|
Post by kasuku on Jan 3, 2012 21:06:05 GMT 3
Mr Kalonzo, the self-named-clean politician, promised to take the matter in Hand. Someone should aske him what happened to this promis ________________
Kenya: State to probe "nuclear waste" allegedly dumped in northeast by US firm
Kenya: State to probe "nuclear waste" allegedly dumped in northeast by US firm
Text of unattributed report entitled "State will probe alleged dumping of nuclear waste" published by Kenyan newspaper The Standard web site on 25 January 2005
The government yesterday moved to ascertain whether an American company dumped nuclear waste in North Eastern Province under the guise of exploring for oil.
Environment Minister Kalonzo Musyoka directed the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) to analyse soil samples from the exploration sites, and vowed to sue the company if traces of nuclear waste were found in them.
"This is a serious and delicate matter and I have directed NEMA to look into it," he said.
There are widespread fears in Garissa, Wajir and Mandera districts that an American company, that arrived in the country to prospect for oil in the '80s, dumped nuclear waste in the remote region. According to the residents, the company excavated deep trenches, which they later covered with concrete slabs. The company officials also allegedly off-loaded huge consignments of mysterious goods at the sites whose contents they did not want the locals to see. The residents in the affected areas have been complaining of strange and incurable diseases, which they claim are caused by the alleged presence of radioactive material.
"If results of the samples indicate the presence of radioactive material, we shall unearth the rest of the substances buried at the sites. It is very serious and I thank the writers for exposing the scam," said Kalonzo.
The story was published exclusively in The Standard on Saturday [22 January]. More reaction on the alleged dumping came from Kabete MP Paul Muite, who challenged the government to come clean on the issue. Muite said the alleged culprits should be named and shame and criminal proceedings instituted against them. Muite lauded The Standard for ...
Source: EVXpress TM
|
|
|
Post by kasuku on Jan 3, 2012 21:08:51 GMT 3
Kenya: State denies claims of toxic waste dumping in Northeastern Province
Text of report by Bernard Namunane and Odhiambo Orlale entitled "Nuclear waste claim denied" published by Kenyan newspaper Daily Nation website on 15 November 2006
The government has denied claims that nuclear waste was dumped in North Eastern Province. It has also declined to send specialists to the region to investigate reports that radiation from the waste was behind an increase in cancer and tuberculosis cases in the province.
MPs Ukur Yatani (North Horr, KANU [opposition Kenya African National Union]) and Peter Odoyo (Nyakach, Narc [National Rainbow Coalition]) asked the government to investigate companies prospecting for oil, which they blamed for the dumping.
"There have been reports that nuclear waste was dumped in the area since 1997 by companies prospecting for oil. Can the assistant minister confirm or deny that the waste is the cause of cancer in the region?" asked Mr Yatani.
Mr Odoyo said that he had carried out studies that have shown that cancer, especially of the oesophagus, was caused by radiation from such waste material.
But health assistant minister Enock Kibunguchy said that as a doctor, he could not agree that cancer and tuberculosis in the region were caused by radiation from waste material.
"We deal with facts in this House and not unconfirmed reports. As far as I know, there is no exact cause of cancer," he said and questioned Mr Odoyo's assertion that he knew the cause when he was not a medical doctor.
But Mr Odoyo insisted that he had carried out adequate research to back his stand.
"Can the assistant minister also say that he was a master of parliamentary rules by the time he came to this House?" he ...
source:EVXpress TM
|
|
|
Post by kasuku on Jan 3, 2012 21:26:34 GMT 3
First of all, before the Kenyan Government starts wasting money researching on how to sell the public this Nuclear Power issue, they should the money to investigate the allegations above and that in a transparency way (for example with independent Inspectors).
