Nigeria will be turning to nuclear energy to boost its installed electricity generating capacity and foster socio-economic development. This has been dividing opinion since the Federal Government first made its plans public, in the seventies.

Predictably, critics are highlighting the risks involved in nuclear projects while those in favour support the use of more reliable sources to boost power generation and join the league of nuclear stock custodians.

Why Nuclear?

The most compelling argument in favour of the development of nuclear energy for power generation is its ability to significantly boost generating capacity and also its position as a viable alternative to fossil fuels which will in the long term guarantee the security of energy supply.

This is a key objective of the Nigerian authorities looking to actualize this dream. However, one might be intrigued to know why they are looking to prioritise the development of a more complex and controversial energy source considering evident management failings in existing power infrastructure.

Nuclear Energy Background in Nigeria

The 2016 edition of the Nuclear Industry Summit (NIS) held in Washington DC last month and President Muhammadu Buhari was present to re-iterate Nigeria’s commitment to developing nuclear energy for economic development. Nigeria’s power situation is in a dreadful state, as less than 50% of the population lack access to electricity and the government is desperate to turn this around.

Nigeria also suffers one of the worst transmission and distribution losses in the world with electricity consumption per capita worse than in Sudan, Senegal and Congo to name a few. Nigeria’s electricity generation per capita is also one of the lowest in the world according to the US Energy Information Administration.

According to a Nathaniel Lowbeer-Lewis study on Nigeria’s nuclear energy plans and prospects published by the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Nigeria’s nuclear vision started with the establishment of Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission (NAEC hereafter) in 1976 to promote and develop nuclear technology.

Its primary aim is to enhance socio-economic development through the use of nuclear technology for power generation and management of water resources. It is also to be used in health, mining, petroleum, manufacturing and agricultural sectors as well in education and research. In 2006, the NAEC initiated a plan to start generating electricity using nuclear technology by 2017, this target has been moved to 2025.

The Federal government founded the Nigeria Uranium Mining Company (NUMCO) in 1978 and partnered with French company Total Compagnie Miniere to explore for Uranium deposits in middle belt Nigeria, particularly in the Jos Plateau area. The partnership ended in 1989 and NUMCO ended operation in 1996.

The Centre for Energy Research and Development (CERD) in Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Centre for Energy Research and Training (CERT) at Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) and Nuclear Technology Centre (NTC) in Abuja are among the major nuclear research centres set up around the country since 1976.

Over 50 scholarships in nuclear energy studies have also been approved for Nigerian students to study abroad since the seventies while the education sector has also initiated plans of including Nuclear energy in its curriculum. Nigeria’s nuclear energy industry watchdog, Nigeria Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NNRA hereafter) was founded in 1995 and started operation in May 2001.

This regulator, one of the most engaged in Nigeria, is currently chaired by President Buhari. More recently, global nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) delivered their final recommendations through its Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) on Nigeria’s nuclear plans by highlighting the need for a comprehensive nuclear law and the regulatory capacity to successfully complete the nuclear programme while achieving highest standards of security and safety.

Making a case for Nuclear

Nuclear energy is almost Carbon free. The emission of other greenhouse gases is also very low hence it helps reduce pressure on global warming – a problem recently deemed by the US government to be potentially worse than polio in some cases.

According to a review by the world nuclear association, Nuclear energy’s carbon emission level is lower than lignite, coal, oil, natural gas, Solar Photovoltaics and biomass in that order.

More-so, the carbon emission attributed to nuclear energy occurs during the mining and refining of its primary fuel (Uranium) and the construction of nuclear plants. However, during operation, nuclear plants emit zero carbon dioxide.

Despite the rise of renewable energy on a global scale, its availability and supply juxtaposed with a rise in electricity demand due to population growth forecasts makes it unreliable and inefficient in guaranteeing a sustainable non-fossil energy future.

Fossil fuel sources are still expected to account for about 80% of total global energy supply by 2030 according to BP energy outlook 2016 which highlights the need for better strategies to reduce this dominance in the long term.

Nuclear energy industry also enjoys price stability compared to the oil and gas industry as nuclear plants only need to refuel every 18 to 24 months.

