User:Dionisiuse

The creation of a nuclear power plant in Namibia
In recent years Namibians have been debating the idea of building a nuclear power plant in Namibia. Many believe that the power plant will help Namibia overcome power shortages, because Namibia imports most of its power from neighbouring South Africa. If they build a nuclear power plant, Namibia will be able to produce enough power for the whole country. Many believe the plant should be located in the Namib desert, about 200 km northeast of Arandis, where the uranium ore is mined. This essay is a discussion of the possible pros and cons of the introduction of a nuclear power plant in Namibia

ADVANTAGES
Creating a nuclear power plant will benefit Namibia in many ways. One of the advantages will be the creation of job opportunities employing a lot of Namibians needed for the building of the nuclear power plant. The running costs of the nuclear power are relatively low compared to the initial cost of building the plant itself. Nuclear power reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to the coal that is used at the Von Eck power station in Windhoek. A nuclear plant needs a small amount of uranium to produce a lot of energy and in Namibia, being one of the world’s leading uranium producers of the raw material, this won’t be a challenge. The plant will reduce the dependence of Namibia on the power from South Africa and could create a possibility of South Africa purchasing power from Namibia, very likely in the near future. The cost of uranium doubled and as Namibia benefit from this, due to the exporting of uranium, could cover some of the cost of running the plant. In conclusion, the plant could also attract foreign investors and experts in the field of nuclear power creation, especially those from China and Japan.

DISADVANTAGES
However, a nuclear power plant on the other side has disadvantages such as: is very expensive to build and Namibia won’t be able to afford the building of the nuclear power plant should the idea be approved. Waste products produced from the plant are dangerous and need to be carefully stored for long periods of time. The spent fuel is highly radioactive and has to be carefully stored for many years which will also add to the cost. The plant will also need maximum security, because people can steal uranium products to create atomic weapons. Building the plant will also have an impact on the natural environment, for example the waste from the plant can contaminate underground water and rivers that is used by wild animals. According to the Southern Times newspaper, in 2011, thousands of Japanese people had to be evacuated from their homes after an earthquake and tsunami caused the nuclear plant to melt down, causing the waste from the plant to run into the river that provide water to the Fukushima residence. If a similar event would happen in Namibia, the government won’t be able to handle the waste and toxics that would run into the water systems of Arandis, for example. It cost a lot of money and expertise to clean up nuclear wastes. Fukushima is still not a safe place to go to today, because the radiation is still scattered around the town. Nuclear power plant can be dangerous to its surroundings and employees. Misshaps at any nuclear plant can render hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable and unsuitable for any use for years, decades or longer and could kill off entire river systems. Namibia does not have experts in the field of nuclear science, so they have to employ experts from other countries at a very high cost. Furthermore, Namibia is a developing country and does not have the resources to build a power plant as much of its own money is spend on HIV prevention programs. Namibia is a semi arid country and it depends on underground water both for animals and human consumption. If the water gets contaminated by nuclear waste, most inhabitants will get sick or even die. The energy source for nuclear energy is uranium, which, is a scarce resource. Its supply is estimated to last for the next thirty to sixty years depending on the actual demand. The timeframe needed for formualities, planning and building of a new nuclear power plant is in the range of twenty to thirty years. In other words: it is an illusion to a build nuclear power plant in a short time. Another disadvantage is that both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are life-threatening legacies for hundreds of future generations. Nuclear energy is not a renewable source of energy, it will run out some day. Nuclear power generates radiation, which can be harmful or even fatal to infected people. A nuclear meltdown can release massive amounts of radiation into the community. Nuclear waste dumps can spontaneously combust without warning. Nuclear reactors only last for about forty to fifty years, so where they are extremely productive, they break down and are costly to replace. Lastly: careless disposal of waste in the past has led to pollution of land, rivers and the ocean. Maybe not worth the risks.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, measuring and comparing the above mentioned advantages and disadvantages, I conclude that nuclear energy could be a solution to any problem of power production in Namibia. The risk involved is simply too high. I therefore recommend Namibia to continue producing hydro-power at Ruacana, provided that they upgrade the power station to be more sufficient and reliable.

Reference
--Dionisiuse (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Dionisiuse 200622277