Kenya, US Sign Historic Pact On Nuclear Plans (the-star.co.ke) 46
Kenya signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the U.S. on nuclear technology cooperation during the 2024 IAEA General Conference in Vienna, with the aim of safely integrating nuclear power into Kenya's energy mix by 2035. The agreement focuses on collaboration in nuclear safety, regulatory experience, and research. The Standard reports: The historic pact came a day after Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi addressed the general session of the conference. Mudavadi had outlined Kenya's ambitious plans to integrate nuclear power into the country's energy mix by 2035, as part of a broader strategy to meet its growing energy demand. Kenya's current installed energy capacity, as of 2023, totals 3,321 MW, with significant contributions from geothermal (863 MW), hydroelectric power (838 MW), wind (436 MW), solar (173 MW), biomass (2 MW), and thermal energy (678 MW). However, despite these sources, the country still faces a shortfall in its energy supply. Experts say nuclear energy will be crucial in addressing this deficit and supporting Kenya's long-term industrialization goals.
The MoU was signed by the Kenya Nuclear Regulatory Authority (KNRA) and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), with both parties expressing optimism about the future of nuclear cooperation between the two nations. [...] Areas of cooperation will include sharing of operating experience and regulatory experience, cooperation in joint programs of nuclear safety research and trainings. Kenya, along with several other developing nations, is exploring the potential use of nuclear energy beyond electricity generation, including its applications in health and agriculture. As the country moves forward with its nuclear aspirations, experts highlight the importance of robust regulatory frameworks and international cooperation to ensure the safe and effective deployment.
The MoU was signed by the Kenya Nuclear Regulatory Authority (KNRA) and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), with both parties expressing optimism about the future of nuclear cooperation between the two nations. [...] Areas of cooperation will include sharing of operating experience and regulatory experience, cooperation in joint programs of nuclear safety research and trainings. Kenya, along with several other developing nations, is exploring the potential use of nuclear energy beyond electricity generation, including its applications in health and agriculture. As the country moves forward with its nuclear aspirations, experts highlight the importance of robust regulatory frameworks and international cooperation to ensure the safe and effective deployment.
solar! (Score:4, Insightful)
By the cost of the nuclear, they could instead improve their solar output and build some storage, like using the high mountains for hydro storage or weight lift
Re:solar! (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me where nuclear is ever cheaper than literally anything.
I'm not saying nuclear doesn't make the most sense with the energy mix they already have but don't tell me that nuclear buildout is cheap. Even with all the expense, it won't even see use for years.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's expensive initially. And it takes a long time. Over the long haul, the per-kWh price is lower even including construction costs. But that's not really the point.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not regulation! That's a common gaslighting meme.
Nuclear is expensive because it is dangerous and requires large, expensive structures.
Nuclear is just too expensive for any country. It gets built because it's a cash bonanza for the military industrial powers where it's heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
It's stupid for Kenya to accept nuclear being pushed by colonial powers. Just another way to keep them dependent.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is just too expensive for any country.
Uses the word "gaslighting" then proceeds to gaslight nuclear.. .the very apex of good comedy.
Maybe pick an argument that can't be disproved in milliseconds?
Re: (Score:2)
So... Do you have any evidence that nuclear is cheaper in any country?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it may be cheaper in China but it's difficult to get numbers since nuclear in China is heavily subsidized.
They also set wholesale prices from the subsidized reactors so that it can compete in the market but these are set artificially low.
"The price is to be kept relatively stable but will be adjusted with technology advances and market factors, though many consider it not high enough to be profitable." (Even with all the subsidies for construction, fuel, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not regulation! That's a common gaslighting meme.
I believe you're the one gaslighting here.
Nuclear is (more) expensive because of the regulatory environment, period, full stop. I work for a company that serves the power industry. The nuclear widget is typically identical to the widget used in e.g. natgas but we charge a shitload more for the "nuclear" SKU. Why? Because of all the additional paperwork we have to prepare and keep for eternity when the application is nuclear. We have revision cascades in our engineering drawings where when we change e.g
Re: (Score:1)
Solar is much more liberating and democratic than nuclear. Nuclear is centralized and you are reliant on the operator for power. Anyone can install solar and batteries. They are cheap enough and there are panels available on the used market for even less.
They are not difficult to manufacture domestically either, and all the key patents needed for decently efficient ones have expired.