Several countries have developed and mastered nuclear technology thus making it more comfortable for new countries to successfully introduce nuclear into their energy mix. France, Sweden, Ukraine, Finland and the United States to name a few rely on nuclear energy for over 19% of their electricity generation commitments.

More importantly, regulatory, health and safety frameworks in nuclear have been tightened to improve public confidence and further development in the industry. Nigeria aims to rely on foreign technical expertise available to assist in managing nuclear projects at least in the short term.

Nuclear energy also has the capacity to generate high volumes of energy from a single plant relative to other energy sources. Fiona Rayment, a director at UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory puts this in perspective by saying one will need one thousand windmills to get an equivalent of one nuclear power plant.

The Koeberg nuclear power station in South Africa (the only one on the African continent) has a generating capacity of 1,830 MW from just two plants while one of the world’s biggest single nuclear plants (The Brokdorf Nuclear Power Plant) in Germany generates about 1440 MW- this is almost equal to the combined available capacity of all of Nigeria’s hydro power stations (24 units in total).

Another key point is the steady rise in Nigeria’s population which will increase electricity demand and add more pressure on existing power infrastructure and resources. According to the United Nations, Nigeria’s population is expected to eclipse that of the United States by 2050 and become the third largest population in the world.

According to BP’s Energy Outlook 2016, global energy demand will continue to rise and more energy will be needed to fuel higher levels of activity and living standards. A long term strategy to introduce nuclear into Nigeria’s energy mix to boost and sustain energy supply does not look irrational.

Of the top ten most populous countries in the world, only Nigeria, Bangladesh and Indonesia do not generate electricity using nuclear energy. Bangladesh has already concluded plans to have two large nuclear power reactors in operation by 2023 while Indonesia hopes to have nuclear generate about 5000MW to its grid by 2025.

The NNRA is a well-run organisation that enforces all set guidelines and procedures to enable the safe use of radioactive materials and guarantee public safety. NNRA also works closely with IAEA to ensure compliance with international regulatory requirements. The Minister of power, Raji Fashola highlighted the importance of going nuclear during the visit of the director general of IAEA to his ministry last month and also stressed the need to improve public understanding of nuclear and its many benefits.

Nuclear is not only considered for electricity generation as various industries have been using radioactive materials for years. The creation of a full-fledged nuclear energy industry with a solid framework between the education and research industries along with other sectors will help Nigeria develop the technical capacity and competent human resource for the future, this will in turn boost employment figures.

While the state of Nigeria’s development has been questioned, other developing countries have successfully added nuclear to their energy mix for power generation. South Africa, Pakistan, Argentina, India and Iran to name a few all use nuclear energy for power generation. Kenya and Morocco are also planning to add nuclear to their energy mix.

Concerns

Despite the progress witnessed in the development of nuclear energy globally, the prime scourge affecting its growth and public acceptance is waste management. This will be Nigeria’s biggest issue if its nuclear power programme is signed off. No country with nuclear power has been able to come up with a near faultless solution to this conundrum. It is a fact that nuclear waste -which contains the highly poisonous Plutonium- is one of the most toxic substances in the world.

Its transportation and stockpiling requires the highest degree of health and safety precautions and error margins are expected to be extremely low if not zero. Deep underground repositories will need to be constructed to safely store nuclear waste, which remain highly radioactive for tens of thousands of years.

This has high cost implications. According to the Guardian, almost half of the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change’s budget (an average of $3.5 billion annually) goes towards nuclear legacy which involves management of storage facilities and the decommissioning of old plants. It also costs between $300 million to $500 million to decommission a nuclear plant after its cycle has lapsed.

Ukraine recently budgeted $1.6 million to decommission nuclear plants and manage radioactive waste for 2 years. The United States will be spending about $90 billion to construct a modern repository to store its waste by 2017.

Recently, Japan, worried about its high stock of enriched Uranium and weapons grade Plutonium sitting idle, shipped a portion of the radioactive materials (enough to make 50 nuclear weapons according to a CNN report) to the United States.

This move was strongly criticised by the South Carolina governor, Nikki Haley due to the evident safety and environmental concerns. The policy was formulated to spread evenly the stock of weapons grade Plutonium stored worldwide for public safety.

