Ghana Considers Nuclear, AEHI Responds to SEC

Ghana’s turn:

The Deputy Director-General of the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC), Prof Yaw Serfor-Armah, has given the assurance that Ghana will continue to promote the peaceful applications of nuclear techniques and biotechnology for the sustainable development of the country in particular and Africa in general.

That’s always good to hear, though it seems unlikely anyone doubted Ghana’s intentions. This was said at a summit hosted by GAEC and the IAEA in Accra, as the country gears up to build its first plant, scheduled to open in 2018.

Ghana? Although the government has implemented a plan to move its economy to a point that it can sustain a middle class by 2015, right now it is quite poor, with a per capita annual salary of about $700. But if Ghana succeeds in creating a middle class – and even if it doesn’t - it will certainly need more electricity.

The high dependency on rain-fed hydro power, which accounts for 65% of installed capacity has led short falls in electricity supply in case of drought.

More than just “in case of”:

In 2006 and 2007, the nation experienced its third and worst major energy crisis as result of [drought].

So nuclear energy is a way to feed a growing demand for electricity, to spell a hydro system that buckles under drought, and to maintain a positive profile on carbon emissions. (Interestingly, the IAEA report from which I borrowed the above details, recommends a small reactor for Ghana so as not to stress the electricity grid.)

So it seems a reasonable pursuit and Ghana is pursuing it. Time feels a little short for flipping the switch on a plant by 2018, but let’s see what happens.

---

Not that there are not reasons for Ghanese to worry if they’re so inclined:

Personally, I wonder what America would do if Ghana ever pursues nuclear energy. Would America sanction Ghana, or would she plan an attack?

This writer is afraid the U.S. would treat Ghana like Iran. That seems highly unlikely – Ghana is in good standing at the IAEA – but it suggests some of the concerns that can gain currency on the affected side of the planet.

---

A couple of weeks ago, the Securities & Exchange Commission accused Advanced Energy Holdings, Inc. (AEHI) of fraud. You can read the previous post on this news here. As you might expect, AEHI believes it has done nothing wrong:

"They're wrong about the pump. They're wrong about the dump," said AEHI's attorney Richard Roth. "And it's not even... this is not a close call. It's not as if they're right about something. There are no allegations that I've seen in the complaint or the motion that are accurate."

The reference to “pump” and “dump” is to the alleged scheme to raise money to build a new plant in Idaho (the “pump”) and use the proceeds to enrich themselves through the sale of stock (that would be the “dump,” with the shares as the dumped).

As for the alleged stock dumping, AEHI's attorneys say the two people in question did give the CEO money they got from selling stocks, but it wasn't a funneling scheme.

There’s an explanation for this, which you can read at the link. The point here isn’t to make a case for AEHI, which can take care of itself, but to indicate that making an accusation, as the SEC did, is only a first step. AEHI’s response is the second. There will be many more steps to come. Only at the end of them will we know what, if anything, AEHI may have done wrong.

At the crossroads in Accra.

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog