Kenya's First Nuclear Plant Faces Fierce Opposition (theguardian.com) 127
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Kilifi County's white sandy beaches have made it one of Kenya's most popular tourist destinations. Hotels and beach bars line the 165 mile-long (265km) coast; fishers supply the district's restaurants with fresh seafood; and visitors spend their days boating, snorkelling around coral reefs or bird watching in dense mangrove forests. Soon, this idyllic coastline will host Kenya's first nuclear plant, as the country, like its east African neighbour Uganda, pushes forward with atomic energy plans. The proposals have sparked fierce opposition in Kilifi. In a building by Mida Creek, a swampy bayou known for its birdlife and mangrove forests, more than a dozen conservation and rights groups meet regularly to discuss the proposed plant.
"Kana nuclear!" Phyllis Omido, an award-winning environmentalist who is leading the protests, tells one such meeting. The Swahili slogan means "reject nuclear", and encompasses the acronym for the Kenya Anti-Nuclear Alliance who say the plant will deepen Kenya's debt and are calling for broader public awareness of the cost. Construction on the power station is expected to start in 2027, with it due to be operational in 2034. "It is the worst economic decision we could make for our country," says Omido, who began her campaign last year. A lawsuit filed in the environmental court by lawyers Collins Sang and Cecilia Ndeti in July 2023 on behalf of Kilifi residents, seeks to stop the plant, arguing that the process has been "rushed" and was "illegal", and that public participation meetings were "clandestine". They argue the Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (Nupea) should not proceed with fixing any site for the plant before laws and adequate safeguards are in place. Nupea said construction would not begin for years, that laws were under discussion and that adequate public participation was being carried out. Hearings are continuing to take place.
In November, people in Kilifi filed a petition with parliament calling for an inquiry. The petition, sponsored by the Centre for Justice Governance and Environmental Action (CJGEA), a non-profit founded by Omido in 2009, also claimed that locals had limited information on the proposed plant and the criteria for selecting preferred sites. It raised concerns over the risks to health, the environment and tourism in the event of a nuclear spill, saying the country was undertaking a "high-risk venture" without proper legal and disaster response measures in place. The petition also flagged concerns over security and the handling of radioactive waste in a nation prone to floods and drought. The senate suspended (PDF) the inquiry until the lawsuit was heard. "If we really have to invest in nuclear, why can't [the government] put it in a place that does not cause so much risk to our ecological assets?" says Omido. "Why don't they choose an area that would not mean that if there was a nuclear leak we would lose so much as a country?" Peter Musila, a marine scientist who monitors the impacts of global heating on coral reefs, fears that a nuclear power station will threaten aquatic life. The coral cover in Watamu marine national reserve, a protected area near Kilifi's coast, has improved over the last decade and Musila fears progress could be reversed by thermal pollution from the plant, whose cooling system would suck large amounts of water from the ocean and return it a few degrees warmer, potentially killing fish and the micro-organisms such as plankton, which are essential for a thriving aquatic ecosystem. "It's terrifying," says Musila, who works with the conservation organisation A Rocha Kenya. "It could wreak havoc." Nupea, for its part, "published an impact assessment report last year that recommended policies be put in place to ensure environmental protections, including detailed plans for the handling of radioactive waste; measures to mitigate environmental harm, such as setting up a nuclear unit in the national environment management authority; and emergency response teams," notes the Guardian. "It also proposed social and economic protections for affected communities, including clear guidelines on compensation for those who lose their livelihoods, or are displaced from their land, when the plant is set up."
"Nupea said a power station could create thousands of jobs for Kenyans and said it had partnered with Kilifi universities to start nuclear training programs that would enable more residents to take up jobs at the plant. Wilfred Baya, assistant director for energy for Kilifi county, says the plant could also bring infrastructural development and greater electricity access to a region which suffers frequent power cuts."
"Kana nuclear!" Phyllis Omido, an award-winning environmentalist who is leading the protests, tells one such meeting. The Swahili slogan means "reject nuclear", and encompasses the acronym for the Kenya Anti-Nuclear Alliance who say the plant will deepen Kenya's debt and are calling for broader public awareness of the cost. Construction on the power station is expected to start in 2027, with it due to be operational in 2034. "It is the worst economic decision we could make for our country," says Omido, who began her campaign last year. A lawsuit filed in the environmental court by lawyers Collins Sang and Cecilia Ndeti in July 2023 on behalf of Kilifi residents, seeks to stop the plant, arguing that the process has been "rushed" and was "illegal", and that public participation meetings were "clandestine". They argue the Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (Nupea) should not proceed with fixing any site for the plant before laws and adequate safeguards are in place. Nupea said construction would not begin for years, that laws were under discussion and that adequate public participation was being carried out. Hearings are continuing to take place.
