The lack of clean, reliable, affordable energy in Africa stifles economies, makes people sick and harms the environment. In industrialised countries, people prepare dinner by turning a switch on an electric stove. In Africa, women spend hours collecting firewood before they can start cooking, breaking their backs and damaging the environment. Andrew Kenny describes how nuclear power could help solve Africa’s energy crisis.
More than half of the African population does not have access to grid electricity. In some countries, such as Tanzania, Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the figure is over 80%, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
This means that most Africans have to rely on wood, coal and paraffin for heat and light. Burning these fuels indoors all too often causes devastating fires with loss of life. It produces appalling indoor air pollution, provoking respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, especially among children. According to research by the IEA and the World Health Organisation, more than 1.45m people die prematurely each year from household air pollution. In addition, growing populations harvesting wood in dry areas such as the Sahel promote desertification, leading to hardship and hunger.
Electricity is also essential for industry and commerce. But in many African economies, grid electricity is expensive and, worse, unreliable. In Nigeria, for instance, nobody would set up a factory without installing a generator (see p. 21)—a costly and inefficient off-grid power source.
Africa clearly needs a huge increase in electricity generation. But from what energy sources? In South Africa, which generates 65% of the total electricity supply in sub-Saharan Africa, coal is the source of 92% of all electricity generated. Nuclear energy provides only 6%. For the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, hydroelectrical plants generate the most power, followed by fossil fuels, which are often diesel—dirty and expensive.
Africa’s main energy source for electricity generation should be safe, clean, economic, reliable and appropriate. Hydroelectric power, under the right conditions, is an excellent source of electricity. Africa should develop its huge unused potential, not only on the Congo River but elsewhere, too (see p. 25 and p. 29). There are, however, technical and political obstacles.
Some hydro plants would be reliable, such as at Inga, but many would not. East Africa in recent years has suffered huge losses of electricity because of the failure of rivers and low dam levels. And although a properly sited dam should have minimal environmental problems, this is by no means the case with all of them.
Furthermore, distributing hydroelectric power over long distances and across borders creates challenges of its own. Most countries, for reasons of security, do not want to entrust more than a certain percentage of their electricity supply to imports. Also, transmission lines are expensive, there are transmission losses and there can be problems of electrical stability over long distances.
There are some other sources of renewable energy. Kenya and Rwanda have some potential for geothermal energy. North Africa, with Europe, is exploring the large scale use of solar power (see p. 37). Kenya is considering installing a large wind farm near Lake Turkana (see p. 33). But the potential contribution of these sources pales in comparison to Africa’s enormous energy need.
Where available, local sources of fossil fuels, such as coal fields in Botswana and Zimbabwe and shale gas in South Africa (see p. 13), should be exploited. Grid electricity from any source is far cleaner than the burning of coal, wood, dung and paraffin in households. Coal is the dirtiest form of energy for electricity generation but coal-generated electricity is still far cleaner than no electricity and it can be cleaned to a degree. Shale gas, which is just natural gas (mainly methane), is substantially cleaner than coal.
Besides fossil fuels, African countries are paying more attention to nuclear power. Rightly so. Nuclear is clean, plentiful and economic. Even where there are indigenous energy resources, nuclear might be better on the grounds of economics, reliability, siting and transmission. There is so much nuclear fuel on Earth that nuclear power is not in danger of being depleted or running out in the foreseeable future. Nuclear waste, unlike the waste from other energy sources, is small, solid and stable. Despite criticism from environmentalists, its storage presents far less danger to man or the environment than do the waste products from other forms of generating electricity.
Nuclear power has by far the best safety record of any energy source. The Fukushima accident of March 11th 2011 gave a spectacular demonstration of nuclear safety. A monstrous earthquake and tsunami struck the coast of Japan, killed over 18,000 people and left thousands homeless. It severely damaged four old-fashioned nuclear plants run by a corrupt and negligent utility, causing thousands of people to be evacuated. Yet the radiation released killed nobody and will probably cause no deaths in future.
Nuclear has special advantages for Africa. The fuel is tiny in mass and lasts long, making it easy to transport. One tonne of slightly enriched uranium, which could be transported on the back of a small pick-up truck, can produce as much electricity as 150,000 tonnes of coal, for which a 10-tonne truck would have to make 15,000 trips. This means the nuclear power stations, which occupy little space, can be sited close to sources of cooling and centres of demand, relieving the need for long transmission lines. Compared to fossil fuels, nuclear power creates no emissions of carbon dioxide. Compared to renewable energy sources such as wind and sun, nuclear power is much more stable and reliable.