Meanwhile, if they did indeed allow the allegations and refuse to address the claims in public and also refused tackle the emergency of the cancer sicknesses concentrated in the areas claimed to be poisoned, then how will they ever convince Kenyans of any safety of running Nuclear power plants? My god, our politicians are more dangerous than we thought.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Jan 4, 2012 18:52:08 GMT 3
analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/new-build/political-delay-support-nuclear-damaging-uk-economy?utm_source=http%3a%2f%2fuk.nuclearenergyinsider.com%2ffc_nei_decomlz%2f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NEI+e-brief+0401&utm_term=Political+delay+to+support+nuclear+damaging+UK+economy&utm_content=118857Political delay to support nuclear damaging UK economy By Jason Deign on Jan 4, 2012 A report by the UK Centre for Policy Studies claims British Government measures to support new nuclear could have the opposite effect. Could a dash to set a Carbon Price Floor actually discourage plant construction? It is full steam ahead for nuclear in the UK. Operators are gearing up for an ambitious new-build programme following government moves to support low-carbon energy technologies. Within the next 12 years or so a whole slew of new plants will be up and running. At least, that is the official position. But a report just out from the UK Centre for Policy Studies paints a very different picture. According to the author, the political and energy analyst Tony Lodge: “It is now widely accepted that carbon and energy security targets can best be met if nuclear investment is supported. “However, because of the delay in supporting new nuclear build in the past, the route to achieving these targets is both challenging for consumers and potentially damaging for the UK economy, particularly energy-intensive industry.” In The Atomic Clock: How the Coalition is gambling with Britain’s energy policy, he claims that traditional delays in nuclear permitting could mean new plants will not come online before a large part of the current coal-fired power generation estate is retired. “New nuclear power stations traditionally have long lead times as various regulatory, environmental and development consents (including reactor approval) must be met before construction begins,” says the report. This, it adds, would mean new reactors would be unlikely to start up before 2025. But around 25% of older electricity generating capacity is due to close between 2015 and 2020. Dash for gas? To cover the shortfall, the report argues, UK energy producers will make a ‘dash for gas’ that will take the focus away from nuclear plant construction. Worse still, says the report, one of the main funding mechanisms being put in place to support new nuclear, the Carbon Price Floor, could actually discourage plant construction. The Carbon Price Floor aims to encourage investment in low-carbon technology by getting generators to pay a pollution tax for every tonne of carbon dioxide they emit, starting at £16 per tonne in 2013 and then rising to £30 per tonne in 2020 and £70 per tonne in 2030. In that sense it is similar to the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), in which permits are currently trading at about half the cost of Carbon Price Floor proposed for next year. The implication of this is that the UK carbon market will no longer use ETS permits and its share of these will flood the European market, causing their price to drop further (by up to about 20% during low emissions periods) and making it cheaper to produce energy on the continent. Perversely, this could stunt investment in clean energy technologies as it will not cost as much to run carbon-emitting plants. It will also massively increase the amount that UK taxpayers have to shell out for power: the report predicts electricity prices could more than double by 2030, putting a third of all British households into a state of ‘fuel poverty’, whereby 10% or more of income goes on energy bills. This is liable to make the Carbon Price Floor highly unpopular with voters, which in turn could affect the government’s commitment to clean energy support. Investor uncertainty And, notes the report: “There have been signs of renewed scepticism about nuclear power by some Liberal Democrat members of the Coalition. The Coalition should be reassuring investors, not heightening investor uncertainty. “Without this political clarity, Britain’s long overdue decision to embrace, support and deliver a series of large new nuclear plants on schedule will be unachievable. Instead, Britain risks becoming yet more dependent on foreign gas and unmanageable renewable energy.” This is all sombre reading, but to what extent does it represent a likely scenario? There is no doubt that building new reactors is a lengthy process and one that requires sustained government support in order to maintain investor confidence. Government inaction And the concerns over government inaction regarding new nuclear appear to have some foundation. Even though there have been recent advances, such as the UK Office of Nuclear Regulation’s Interim Statement of Design Acceptability for EDF Energy and AREVA’s European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) proposal, in many sectors there is discontent over the slow rate of progress. For example, Phil Holland, development manager at SITA UK, which is awaiting permission to be able to handle low-level radioactive waste, says: “We have had a promise that we will get authorisation early this year. But I have had the draft permits on my desk for the last two years.” Waste management is one of the issues listed in the report as requiring priority attention. Planning is another. “A repeat of the delays and planning inquiry marathon at Sizewell B in the 1980s and other UK plants must be prevented at all costs,” it says. The UK nuclear industry will have to hope policy makers are reading… and planning to take prompt action.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Jan 19, 2012 9:03:16 GMT 3
