Skip to main content

Ghana Considers Nuclear, AEHI Responds to SEC

accra 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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…