Accident and Disaster management is also a significant concern. The worst nuclear accident in the world in the Chernobyl nuclear plant, Ukraine 29 years ago still has damaging consequences till this day. The 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan shook the global energy market and the Japanese economy (3rd biggest in the world and relies on nuclear for 30% of its electricity generation).

It led to the decommissioning of its remaining nuclear plants and compensation budget for victims is likely to rise to $100 billion. The Three Mile Islands nuclear accident in the United States in 1979 cost about $1 billion to clean up. Out of the three high profile nuclear disasters, only one (Fukushima) was an act of God.

Hence safety and radiation protection requirements cannot be overemphasised. The capacity and infrastructure to react and recover from accidents need to be of the highest standard.

Nuclear terrorism is currently gaining a lot of attention and rightfully so. The thought of highly radioactive nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists is a big cause for concern.

This fear heightened when it was reported that the terrorists behind the Brussels attack were secretly filming Belgium’s head of nuclear research and development programme prior to the attacks. The nuclear summit correctly made nuclear security one of the key points in its agenda.

A nuclear plant, if attacked, could lead to the release of dangerous substances to the immediate environment, nuclear weapons (if Nigeria decides to have them) could be stolen and nuclear fuel can be used to make atomic bombs. Just 50 (less than half a bag of cement) to 100 pounds of Uranium could be used to construct a bomb close to the one deployed by the US at Hiroshima.

One of the main threats to global security is ISIS and it has formed an alliance with Boko Haram to expand its tentacles in Sub-Saharan Africa; this surely cannot be flouted. There has been an increased scrutiny on people with knowledge of nuclear technology and staff of nuclear plants over possible breach of sensitive information to terrorists. Belgium are currently investigating the link of two nuclear plant staff in the country with ISIS.

The cost implication of nuclear power projects is huge. The timescale, formalities and regulatory signoffs involved in its completion take over a decade on the average. Hence it is hardly seen as a short term solution to power problems. For example, the UK’s controversial deal with China to build a nuclear plant at Hinkley Point Somerset will cost about $33 billion and will be the most expensive plant in the world according to the Guardian.

Options and Short Term Goals

Alternative and safer sources of energy are abundant in Nigeria to enable it build a sustainable generating capacity which will help alleviate its power problems both in the short and long term. Solar, hydro, gas and coal can all be harnessed on a larger scale. South Africa utilises coal for about 94% of its power generation (second highest in the world).

Even though the government’s focus shifted from coal to cleaner fossil fuel sources decades ago, technological advancement in coal use can still be relied on and coal deposits revisited. Nigeria’s proximity to the Sahara and position on the equator, arms it with an abundant supply of solar energy.

Morocco recently showed the world what can be achieved with the concentrated solar power technology. Nigeria also has one of the top ten largest gas reserves in the world and the biggest in Africa. The gas industry could be deregulated to encourage more investment in the gas sector and increase its role in power generation.

While there is an argument that nuclear represents more of a long term solution to power generation, some Nigerians will like to see the government make the best use of the safer and more abundant energy resources available, expand technical and generating capacity and further deregulation of the market to promote competition and drive prices down to competitive levels.

According to the Manufacturing Association of Nigeria, the industry needs about 20,000MW of power and actual residential demand averages about 10,000MW. This does not look impossible to achieve with non-nuclear resource especially in the short term.

It is the government’s responsibility to prove its competency to the public in its ability to manage a nuclear programme and allay any worries. Improving on the management of existing power infrastructure and guaranteeing sufficient electricity supply to consumers in a less regulated industry will be a good start but ultimately, it seems nuclear will be successfully introduced to Nigeria’s energy mix in the near future.

————————–
Mondiu Jaiyesimi is an Energy Economist passionate about energy and public policy, empirical research and energy finance. He studied Energy Economics and Policy at the University of Surrey and has done extensive research work in Liquefied Natural Gas markets, UK energy markets, shale gas revolution and energy demand in developed countries.

He currently engages in independent energy consulting focusing on energy modelling, climate change and trends in oil and gas supply in Africa and other emerging markets. He is a member of the International Agency for Energy Economics and the British Institute of Energy Economics.