In November, people in Kilifi filed a petition with parliament calling for an inquiry. The petition, sponsored by the Centre for Justice Governance and Environmental Action (CJGEA), a non-profit founded by Omido in 2009, also claimed that locals had limited information on the proposed plant and the criteria for selecting preferred sites. It raised concerns over the risks to health, the environment and tourism in the event of a nuclear spill, saying the country was undertaking a "high-risk venture" without proper legal and disaster response measures in place. The petition also flagged concerns over security and the handling of radioactive waste in a nation prone to floods and drought. The senate suspended (PDF) the inquiry until the lawsuit was heard. "If we really have to invest in nuclear, why can't [the government] put it in a place that does not cause so much risk to our ecological assets?" says Omido. "Why don't they choose an area that would not mean that if there was a nuclear leak we would lose so much as a country?" Peter Musila, a marine scientist who monitors the impacts of global heating on coral reefs, fears that a nuclear power station will threaten aquatic life. The coral cover in Watamu marine national reserve, a protected area near Kilifi's coast, has improved over the last decade and Musila fears progress could be reversed by thermal pollution from the plant, whose cooling system would suck large amounts of water from the ocean and return it a few degrees warmer, potentially killing fish and the micro-organisms such as plankton, which are essential for a thriving aquatic ecosystem. "It's terrifying," says Musila, who works with the conservation organisation A Rocha Kenya. "It could wreak havoc." Nupea, for its part, "published an impact assessment report last year that recommended policies be put in place to ensure environmental protections, including detailed plans for the handling of radioactive waste; measures to mitigate environmental harm, such as setting up a nuclear unit in the national environment management authority; and emergency response teams," notes the Guardian. "It also proposed social and economic protections for affected communities, including clear guidelines on compensation for those who lose their livelihoods, or are displaced from their land, when the plant is set up."
"Nupea said a power station could create thousands of jobs for Kenyans and said it had partnered with Kilifi universities to start nuclear training programs that would enable more residents to take up jobs at the plant. Wilfred Baya, assistant director for energy for Kilifi county, says the plant could also bring infrastructural development and greater electricity access to a region which suffers frequent power cuts."
Same old, same old (Score:2, Insightful)
What is the Swahili word for NIMBY?
Re: (Score:2)
SKUWWN (sio kwenye uwanja wangu wa nyuma)
A country with no nuclear (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A country with no nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to find some conspiracy theory to realise that a group with common sense can organise a protest. A country with not only no nuclear but no wider industry to speak of shouldn't be attempting one of the most sensitive and complex (in terms of wider industry support requirements) projects full stop.
If nuclear were a good solution it most definitely wouldn't be for *Kenya*, a country which would suddenly become wholly dependent on another to support the plant, get the fuel, dispose of waste, and to say nothing of the cost of electricity for a country with skyrocketing poverty, plunging water reserves, and most critically... is literally in the perfect place to make themselves energy independent by investigating storage for their renewable energy sources which currently make up 90% of electricity in the country already.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well quite. I'm a supporter of nuclear too. But yeah spot on. And Kenya has some of the highest insolation.
Re: (Score:2)
Kenya has some of the highest insolation.
I think you'll find Nambia has higher insolation.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'll find I said some of the highest, not the highest.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need to find some conspiracy theory to realise that a group with common sense can organise a protest. A country with not only no nuclear but no wider industry to speak of shouldn't be attempting one of the most sensitive and complex (in terms of wider industry support requirements) projects full stop.
If nuclear were a good solution it most definitely wouldn't be for *Kenya*, a country which would suddenly become wholly dependent on another to support the plant, get the fuel, dispose of waste, and to say nothing of the cost of electricity for a country with skyrocketing poverty, plunging water reserves, and most critically... is literally in the perfect place to make themselves energy independent by investigating storage for their renewable energy sources which currently make up 90% of electricity in the country already.
Yah, I'm not so certain that I'd be all in on planting nuc power plants in countries that have an unstable history. Kenya is working on it, I have hopes for the future, but is it ready now?
Will the plant be built safely? Or will it be an African version of the Virgil C. Summer nuclear station debacle in the USA, only built and put into service in this case? I remember years ago, some wags had a quip - "Kenya Imagine that? Well, Uganda win them all!
Re: (Score:2)
Sure had people organizing against it very quickly and effectively, almost as if they had help, that there is the real news story!
By “help” I can only assume you mean the corruption there isn’t nearly as complex as the NIMBY-riddled political red tape bullshit that purposely cripples nuclear plant projects for fucking decades in “first” world countries. Ironic we can start and end a nuclear war in a matter of hours, but can’t find a way to build a nuclear plant in less than two decades.
Lets also hope their nuclear plant is operating safely too. After 38 years, Chernobyl isn’t looking too tou
Re:A country with no nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
After 38 years, Chernobyl isn’t looking too touristy anytime soon. Speed kills.
No, Bad design kills. Modern nuclear plant designs, developed over the past 40 years, are engineered to prevent incidents like the Chernobyl disaster.
But hey, your wording sure helps with spreading FUD.
Re: (Score:3)
Chernobyl was in fact engineered not to melt down. The engineering was flawed and they realised it, but politically were unable to do anything about it. You can blame it on the Soviet system being unwilling to admit mistakes, but commercial for-profit companies are just as bad when money is on the line.
Engineering is a process, one which for nuclear plants is on-going for the entire lifetime of the plant, and for decades and centuries after decommissioning starts. It needs constant attention and investment
Re:A country with no nuclear (Score:4, Interesting)
Chernobyl was in fact engineered not to melt down.
Indeed it was. That's why they had to disable the safety systems and put the control rods in a prohibited configuration to get it to melt down. It was not resilient against what amounted to deliberate sabotage by the reactor's operators. Newer designs are more resilient against such abuse.