Solar is a great way to stop relying on former colonial powers for technology. Nuclear ties them to us for at least a century.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:solar! (Score:4)
Maybe it's a really good deal - free reactors if they don't do anything to block them, hoping that it rejuvenates the dying nuclear industry. Or perhaps they want it for a nuclear weapons programme. Or maybe it's just bribes.
It certainly doesn't make economic sense, and even with an ambitious 2035 target is extremely slow.
Consider that they have 3.3GW total installed now. China installed 609GW of solar in 2023, and 22.6GW of grid scale battery storage. And Kenya's goal here is what, a gigawatt or two in 10 year's time?
This isn't serious.
Geothermal, hydro, wind, and solar ... (Score:2)
Kenya's current installed energy capacity, as of 2023, totals 3,321 MW, with significant contributions from geothermal (863 MW), hydroelectric power (838 MW), wind (436 MW), solar (173 MW), biomass (2 MW), and thermal energy (678 MW).
Impressive, seems geothermal, hydro, wind, and solar accounted for 85% to 90% of their electricity generation generation in 2023. That is better than a whole lot of so-called 'First World Nations'.
Re: (Score:1)
Did you look at the actual numbers? Their production is pitiful....what all these nations need is an abundant source of affordable electricity. Which means fossil fuels and/or nuclear. The rest are luxury fantasies by middle class clueless westerners...
Re: (Score:3)
Kenya has extremely reliable insolation and demand is highest during the day, they have a long way to go with solar yet before adding nuclear makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Kenya has extremely reliable insolation and demand is highest during the day, they have a long way to go with solar yet before adding nuclear makes sense.
True, they have a lot of rural communities that would benefit far more from community wind and solar but at nuclear least it makes more sense than building already obsolete Chinese supplied coal plants with all the pollution and fuel costs that come with them.
Re:Geothermal, hydro, wind, and solar ... (Score:4)
they have a lot of rural communities that would benefit far more from community wind and solar but at nuclear least it makes more sense than building already obsolete Chinese supplied coal plants with all the pollution and fuel costs that come with them.
Yes, but if you have to use coal power to make nuclear power look good, then it's not good.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but if you have to use coal power to make nuclear power look good, then it's not good.
[Germany enters the chat]
Re: Geothermal, hydro, wind, and solar ... (Score:2)
Great, maybe Germany can donate some solar panels
Re: (Score:2)
Did you look at the actual numbers? Their production is pitiful....what all these nations need is an abundant source of affordable electricity. Which means fossil fuels and/or nuclear. The rest are luxury fantasies by middle class clueless westerners...
Yes, but they don't need as much energy as heavily industrialized countries for the time being and so far they have invested wisely in modern tech to harness energy sources available in their country. Covering their increasing needs with nuclear is expensive, but at least it is a CO2 neutral option and there are potential Uranium sources available in-country. Meanwhile large areas in the USA, for example, are still chanting "TRUMP DIGS COAL!!!". What would you like Uganda to do? Pivot entirely onto fossil f
Re:Geothermal, hydro, wind, and solar ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but they don't need as much energy as heavily industrialized countries for the time being
For the time being they are wholly dependent on neighbouring countries to keep the lights on. There are very few countries in the world who import as much electricity as a percentage of their own production than Kenya. Energy insecurity is a *MAJOR* topic there.
Covering their increasing needs with nuclear is expensive, but at least it is a CO2 neutral option and there are potential Uranium sources available in-country.
You are really yadda-yaddaing a whole lot of very important things. They have no expertise, not industrial support, not extended nuclear industry. They have some uranium which they aren't actively mining, they have zero purification meaning all their Uranium would need to be shipped elsewhere before it could be used for power. Oh and they are a broke 3rd world country which ranks insanely highly in corruption and instability. There is literally no reason why nuclear is in any way a reasonable idea in that country. That said I'm sure China will line up to give them a loan so they can afford their fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Percentage wise its a good number. But in units of power its a bit low. If we want to stick it to China and their growing aggression toward taiwan and japan, we need to move our manufacturing. I have always said Africa is a good place to do this. Labor is cheap, and they REALLY could use some industry instead of just handouts. Helping them industrialize will require, perhaps, doubling their power output. If every place in africa had available work, tv to watch sporting events, and beer, there wouldn’t
Re: (Score:2)
Kenya's current installed energy capacity, as of 2023, totals 3,321 MW, with significant contributions from geothermal (863 MW), hydroelectric power (838 MW), wind (436 MW), solar (173 MW), biomass (2 MW), and thermal energy (678 MW).
