OPC rejects nuclear power stations in S/west

BISIRIYU OLAOYE



FOUNDER of Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC), Dr. Frederick Fasehun, has condemned federal government’s plan to have four of the seven nuclear power plants sited in the South West, saying the people of the zone will resist it.


The OPC founder, who described the distribution of nuclear power plants as lopsided, warned the federal government about the prevailing inadequacies of the nuclear option.


He urged the government to abandon the nuclear option and invest heavily in less dangerous sources of energy.


"The Federal Government recently announced plans to build nuclear power plants in the country and proposed to have four of the seven stations sited in the South-West. Have we so easily forgotten the bomb blast that ravaged Lagos, leaving unquantifiable casualties in its trail? Have we forgotten Chernobyl and the price the people still pay today for the nuclear leakage that occurred two decades ago? Have we forgotten the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan?


"Building four nuclear plants in the west smacks of a plan to annihilate this zone and we shall do everything in our powers to resist it. If Nigeria is bent on acquiring nuclear technology, the stations should be evenly distributed so that an equal number would be located in each of the regions," Fasehun said.


He pointed out that even in countries with less controversial arrangements, adoption of nuclear technology sparks of heated debates, multi-disciplinary analysis and geo-political considerations. He said having mismanaged the primary energy source so far, "what guarantees do we have that we can handle nuclear power generation as alternative? What about our emergency control that has consistently lost the fight against common hazards like oil spillage, fire incidents and gas flaring? Can we contemplate fighting radiation?


Against the background of our prevailing inadequacies, Nigeria should abandon the nuclear option and instead make heavy investment in less dangerous sources of energy such as solar, fuel cell, gas, hydro, wind, etc."


http://odili.net/news/source/2008/jan/16/803.html

Federick Fasheun is a largely ignorant fellow. How will the citing of 4 nuclear power plants in the West be construed as a plan to annihilate it?
What "other sources" of power is Fasheun talking about? Wind?

"The Federal Government recently announced plans to build nuclear power plants in the country and proposed to have four of the seven stations sited in the South-West. Have we so easily forgotten the bomb blast that ravaged Lagos, leaving unquantifiable casualties in its trail? Have we forgotten Chernobyl and the price the people still pay today for the nuclear leakage that occurred two decades ago? Have we forgotten the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan?

This coming from someone who lives in a country where there is oil disaster every single year and people continue to die. LMAO!!! @Poster, The article said to abandon Nuclear Stations in the South West ( YorubaLand). How did you make it IboLand

Yes i was going to ask the same question about Igboland

Fasheun needn't have made it a tribal issue, as the safety issues are reasons enough
for concern.

If the nuclear plants are sited in the West because it uses the most power then it makes a mockery
of Fasheun's argument. Otherwise it is reasonable that most be sited in the North where I would imagine
the arid land would provide enough space for the disposal of the waste.

Fasheun is simple doing what every Nigerian "opposition politician" is known for . . . crying foul!
Why cite the nuclear plants in the north and then spend billions trying to transmit power to the south where the industries are cited?

If all the nuclear plants were initially slated to be put in the north the same Fasheun would have been crying "marginalisation".

There is a ''prologue'' to the post. Last week, it was reported in the news that Nigeria and the IAEA have agreed on establishing 7 (yes 7) nuclear stations for beneficial purposes such as electricity generation. Four of these are to be tentatively sited in Yorubaland and three in the North. Non in Igboland, (not even one). For once I was happy that the perceived Igbo marginalisation is positive for the Igbo this time, given that Igbos will be spared the negative aftermath of a nuclear burst. Many Nigerians (especially those in power) are mediocre people who always like to copy the so-called developed nations. Fasehun is a smart guy with enough foresight or hindsight (make your pick). He knows how hardly well we can manage small things, not to talk of potential deathly ventures such as nuclear stations. So he wants to spread the destruction and death when it does come, to all parts of Nigeria


That was the basis for the title I chose for my post.

To help Fasehun, my own proposal will be:

Yoruba=2 nuclear stations (because of Lagos and its high population density)
Igbo =1 nuclear station
Niger Delta=1 nuclear station
North 3 nuclear stations

For me, - 4 in Lagos lagoons and 3 in the sahara (or all those lake chad area) because one day, somebody will come back from christmas or salah and forget to turn on one or two discharge valves and bingo!

This is my letter to Dr. Frederick Fasehun,  Daddy, Please let them site it in Yorubaland. It is the best location to site it. I am an electrical engineer. And Any Engineer would tell you, It is the best place to site it. I do not feel the federal govt had any motive doing so,
Yorubaland is the best place to site it.
Dr. Frederick Fasehun please let them site it there. It as to do with what we call load. site them close to the load.