Re:A country with no nuclear (Score:4, Interesting)
They believed that even if the safety systems failed, a meltdown was impossible. They didn't fully understand the physics when the reactor was designed. Later scientists started warning that it was in fact possible for there to be a catastrophic failure, but the reports were buried and redacted on "national security" grounds.
It's not enough to design a reactor to be safer, it has to be a continuous process of re-evaluation and improvement, with the will to shut it all down and write it off if the problems can't be overcome.
Worryingly it looks like Kenya is already going the Soviet route and blocking proper public participation in the decision to built it. It seems doubtful that they have proper safety regulation in place, if they won't even accept public oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So your excuse for not allowing the citizens to participate is that you think they are too stupid to understand it or contribute anything meaningful... Aside from being a pretty shitty attitude, you also apparently fully trust the small number of people involved in the project to have a firm grasp and no conflicting motives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What’s proper public participation” ? Bunch of NIMBYs howling not wanna”? Or maybe illiterate farmer doing oversight” of reactor’s safety systems?
You illustrate the problem. Anyone not willing to go along with any reactor is a NIMBY, or illiterate farmers.
The perfect way to eliminate trust, and the perfect way to get Virgil C. Summer nuclear station debacle, which had unqualified people designing critical systems, corruption and people committing crimes. Bankrupting Westinghouse, and ending up putting people in jail. 9 billion dollars spent, and not a single Watt-hour of electricity generated. And the Citizens of South Carolina left footing the bi
Re: (Score:2)
To the point that I can unequivocally state that a nuclear fission fueled power plant can be "safe", safe meaning that it is not prone to meltdown and/or release large amounts of radiation into the environment.
Humans however, can't do this.
The history of nuclear power to date disputes this conclusion. Empirically, nuclear power is far and away the safest energy generation technology yet created and deployed at scale. Theoretically it could be very dangerous, but in practice this risk has never been demonstrated.
Re: (Score:2)
To the point that I can unequivocally state that a nuclear fission fueled power plant can be "safe", safe meaning that it is not prone to meltdown and/or release large amounts of radiation into the environment.
Humans however, can't do this.
The history of nuclear power to date disputes this conclusion. Empirically, nuclear power is far and away the safest energy generation technology yet created and deployed at scale. Theoretically it could be very dangerous, but in practice this risk has never been demonstrated.
And as I noted before, Air travel is the safest mode of transportation in human history.
But if you lose your engines at 30 thousand feet and fall out of the sky - you are dead. Imagine the pilot telling the soon to be dead passengers that flying is safe.
And Price Anderson tells us that for the potential problems, The government has to insure the plants, via Price Anderson. Because an oopsie would make for insurance premiums that no nuc station could pay, and would bankrupt the insurance company.
Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Renewables and solar are great, but arguing that nuclear power isn't safe is contradicted by 70 years of actual usage. And the analogy with airplanes is meaningless -- when people installing solar panels fall off the roof and die, they're also just as dead. What of it? What matters is the statistical rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Renewables and solar are great, but arguing that nuclear power isn't safe is contradicted by 70 years of actual usage. And the analogy with airplanes is meaningless -- when people installing solar panels fall off the roof and die, they're also just as dead. What of it? What matters is the statistical rates.
Your claim that nothing matters but the statistical rates tells us that you are remarkably unconcerned about yourself. The statistics are what matters, and if you are in an airplane that crashes, you are unconcerned. I'm pretty certain you actually are concerned about your well being.
And it's a little strange claiming "what matters" is the statistical rates, then dismiss as "meaningless" the very same statistical rates of airplane travel. The truth is you find what I wrote problematic.
The worldwide ri
Re: (Score:3)
Chernobyl was in fact engineered not to melt down.
Indeed it was. That's why they had to disable the safety systems and put the control rods in a prohibited configuration to get it to melt down. It was not resilient against what amounted to deliberate sabotage by the reactor's operators. Newer designs are more resilient against such abuse.
Exactly, I noted above, but I'll say it again, nuc power can be safe. The problem is humans in the loop. Yes, the brain dead test they initiated seemed almost purposely designed to destroy the reactor. If not for that, Reactor number 4 could be merrily running today, a bit finicky yes, but when limitations are understood, you work within them. The weak point is humanity, and I don't know how to fix that.
Re: (Score:2)
nuc power can be safe
Nuc power IS safe. Fewest deaths per TWh, but the accidents tend to be concentrated in one place so you hear about them in the news.
Re: (Score:2)
nuc power can be safe
Nuc power IS safe. Fewest deaths per TWh, but the accidents tend to be concentrated in one place so you hear about them in the news.
It's like how Air Travel is by miles flown, the safest mode of transportation ever. But if the plane goes down with you in it, the pilot can tell all the people who are going to burn up and die in a few minutes how safe it is and they'll thank the pilot and be happy because it is the safest.
The exceptions are what makes for an issue, as you say.
There are other issues as well, such as removing valuable real estate from use for long periods of time. The Fukushima area would be productive, and new housing
Re: (Score:2)
I'm only half joking. And half worried they will put AI in charge of nukes. You know it's going to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Chernobyl was in fact engineered not to melt down.
RBMK reactors, like those used at Chernobyl, had several critical design flaws:
- Positive Void Coefficient: When coolant water turns to steam, reactor reactivity increases, leading to power surges.
- Control Rod Design: Control rods had graphite tips, causing a temporary increase in reactivity when inserted, which could spike power dangerously.
