waste of bloody money!

O my God!
Nigeria is going back in everything, the money is there but it's meant for the pockets of the stupid politicians

WHAT A JOKE.

WE CAN'T MAINTAIN ROADS.
WE CAN'T MAINTAIN TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
WE CAN'T SUPPLY WATER.
WE CAN'T EVEN MANAGE A REFINERY OR HYDROELECTRIRC PLANTS.
AND HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NUCLEAR.

ONCE THAT HAS STARTED, I ADVISE ALL NIGERIANS TO LEAVE NIGERIA, CUZ THAT WILL BE THE END OF OUR EXISTENCE.

PLS, GO AHEAD AND DO IT AND RID THE WORLD OF NIGERIA.

I'M FAR AWAY.

al-qaeda:

WHAT A JOKE.

WE CAN'T MAINTAIN ROADS.
WE CAN'T MAINTAIN TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
WE CAN'T SUPPLY WATER.
WE CAN'T EVEN MANAGE A REFINERY OR HYDROELECTRIRC PLANTS.
AND HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NUCLEAR.

ONCE THAT HAS STARTED, I ADVISE ALL NIGERIANS TO LEAVE NIGERIA, CUZ THAT WILL BE THE END OF OUR EXISTENCE.

PLS, GO AHEAD AND DO IT AND RID THE WORLD OF NIGERIA.

I'M FAR AWAY.

lol

gbam!! to hell with nuclear power

never never shall that take place

nigerians una de hear oooo

Aside from military interests, Nigeria has no need for Nuclear energy.

biina:

Aside from military interests, Nigeria has no need for Nuclear energy.

Not immediately no, given that we have comparatively easier power sources like unexploited hydro, gas and coal.

At the top strategic level, it would be something useful to consider, even if just at a small scale to build up know how and local capability. We will need it in the long run after fossil fuels have been exhausted or become more expensive.

debosky:

Not immediately no, given that we have comparatively easier power sources like unexploited hydro, gas and coal.

At the top strategic level, it would be something useful to consider, even if just at a small scale to build up know how and local capability. We will need it in the long run after fossil fuels have been exhausted or become more expensive.

Until we show a higher level of responsibility as a society, we should stay away from Nuclear power. A nuclear hazard makes an oil spillage look like child's play (and you can imagine how often we have spills).
We don't need it now, and there is no evidence that we would ever need it, so why risk it?

biina:

Until we show a higher level of responsibility as a society,  we should stay away from Nuclear power. A nuclear hazard makes an oil spillage look like child's play (and you can imagine how often we have spills).
We don't need  it now, and there is no evidence that we would ever need it, so why risk it?

We already have a nuclear research facility that has operated without incident. What I am advocating is a similar sized facility for power generation with the same levels of control and supervision as the existing one. We can manage it in that form and not lose the potential benefits in the long run.

Regarding 'ever needing it', I think you need to look at energy studies that have been done. There is no reason to think we won't need nuclear energy in the future - our population is growing, we have significant constraints on our fossil fuel infrastructure, such that we cannot even meet local demand. A 'stand alone' nuclear facility has it's benefits - especially for areas in the North of the country far removed from fossil fuel deposits, particularly the North East that would be suited for a nuclear power station.

biina:

Until we show a higher level of responsibility as a society, we should stay away from Nuclear power. A nuclear hazard makes an oil spillage look like child's play (and you can imagine how often we have spills).
We don't need it now, and there is no evidence that we would ever need it, so why risk it?

Do ya'all know how safe the reactor is? Ya'all just hear the word Nuclear and shivers running all through ya body.
Reactors are built to withstand earthquake. Fusion gets nutralised when the strict parameters set indicate any minute error with manual and automatic control functions.
The only worry is the nuclear waste not the power plant.

Nuclear is def an option but like debosky said, we need to explore clean coal technology, rich untapped abundant gas and the other forms of energy generating techniques before we jump into the big league.

I have visited nuclear sites (Heysham and Hunterstone power station) and almost took a job as a nuclear engineer so i know what i am talking about.

debosky:

We already have a nuclear research facility that has operated without incident. What I am advocating is a similar sized facility for power generation with the same levels of control and supervision as the existing one. We can manage it in that form and not lose the potential benefits in the long run.

Regarding 'ever needing it', I think you need to look at energy studies that have been done. There is no reason to think we won't need nuclear energy in the future - our population is growing, we have significant constraints on our fossil fuel infrastructure, such that we cannot even meet local demand. A 'stand alone' nuclear facility has it's benefits - especially for areas in the North of the country far removed from fossil fuel deposits, particularly the North East that would be suited for a nuclear power station.

Having a nuclear research facility is not at the same level as having a nuclear reactor. You can research all you want, just don't build a full scale reactor.

The point on 'ever needing it' has to do with the question of when we will we run out of fossil fuels, and what alternative sources would be available at that time. I dont see that happening in the next 20yrs. The depletion would be gradual and not overnight. Excluding the uranium conditioning, it takes about 5yrs to bring a reactor online, which is ample time to respond if the need arises.

The constraints on fossil fuel infrastructure is due to an inept government, and one can argue that same would plague the nuclear power efforts.

jay bee:

Do ya'all know how safe the reactor is? Ya'all just hear the word Nuclear and shivers running all through ya body.
Reactors are built to withstand earthquake. Fusion gets nutralised when the strict parameters set indicate any minute error with manual and automatic control functions.
The only worry is the nuclear waste not the power plant.