www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Stop+knocking+nuclear+energy/-/440808/1309732/-/9c2tohz/-/index.htmlStop knocking nuclear energy, it might turn out to be the country’s salvation On December 29, last year, University of Nairobi don Walter Odhiambo wrote a piece on nuclear energy in which he acknowledged that Kenya’s energy needs would be in excess of 16,000 MW by 2030. In this mix, nuclear power will account for a significant chunk, 4,000 MW representing 25 per cent of the total. It will complement hydro- and geothermal electricity generation. Dr Odhiambo mentioned Germany, Switzerland and Japan as countries exiting the nuclear electricity world. The fact that Germany is rethinking its nuclear energy options does not negate the fact that it is a cost-efficient technology for Kenya. Germany’s decision was initially made in 2000 and restated after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. But Germany has sufficient alternatives, notably coal and natural gas, to meet its vast demands for energy if it plans to shut down its nuclear plants by 2022. As for Switzerland, after Fukushima, the authorities did, indeed, halt plans for new nuclear power plants. That was based on studies which found Switzerland’s earthquake risk is twice as much as had been initially thought. However, the existing power plants in Switzerland are not affected by the decision and will continue operating for the rest of their lifespans. These plants account for nearly 40 per cent of Switzerland’s electricity production. As for Japan, it is the ill-fated Fukushima nuclear power plant that will be decommissioned. Another 11 plants are still functional. Now let’s focus on Kenya. A recurring theme in recent times has been the use of fossil fuel to generate the country’s electricity. Share This Story Share But vagaries of weather, fluctuations in the value of the shilling against international currencies and instability in oil prices have made fossil fuels unreliable. An alternative that would be cost-effective is desirable. And nuclear power meets that criteria. As to the issue of nuclear waste, this technology is one of the most highly-regulated. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has stringent checks to ensure compliance with its standards. In any case, what Kenya needs to do is to emulate the best practices in the industry for dealing with nuclear waste. Even as early as the pre-feasibility studies, radioactive waste is among the 19 infrastructure issues that must be comprehensively analysed against checklists with clear objectives and action plans. Setting up a nuclear plant is an elaborate process which is thought through extensively. It commences long before a plant is constructed, with an elaborate plan of action right through to the point at which a plant is decommissioned. The Nuclear Electricity Project Committee is currently undertaking a pre-feasibility study. This is an elaborate undertaking with clear parameters involving issues such as safety, safeguards and security, legislative and regulatory framework, stakeholder involvement, the nuclear fuel cycle, radiation protection and radioactive waste, as well as funding and financing. A team of assessors for the study is drawn from KenGen, the Radiation Protection Board, the Kenya Bureau of Standards, the Energy Regulatory Commission, the Ministry of Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology, KIRDI, the Energy Regulatory Commission, and Cotu. Should Kenya go the full hog and begin generating nuclear power, there would be an independent regulatory body to play an oversight role in conjunction with the IAEA. Issues around nuclear energy need to be understood, internalised and appreciated without emotions and prejudices. For this reason, the Nuclear Electricity Project Committee will teach Kenyans about nuclear energy and its potential benefits. The concerns raised by Dr Odhiambo regarding the disposal of radioactive waste are pertinent. There are stringent safeguards to ensure the proper disposal of high, intermediate or low-level radioactive waste, whichever the case may be. Part of the pre-feasibility study currently being undertaken in Kenya relates to the establishment of a policy for the nuclear fuel cycle including arrangements for secure sources of supply, safe transportation and storage of new and spent nuclear fuel, as well as waste management. Mr Buyukah is the director, Publicity and Advocacy, Nuclear Electricity Project Committee.
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Jan 19, 2012 10:02:35 GMT 3
Podp, all that is fine. Question, who's instructions are you taking to "share this story"?
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Jan 19, 2012 10:41:07 GMT 3
b6k:
I wish you would focus on the kernel of the matter.
What you have highlighted is a standard feature in online articles.
Try copy pasting any news article you find on the internet.
Unless you edit these words out, you will them embedded in whatever you repost.
Onyango Oloo Nairobi
|
|
|
Post by podp on Jan 19, 2012 16:09:12 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by kasuku on Jan 19, 2012 16:14:20 GMT 3
Germans have no natural oils to call their own and the coal is nearly finished, there is hardly anymore. Look here where they are seeking for their future energy.
Europeans are organizing themselves to produce Energy from the sun falling on AFRIKAN Deserts for themselves, - and to even sell it to US Africans… And we Kenyans are wasting money doing fusibilities for Atom Energy? I think the world has turned upside down. Let’s be real and stop this insanity Straight away. ----------
“Within 6 hours Deserts receive more energy from the Sun than Humankind consumes within a Year” Dr Gerhard Knie Milestones From Vision to Reality 2003-2007: Development of the DESERTEC Concept The DESERTEC Concept was developed by an international network of politicians, academics and economists. From this Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (short: TREC) network later emerged the DESERTEC Foundation. The physicist Dr. Gerhard Knies and HRH Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, the then President of the Club of Rome, were the driving forces behind the formation and development of the network.
The research institutes for renewable sources of the governments of Morocco (CDER), Algeria (NEAL), Libya (CSES), Egypt (NREA), Jordan (NERC) and Yemen (Universities of Sana'a and Aden) as well as the German Aerospace Center (DLR) made significant contributions towards the development of the DESERTEC Concept. The basic studies relating to DESERTEC were led by DLR scientist Dr. Franz Trieb. The studies were financed by the German Ministry of the Environment (BMU), which at the time was led by Federal Ministers Jürgen Trittin and, later on, Sigmar Gabriel.