Nuclear also has disadvantages. One of the greatest is the large size of available units, typically over 900 megawatts (MW). Most African countries have a total demand of less than 2,000MW and many less than 1,000MW. Apart from South Africa and possibly Egypt, none could incorporate such a large unit.
The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) designed in South Africa had a unit size of about 100MW, which would have suited Africa well. Unfortunately that project was poorly managed and has been abandoned. However, South African nuclear engineers are now designing an even better reactor for Africa. This is the Thorium-100 (TH-100), essentially a simplified and smaller version of the PBMR, still keeping its principle of “inherent safety”: no human error or equipment failure can cause an accident that harms people.
The TH-100 will use thorium as its primary fuel and will have a capacity of 35MW of electricity. Thorium is a radioactive element that is in most ways better than uranium: it is about four times as abundant; it can produce far more energy per kilogram of fuel; and it is much more resistant to the threat of weapons proliferation (admittedly a small threat even for uranium reactors).
A shortage of skills is a problem for nuclear power in Africa. In this and all other fields, Africa cannot progress without improved education and training. Before any African country can acquire nuclear power it is essential to set up an internationally approved legal and regulatory framework.
African economies are now growing faster than economies in Europe or the US. But a sound electricity supply is the backbone of any modern economy. Africa must get much more reliable electricity to continue growing. For many African countries, nuclear is a rational option as part of the power mix.
Nuclear vs. renewable energy
Which is better, nuclear or renewable energy? This is like asking which would win in a fight between a lion and a shark. Each is good but only in its proper realm.
Renewable energy, usually solar and wind, is now being promoted with religious zeal as the answer to all our energy and environmental problems. It is not.
Solar and wind have wonderful applications, such as solar water heating and wind pumps on Karoo farms in South Africa. For houses outside the electricity grid, a solar photovoltaic panel, charging a battery, can provide small amounts of electricity for lighting, radio, computers and cellphones, greatly improving the welfare of the householders.
But for large-scale, 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year grid electricity, solar and wind are extremely expensive, environmentally damaging and so unreliable as to be essentially useless.
Nature has made nuclear energy concentrated and reli- able. A small amount of materials, causing the least environmental dis- ruption, can generate a large amount of elec- tricity dependably. Na- ture has made solar and wind diffuse and intermittent. Large amounts of materials are required to produce small amounts of electricity, and then unreliably. Wind requires ten times as much concrete and steel as nuclear per unit of electricity produced. Modern wind turbines are gigantic.
The Koeberg nuclear power station, 30km north of Cape Town, has a capacity of 1,800MW and produces about 12,600 gigawatt- hours (GWh) a year. Its load factor is 80%. (If a power plant has a capacity of 100MW but only produces 70MW over a period of time, its “load factor” or “capacity factor” is 70%.)
The Darling wind farm, 30km north of Koeberg, has four 1.3MW wind turbines. It should generate 8.6GWh a year according to its website. Its load factor is 18.9%, which is not bad for wind. Turbines in Germany, Europe’s largest user of wind, have a load factor of about 17%.
Each Darling wind turbine is over 80 metres high (smaller than the latest wind turbines but higher than Koeberg’s two reactor buildings of 57 metres). To produce the same amount of electricity as Koeberg would require 5,860 Darling wind turbines. On a still day they produce nothing, so you would need standby power for every wind turbine, greatly increasing the already considerable costs.
Wind for grid electricity is only possible with huge operating subsidies enforced by government. Otherwise nobody would invest a cent in them. The result is very expensive electricity. Wherever it has been used, wind for grid electricity has been bad for the economy and the environment.
Solar energy for grid electricity, which has been tried for at least 30 years, has an even worse record than wind and is even more expensive.
We must co- operate with nature, not work against her. Nature has made solar good for heating the water in our houses and nuclear good for grid electricity. We must not build nuclear reactors in our attics and we must not use solar and wind for grid electricity.
[author] [author_image timthumb=’on’][/author_image] [author_info]Andrew Kenny is a professional engineer with degrees in physics and mechanical engineering. He has 16 years of experience in the energy industry, including working for Eskom, the state-owned utility, and as a researcher at the Energy Research Centre at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. He now works as an independent engineer in the field of energy. [/author_info] [/author]
