Kenya’s Prospect in nuclear energy generation

Last Updated 13 years ago by Kenya Engineer

by Achola Kevin

Many developed countries have been using nuclear energy to power their economies but now there exists concerted efforts to move away from this form of energy. Germany, the largest economy in Europe does it through Energiewende a policy that advocates abolition of nuclear energy alongside petroleum and other non-sustainable sources of power. The Swiss and the Italians have also initiated plans to plug off nuclear power generation.

Japan’s only operating nuclear reactor was shut down for maintenance on 15th September 2013, leaving the country with no nuclear power supply only for the second time in 40 years. The first time was in May 2012 after the Fukushima disaster, Kansai Electric Power Co. confirmed reactor no. 4 was shuttered at its Oi plant in Fukui prefecture in western Japan with no resumption date set. Japan is steadily moving away from nuclear energy that was provided by its 50 reactors; It had prior allowed two operational reactors due to fear of an energy crunch and blackouts that would occur due to the void created.

It’s hard to talk about nuclear power generation without thinking of the contemporary cases involving nuclear plants at Fukushima and Chernobyl.

The Chernobyl disaster was a catastrophic nuclear accident that occurred on 26th April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine where an explosion and fire released large quantities of radioactive particles into the atmosphere, which spread over much of the western USSR and Europe. It is one of only two cases classified as level 7 event-the maximum classification on the International Nuclear Event Scale-the other being the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011. The battle to contain the contamination and avert a greater catastrophe ultimately involved over 500,000 workers and cost an estimated 18 billion rubles (approximately Ksh48 billion). 

An UNSCEAR {United Nations Scientific Committee on effects of Atomic Radiation} report places the total confirmed deaths from the radiation at 64 as of 2008. The Chernobyl Forum predicts the eventual death toll could reach 4,000 among those exposed to the highest levels of radiation {200,000 emergency workers, 116,000 evacuees and 270,000 residents of the most contaminated areas}; this figure is a total causal death toll prediction, combining the deaths of approximately 50 emergency workers who died soon after the accident from acute radiation syndrome, nine children who have died of thyroid cancer and a future predicted total of 3940 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia.

The accident caused serious social and psychological disruption in the lives of those affected and vast economic losses over the entire region. Large areas of the three countries were contaminated with radioactive materials. Radionuclides from the Chernobyl release were measurable in all countries of the northern hemisphere. This resulted in severe environmental damages, both immediate and long-term.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is the most recent nuclear energy accident at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, initiated in greatest part by the tsunami portion of the T?hoku earthquake and tsunami on 11th March 2011. The damage caused by the tsunami produced equipment failures, and without this equipment a Loss of Coolant followed with nuclear meltdowns and releases of radioactive materials beginning on 12th March 2011. It is the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 and the second disaster to measure Level 7. It caused massive evacuations and still is problematic to handle two years later in spite of Japan’s technological prowess.

The essence of history is to learn from it. Nuclear installations are lethal establishments if a mishap is to occur, even if structurally foolproof, human error and terrorist sabotage cannot be ruled out. With Kenya’s disaster preparedness record, coming to mind is the JKIA fire and the bomblast in 1998; do we have the capacity to handle a nuclear catastrophe?

Nuclear generating stations exist for the purpose of converting the energy obtained from the fission of certain nuclei to electricity. This energy conversion takes place via a number of intermediate stages that require many pieces of equipment organized into several systems under the control and protection of both manual and automatic operations. 

Fuel containing fissile material (Uranium) is fed to the reactor where fission takes place. The energy liberated appears in the form of heat, which is used to boil water. The steam produced from the boiling water spins a turbine-generator set, where the heat is converted first to kinetic energy in the turbine and to electricity by the generator.

It is important to recognize that while the transport of heat from the reactor to the turbine takes place in one or two closed loop systems that are highly efficient, the transformation of the heat energy of the steam to the kinetic energy of the turbine is accompanied by a large loss of energy as the steam is condensed to water prior to recirculation. Approximately 60% of the heat energy removed from the fuel is rejected to the condenser cooling water. Several other systems are also cooled by water. Spent fuel is periodically removed from the reactor depending with its design. 