Doyin has a point about siting nuclear power stations in the North.
I will have to concur with Fasheun that Nigeria has to look for ulternate sources of energy. Like the gas that is being wasted to flaring for instance, they could simply use this to power turbines which would generate power. No ,atter how little, it will dent the lack which is now the norm.

Fasheun might have not wanted to speak for other sections of the country when he said the Yoruba of South West will resist it. I will venture to go a step further and say, no part of the country should want or agitate for neclear power.
Nigeria has not reached the stage that building nuclear power plants will be a dangerous venture.
The potential for accident and annihilations are just too great to contemplate.
Nigeria does not imbibe a society of good managers.

I think we should learn to walk first in Nigeria, before we run. Nuclear stations? In Nigeria? I guess that's an easy way to wipe the country of the map of the world. One simple mistake, and we all gone. We all know how low our maintenance level is in Nigeria. A nuclear plant is not a dam. If they took care of the dams and stuff, we'll not be reduced to producing so little.

Yorubaland o, Igboland o, Hausaland o, I am against nuclear power plant in Nigeria, period.

No wonder Africa never develops . . . _sigh
Everyone is against nuclear power and yet we cant generate power to last for 2hrs a day.

Someone is talking of harnessing gas . . . how long will gas last for Christ sake? So when the gas is finished we go back to square one?

someone says they are against nuclear energy . . . what then is the alternative? I'm so glad not to live in the same nation as unimaginative and complacent Nigerians.

This country cannot maintain a nuclear power plant.Look at all the other power plants we have.If you can't maintain other plants,why build a nuclear one?

Nuclear is even more expensive to build and run over the long term,so,from a cost-benefit perspective,there would be no point in building one.

what an idiot, a nuclear power plan would actually post job opportunities for people in the region. as long as u build far from a concentrated civillian population(and pls have some real security), u are in good shape. i doubt the cost of nuclear energy is that expensive

Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.

someone says they are against nuclear energy . . . what then is the alternative? I'm so glad not to live in the same nation as unimaginative and complacent Nigerians.

ororo and epo powered engines.

I-man:

[b]This country cannot maintain a nuclear power plant.[/b]Look at all the other power plants we have.If you can't maintain other plants,why build a nuclear one?

Nuclear is even more expensive to build and run over the long terms,so,from a cost-benefit perspective,there would be no point in building one.

my questions are:
1. WHY can we not maintain a nuclear power plant?
2. What are the alternatives to nuclear power? Gas a non-renewable resource? Wind power? The unpredictable hydro-electricity?

When are we as Africans going to stand up and believe that we can do what others find so easy to do? I feel so ashamed to hear Nigerians keep saying we can't maintain a nuclear power plant. If South Africa can then why can't Nigeria?

davidylan:

my questions are:
1. WHY can we not maintain a nuclear power plant?

We have a poor maintenance culture.Name one major project that has been well maintained in Nigeria over the long term.

2. What are the alternatives to nuclear power? Gas a non-renewable resource? Wind power? The unpredictable hydro-electricity?

Gas,coal and hydro-electricity are better and safer alternatives.Where do we dispose of the waste?You know the waste lasts for thousands of years.

Gas,coal and hydro-electricity are better and safer alternatives.Where do we dispose of the waste?You know the waste lasts for thousands of years.

hydro is unpredictable and depends on water levels. gas depletes fast and isn't a renewable resource. u can't live on coal alone. u have to diversify ur energy production or else u would end like up like nigeria which depended on dams.

I-man:

We have a poor maintenance culture.Name one major project that has been well maintained in Nigeria over the long term.

despite poor power transmission Kainji dam is yet to collapse decades after it was built. The major problem with electricity in Nigeria is not only transmission but the fact that Kainji dam just can no longer cope with the increased energy demands.

I-man:

Gas,coal and hydro-electricity are better and safer alternatives.Where do we dispose of the waste?You know the waste lasts for thousands of years.

Gas . . . is non-renewable. We dont have enough to use it as the long term alternative to energy generation.
Coal . . . see the response for gas. It is more expensive to harness coal into an energy source.
Hydro-electricity . . . kainji dam is our only source and the reason it is still available is that our neighbours do not have the resources to dam it upstream. If they were to do so we would be in serious trouble. That is why we are forced to supply them with electricity.

Any other better alternatives?

I-man:

Where do we dispose of the waste?You know the waste lasts for thousands of years.

maybe we should ask South Africa were she has been disposing her own waste over the yrs.

bawomol:

hydro is unpredictable and depends on water levels. gas depletes fast and isn't a renewable resource. u can't live on coal alone. u have to diversify your energy production or else u would end like up like nigeria which depended on dams.