- Lack of Containment: No robust containment structure to prevent radioactive materials to escape during an accident.
- Low Power Instability: Reactors were unstable at
Re: (Score:2)
Chernobyl was actually designed to be safer than it ended up being. But when they started building it, even thought it was a government run operation, monetary considerations meant that the fuel rods were cheapened to the point they were dangerous, and they didn't bother building a containment building at all.
A safer design is only the very first step on a century long road to building, operating, and decommissioning the plant safely.
Re: (Score:2)
monetary considerations meant that the fuel rods were cheapened to the point they were dangerous, and they didn't bother building a containment building at all.
You need sources for that. The rods were designed like that not because of "monetary" reasons. No containment building was planned in the original design either.
You might not know what sourcing an assertion means. Let me give you an example. Here is the detailed explanation of why the control rods were designed the way they were, with a graphite tip [stackexchange.com]. As you can see, if you bother clicking on the link, and reading/understanding the actual explanation (which may take more than 2 mins), it was not because of m
Re: (Score:2)
Chernobyl was in fact engineered not to melt down. The engineering was flawed and they realised it, but politically were unable to do anything about it. You can blame it on the Soviet system being unwilling to admit mistakes, but commercial for-profit companies are just as bad when money is on the line.
Engineering is a process, one which for nuclear plants is on-going for the entire lifetime of the plant, and for decades and centuries after decommissioning starts. It needs constant attention and investment ($$$), and a strong regulatory system that isn't afraid to tell the operator to shut everything down until issues are addressed.
I'll get in trouble here, but with proper operation, The Chernobyl number 4 could be happily generating power today with proper operation. Yes, it was finicky, yes, it could self destruct, but that happens when people end up in familiarity breeds contempt mode.
Which is why I have long said that nuclear power generation can be safe and clean. But not when humans are involved. Humans put people who have other motives than safety in charge. Put the lead engineer and the CEO and CFO in a room to discuss a s
Re: (Score:2)
Chernobyl, did not melt down.
It exploded.
The graphite moderator caught fire and the whole thing got boom in an ordinary fire. Did not even have anything to do with "nuclear".
Re: (Score:2)
Exaggeration about nuclear matters does not do your cause any favours.
You can blame it on the Soviet system being unwilling to admit mistakes, but commercial for-profit companies are just as bad when money is on the line.
If only there was a thing called "regulation" to keep for profit companies in line.
The facts are that the RBMK reactors were built to be cheap, which is why they were designed to run off natural uranium fuel (i.e. no need for expensive enrichment). To do that they built a reactor with a mas
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was a navy nuclear engineer in the late 80s and early 90s. We sat in a lecture that went over the entire incident report. Its not a rumor. Its
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the most important characteristics of the RBMK reactor is that it can possess a 'positive void coefficient', where an increase in steam bubbles ('voids') is accompanied by an increase in core reactivity
Whereas in a PWR water is used to thermalize the neutrons because u-235 absorbs low energy neutrons not fast moving ones. To simplify the description as much as possible of fast fuels vs slow fuels. A positive reactivity coefficient is a horrible horrible design. Theres no built in control.
Re: (Score:2)
well: we do not have plants running with modern designs. They are all the same like as in the 1970s.
Your profound lack of knowledge about the topic you despise the most (nuclear energy) is quite striking, to say the least.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets also hope their nuclear plant is operating safely too. After 38 years, Chernobyl isnâ(TM)t looking too touristy anytime soon. Speed kills.
Chernobyl is actually very touristy. Or at least until the russians invaded and stared digging shit up, but that's a different type of problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There has been an environmental and social movement in Kenya for decades, that's why.
They can see that nuclear is unaffordable, and being built right next to some excellent and much cheaper off-shore wind resources. Nuclear really makes no sense unless the government wants to also acquire nuclear weapons.
Keep in mind that it's not just the cost of the building and operating the plant. Kenya has to create a nuclear regulator to keep it safe, supply the fuel, dispose of the fuel long term, and make sure there
Re: (Score:3)
They can see that nuclear is unaffordable, and being built right next to some excellent and much cheaper off-shore wind resources.
They already have 90% renewables in their mix. But as the people who are actually planning their electricity grid states:
“For our current levels of development, the renewable energy resources that we have are sufficient, but as we aspire for industrialisation, we need more sources of base load,” says Justus Wabuyabo, Nupea’s CEO, referring to the minimum amount of power the country will require in the future.
About 90% of Kenya’s electricity comes from renewable sources, but solar and wind are not available around the clock and hydro power is under strain from climate-induced drought.
This is the exact same reason why you keep burning gas/coal in your country. They, on the other hand, are going with a much less CO2-emitting energy source. And they are still building renewables too.
You should put your money where your mouth is: stop burning gas/coal, and see what lifestyle you can have. And don't bullshit me with Octopus Energy... They are only buying green certificates
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion would be great too. But we need proven solutions now. Nuclear is one of them (as proven by France with its nuclear/hydro/solar/wind mix). Tidal at scale is not (but correct me if I am wrong, happy to read more about it if you have any sources).