2007: Presentation of the WhiteBook for DESERTEC in EU-MENA The results of the DESERTEC studies as well as proposals for action regarding the implementation of DESERTEC in the EU-MENA region (Europe, Middle East and North Africa) were summarized in a WhiteBook, which was presented in the European Parliament by Prince El Hassan bin Talal. Subsequently, the then President of the European Parliament, Prof. Dr. Hans-Gert Pöttering, repeatedly expressed his support for DESERTEC in public, including in his function as President of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA). 2008: Launch of the Solar Plan of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) The drafting of a first version of the Mediterranean Solar Plan of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) was the result of talks with the French embassy and representatives from French ministries. The aim of the Mediterranean Solar Plan is the development of renewable energy projects with a total of 20 gigawatts by the year 2020. 2009: Establishment of the DESERTEC Foundation The DESERTEC Foundation was founded on 20 January 2009 as a non-profit foundation with the aim of promoting the implementation of the global DESERTEC Concept "Clean Power from Deserts" all over the world. Founding members of the DESERTEC Foundation are the German Association of the Club of Rome, members of the network of scientists TREC as well as committed private supporters and long-time promoters of the DESERTEC idea 2009: Foundation of the industrial initiative Dii GmbH In 2009, the non-profit DESERTEC Foundation founded the industrial initiative Dii GmbH together with partners from the industrial and finance sectors. Its task is to accelerate the implementation of the DESERTEC Concept in the focus region EU-MENA. As shareholder, the DESERTEC Foundation closely cooperates with Dii GmbH and its additional shareholders and partners. 2010: Foundation of the industrial initiative Transgreen/Medgrid Transgreen was founded in July 2010 within the framework of the Mediterranean Solar Plan of the Union for the Mediterranean. This industrial initiative is aimed at promoting the construction of power transmission lines in the Mediterranean region and thus complementing the work of Dii GmbH. 2010: Foundation of the DESERTEC University Network In 2010, the DESERTEC Foundation launched the DESERTEC University Network as a platform for scientific and academic collaboration. It is committed to developing know-how and implementing study programs related to renewable energies. Besides the DESERTEC Foundation, the founding members are 18 universities and research facilities from the MENA region. Further universities from Europe have subsequently joined the network. 2011: Projects in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt The first project is called WEREEMa and is funded by the European Union and the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Under the leadership of the Investitionsbank Schleswig-Holstein, the DESERTEC Foundation and partners from Morocco and Germany are working together to improve the framework conditions for the rapid development of wind and other renewable energies in Morocco. This will be achieved through building capacity in education and research, network studies, wind measurements, pilot projects and economic cooperation.
The second project, RE-Generation MENA, is funded by the German Foreign Office. The objective is to focus on a greater involvement of students in Egypt and Tunisia in the EU-MENA renewable energy sector. It aims to equip them with the skills to contribute fully to the democratic process by demanding the necessary conditions for the expansion of renewable energies in Egypt and Tunisia.
Source:http://www.desertec.org/en/
|
|
|
Post by kasuku on Jan 19, 2012 17:19:15 GMT 3
Podp
Kindly tell the thread what is with the concerns in Kenya that an American company dumped toxic waste in North Eastern Province under the guise of exploring for oil in the 1980's. (Seee an article in here about it)
What has the Nuclear Electricity Project Committee done sofar in investigating the area?
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Jan 19, 2012 20:08:34 GMT 3
Ok, OO back to nuclear bashing it is then. Ukraine opted for an abandon & run strategy after Chernobyl whilst the Japanese are trying a more expensive decontamination exercise since they don't have land to give up so easily. On NHK news today I saw a clip that they intend to hose down, scrape up & collect 29 million cubic meters of topsoil in Fukushima Prefecture alone. That's enough to fill 11,000 olympic sized pools! The tiny village of Futaba has been proposed as a potential dump site since it's already contaminated. Others are proposing it's all "properly" packaged & dumped in the sea. Anyway let me allow the experts at Yale to tell it as it is: e360.yale.edu/feature/as_fukushima_cleanup_begins_long-term_impacts_are_weighed/2482/
|
|
|
Post by podp on Jan 19, 2012 21:10:51 GMT 3
Kasuku,
On what Germany and EU aim to do with solar what do you propose? We start solar cell industry? We turn every mabati in existence to solarr panel? Etc etc as concerns solar! Very fantastic and since it is a first if a kind, karibu (welcome) to Kenya and Afrika at large.
While at it please inform us how much of Germany's 120,000 MW comes from solar vis a vis nuclear, coal and gas?
On your unfounded allegations of dumping please contact both security e.g. Police and safety i.e. Radiation Protection Board....even environmental agencies i.e. NEMA plus of course opinion leaders e.g. Future wishful Presidents, Governors, Senators, MPs ets!
Otherwise please share also info on how Germany's grid is interconnected to other EU countries who rely on and generate in excess of 75% of their electricity from nuclear! Will and is Germany asking or better still refusing electrity purchases from them?
|
|
|
Post by podp on Jan 19, 2012 21:27:39 GMT 3
b6k,
Some statistics. Ukraine has same land size, population and selfish leadership as Kenya. However, Ukraine generates in excess of 45,000 MW of electricity, has heavy and light industry plus not relying on rain fed agriculture for food sufficiency and security! They aim to increase nuclear from current 40% to beyond 60% after the Russians played with the gas supplies.
What can Kenya learn from Ukraine? Chernobyl site hosted 4 nuclear power plants each generating 1,000 MW. Now they are generating 3,000 from that site since one was crippled by the 1986 accident. They generate another 17,000 MW from other nuclear sites! What lessons can Kenya get from Ukraine?