Impressive, seems geothermal, hydro, wind, and solar accounted for 85% to 90% of their electricity generation generation in 2023.
I added these up and got for geothermal (863 MW), hydroelectric power (838 MW), wind (436 MW), solar (173 MW), biomass (2 MW) = 70 percent.
I didn't add in "thermal energy" because I have no idea what that means. Do they get thermal energy from burning coal? Or what?
Nevertheless, pretty good with renewables!
That is better than a whole lot of so-called 'First World Nations'.
Who else thinks this is a really bad idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exporting nuclear technology to an area of the world that is prone to instabilities and civil war that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Exporting nuclear technology to an area of the world that is prone to instabilities and civil war that is.
Well, the good news is we have until 2035 to stabilize that country.
Given history, the bad news is it may ironically take dropping a nuke to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Kenya is a lot more stable than a lot of other african nations. The biggest problem in Kenya is Aids. Compared to their neighbors, they arent doing so bad. A boost of industry is all they really need to get ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But "a lot more stable" does not translate to "stable" in this context.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Shows how desperate the nuclear industry is for some kind of win. With SMRs now looking like they aren't going to save them, they just want to build anything, anywhere. Every year they don't is a year the technology ages, a year's worth of knowledge and skill loss from a declining industry.
Re: Who else thinks this is a really bad idea? (Score:2)
Indeed. That does make a ton of sense.
Re: Who else thinks this is a really bad idea? (Score:2)
Interesting take given China alone continues to greenlight 5-10 large reactors a year, 11 in the last batch just a few weeks ago. And is openly working on their own exportable SMR concept, which is more than likely what will end up in most of Africa ultimately.
Meanwhile, multiple nations from India to the Czech Republic have announced either intent or signed partnerships to deploy SMRs. We'll see how long they take to deploy in the US, but interest has increased steadily with deals being cut and significant
Re: (Score:2)
Look who is a mindless cheerleader.
Power per Capita (Score:4, Insightful)
By contrast, the generating capacity of the US is about 13000 GW, for a population of 330 million, or 3940 W/person - 64x as much. For the EU (1080 GW, 440 M pop.), it's 2454 W/person.
(I'm just putting out data - not trying to make a value judgment. Although there is much that could be said about these metrics.)
Re: (Score:2)
By contrast, the generating capacity of the US is about 13000 GW, for a population of 330 million, or 3940 W/person - 64x as much. For the EU (1080 GW, 440 M pop.), it's 2454 W/person.
Industry matters. It's not a case of just looking at the per person consumption. Very few people in Europe are using 2454W in fact the average European household electricity consumption is only 15kWh / day or 625W / household, or 271W / person given the average household size in the EU.
The USA and EU are both industrial powerhouses and most energy is not consumed by people. Kenya by comparison produces very little and as such consumes very little energy. A farmer working the field in Kenya keeps his lights
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A farmer working the field in Kenya keeps his lights on and maybe his family fridge running.
At 61W of capacity per capita, not every household can even run a fridge (in a house with no A/C). Maybe 1 in 10. If electricity was used for nothing else. I think you're making a good point while severely underestimating the reality. They are not running a fridge. They are charging a cell phone. Maybe an LED light at night.
"Collaboration" (Score:3)
You want to collaborate in operational, safety, regulatory and training with a country who has zero operational, zero safety, zero regulatory and zero training experience. What part are they contributing other than dollars to this pact?
Nuclear is a questionable endeavor in rich stable western nations. It's outright dumb in unstable corrupt 3rd world nations. How does a country that is ranked 126th globally in the corruption think they are in any way capable of a large nuclear project? Never mind, answered my own question.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly this is a USA strategic move. A dumb one but must be about all they can offer Kenya.
3.3 GW (Score:2)
Energy Sources (Score:2)
"significant contributions from geothermal (863 MW), hydroelectric power (838 MW), wind (436 MW), solar (173 MW), biomass (2 MW), and thermal energy (678 MW)"
So what do they define as thermal energy ?
Geothermal was already mentioned. (and since Kenya has volcanoes its probably worth expanding)
Re: (Score:2)
It usually means coal.
Re: (Score:2)