Re: (Score:2)
I was against nuclear because of the long term issues with it and low but real risks. Having lived in Zaporozhye for a few months I do worry about what might happen there with its nuclear plant under Russian control. That said I think it is worth considering for countries already with decent programs in place to manage it, such as France, as I agree the need
Re: (Score:2)
However it sounds like Kenya is already doing well with solar, their proven now solution
Kenya is not doing well with solar. With 90% of their mix is renewables, they miss electricity stability (i.e.: without intermittency) to keep industrializing their country and get out of the poverty pit they are in. Being able to run your appliances a few hours per day (which is what they currently do, with the huge amount of blackouts they have) is *not* doing well.
Furthermore, solar-only is not a proven now solution to decarbonize an electricity grid for a developed country. For that to work, it needs to
Re: (Score:2)
Actually we burn hardly any coal now, it's all been displaced by renewables. Gas continues to fall too, again due to renewables. The first of our new nuclear plants isn't even due to come online until 2030, assuming no more delays.
Nice story, bro. That was not the question though.
Let me refresh your memory, and you can try answering accordingly:
This is the exact same reason why you keep burning gas/coal in your country. They, on the other hand, are going with a much less CO2-emitting energy source. And they are still building renewables too.
You should put your money where your mouth is: stop burning gas/coal, and see what lifestyle you can have. And don't bullshit me with Octopus Energy... They are only buying green certificates from
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if they are getting paid or are just idiots, but for some reason the nuclear fans like to abuse the moderation system to promote their favourite overpriced crap.
Environmental blessing (Score:2, Troll)
Nothing ensures the protection of a national park better than a nuclear meltdown.
That's one sure way to ensure humans won't destroy more of the habitat. Ask people in Ukraine. Even during the invasion they're (somewhat) careful not to still up the dirt.
Re: Environmental blessing (Score:2)
If only Russia were as careful they wouldn't have been digging trenches in Chernobyl
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It was also a bonkers design even for the day. Super cheap to run off natural uranium also there as a very dual use plant to cook plutonium for weapons.
Joining the Ranks of Developed Countries (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA:
“For our current levels of development, the renewable energy resources that we have are sufficient, but as we aspire for industrialisation, we need more sources of base load,” says Justus Wabuyabo, Nupea’s CEO, referring to the minimum amount of power the country will require in the future.
About 90% of Kenya’s electricity comes from renewable sources, but solar and wind are not available around the clock and hydro power is under strain from climate-induced drought.
Good for them. They already have a lot of renewables, and pairing it with nuclear (they already maxed out their hydro potential) is the best way to keep pushing forward their economic development.
Re: (Score:2)
FTA:
“For our current levels of development, the renewable energy resources that we have are sufficient, but as we aspire for industrialisation, we need more sources of base load,” says Justus Wabuyabo, Nupea’s CEO, referring to the minimum amount of power the country will require in the future.
About 90% of Kenya’s electricity comes from renewable sources, but solar and wind are not available around the clock and hydro power is under strain from climate-induced drought.
Good for them. They already have a lot of renewables, and pairing it with nuclear (they already maxed out their hydro potential) is the best way to keep pushing forward their economic development.
IT's a pity that physics proves that there is no possible way to store anergy from solar and wind. Simply impossible, and always will be impossible. I have no idea what will happen when the sun goes down. People will huddle in the dark - stupid people!
Re: (Score:3)
Bisected by the equator, mostly clear skies. It's basically an ideal place for solar... and their geothermal projects produce lithium as a waste product.
They ought to be building grid-scale batteries instead of nuclear plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Belt and Road Initiative [wikipedia.org] aka Modern Colonialism
Kenya is not investing in building their own nuclear power plant. China is loaning Kenya the money to pay China to build a nuclear power plant.
Kenya will owe China a lot of money, and will be reliant on Chinese engineers to maintain and operate the system (more debt).
What could Kenya possibly have that they can pay China back with? A steady supply of high-grade lithium at prices controlled by China.
Re: (Score:2)
Belt and Road Initiative [wikipedia.org] aka Modern Colonialism
Kenya is not investing in building their own nuclear power plant. China is loaning Kenya the money to pay China to build a nuclear power plant.
Kenya will owe China a lot of money, and will be reliant on Chinese engineers to maintain and operate the system (more debt).
What could Kenya possibly have that they can pay China back with? A steady supply of high-grade lithium at prices controlled by China.
That certainly sounds plausible, but there is a cloud on the Lithium horizon.
Look for the Lithium market to have some upheaval, as Sodium batteries are nearing economic production. Sodium and Lithium were originally being researched at the same times. Lithium has a bit higher energy density, but is also more dangerous, especially when we try to pack it more and more densely.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a downside for China.
If someday China no-longer needs the Lithium, they will still have a debtor country that owes them more than it can pay. If there is anything else they want, they will simply demand it as payment for the debts.
Performing the work in the first place does not cost China anything, really. They have an abundance of workers to keep occupied, and the more they do the better they become at doing: It keeps many Chinese citizens occupied at productive work -which is good for stability in C
Re: (Score:2)
Bisected by the equator, mostly clear skies. It's basically an ideal place for solar... and their geothermal projects produce lithium as a waste product.
They ought to be building grid-scale batteries instead of nuclear plants.
That is the big thing. Grid scale batteries will become more and more common in the future. This is simple math elctronics, and chemistry - there are no real obstacles, no physics problems. It doesn't even have problems of scaling.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the big thing. Grid scale batteries will become more and more common in the future. This is simple math elctronics, and chemistry - there are no real obstacles, no physics problems. It doesn't even have problems of scaling.