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Jan 19, 2012 23:45:11 GMT 3
Kasuku, On what Germany and EU aim to do with solar what do you propose? We start solar cell industry? We turn every mabati in existence to solarr panel? Etc etc as concerns solar! Very fantastic and since it is a first if a kind, karibu (welcome) to Kenya and Afrika at large. While at it please inform us how much of Germany's 120,000 MW comes from solar vis a vis nuclear, coal and gas? On your unfounded allegations of dumping please contact both security e.g. Police and safety i.e. Radiation Protection Board....even environmental agencies i.e. NEMA plus of course opinion leaders e.g. Future wishful Presidents, Governors, Senators, MPs ets! Otherwise please share also info on how Germany's grid is interconnected to other EU countries who rely on and generate in excess of 75% of their electricity from nuclear! Will and is Germany asking or better still refusing electrity purchases from them? podp have been reading your inputs on the issue of energy/electricity generation and your advocacy for nuclear based generation of electricity to beef up our energy demand your articles and references have been very informative. thanks for that most of the concerns raised thus far have been about the ability of kenya to host such nuclear plant(s) and whether we have capacity to not just avoid accident but in case of accident that we have capacity to adequately respond to this. in this regard, mention has been made of two disasters, chernobyl and fukushima. these two are known due to the magnitude/scale but am not sure if other accidents have been hidden from public elsewhere. many references abound so i'll just randomly select two links that carry the impact of the disaster on the country and population www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/04/chernobyl_disaster_25th_annive.htmlwww.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/12/japans_nuclear_exclusion_zone.html?camp=obinsiteeinstein had earlier on posted an excellent documentary on chernobyl i have a number of observations to make (may break this up or post in bits and come back to edit) Observation No.1: Safety concerns - reading your input and the article you posted from one of the dailies. am actually surprised that the defense put forward on the safety requirement is the fact that the IAEA will be monitoring. this is like saying that we are safe because the ICC is monitoring kenya. in my view these are oversight bodies. what we need the kenyan citizen to know is that he is protected from crimes not by the ICC but by our own professionally and highly trained personnel in appropriate institutions. we cannot and should not rely or place all our hopes on international oversight bodies to safeguard our interests. it is absurd that we still rely on these international bodies to police our activities, even looking at the PEV, apart from that silly gimmick by the AG during the appeal for deferment, generally no other prosecutions will take place and the outcome of PEV will start and end with the ICC, (but yet we claim sovereignty). what we need demonstrate is that we have the capacity to totally avoid any form of accident but in the event of one, we must demonstrate that we are fully capable of handling it. judging from our response to events such as the train derailments, ferry capsizing, tanker fire, pipeline fire, etc. and even just ordinary road pile ups, i would suggest that we are not yet there. in fact we are very far from it. we lack capacity (resources) in health institutions, inadequate emergency facilities etc etc. in almost all large scale disaster, much of the resources deployed have been largely connected to foreign interventions. anyway - this item in my view can be corrected considering this is a long term venture and is not something that i would worry to much about. however i just wondered about the economic cost of response to such an accident and from this article here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster == Economic cost While it is difficult to establish the total economic cost of the disaster, in Belarus the total cost over 30 years is estimated at US$235 billion (in 2005 dollars). The on-going costs are, however, better defined; in their 2003–2005 report, The Chernobyl Forum stated that between 5% and 7% of government spending in Ukraine still related to Chernobyl, while in Belarus over $13 billion is thought to have been spent between 1991 and 2003, with 22% of national budget having been Chernobyl-related in 1991, falling to 6% by 2002. Much of the current cost related to the payment of Chernobyl-related social benefits to some 7 million people across the 3 countries. A significant economic impact at the time was the removal of 784,320 ha (1,938,100 acres) of agricultural land and 694,200 ha (1,715,000 acres) of forest from production. While much of this has been returned to use, agricultural production costs have risen due to the need for special cultivation techniques, fertilizers and additives. == on this first observation, i want to suggest that whereas we may have highly skilled professionals/personnel to handle the technical aspects of running a nuclear plant, the safety component since it involves other partner agencies and infrastructure is not yet in place or robust enough, not now and possibly not in 15 years. looking at even just how IDPs have been handled 4 years down the road cannot possibly inspire confidence in the present system. but am sure this can change. anyway like i said earlier this is big but not really a big deal since it is correctable and quite quickly will post the other observations shortly
|
|
|
Post by kasuku on Jan 20, 2012 3:28:12 GMT 3
Kasuku, On what Germany and EU aim to do with solar what do you propose? We start solar cell industry? We turn every mabati in existence to solarr panel? Etc etc as concerns solar! Very fantastic and since it is a first if a kind, karibu (welcome) to Kenya and Afrika at large. Thank you for the invitation. Right now we are finishing our Blue-print and we will give this Nuclear energy craziness a good Debate and let the mwnananzi decide which energy they want for Kenya. And yes every mabati can be turned to solar panels – for self-use and the exces is sold to the power company connected to the house . Even your own car roof can be turned to an Energy producer. You park it in a simple power-plant-parking place, where you connect your car solar to a socket which transfers the energy to the plant. Everything will be running intelligently and you get your money transferred automatically to your account. In fact every building in the city and country wide could become an energy producer. We have got the sun everywhere and most of the year round. And we won’t worry about toxic waste. And everybody can become a energy producer and earn money from it. Farmers will lease their unfertile land for solar power plants. In the Semi deserts and on the large unoccupied Lands Kenya can construct Large-scale solar power plants e.g. solar towers, parabolic trough plant. Yes Kenya could be the first in the south of Sahara and could supply her neighboring countries with Energy earned from the sun. All this sounds crazy but it’s the upcoming new High Technology and Kenya has got the raw material to able it play in the front line with the biggest renewable Energy producers of the world. We should only wake up and start the transition, which starts in the education sector – preparing the society for the Transition from poor society into a Rich High technology society (through renewable energy).
