks, Exelon and the Omaha Public Power District said that they might close the Clinton, Quad Cities and Fort Calhoun nuclear reactors. As Joni Mitchell’s famous song says, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
More than 100 energy and policy experts will gather in a U.S. Senate meeting room on May 19 to talk about how to improve the viability of existing nuclear plants. The event will be webcast, and a link will be available here.
Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants get no specia…

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…