YAMELUP: Yet Another Miraculous Excuse Letting Us Procrastinate
You should inform the actual scientists and analysts planning electricity grids that there are no obstacles or physics problems with grid-scale batteries. They would certainly be interested to know why their analyses suggest otherwise.
Or maybe you can point me to a country with solar/wind/"grid scale batteries" that has managed to decarbonize its electricity? No? Damn.
I, on the other hand, can point you to several countries having decarbonized t
Re: (Score:2)
That is the big thing. Grid scale batteries will become more and more common in the future. This is simple math elctronics, and chemistry - there are no real obstacles, no physics problems. It doesn't even have problems of scaling.
YAMELUP: Yet Another Miraculous Excuse Letting Us Procrastinate
I simply love people who come up with really clever acronyms. My response in direct proportion to the insights you offer is:
Who's carrying the risks? (Score:3)
One of the details about nuclear power is that the risk for a totally catastrophic event is usually carried, explicitly or implicitly, by the government of the country. If it didn't, it's unlikely that any plant would get built because the cost of insurance would be too high.
More broadly: given the spectacular cost overruns associated with plant building over the decades when it is in a new country, who is on the hook when these occur. One of the UK's greatest achievements was getting EDF to accept that risk in building its new generation of stations; the French are getting rather upset about it!
'EDF and the French government were seeking ways for Britain to fund the higher construction costs at Hinkley, people close to the discussions have said.
But a UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said on Tuesday: “Hinkley Point C is not a government project and so any additional costs or schedule overruns are the responsibility of EDF and its partners and will in no way fall on taxpayers.”
https://www.ft.com/content/115... [ft.com]
Re:Who's carrying the risks? (Score:4, Insightful)
the French are getting rather upset about it!
Yet Hinkley Point C will generate three times more revenue for EDF over its lifespan. Essentially, this means the UK is subsidizing EDF, allowing them to build more EPRs in other countries. It's unclear why you believe the French were "upset" about it.
Regarding the statement, "EDF and the French government were seeking ways for Britain to fund the higher construction costs at Hinkley," what do you expect? Naturally, they would seek ways to have others share the costs. After all, this is a business, and it would be unwise not to explore opportunities for external funding. Do you actually run a business? A successful one?
More broadly: given the spectacular cost overruns associated with plant building over the decades when it is in a new country
Unless they partner with China to build it. China has constructed 30 plants over the last 20 years and has concrete plans to build 250 more by 2035. They manage to avoid cost overruns due to two main factors:
- Consistent regulations during the building phase reduce the likelihood of cost overruns.
- The first construction project is challenging and considered a "prototype." Repeated construction allows for cost optimization and the development of an industry that can leverage its accumulated knowledge.
China has a significant presence in Africa. Can you guess where Kenya is?
Good response, thank you. (Score:2)
I'm not clear why you think the UK is subsidising the French; both the other two 'prototypes', in Finland and France, are suffering similar cost overruns. What am I missing here?
The Chinese were partners in the project but have refused to share the extra costs in this case. Given the 'collapse' in relationships with China, perhaps we should be pleased that they're no longer involved. As to whether it is wise for Kenya to have a Chinese built nuke on its territory; how vicious do you think the Chinese are?
Re: (Score:3)
What am I missing here?
EDF agreed to cover the costs, even if they rise, because Hinkley Point C will generate three times more revenue for them despite the increased expenses. This essentially means that, in the long run, UK consumers are funding EDF's acquisition of expertise in building EPRs, which will subsequently be marketed and sold in other countries.
This is really not rocket science.
how vicious do you think the Chinese are?
Less than you, who would like emerging countries to stay at the level they are. You don't have any valid proposals, you are just saying "no,
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially, this means the UK is subsidizing EDF
The UK is exceptionally good at saving money by outsourcing to foreign companies and paying them a lot more than it originally cost domestically.
Re: (Score:2)
However the plants in France to not generate any revenue at all.
Cool story, bro. Here are some actual facts: 10 billion profits in 2023 for EDF [euronews.com].
I thought you were French and knew that?
Ah? Wrong assumption again.
How common is stupidity? (Score:2)
Once you ask that question, the answer becomes obvious. And when you roll the dice enough times the most unlikely result will inevitably occur.
I've gone off nuclear power because of these risks and because the cost of decommissioning and long term storage of waste remains unknown. In that context other power sources - most significantly tidal for those of us who live within a sensible distance from a tidal sea - become far more attractive.
Ultimately it's unestimatable future costs (Score:2)
I'll admit that the probability of a catastrophic event is pretty low, so if there was no alternative nuclear power would probably make sense. Because we have NO idea how much the clean up costs will be and there are increasingly viable alternatives, it makes sense for THOSE reasons to stop future plants and spend the money on alternative technologies. So it's not driven by an irrational phobia... :)
Is nuclear power environmentally friendly? (Score:3)
Nuclear takes up far less land area than solar or wind. And it is less disruptive to a local ecosystem then hydro.
Death rate for nuclear power is somewhere between wind and solar, primarily from accidents. And of course minuscule compared to death rate from coal pollution or mining accidents.
Radioactive waste management is very complex. As not all waste needs to be treated equally. For the first nuclear power plant in that country, much of the waste can be kept on site for decades. It's simply not that large of a volume, and it's safer not to move it. It's when your nation has many nuclear reactors, and you start decommissioning them is when you have to worry about permanent storage.