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jan 20, 2012 7:08:55 GMT 3
Kasuku, On what Germany and EU aim to do with solar what do you propose? We start solar cell industry? We turn every mabati in existence to solarr panel? Etc etc as concerns solar! Very fantastic and since it is a first if a kind, karibu (welcome) to Kenya and Afrika at large. Thank you for the invitation. Right now we are finishing our Blue-print and we will give this Nuclear energy craziness a good Debate and let the mwnananzi decide which energy they want for Kenya.
And yes every mabati can be turned to solar panels – for self-use and the exces is sold to the power company connected to the house .
Even your own car roof can be turned to an Energy producer. You park it in a simple power-plant-parking place, where you connect your car solar to a socket which transfers the energy to the plant. Everything will be running intelligently and you get your money transferred automatically to your account. In fact every building in the city and country wide could become an energy producer. We have got the sun everywhere and most of the year round. And we won’t worry about toxic waste. And everybody can become a energy producer and earn money from it. Farmers will lease their unfertile land for solar power plants.
In the Semi deserts and on the large unoccupied Lands Kenya can construct Large-scale solar power plants e.g. solar towers, parabolic trough plant. Yes Kenya could be the first in the south of Sahara and could supply her neighboring countries with Energy earned from the sun.
All this sounds crazy but it’s the upcoming new High Technology and Kenya has got the raw material to able it play in the front line with the biggest renewable Energy producers of the world.
We should only wake up and start the transition, which starts in the education sector – preparing the society for the Transition from poor society into a Rich High technology society (through renewable energy). It sounds too good, but more realistic for Kenya and Africa at large than the nuclear option.
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Jan 20, 2012 8:39:43 GMT 3
Podp, the lessons learned are the harsh realities of life after disaster as experienced in Belarus for the hapless "downwinders". This article written 10 years after the Chernobyl meltdown captures the never ending horrors quite well. Expect a spike in thyroid cancers, especially amongst children as well as a doubling in birth defects. www.belarusguide.com/chernobyl1/USA/michelle.htmThis more recent article on Fukushima dwells more on the psychological effects on those evacuated from their homes for extended periods. The dangers of exposure to these poisons at low but constant levels remains a grey area. Many at Fukushima are the human guinea pigs we hope to learn from in the decades to come. We have to be prepared for thousands suffering depression leading many to contemplate suicide. www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/09/fukushima-japan-nuclear-disaster-aftermathGranted, Chernobyl & Fukushima are worst case scenarios we need to be alive to. Then there's the numerous under-reported incidents TNK has shared above. It's not enough touting numbers on increased capacity without addressing the possibility, however remote, of the whole investment in this "clean" energy going horribly wrong. I don't think we are ready for this...not in a million years.
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Jan 20, 2012 9:15:38 GMT 3
Thank you for the invitation. Right now we are finishing our Blue-print and we will give this Nuclear energy craziness a good Debate and let the mwnananzi decide which energy they want for Kenya.
And yes every mabati can be turned to solar panels – for self-use and the exces is sold to the power company connected to the house .
Even your own car roof can be turned to an Energy producer. You park it in a simple power-plant-parking place, where you connect your car solar to a socket which transfers the energy to the plant. Everything will be running intelligently and you get your money transferred automatically to your account. In fact every building in the city and country wide could become an energy producer. We have got the sun everywhere and most of the year round. And we won’t worry about toxic waste. And everybody can become a energy producer and earn money from it. Farmers will lease their unfertile land for solar power plants.
In the Semi deserts and on the large unoccupied Lands Kenya can construct Large-scale solar power plants e.g. solar towers, parabolic trough plant. Yes Kenya could be the first in the south of Sahara and could supply her neighboring countries with Energy earned from the sun.
All this sounds crazy but it’s the upcoming new High Technology and Kenya has got the raw material to able it play in the front line with the biggest renewable Energy producers of the world.
We should only wake up and start the transition, which starts in the education sector – preparing the society for the Transition from poor society into a Rich High technology society (through renewable energy). It sounds too good, but more realistic for Kenya and Africa at large than the nuclear option. if you read podp's posts you will find that solar and wind energy are useful to provide some illumination where there is none and drive some domestic appliances. but the real challenge here is reliable energy to drive industry particularly for developing or emerging markets as they are popularly called now.
