Nuclear future for Namibia

[Mie1]

Nice, Tjommie! Well-done and congrats! Who pays for your studies and how many more students are you aware of in your field?

[tjommie]

Who pays for your studies

Ministry of Education and I must say that they have been serious financial supporters. I would not have been able to get this far without their help! They are truely serious about eduction and wanting to widen the pool of professionals.

how many more students are you aware of in your field?

Hah......here's the problem. I don't know of any in nuclear physics.......except a friend of mine (class mate) who also has a PhD in Physics, but fluid dynamics (last I've heard)....and that he's currently working for NASA....and he's still Namibian....I think....or I hope!

....but we are producing many, many engineers!....Scientists..?...I think very, very few....well at least up to PhD level (I know of another guy at my institution from Namibia doing a PhD in some scientific field).

There is a wonderful study which indicates the direct linkage between the growth of a country's economy and the amount of PhDs the country produces. Producing PhDs requires a hell of a lot of money, but you are genereating independent thinkers that generate projects. And these projects have economic spin-offs (not the Homemark type)!

The reason why very few people that gain University entrance for technical/scientific studies opt for engineering as opposed to science is obvious. Economics! A young engineer (Pr.Eng!) will run to R300k-R400k-R500k/annum in no time.....maybe 5 to 10 years, whereas a chemist, mathematician, physicist will not see that kind of earnings unless he has his own business unrelated to his field of study. Who in Namibia will employ a mathematian who did a PhD in Approximation Theory and Wavelet Analysis? And pay them top dollar? UNAM? Well that's great, but why not Multi-Choice? How many live sports events are beamed every minute? Developing algorithms to carry a small amount of data (bits) through "the air" and "re-assembling" them on the recieving end would better the viewing pleasure of your High-Definition subscriber! Almost like generating and beaming an mp3 version or a zip file as opposed to the HD version recorded in the studio...

Ok, I'm going off on a tangent here, but my point is industry must come to the party to recognize the importance of scooping up these professionals and paying them a decent wage. The preception is that you are "over-qualified". One can never be over-qualified....When companies say this, they are actually saying that they do not recognize the value of a PhD, which is sad....It might cost a company N$600k/annum in renumertaion, but that individual might save the very company from a N$1.2 million expendature.

Finally, where do we start with motivating the populace to invest in their future themselves? Well, I will be leading a bunch of PhD students and three post-docs to Windhoek on a Physics awareness campaign in the near future. We have developed an outreach program which is working exceptionally well in South Africa. We are still in the organization phase of the trip, but we will be visiting about 5 to 6 schools in Katatura for these demonstations. The hope is that more of our disadvantaged pupils will be inspired by seeing physics happening in the classroom and also seeing future career oppertunities in physics. These demonstartions introduces lasers, modern telecommunications, x-ray analysis, physical theory, etc. Also, we are actively developing physics experiments that can be created from stuff lying around at school, the playground or garage to demonstrate physics principles. The norm is that our disadvantaged schools do not have the infrastructure to effectively teach physics or science for that matter. It is our responsibility to curb that problem by finding innovative ways for teachers to be able to demonstrate of carry out experiments with cheap, easy to find tools and equipment to do the demonstartion/experiment. If we don't do this NOW, we allow the gap between the haves and the have-nots to increase, not only at the economic and social level, but also the academic level!

Anyways, I wrote waaaayyy to much!

[juikk]

....but we are producing many, many engineers!....Scientists..?...I think very, very few....well at least up to PhD level (I know of another guy at my institution from Namibia doing a PhD in some scientific field).

There is a wonderful study which indicates the direct linkage between the growth of a country's economy and the amount of PhDs the country produces. Producing PhDs requires a hell of a lot of money, but you are genereating independent thinkers that generate projects. And these projects have economic spin-offs (not the Homemark type)!

The reason why very few people that gain University entrance for technical/scientific studies opt for engineering as opposed to science is obvious. Economics! A young engineer (Pr.Eng!) will run to R300k-R400k-R500k/annum in no time.....maybe 5 to 10 years, whereas a chemist, mathematician, physicist will not see that kind of earnings unless he has his own business unrelated to his field of study. Who in Namibia will employ a mathematian who did a PhD in Approximation Theory and Wavelet Analysis? And pay them top dollar? UNAM? Well that's great, but why not Multi-Choice? How many live sports events are beamed every minute? Developing algorithms to carry a small amount of data (bits) through "the air" and "re-assembling" them on the recieving end would better the viewing pleasure of your High-Definition subscriber! Almost like generating and beaming an mp3 version or a zip file as opposed to the HD version recorded in the studio...