There are innumerable energy sources Nigeria can rely on without resorting to nuclear power.Gas depletes fast?We have enough to last us a century. . . . . . . . . . .we are as likely to run out of coal as we are of uranium.By the time our gas and coal start to run out,possibly 60-70 decades from now,alternative energy sources like solar,geo-thermal and wind will be far more commercially viable.

You are talking like as if its an all or nothing situation. . . . .we either build nuclear power plants or we will run out of gas and coal and thus,out of any energy source.This is far from the case.

You are talking like as if its an all or nothing situation. . . . .we either build nuclear power plants or we will run out of gas and coal and thus,out of any energy source.This is far from the case.

it is not an all or nothing situation but diversification is the key. we can't be hypocritical complaining about our economy's dependence on oil but refuse to pursue other energy sources. diversifying ur energy sources would meet the energy demands of the country. am sorry but geo thermal and fuel cells are still years down the road. wind, nuclear energy etc are already practical. nuclear energy supply's 20% of the US energy production.

I-man:

There are innumerable energy sources Nigeria can rely on without resorting to nuclear power.Gas depletes fast?We have enough to last us a century. . . . . . . . . . .we are as likely to run out of coal as we are of uranium.By the time our gas and coal start to run out,possibly 60-70 decades from now,alternative energy sources like solar,geo-thermal and wind will be far more commercially viable.

You are talking like as if its an all or nothing situation. . . . .we either build nuclear power plants or we will run out of gas and coal and thus,out of any energy source.This is far from the case.

You forget that the gas we have is not reserved for energy generation only. We export for sale and use for both commercial and domestic purposes. . . that alone ensures gas will not last the 60-70 decades you project.
Coal is labour intensive and a very expensive source of energy that is not even renewable.

Lets be sincere, 60 decades from now the Nigerians wont be any different from those of today. Apathetic to development, resistant to change and forever declaring that Nigeria can never do anything. Wind energy and solar energy are not viable alternatives in the long run . . . if we intend to transform our nation to being one of the top 20 economies by 2020 then we need to do something about energy supply fast. Nuclear power seems to be the most logical alternative.

Not even the world's super powers are crazy enough to run their economies on geo-thermal energy.

davidylan:

despite poor power transmission Kainji dam is yet to collapse decades after it was built. The major problem with electricity in Nigeria is not only transmission but the fact that Kainji dam just can no longer cope with the increased energy demands.

Are we supposed to be congratulated because Kainji hasn't yet collapsed? We have had innumerable major accidents at industrial plants.This is a country that has had more air plane casualties than the whole of Western Europe over the past few years .

Everyear,hundreds are killed over pipeline explosions,una want add nuclear to the mix.

davidylan:

Gas . . . is non-renewable. We don't have enough to use it as the long term alternative to energy generation.
Coal . . . see the response for gas. It is more expensive to harness coal into an energy source.

We don't need enough to last us forever.Don't think of 2050 in the way we think of 2010.We simply need enough until renewable energy sources like solar and wind are commercially viable enough for us to invest in.

davidylan:

maybe we should ask South Africa were she has been disposing her own waste over the years.

You don't do something because South Africa did it.S.A expanded their nuclear facilitties at the time of apartheid when they had little alternatives.You don't see them embarking on the same course post-apartheid.The costs are still there for South-Africa for thousands of years to come.

In the US where you live,when was the last Nuclear power plant built?I believe in the late 70s.If the US is wary of building nuclear power stations why is Nigeria,which can't even maintain basic facilities contemplating going down that route?Delusions of grandeur.

In Britain,the costs-financial and safetywise-has been holding back the building of nuclear power stations for decades but some how people advocate that an energy rich nation like Nigeria with a wretched maintenance culture should embark on projects were even the likes of Britain and the US are reluctant to embark on.

davidylan:


Wind energy and solar energy are not viable alternatives in the long run . . . if we intend to transform our nation to being one of the top 20 economies by 2020 then we need to do something about energy supply fast. Nuclear power seems to be the most logical alternative.

This is where you are wrong.The people who build nuclear power plants today do so as a necessary evil(apart from the Irans of this world)-they barely have other viable alternatives in the short term.That is the whole point of resorting to nuclear.However,Nigeria doesn't have that problem in the short to medium term.

In the long term,solar and wind energy would be much cheaper than they are today.Then and only then can we start investing in them.

The idea that it somehow in national interest to invest in a costlier energy source is bewildering. Who in is his private life buys more expensive alternatives simply because he wants to "diversify" what he has?