|
|
|
Post by kasuku on Jan 20, 2012 10:41:08 GMT 3
It sounds too good, but more realistic for Kenya and Africa at large than the nuclear option. if you read podp's posts you will find that solar and wind energy are useful to provide some illumination where there is none and drive some domestic appliances. but the real challenge here is reliable energy to drive industry particularly for developing or emerging markets as they are popularly called now. According to podp's argument is that Sun isn't available throughout the year. Only, i read that script as if written for a North continent and not Africa. Kenya is in the Equator and has more sun than it needs and lots of unfertile Land for the solar plants. How much will their Nuclear plant cost? I am sure that with that money they can buy a solar panel license from a Germany company (Germanys is leading in the sector) and produce the panels cheaply in Kenya and quickly construct enough solar energy power plants to meet the countries Energy need within 10 years. Have you gotten the latest hype from Greece, the near Bankrupt country (seems a land must get near bankrupt before turning to riches, example Finland) ............. Here latest news from Greece solar Germany signs investment deal to boost Greek economy German industry group visits Athens in initiative to encourage small and medium companies to invest in crisis-hit country Greek Prime Minister Georges Papandreou confirmed on Sunday that Germany was keen to import solar-generated electricity from his debt-ridden country. He told a press conference in Salonika that he planned to travel to Germany late this month to discuss the project with Chancellor Angela Merkel during a meeting of German industrialists. "We can supply the Germans with 10,000 to 15,000 MW", he said, underscoring the urgency for Greece to fight "corruption and bureaucracy," which in the past have derailed several investment projects. Papandreou spoke of a "huge interest" in Germany for Greece's renewable energy resources in view of of its plan to phase out nuclear energy and doubts about the political stability of Arab Mediterranean countries. "There was a (solar) project in the Sahara, but it is in jeopardy because of the political turmoil," he added. His remarks also came as German Economy Minister Philipp Rösler said Europe could no longer rule out an "orderly default" for Greece as it struggles with a crippling debt crisis. "To stabilize the euro, we must not take anything off the table in the short run," Rösler, who is also Germany's vice chancellor, wrote in the column for the conservative daily Die Welt to be published Monday. "That includes as a worst-case scenario an orderly default for Greece if the necessary instruments for it are available," he said, reviving an idea that surfaced last year to grapple with the turmoil within the eurozone. Eurozone leaders announced a €159-billion ($223-billion) rescue package for Greece in July, but German Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted on Sunday that the Greek government must not waver in its reform drive. After a recent visit by a German official as part of a joint bid to boost investment to spur a Greek recovery, the German environment ministry said it was looking into a project to set up 20,000 hectares of photovoltaic systems to turn solar energy into electricity for export to Germany. Press reports said the mammoth project dubbed "Helios" (the Greek God of the sun) would have an initial budget of €20 billion and would create between 30,000 and 60,000 jobs in Greece. Rösler is due to visit Greece next month to further a bilateral cooperation accord on developing renewable energy. Athens is trying to attract investment in renewable energies to replace jobs lost due to the recession which has been exacerbated by the austerity measures demanded by the EU and the IMF in exchange for a multi-billion euro rescue package to deal with the crippling debt burden. Source: www.thelocal.de/national/20110912-37523.html
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jan 20, 2012 11:43:29 GMT 3
It sounds too good, but more realistic for Kenya and Africa at large than the nuclear option. if you read podp's posts you will find that solar and wind energy are useful to provide some illumination where there is none and drive some domestic appliances. but the real challenge here is reliable energy to drive industry particularly for developing or emerging markets as they are popularly called now. tnk,You are right regarding the currently used solar energy systems though solar energy is in development stadia and already surpassing the utilisation as you stated. Solar energy systems only produce energy when the sun shines and need a storage system during the period there is no sunshine. In Germany and other countries solar energy systems rely on the conventional energy systems for the period there is no sunshine though produce considerable electric energy during sunshine periods reducing the cost of energy sources – gas, oil, coal, - to feed the conventional electric power stations. Wind energy is much further as the solar energy systems though they have the same disadvantage when there is no wind. This means the conventional electric power stations still have to be constructed to supply for maximum electric energy requirement. However by interconnecting all the power generating stations in a hybrid system over a larger area will lower the change of no wind somewhere in the system reducing the construction of conventional power stations for maximal electricity requirement. The proposed solar power parabolic system in the North African dessert will be of much larger capacity than any other system. The future of electric power generation will probably be an integrated hybrid system of all sorts. It will not be a choice between solar, wind, nuclear, gas, oil, coal, hydro, ocean wave, geo thermal, bio mass, though an integration of all systems. The crucial challenge is not the technology though the cost of electric energy per system. Gas and oil are still the cheapest sources though this will be overtaken by new technologies in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Jan 20, 2012 11:59:06 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by podp on Jan 20, 2012 13:00:46 GMT 3
Kasuku, I am always surprised at how naive we are still regarded by your....'I am sure that with that money they can buy a solar panel license from a Germany company (Germanys is leading in the sector) and produce the panels cheaply in Kenya and quickly construct enough solar energy power plants to meet the countries Energy need within 10 years.'....type of sweeping statement! Surely if you are not in the know we do have a Least Cost Power Development Plan team who consider many factors including costs (generating electricity from solar, wind, coal, gas, oil, nuclear etc), availability/reliability (of solar, oil, nuclear etc.) and other global factors i.e. GDP, Vision 2030 etc. Slowly and surely when projections (2009 to 2029; 2010 to 2030; 2011 to 2031) are made of course sources in the energy mix include wind, oil, coal, nuclear, geothermal etc.) based on costs, reliability, Vision 2030 goals, GDP etc. Now are you telling us to abandon all that because Germany will in future abandon nuclear (locally) but still rely on base load from nuclear within EU and jump into the bandwagon of...I am sure that with that money they can buy a solar panel license from a Germany company (Germanys is leading in the sector) and produce the panels cheaply in Kenya and quickly construct enough solar energy power plants to meet the countries Energy need within 10 years. Did your beloved Germans consult Kenya when they went nuclear in the 1960/70/80s? Are they going to transfer their industries to Kenya and their energy sources (nuclear, coal, gas) and start living like Kenyans have been using since time immemorial?
