Namibia Wants to Develop Nuclear Energy

The Namibian government is planning to exploit its rich uranium deposits to commercially generate electricity to achieve self-sustenance in power generation, as shortages loom in 2007, although how it is going to achieve this without any current nuclear power plant plans seems obscure. Namibia is now southern African region's largest producer of uranium, and is the 6th largest world producer.

Namibia imports 45% of its energy requirements from South Africa. Electricity demand peaks at 500 MW, but Namibia can only supply 393 MW if it runs its four power stations at full capacity with South Africa making up for the shortfall. South Africa has indicated that in 2007 it would not be able to meet the region's requirement due to growing demand in the country.

Thanks to Lowem Public Web Log for the link.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Namibia

Comments

Anonymous said…

Hmmm...good luck to them, but with such a small total electrical demand it would seem that the currently available nuclear plant designs really won't meet their needs.

The South African PBMR, or perhaps the even smaller designs proposed by our friend Mr Adams, would be much more appropriate in the context of a developing nation.

October 11, 2006 at 11:52 AM

Anonymous said…

With a lead time of anything up to 15 years for feasibility, design, approvals etc, this proposal is not going to provide any answers in the short term.

PBMR is a promising technology, but won't be available for some time.

October 13, 2006 at 3:07 AM

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog