ezeagu:

Let's hop it's not handled like PHCN, because Nigerians can fail at maintaining everything except a nuclear power plant.

The truth is bitter but I make you right. I think you have delivered a technical knockout

tensor777:

You need to stop spewing ignorance and properly carry out research before posting here.
A nuclear reactor is not a glorified uranium-fired power station!!!
When uranium is burned to make uranium oxide in the chemical reaction-- U +  2O  -- U(2O) the heat of combustion is about 4500 Joules per gram. This is a meagre 11 electron volts per uranium atom.
On the other hand nuclear fission liberates about 200, 000, 000 electron volts per atom, that is nearly 20 million times as much energy!!
                                                                                   

You need to do better than this to impress. What the heck has this gotten to do with effectively handling the waste (all the present storage facilities are temporal measures and the debate of having a natural nuclear waste repository site never ends on a positive note).I  see your just bent on letting us know the mechanism behind a nuclear reactor but you all have still not come to terms that we are not at the stage to start grappling with the headache of nuclear waste. If reading is one of your strong point you should be able to overcome this simple hurdle but am scared you will still disappoint .nothing personal bro, just the plain truth.
educate yourself with this link and lets see how you will fare after this

http://www.sea-us.org.au/wastenot.html

^^^Just do not mind this tensor Guy, he or she is just lifting post or some web material and pasting it here in an attempt to sound familiar with Nuclear Tech. If he actually understands the energy potential of Nuclear fission, and that the energy output in case of an accident is not limited to the design value, I do not think we would be having these arguments. Whats the use of wasting my time with such a human being?

By the way while I was reading  some post on nuclear waste, I started to think of how best to dispose such waste. The only natural nuclear reactor is the sun. If we can find a way to send wastes to the sun using unmanned vehicles. The waste and the vehicle will definitely heat-up and vaporise before getting to the sun, but I believe if they had already acquired momentum, the gas will keep heading in the direction of the Sun.

but some things are doubtful though: the first is that if solar wind (particle and photon radiations) are very strong near the sun they may reverse the momentum of the hurtling gas, but again the Suns gravity might compensate for that.   

The second is the long term loss of mass to the earth which can affect her orbit pattern, but we might compensate  by picking up equal mass of materials from other planets.

The third is that I doubt if the sun is actually stationary, hence may not be approached in a straight line

For those petitioning for nuclear plant make sure you agitate that they put it next to your village since you are not worried .

tensor777:

Just shut up and stop injecting your evil militant support position into this business decision. And why exactly should Nigeria continue to rely on hydrocarbons via building more thermal gas staions  when there are cheaper and more efficient alternatives.
If you want to talk about your Niger Delta struggle why not open a thread for that? MUST YOU POST INCENDIARY NONSENSE HERE?

1. Firstly, I'm not from the Niger Delta. You can check my previous contributions on other topics to have an idea of my state of origin
2. Even if I'm from the Niger Delta, I expect you to address the issue I raised not attacking Niger Delta or militant whatever
3. I made mention of gas flaring. Is it right or wrong to flair gas that can be used to solve Nigerian's power/electricity problem? (can also be sold to earn revenue)
4. Nigeria has never relied on hydrocarbon, gas, or whatever to generate electricity. It is just content with the little electricity available
5. You said storage of nuclear waste is not a problem for Nigeria because other countries don't see it as problem. Just bear in mind that those countries do not see electricity generation as a problem in the first place, even without the nuclear stuff
6. Have you asked if those countries see roads, healthcare, policing and housing as a problem?
7. I made mention of people around Jos, who are at risk from radioactive materials from disused mines. Please don't see me as a Jos militant, see me a someone who thinks our government as at today can't handle little things, so should not try handling big ones
8. Just a month ago, there was volcanic eruption in Benue state. Read up or ask people whether the government paid urgent attention to people who were affected by the eruption
9. Those countries you are thinking of, could easily evacuate people if there is nuclear incidence. Can Nigerian government do so?
10. Think of how many people have died from fire at leaking pipeline or broken-down tankers on Nigerian roads, while scooping petrol. THose countries dont have fuel queues at service stations
11. If you drive on Nigerian roads, people who die are left to rot and smell by the roadside, government and its agencies dont care. It doesnt happen in those countries
12. Nuclear energy is good, it could be the best. But just like someone mentioned earlier on this topic, it's like an exclusive luxury car, you don't buy it because you saw someone riding it in Japan. You have to take several factors into consideration, does a simple mercedes solve the problem, does Nigeria have suitable roads, are there qualified mechanics to fix it when it breaks down, will other roads users understand that it is a car and not something from the moon, etc?
13. I know we are discussing informally on this forum, but it's worth showing respect to other users. It's just an advice

It was about 7 years ago in Lagos that Nigerian own military barack recorded many deaths from careless handling of ammunitions. Children, parents, friends, visitors, etc all died or got maimed in their numbers.

trueword:

For those petitioning for nuclear plant make sure you agitate that they put it next to your village  since you are not worried .

Safety is not an issue; I'd have no problems with one near my own village (though I'd prefer if it were American or French made rather than Russian.)

My own beef with nuclear power plants is not safety, but cost, and relevance given that we have an abundance of things like hydroelectric power, natural gas, etc.

DapoBear:

Safety is not an issue; I'd have no problems with one near my own village (though I'd prefer if it were American or French made rather than Russian.)

My own beef with nuclear power plants is not safety, but cost, and relevance given that we have an abundance of things like hydroelectric power, natural gas, etc.

SAFETY is always an issue with any POWER-DRIVEN infrastructure from Motorcycles to Airplanes, DAMS and Nuclear Plants, it is always on the forefront of any Nuclear endeavor, While I fully support the proposed or planned or imagined engagement of Russia to assist in building Nuclear power plants in Nigeria, we also need to be fully prepared in other aspects such as Training/Technology Transfer, Maintenance, Disposal and SAFETY, we cannot say that Nigeria will never experience any sort of reactor breach or accidental discharge of nuclear waste or radio-active material, We never saw our dear NIGCOMSAT crashing out of the sky did we, neither did we foresee the level of damage the Floods from the OWAN dam did recently to hundreds of communities in its path. (otherwise we would have prepared an adequate Emergency Response Initiative). It is not out of negativism, "unpatriotism" or journalistic sabotage that some nairalanders post here, Nigeria's record on Security, Maintenance, Safety and sheer Political will to see such projects to fruition and sustain it is sadly wanting

Let there be light
The president is launching Africa’s most ambitious privatisation scheme shortly before facing a tight election
http://www.economist.com/node/17312103

Electricity in Nigeria
Let there be light
The president is launching Africa’s most ambitious privatisation scheme shortly before facing a tight election

Oct 21st 2010 | ABUJA

THE e-mail from Nigeria claimed to come from an aide to the president and touted a business opportunity with potentially vast returns. But unlike similar-sounding messages from Nigerian princes and finance ministers—known in Nigeria as “419” scams after a section of the penal code—this one seemed genuine.

President Goodluck Jonathan, who early next year will stand in an election that could split his party and spark violent protests, has asked investors to participate in a grandiose privatisation programme meant to raise $35 billion over ten years. He wants to flog state power-generation and distribution companies, and put the grid under private management.

The scheme may be his—and his country’s—best hope of salvation from chronic power cuts. At a prayer meeting on October 4th Mr Jonathan was reading a biblical passage in front of many of the country’s elite when the grid failed and his microphone cut out. He walked off in a huff.
Related items

* Ethiopia and China: Looking eastOct 21st 2010

Related topics

* Abuja
* Government and politics
* Privatisation and nationalisation
* Economics
* Business

Ordinary Nigerians are angry too. The power supply, they say, is “epileptic”. Nigeria is a big oil exporter, but its people get only a few hours of electricity a day. The entire population–around 150m–is said to use as much grid power as the area around Narita airport in Tokyo. South Africans consume 55 times more energy per head, and Americans 100 times more.

The problem is not new. Nigeria’s power supply has been stagnant for 30 years. During the tumultuous 1990s there was no investment despite surging demand. Since then, generation capacity has risen by half but distribution is so dysfunctional that actual supply has remained flat. One result is a laughably small manufacturing sector, about 4% of GDP.

There have been reform attempts in the past. The Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN), the monopoly supplier, is known to consumers as Please Have Candle Nearby. Five years ago it replaced the National Electric Power Authority (NEPA), nicknamed Never Expect Power Again. Mischarging and other sins continued. “I just got a bill for the last four months but had no lights for three,” says a doctor 20 miles (32km) outside the capital, Abuja.

To survive, many Nigerians have their own power plants, creating the world’s highest concentration of small-scale generators. Two-thirds of all electricity is produced in basements and backyards, at a cost of $13 billion a year. Generator merchants say the government is their best client. Some have set up steel plants to keep up with demand. One has 3,000 workers assembling the grunting machines.

All this could change if the privatisation scheme succeeds. It aims to raise $3.5 billion a year and boost the power supply 13-fold over a decade. The government is offering to guarantee some bank loans and may cap the interest at 7%. At a recent conference in Abuja Mr Jonathan wooed hundreds of investors, including executives from Goldman Sachs and General Electric.

Other African leaders are watching closely, sensing that this may prove to be a test bed for the continent. Some, though not all (see article), are asking what alternatives there are to growing dependence on Chinese investment. Like most of its neighbours, Nigeria is making big infrastructure deals with China. In May, it inked a $23 billion Chinese oil refinery project. But Mr Jonathan acknowledges that China’s interest in Africa is no panacea. The case for privatisation will get a boost if he can keep the lights on at home.

There are reasons to be optimistic. The programme has a sound legal basis. It follows a conventional privatisation model. Its pricing scheme seems transparent. That has reassured investors. They also welcome the easy access to local-currency loans in Nigeria, one of Africa’s most developed capital markets. And they like the country’s strong GDP growth, expected to top 7% this year.

Yet there is still plenty to worry about. Supplying new power stations with gas is a headache, as is recruiting competent staff. But it is the politics of privatisation that investors fear most. There will be plenty of losers, many with vocal lobbies. Trade unions are protesting against staff cuts, although the president has set aside money for compensation. Consumers fear steep price hikes. The fuel mafia that supplies generator owners is up in arms.

Even more worrying, the corrupt state bureaucracy is drooling in anticipation. The influx of billions of dollars will create long queues at the trough. Observers warn of the “rascality” of Nigerian officials.

The president says he will work hard to make his privatisation plan work. To convince investors, he has appointed himself electricity minister and scheduled weekly power summits (11am on Tuesdays). He has also surrounded himself with men familiar to potential investors. The central bank governor and the finance minister are career bankers with experience abroad. He calls them his “war cabinet”, although they have limited influence.

The strongest pitch the government could make would be its own re-election. Voting is due early next year and for the first time in recent history the outcome is uncertain. The president’s party—dominant since the end of military rule 11 years ago—cannot agree on a nominee. The losers in a forthcoming primary may break away. One-party rule could end.

As the election campaign picks up pace, the president’s focus is likely to drift and electricity may return to the back burner. Or perhaps it already has. At the two-day conference in Abuja, Mr Jonathan failed to show up for the second day. Apparently, he was lured away to another meeting by his wife, Dame Patience, who is one of his closest advisers.

For now, privatisation is wobbling along and some deals may be done. But consumers will have to wait until next year before they can even think about turning off their generators. Good luck and patience will both be needed.

^-- Fair enough, nothing in life or on earth is absolutely 100% safe, everything has some level of risk associated with it. But I feel the percentage for nuclear power generation is extremely high, and so view it as an acceptable risk.

With that said, I don't necessarily think this is appropriate for Nigeria at this point in time.

alj harem:

people this is a shot at constant electricity which we all have been clamouring for

i notices that the location was not put down because from 2003 the south west have said they do not want it

about the same time the igbo leaders said that nuclear reactors should not be in the south region were the economy is

now my question:::::::::: should a nuclear reactor be in the north or middlebelt were it is atleast 20 degrees hotter that a typical southern state

most of u do not know how a reactor works

the best location is cross river or port harcount, because there are near riverran areas were if it is too hot, it can be cooled down



if it is not in those states mention above, then i think we are not ready for constant electricity yet

i think we should just stick to the safer forms of electricity for now so as not to cause fight between ourselves    

Why are we not utilizing the huge gas reserve, are we that wasteful . with that we should have no complains absolutely. Nuclear is just luxury bro, just another good add on.

@jmaine

Using gas does not mean you should not use nuclear. It is not either-or. You can use the gas NOW, then use the nuclear later.

gas:

pros:
readily available
currently being wasted
use of gas will reduce environmental damage due to gas flaring

cons:
still damages the environment even when used properly
total reserves are not known: finite supply
lower efficiency during conversion than nuclear.

Nuclear

pros:
Most efficient, cleanest power source currently known to mankind
almost limitless reserves of power

cons:
high tech, with low local skillbase
high cost to conform with international safety guidelines

As for your questions on storage of nuclear waste I told you to go and google. You obviously did not do this. Disposal of nuclear waste is an international issue, you cannot go live on a nuclear plant until you fulfil all regulations. As Kengali said, the powers that be will NOT allow you to keep your nuclear waste because you could create weapons that way. So dont worry! The world has that covered.

Really, people. I dont see why you are still arguing. If Nigeria wants to make progress, let her, and save yourself from this colonial mentality of 'we are all stupid monkeys and can never do anything right'. Really, people! Hopefully the next generation is free from this ridiculous inferiority complex.

Nuclear? Why not Anti-Matter? Useless people

KenGali:

^^^Just do not mind this tensor Guy, he or she is just lifting post or some web material and pasting it here in an attempt to sound familiar with Nuclear Tech. If he actually understands the energy potential of Nuclear fission, and that the energy output in case of an accident is not limited to the design value, I do not think we would be having these arguments. Whats the use of wasting my time with such a human being?

KENGALI SVENGALI you are just bringing up random issues to cover up your lack of substantive knowledge of the nuclear power industry.
In any case you seem to have this fixed idea that the FGN would run these 1000 MW reactors.
Where in the world did you get the idea from? It has  to be a strictly private sector investment which should mean total deregulation of the power generation and transmission industry.
Any such reactors built and  operated in Nigeria would STILL have to conform to the very strict design and operational safety standards laid down by the IAEA.

DapoBear:

^-- Fair enough, nothing in life or on earth is absolutely 100% safe, everything has some level of risk associated with it. But I feel the percentage for nuclear power generation is extremely high, and so view it as an acceptable risk.

With that said, I don't necessarily think this is appropriate for Nigeria at this point in time.

That is a red herring laid out. The guy is just scaremongering. In fact it is a VERY VERY appropriate technology to use in a developing economy like Nigeria that is considering deregulation of the power industry.  Why so?
Because it is actually a very cheap form of energy with a 1000 MW energy output generated for 300 MW input. Other forms mentioned could be very expensive.
It is the fission itself that releases most of the energy.

^-- Why not explore our vast natural gas reserves or hydroelectric first for power generation? I've noticed that the countries with significant natural resources by and large are less interested in nuclear power. Otoh, France which doesn't have much in the way of natural resources generates 80%+ of its electricity from nuclear power (iirc, correct me if I'm wrong.)

You'd need to do a cost-benefit analysis, but I suspect natural gas or the like would win.

DapoBear:

^-- Why not explore our vast natural gas reserves or hydroelectric first for power generation? I've noticed that the countries with significant natural resources by and large are less interested in nuclear power. Otoh, France which doesn't have much in the way of natural resources generates 80%+ of its electricity from nuclear power (iirc, correct me if I'm wrong.)

You'd need to do a cost-benefit analysis, but I suspect natural gas or the like would win.

dapo gbammm

why should we use nuclear reactor when we know the disadvantages

1.) it has to be built in the south of nigeria because of the cooler climate
2.) this cause fight between the north and the south
3.) why not use gas which is been burnt away in gas flaring
4.) are they no safer type of producing electricity because we have at less 15 rivers in nigeria
5.) the government do not have common sense to handle a nuclear meltdown
6.) if a military government gets into power, he may start developing nuclear weapon, we is distaster for and african militray dictator

alj harem:

it has to be built in the south of nigeria because of the cooler climate
2.) this cause fight between the north and the south
3.) why not use gas which is been burnt away in gas flaring
4.) are they no safer type of producing electricity because we have at less 15 rivers in nigeria
5.) the government do not have common sense to handle a nuclear meltdown
6.) if a military government gets into power, he may start developing nuclear weapon, we is distaster for and african militray dictator[/size]

Look here Harem just go to the tribalist section if you have nothing senible to contribute other than these ludicrous theories. If you want to talk tribal or sectional politics which is your specialty why not open a thread for that?

tensor777:

Look here Harem just go to the tribalist section if you have nothing senible to contribute other than these ludicrous theories. If you want to talk tribal or sectional politics which is your specialty why not open a thread for that?

what are u talking about?

did u read the post at all

DapoBear:

^-- Why not explore our vast natural gas reserves or hydroelectric first for power generation? I've noticed that the countries with significant natural resources by and large are less interested in nuclear power. Otoh, France which doesn't have much in the way of natural resources generates 80%+ of its electricity from nuclear power (iirc, correct me if I'm wrong.)
You'd need to do a cost-benefit analysis, but I suspect natural gas or the like would win.

I does not matter the form of energy used as long as it is cheap. In any case this thing MUST NOT AND CANNOT BE  a government run project.
It should be a strictly private sector investment and hence like any other investment a cost benefit appraisal and cash flow statements would have to be produce beforehand  to justify such expenditure
However there has to be total deregulation of the power industry for the private sector to contemplate such an investment.

alj harem:

what are u talking about?
did u read the post at all

You are posting in the wrong section here. Why do you  feel the need to  contribute to such development topics anyway given your destructive hate mongering?

tensor777:

I does not matter the form of energy used as long as it is cheap. In any case this thing MUST NOT AND CANNOT BE  a government run project.
It should be a strictly private sector investment and hence like any other investment a cost benefit appraisal and cash flow statements would have to be produce beforehand  to justify such expenditure
However there has to be total deregulation of the power for the private sector to contemplate such an investment.

Agree with you 100%.

nuclear or not WE NEED POWER!WTF?

tensor777:

You are posting in the wrong section here. Why do you  feel the need to  contribute to such development[b] topics anyway given your destructive hate mongering?[/b]

sorry i would like to know how it is hate

alj harem:

dapo gbammm

why should we use nuclear reactor when we know the disadvantages

1.) it has to be built in the south of nigeria because of the cooler climate
2.) this cause fight between the north and the south
3.) why not use gas which is been burnt away in gas flaring
4.) are they no safer type of producing electricity because we have at less 15 rivers in nigeria
5.) the government do not have common sense to handle a nuclear meltdown  
6.) if a military government gets into power, he may start developing nuclear weapon, we is distaster for and african militray dictator

Nigerians have the right to create an anti-nuclear movement to prevent nuclear power plants from being constructed in their backyard.

I want nuclear power plants in my own state (assuming it is economically competitive with other choices for power, something I suspect will not be true.) If you don't want one in yours, fine and well.

DapoBear:

I want nuclear power plants in my own state (assuming it is economically competitive with other choices for power, something I suspect will not be true.) If you don't want one in yours, fine and well.

You do have a very subtle point there as these facilities are invariably located in remote rural areas and do have a very positive impact on the local economy.

tensor777:

You do have a very subtle point there as these facilities are invariably located in remote rural areas and do have a very positive impact on the local economy.

LOL - It did wonders for the economy of Chernobyl - the world couldn't get enough of their radioactive chickens, cows and other agricultural products that glowed in the dark.

My dear fellow, there was nothing subtle or positive or economically beneficial about the cancer, leukaemia, birth defects and the other diseases that the explosion brought the people of Chernobyl.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0426_040426_chernobyl.html

^-- Part of the reason I'd prefer a US or French make Nuclear Power Plant to a Russian one

Safety standards are higher in the former two countries than the latter. Russia is like Nigeria, in some respects. Life is very cheap

SapeleGuy:

My dear fellow, there was nothing subtle or positive or economically beneficial about the cancer, leukaemia, birth defects and the other diseases that the explosion brought the people of Chernobyl.

^^You just like scaremongering. Chernobyl was all of 24 years ago and occured with a type of reactor that no longer exists in a country that no longer exists!
However there are 400 nuclear reactors in the world and they generate all of 17% of the world's electricity!!!.
It looks like the way to go.

DapoBear:

^-- Part of the reason I'd prefer a US or French make Nuclear Power Plant to a Russian one

Safety standards are higher in the former two countries than the latter. Russia is like Nigeria, in some respects. Life is very cheap

Don't kid yourself there . It is NOW mandatory for[b] ALL[/b] signatories to the IAEA treaty to the stipulated rigourous safety standards and to submit to regular inspections,

tensor777:

^^You just like scaremongering. Chernobyl was all of 24 years ago and occured with a type of reactor that no longer exists in a country that no longer exists!
However there are 400 nuclear reactors in the world and they generate all of 17% of the world's electricity!!!.
It looks like the way to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accident

Since Chernobyl, there have been 57 accidents. I am sure the people of Abuja now feel a lot safer about their nuclear facility because you have said it is safe.