|
|
|
Post by podp on Jan 20, 2012 13:36:43 GMT 3
tnk
You nicely have said it i.e. Observation No.1: Safety concerns - reading your input and the article you posted from one of the dailies. am actually surprised that the defense put forward on the safety requirement is the fact that the IAEA will be monitoring. this is like saying that we are safe because the ICC is monitoring kenya. in my view these are oversight bodies. what we need the kenyan citizen to know is that he is protected from crimes not by the ICC but by our own professionally and highly trained personnel in appropriate institutions. we cannot and should not rely or place all our hopes on international oversight bodies to safeguard our interests. it is absurd that we still rely on these international bodies to police our activities, even looking at the PEV, apart from that silly gimmick by the AG during the appeal for deferment, generally no other prosecutions will take place and....
The Nuclear Electricity Project has put in place a locally assembled Team of Assessors to perform the Pre-Feasibility Study. One of the 19 infrastructure issues they will have to interrogate is Nuclear Safety. Among issues that we have to come up with concrete proposals are recognition of the need for : • Relevance of nuclear safety • Long term commitment for the first nuclear power plant • Cooperation in international partnerships • Need of intergovernmental instruments on safety • Support through international cooperation • Independent regulatory body
Just on the issue of Regulatory body what is the status of Radiation Protection Board, National Environmental Management Authority, Energy Regulatory Commission, etc. Can they deal with nuclear energy matters effectively and efficiently? If yes we move no, if not what needs to be done to strengthen the current regulatory institutions? Is there a need to create new ones? When we get our local scenario well up and running we need benchmarks. Usually we start with our peers i.e. countries that already operate and manage nuclear power plants. The International bodies i.e. IAEA, ICC only come as a last resort. You have to bear in mind unlike crimes against humanity at ICC, the countries that host vendors for nuclear power plants will not transfer the technology to Kenya if our law regime is lower than theirs and additionally IAEA will flag out shortcomings in local institutional arrangements. They will not police Kenya as they do not police any member state other than at most perform inspections mutually agreed upon i.e. by IAEA Member States signing Protocols/Agreements.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jan 20, 2012 16:51:17 GMT 3
It sounds too good, but more realistic for Kenya and Africa at large than the nuclear option. if you read podp's posts you will find that solar and wind energy are useful to provide some illumination where there is none and drive some domestic appliances. but the real challenge here is reliable energy to drive industry particularly for developing or emerging markets as they are popularly called now. My key words are "Realistic, Kenya, Africa". I don't think finding out that solar energy and wind energy are starters changes anything. What I have argued earlier is that nuclear, with all its promises, has no place in Africa yet given its risks.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Jan 24, 2012 12:29:43 GMT 3
Kasuku, Please see below and provide comments when you see Kenya. www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Eye_watering_cost_of_renewable_revolution_2301121.html?utm_source=World+Nuclear+News&utm_campaign=639d938bd3-WNN_Daily_23_January_20121_23_2012&utm_medium=emailFor several years the country has planned an 'energy revolution' designed to tackle climate change and establish renewable technologies at the centre of a new power supply system. Two years before nuclear generation ends in 2022, Germany wants to have cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40%, doubled renewables to supply 35% of electricity and cut primary energy consumption by 20%. Siemens' calculation of the total investment in generation and transmission to do this came to €1.418 trillion ($1.848 trillion) in the period from 2011 to 2030. However, Germany's ambition were dramatically increased on the heels of the Fukushima accident in Japan by the shutdown, almost overnight, of eight nuclear power reactors. The operating lives of the remaining nine reactors were also reduced from the terms of a 2010 agreement, costing some as many as 14 years. Siemens' costing of the nuclear shutdown was vague, ranging from €11 billion to €252 billion ($14 billion to $328 billion). But this comes on top of the general cost of the energy policy and takes the total to €1.670 trillion ($2.177 trillion). This incredible overall figure is equal to 68% of German GDP in 2010, or slightly more than the value of the Brazilian economy - the fifth biggest in the world that year. In September 2011 research from the KfW Bankegruppe, which supports domestic development, put the total investment to achieve German policy goals at €239-262 billion ($321-352 billion) to 2020. Two immediate effects of the nuclear shutdown have been a rush to finish building 10 GWe of fossil power plants, and short-term reliance on an oil-fuelled plant in Austria. A Deutsche Bank report estimated that the carbon dioxide increase from the permanent shutdown of the seven reactors and the early phase-out of the rest would result in the emission of 370 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2020. Before the shutdown, Germany's nuclear sector had been the biggest source of low-carbon power.
|
|