Nuclear is def an option but like debosky said, we need to explore clean coal technology, rich untapped abundant gas and the other forms of energy generating techniques before we jump into the big league.

I have visited nuclear sites (Heysham and Hunterstone power station) and almost took a job as a nuclear engineer so i know what i am talking about.

It is so safe from radiation leakage that there is an overwhelming demand for monolithic containment vessels of which there are only 4.5 manufacturers with most having capacity for less than 5 units production annually?
With all the advances in Nuclear energy, we have already had four level 3 accidents this decade. In a poorly managed response, a nuclear accident could easily become an environmental catastrophe.

No one is questioning the feasibility of Nuclear sources in countries like the US, France or Japan. The question is on Nigeria. One cannot compare the development level of Nigeria to the earlier listed countries.

Its like flying by air, the consequences of an air disaster are not comparable to an automobile accident. Would you suggest Nigeria build our own airplanes?

biina:

Would you suggest Nigeria build our own airplanes?

I believe the thread says "Nuclear power plant for Nigeria" not "Nigeria building first nuclear power plant".

And doesn't the advantage of having a well built/services/controlled plant overweighs the disadvantages?

I suggest you read the article on Safety of nuclear reactors attached below.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

biina:

Having a nuclear research facility is not at the same level as having a nuclear reactor. You can research all you want, just don't build a full scale reactor.

The point on 'ever needing it' has to do with the question of when we will we run out of fossil fuels, and what alternative sources would be available at that time. I dont see that happening in the next 20yrs. The depletion would be gradual and not overnight. Excluding the uranium conditioning, it takes about 5yrs to bring a reactor online, which is ample time to respond if the need arises.

The constraints on fossil fuel infrastructure is due to an inept government, and one can argue that same would plague the nuclear power efforts.

20 years is in the medium term in my view - there is no reason not to consider nuclear in that time frame. I don't know what you mean by a 'full scale' reactor, but, apart from size, there is no material difference in the operation of a research facility and a larger one. I am not advocating for a 'large' reactor, but something on the order of 30-40MW which would pose minimal threat.

Even with the risks you have enumerated, I believe a specialised and dedicated agency (partly private owned) can achieve the desired aims.

biina:

It is so safe from radiation leakage that there is an overwhelming demand for monolithic containment vessels of which there are only 4.5 manufacturers with most having capacity for less than 5 units production annually?

What SIZE are you talking about here? You risk the danger of being too general in your assessment. A small scale modular design will not require this large monolithic containment vessel you talk about.

Even with the level 3 incidents you've mentioned, most have been contained by the safety processes 'designed in' as part of the facility with multiple redundancies, not some elaborate response to prevent it's escalation.

I think you are significantly biased against nuclear power without a clear understanding of the workings of the inherently safe high integrity protective systems that are standard with nuclear facilities now. Yes accidents happen, but there are sufficient barriers in place to prevent escalation into a 'top level' event.

Nuclear power is for countries who can maintain shit.

all these big oyibo languagae

never play with fire

NIGERIA SHOULD NEVER NEVER GO NUCLEAR

THERE ARE SOME COUNTRY IN EASTERN EUROPE THAT HAS BEEN ABANDONED FOR YEARS JUST DUE TO NUCLEAR LEAKAGE; ALL OF DEM PEOPLE WEY DE LIVE THERE DON RUN

IF NIGERIA EVER EVER THINK OF NUCLEAR, IT SHOULD BE IN THE FAR NORTH CLOSE TO CHAD!

BIG GRAMMAR NO REACH THIS LEVEL O

ikeyman00:

all these big oyibo languagae

never play with fire

NIGERIA SHOULD NEVER NEVER GO NUCLEAR

THERE ARE SOME COUNTRY IN EASTERN EUROPE THAT HAS BEEN ABANDONED FOR YEARS JUST DUE TO NUCLEAR LEAKAGE; ALL OF DEM PEOPLE WEY DE LIVE THERE DON RUN

IF NIGERIA EVER EVER THINK OF NUCLEAR, IT SHOULD BE IN THE FAR NORTH CLOSE TO CHAD!

BIG GRAMMAR NO REACH THIS LEVEL O

tpia is so tribalist!!!

everyone else's tribalism particularly this ignorant dumbass shit called ikeyman, isnt racist- its just genteel discussion!!!!

He's allowed to talk shit because of his tribe!!!!

Why must you guys bring your tribal arguments into every thread?

hmm good to see u in politics section

u probably believe emm by being moderator, u are in the limelight

now u ve seemed how famous this superman aka ikeyman is

not to mention influential; the way i post, the site i visted, my styl etc, i see that time after time in poeple's post

not suprised i was sexed up before, hmm still came back stronger,dnt hate brother plzzzzzzzzzzzzz

play your balls hahha

plz dnt envy my starch

all these big oyibo languagae

never play with fire

NIGERIA SHOULD NEVER NEVER GO NUCLEAR

THERE ARE SOME COUNTRY IN EASTERN EUROPE THAT HAS BEEN ABANDONED FOR YEARS JUST DUE TO NUCLEAR LEAKAGE; ALL OF DEM PEOPLE WEY DE LIVE THERE DON RUN

IF NIGERIA EVER EVER THINK OF NUCLEAR, IT SHOULD BE IN THE FAR NORTH CLOSE TO CHAD!

BIG GRAMMAR NO REACH THIS LEVEL O

what happened

It's still on:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf102.html

ROSSIKE:

It's still on:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf102.html

thanks

My pleasure.