Re:Local enrichment facilities? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They are so peaceloving they still have wild animals that can kill humans.
Assuming nature has “safe spaces” is the reason retired Florida Grandmothers get dragged to their deaths walking their dogs 2 feet from a neighborhood retention pond. As if the alligator knows or cares what peaceloving country they’re in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are so peaceloving they still have wild animals that can kill humans.
Assuming nature has “safe spaces” is the reason retired Florida Grandmothers get dragged to their deaths walking their dogs 2 feet from a neighborhood retention pond. As if the alligator knows or cares what peaceloving country they’re in.
I've always wondered how people don't seem to understand that if you are in an area with Alligators, you have to be really careful.
I suppose the present trend of loving and caring about animals - a worthy thing - has a lot of people forgetting that wild animals are wild animals. So we get this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] ans=d https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] and https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And a group of women pulling bear cubs from a tree for selfies https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
A
Re: (Score:2)
There is a story about a Lady, not super old but you could call her elderly, walking her two dogs on a paved way into a forest.
The dogs were Dobermann - not really the strongest "battle dogs" - but they are fierce and clever.
Suddenly the dogs dragged her to a tree, she fell and got some bruises, and skin injuries.
Well, the unlucky dogs met a Lynx. The Lynx nearly killed them.
While not terribly huge, Lynx are in a category similar to badgers, only a lot prettier. Never mess with a Lynx. I saw a TV show - might have been "Life below Zero" where A lynx got into a guys cabin and he had to figure out how to get it out. He ended up using trash can lids to try to direct the cat out. Took a while, and the second it got out, he slammed the door to let kitty calm down and wait a couple hours to venture out again. He considered himself lucky to not be injured.
The lady sued the "forest department", obviously she lost the case.
People are stupid. I mean there is another saying: consider how stupid the average person is, then think about: half of them are below average.
Boy howdy yes. And the dum
Re: (Score:2)
Kenya got lions [youtube.com] and I'm not sure how trustworthy those are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kenyan lions may not be trustworthy but the very fact they still have lions means Kenyan people are more trustworthy than Europeans who are so warlike they have wiped out every large predator in mainland Europe.
Maybe if we had lions they'd still be around too!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will Kenya also have its uranium enrichment facilities?
I assume they'd just get it from China which is economically prevalent in Africa.
Re:Bad idea for many new reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
A country with no meaningful industrialisation to speak of should not be engaging in one of the most contractually complex and specialised forms of power generation.
Breaking news for you, my friend: emerging countries are no longer interested in your paternalistic post-colonial rhetoric. Their share of renewable energy is already higher than that of your country. Their analysis is: "For our current levels of development, our renewable energy resources are sufficient, but as we aim for industrialization, we need more base load sources." You are free to disagree and follow a different path in your own country, which will likely result in a worse situation for you.
The unfortunate reality is that their country already emits less per capita than yours and will continue to do so in the future due to their current choices. The even sadder truth is that your country had the opportunity and the wealth to reverse the trend 50 years ago, as France did, but you did not.
There's already a chronic shortage in the nuclear services industry
Is that why China is building more nuclear plants, with 50 already in operation and 250 by 2035? They are also exporting their expertise to other parts of the world, including Africa. Remember where Kenya is? Oh, right.
The West could have been a pioneer in this industry, but chose not to for ideological reasons, which directly impacted climate change, thanks to people like you. So don't whine about it now.
Try something easier first before you jump with zero experience
They are doing it iteratively [iaea.org], with help from the IEA and other countries, planning to build first a research reactor as a stepping stone. You really should stop with your condescending tone when talking about emerging countries. They are fully capable of making their own choices without needing your supervision or acceptance.
Re: (Score:2)
emerging countries are no longer interested in your paternalistic post-colonial rhetoric
Funny that they would be making themselves dependent on foreign nuclear technology then, isn't it?
I just hope that China treats them better than we did.
Re: (Score:2)
They should instead use solar and batteries because Kenya has a deep base of expertise and industrial infrastructure for both of those. Won't rely on foreigners nearly as much with those technologies.
Saying Kenya is too dumb to make rational decisions for themselves is the racism of low expectations. "Oh, those poor dumb (black) Kenyans have no idea what they're doing and can't possibly ever figure out how to manage anything more complex than a pack of D batteries! They should start with something more s
Re: (Score:3)
Kenya does in fact make its own solar panels: https://www.howwemadeitinafric... [howwemadeitinafrica.com]
It's not about intelligence you nincompoop, it's about the fact that a nuclear industry takes a very long time to develop from scratch and on their timescales it's clear that they are importing most of what they need.
Re: (Score:3)
Kenya does in fact make its own solar panels:
Yes. And their hands-on conclusion is that it is not enough if they want to grow and fight poverty, as quoted in the article:
- “For our current levels of development, the renewable energy resources that we have are sufficient, but as we aspire for industrialisation, we need more sources of base load,” (Justus Wabuyabo, Nupea’s CEO)
The unfortunate reality is that their country already emits less per capita than yours and will continue to do so in the future due to their current choices. The
Re: (Score:3)
The CEO of the company building the expensive nuclear plant thinks that the expensive nuclear plant is the only solution for his projected future power demands. A great impartial source you have there.