Doyin is wrong, they should site in Yorubaland. Just find out the engineering reason, Not one person over the internet. Nobody would die. Yes there is danger in Nuclear, but if we can manage gas , we can manage nuclear station. Just pay the people well,

Here is a quote from a pro-nuclear lobby group:

Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Nuclear power is not even cost-competitive in countries like Nigeria,going by the estimations of a pro-nuclear lobby.

Now,we live in a country whose entire national budget is far less than that of the City of New York-our budget over the past 3 years is equivalent to that of New York City in one year.You would think that such a country would not be determined to embark on projects which even biased lobbyists deem as not even cost competitive.

We are actually talking of a country where millions go to bed hungry and salaries are unpaid for months.Yet we want embark on something that is not even cost competitive.

Never mind that the project in question-nuclear power plants-hasn't been embarked on for decades in some of the wealthiest nations in the history of humanity for safety and financial reasons.Never mind that for those grotesquely wealthy nations,nuclear power is actually cost competitive in their cases.

The best way to develop Nigeria is through common sense economic decision making.You don't do something because the West,South Africa or Russia did it.You do things according to the resources you have.A country with rich hydro-carbon resources and mind numbing poverty has no business embarking on costly white elephant projects.

Lets put it this way,if nuclear power was economically attractive in Nigeria,private investors will be lining up to build one in Nigeria.That they are not shows us that,from an economic perspective,it isn't logical.That is why Nigerian politicians,following a long tradition of investing in wasteful projects,want to use our scarce resources to build what makes no economic sense.We will never learn.

It is very healthy for nigeria. Infact, it is desireable for Nigeria. We have the resources all around Nigeria(not in Nigeria) and it is somewhat renewable. I hope every region gets it. It will infact be the most decisive input our leaders will accomplish if they do it. After all these sufferings then we begin having uninterrupted power supply should be a blessing until we find an alternative. The only thing we should be worried about is the design in terms of safety and also its location and trainning.  Nigeria shouldn't be scared of its danger, we should contain it even if it is impossible. The  sound of persimism on this issue and various other projects/implemation is worrisome, because if it were Nigeria that the president challenged her citizens to send a rocket or a man to the moon people would have prescribed a mental rehabilitation for him; but it happened even if it were a hoax it was a very good hoax.  We should use it, be able to boast of our engineers running it, and even give reference for them to train/ contain/ inspect/install any other one coming in west Africa.

American has plans in place to build more nuclear plants ,  http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/congressionalbudget/

naijaway:

It is very healthy for nigeria. Infact, it is desireable for Nigeria. We have the resources all around Nigeria(not in Nigeria) and it is somewhat renewable. I hope every region gets it. It will infact be the most decisive input our leaders will accomplish if they do it. After all these sufferings then we begin having uninterrupted power supply should be a blessing until we find an alternative. The only thing we should be worried about is the design in terms of safety and also its location and trainning. Nigeria shouldn't be scared of its danger, we should contain it even if it is impossible. The sound of persimism on this issue and various other projects/implemation is worrisome, because if it were Nigeria that the president challenged her citizens to send a rocket or a man to the moon people would have prescribed a mental rehabilitation for him; but it happened even if it were a hoax it was a very good hoax. We should use it, be able to boast of our engineers running it, and even give reference for them to train/ contain/ inspect/install any other one coming in west Africa.

Please please, have you seen what we have done with what we have? Add nuclear in the hands of these people and you might have a nuclear holocaust in a matter of months of opening. I am for nuclear energy for Nigeria but I am afraid of what Nigerians will do with it. I mean look at the way we handled Nepa and other projects. Check out the number of people who die each year from refinery fires and what not. Now imagine what may be to come with nuclear,

Nigeria one,

Could you adduce convincing reasons why all four nuclear stations allocated to the south should be sited in Yorubaland at the expense of other known energy consuming cities such as Port Harcourt, Aba and Onitsha? Plus, in which part of the country do we have the raw material (mainly uranium) to kickstart the plants?

But, I like your style sha. Unlike Fasehun, you do not mind for only the Yoruba population to receive the sure-to-come death knell (holocaust)  which a nuclear project represents, at least by Nigeria's infrastructural history and standards.

Others:

Uranium is a non-renewable energy source. If you think coal, gas, petrol will exhaust, then so will uranium. Talking about sustainable power source, solar, wind and hydro power sources remain the best options for resource-poor countries.

Think about this, if MEND it one of its struggle blows up the Nuclear plant or they chase the maintenance staff who are supposed to work 24 hours away. Holocaust!!!!!