The nuclear debate reached intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies in the 70s to 80s in advanced countries with most of them adopting the technology and setting up nuclear plants. The current trends however show a reversal on these tendencies after more research and nuclear disasters along the way convinced them otherwise.

Advocates argue that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source which reduces carbon emissions and can increase energy security if its use supplants a dependence on imported and fossil fuels. They also advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel. Proponents believe that nuclear power is the only viable course to achieve energy independence for most countries. They emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors, and the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.

Opponents say that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment. These threats include health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining, processing and transport, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation or sabotage, and the unsolved problem of radioactive nuclear waste. They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong, and there have been many serious nuclear accidents. Critics do not believe that these risks can be reduced through new technology. They argue that when all the energy-intensive stages of the nuclear fuel chain are considered, from uranium mining to nuclear decommissioning, nuclear power is not a low-carbon electricity source.

In a press release on 30th April 2013 the Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM) CEO Betty Maina welcomed the planned introduction of nuclear energy in Kenya. She says the use of nuclear technology for electricity generation will greatly boost the country’s manufacturing sector, create jobs, attract more industrial investors and grow the economy. She emphasized that for Kenya to attain the flagship projects and goals of Vision 2030, additional sources of energy were necessary. “We have geothermal, hydro and the like. The inclusion of nuclear energy is welcome since we need almost 19,000 MW to achieve Vision 2030,” Ms. Maina said.

Energy is one of the enablers of the three pillars of Kenya Vision 2030. The level and intensity of commercial energy use in the country is a key indicator of the degree of economic growth and development. This expected increase in demand of electricity cannot be sustained by the amount of energy being generated by the current sources considering their potential limitations. Energy demand recorded the highest peak at 1,236 MW in May 2012, up from 1,105 MW in 2009 and 708 MW in 2000.

The third draft of the National Energy Policy recognizes the inclusion of nuclear energy into the country’s energy mix. The critical need for nuclear energy is benched on the fact that, with the rising demand for power in the country due to the accelerated investment in the economy, it is one of the forms of energy that can produce enormous amounts of electricity at a relatively low economical cost in the long term. Further, the LCPDP {Least Cost Power Development Plan} estimates the total installed capacity in 2030 at 19,199MW, out of which nuclear plants are expected to contribute 19% or 4,000 MW from four plants.

The first nuclear plant of 1,000MW is expected to be commissioned for operation in 2022.  Additional units of 1,000MW each are expected to be commissioned in 2026, 2029 and 2031 when the projected demands will be 9,556MW 13,435MW and 16,905MW respectively. It is further noted that the introduction of nuclear electricity into the grid is justified by the growing demand for huge power within the Eastern Africa Power Pool {EAPP} whose objective is to create a common market for power in the East African region. The Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board {KNEB} is charged with the responsibility of developing a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework for nuclear energy use in Kenya. There is at the present time no legislative and regulatory framework governing the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation in Kenya.

In the effort to build capacity 11 Kenyan students have commenced training in South Korea. They are drawn from various parastatals in Kenya’s Ministry of Energy. They are undertaking postgraduate studies in Nuclear Science at the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) training school, former Vision 2030 Delivery Secretariat, director general, Mugo Kibati said on 25th April 2013.Save the 11, six students drawn from the Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board, Kenya Power and Lighting Company and Kenya’s Radiation Protection Board admitted last year are now concluding their two year Masters Studies in power generation, power transmission, and radiation safety.

An MIT interdisciplinary study in 2003 titled, The future of nuclear power, established that for a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed, the following four critical problems must be overcome.

1. Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not cost competitive with alternative sources of power.

2. Safety. Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices” in construction and operation are essential. This does not rule out human error and natural catastrophes. Little is known about the safety of the overall fuel cycle, beyond reactor operation.

3. Waste. Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open, once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

4. Proliferation. The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

We have immense capacity for clean sources of energy including geothermal and hydro electric power besides solar, wind and tidal sources. Considering most of the world is moving away from nuclear energy due to its maleficent, why should we move towards it?