Why do you trust him, but not the other Kenyans opposing it?
Re: (Score:2)
The CEO of the company building the expensive nuclear plant thinks that the expensive nuclear plant is the only solution for his projected future power demands.
Why do you trust him, but not the other Kenyans opposing it?
Great question, my friend. The projected future power demands are not his alone but those of Kenya as a whole. He's not building a nuclear plant simply because he wants to; it was mandated by Kenya's Energy Minister. NuPEA is a state corporation, and if you had done your research, you would know that there are independent sources confirming this. The other Kenyans opposing the plant are NIMBYs who would rather rely on fossil fuels, despite being among the most vulnerable to climate change impacts.
And in the
Re:Bad idea for many new reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
They have already analyzed their situation and determined, as intelligent (black) adults what they need. It isn't solar. It is nuclear.
What analysis have you done that shows a country like (black) Kenya can't figure out for themselves that nuclear is hard but worth the effort?
This is the sort of European arrogance that keeps the entire continent down. "Don't develop your own industry. Don't educate your people. Don't do science. Just give us your raw mineral resources and we'll sell you final products and occasionally destroy your efforts to build a functional economy with 'gifts' that undercut and destroy the chance of any locals building an economy".
Are you smarter than the people running Kenya?
Re: (Score:3)
I refer you to the (black) Kenyans opposing this new nuclear power station, who claim that there are better alternatives. Given that I know there are much better options, cheaper, safer, faster to deliver, can be largely manufactured in Kenya if desired, I tend to trust them more than the proponents who seem to be railroading the thing through without even proper public consultation.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you smarter than the people running Kenya?
People running countries are largely politicians, and the politicians of all countries have a long history of making dumb fucking decisions. Yes. Look it pains me to say this, but even YOU are likely smarter than the people running Kenya.
But on other topics. Thinking that basic economics of reflection is some form of "European Arrogance" shows you're just as bad as some Kenyan politicians when it comes to nuclear policy. Why do I say some? Because you seem to think everyone running Kenya agrees this is a go
Re: (Score:2)
No one in Kenya did any math. No analysis was done. Some politicians just woke up one day and said, "Hey let's build a nuclear power plant! I don't know why or how I came up with that but let's do it!".
Everyone doesn't have to agree. There are people who think the earth is flat. That makes this statement true, "Not everyone agrees the earth is round" (or spherical really but whatever). So what? There are always people who disagree with any decision. Leadership means looking at the information availab
Re: (Score:2)
I mean I generally disagree with you over nuclear power, but to me this seems bonkers.
Re: (Score:2)
They should instead use solar and batteries because Kenya has a deep base of expertise and industrial infrastructure for both of those. Won't rely on foreigners nearly as much with those technologies.
This. Kenya can become a world leader in that technology.
Saying Kenya is too dumb to make rational decisions for themselves is the racism of low expectations. "Oh, those poor dumb (black) Kenyans have no idea what they're doing and can't possibly ever figure out how to manage anything more complex than a pack of D batteries! They should start with something more suitable to their (black) intelligence levels, like AA batteries. Maybe one day we can even let them in on the secret of 9v!"
Kenyans are pretty progressive. They appear to be doing pretty well. Not perfect, but who is. My concerns are no so much with Kenyans, but the instability in some neighbors becomes their instability - at least as far as what can happen to a nuclear power plant.
But yes, Solar, wind, and storage technology might be a pretty good path for them. And yes, storage is awaiting, there is nothing in the technology that prevents it other than brain dead pro
Re: (Score:3)
I just hope that China treats them better than we did.
It shouldn't be difficult. At least they are allowing them to grow, instead of trying to keep them at the bottom of the emerging countries, as you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking news for you, my friend: emerging countries are no longer interested in your paternalistic post-colonial rhetoric.
Is that the breaking news before the follow up story: "Country which ignored the mistakes of others were doomed to repeat them"?
This isn't some culture war. This doesn't even have anything to do with climate change. It's simply basic economics of manufacturing. You can stick your head in the sand if you want, but it doesn't change the underlying problem.
They are doing it iteratively [iaea.org], with help from the IEA and other countries, planning to build first a research reactor as a stepping stone.
Having industrial support is a stepping stone. They are not even close to being in a position to build a research reactor.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the breaking news before the follow up story: "Country which ignored the mistakes of others were doomed to repeat them"?
You've got it wrong: they're not ignoring the mistakes and failures of countries like Germany. Instead, they're opting for proven solutions: nuclear, hydro, solar, and wind.
You can stick your head in the sand if you want, but it doesn't change reality and facts..
Re: (Score:2)
Yep: industrialising. Nuclear industry requires a very strong construction and services base. The secondary sectors are essential to sustain the running plant. It's not a good fit for a country that has neither, especially as that country also talks about the benefit of energy independence.
Leapfrogging technology is great, but it needs to be *possible*. Nuclear power doesn't exist in a vacuum, no advanced industrial process does.
They have a hydroelectric dam so they must know something of large power plants, isn't that enough of a start?
Not even remotely. In fact spinning a turbine (which is all that hydroelectric
Re: (Score:3)
If you have nuclear and batteries then what value is added with solar?
Re: (Score:2)
In fact solar makes sense for in Ukraine for the same reason, it can be rapidly deployed as many clusters making it harder to take down than single large power generators that a single missile can take out.
Re: (Score:2)