Ok, I'm going off on a tangent here, but my point is industry must come to the party to recognize the importance of scooping up these professionals and paying them a decent wage. The preception is that you are "over-qualified". One can never be over-qualified....When companies say this, they are actually saying that they do not recognize the value of a PhD, which is sad....It might cost a company N$600k/annum in renumertaion, but that individual might save the very company from a N$1.2 million expendature.

Finally, where do we start with motivating the populace to invest in their future themselves? Well, I will be leading a bunch of PhD students and three post-docs to Windhoek on a Physics awareness campaign in the near future. We have developed an outreach program which is working exceptionally well in South Africa. We are still in the organization phase of the trip, but we will be visiting about 5 to 6 schools in Katatura for these demonstations. The hope is that more of our disadvantaged pupils will be inspired by seeing physics happening in the classroom and also seeing future career oppertunities in physics. These demonstartions introduces lasers, modern telecommunications, x-ray analysis, physical theory, etc. Also, we are actively developing physics experiments that can be created from stuff lying around at school, the playground or garage to demonstrate physics principles. The norm is that our disadvantaged schools do not have the infrastructure to effectively teach physics or science for that matter. It is our responsibility to curb that problem by finding innovative ways for teachers to be able to demonstrate of carry out experiments with cheap, easy to find tools and equipment to do the demonstartion/experiment. If we don't do this NOW, we allow the gap between the haves and the have-nots to increase, not only at the economic and social level, but also the academic level!

Anyways, I wrote waaaayyy to much!

True that, I think establishing and expanding the 'science industry' could solve many a scientist problem in landing a J.O.B. that do not deem them 'over-qualified'....

Else, way to go on the awarness programmes. As also said before, such awareness programme need not be limited to Katutura, but can embrace the rest of the country funds allowing. You never know where the aptitude and interest may rest in our Nam society...

[Mie1]

I found this at: Vermont Tiger: Producing Electricity - The Namibian Scenario


It may make a couple of things about staffing and training a bit clearer

Producing Electricity - The Namibian Scenario

By Daniel Foty

Like many, I've long been confused by the bizarre federal dairy pricing policy (which dates back to the 1930s) that sets the price of milk based upon how far the cow is from Eau Claire, Wisconsin.

But there seems to be a new (non-legislated) version of this situation: The likelihood of finding sanity increases the farther one gets from Montpelier.

And so, some 8,000 miles distant, we find the stubborn persistence of sanity in (of all places) Windhoek, Namibia.

Two-and-a-half years back, I was invited to visit Windhoek as a side trip during one of my regular check-in visits to Pretoria (South Africa).

I went back to my e-mail archives to find the long communiqué that I had sent out at the tail end of that visit, before heading back to Pretoria.

Consider this:

We had a meeting yesterday with [Nambian] President [Hifikepunye Lucas] Pohamba. I must say that I was actually impressed. He has been the stubborn force behind pushing a goal that Namibia's economy will be based on knowledge and technology by 2030. That's a long time to have things go wrong, but it's nice to meet a national leader who has his goals focused in the right place.

A few days back, a news story appeared that indicates that Mr. Pohamba and his government are very serious about keeping at the 2030 goals - and they know that those goals imply a critical need that must be met in the most sensible way:

[The Nambian] government has decided to build a nuclear power plant in Namibia within the next 15 to 20 years, Mines and Energy Minister Erkki Nghimtina has confirmed.

"We're saying it will be built in the future. It will be a long process. But we have to start preparing now. Our policy is, that by 2030, Namibia will be an industrial country, and to be an industrial country you need energy," Nghimtina was quoted.

[Emphasis mine - ed.]

This effort already has deep roots:

According to the World Nuclear Association, "[the Namibian] Government has committed to a policy position of supplying its own electricity from nuclear power by about 2018".

In December, the US website, The Electricity Forum, singled Namibia out as one of seven African countries considering nuclear programmes as a solution to rising power demand and high fuel costs.
"We are determined to build a nuclear plant both for Namibia and to trade power via the Southern African Power Pool (SAPP)," the website quoted Mines and Energy Deputy Minister Bernard Esau, who said the country had general talks with [French nuclear giant] Areva but would launch a tender process to select a company to build the plant.

This really shouldn't be a surprise. Namibia (while visibly non-destitute) is a developing country - and both development and the ambitious 2030 goals require a supply of electric power that is plentiful, reliable, and inexpensive.

In addition, Namibia is one of the world's largest producers of uranium - yet, that uranium ore isn't even refined (let alone used for power generation) in-country, but is instead exported as a raw material. With such a resource, it makes perfect sense to use it:

Addressing the International Conference on Access to Civil Nuclear Energy on Tuesday, Nghimtina said that the country produces large quantities of uranium, but struggles to meet its electricity needs.

"Namibia has decided to diversify its energy mix," the Minister said.

And in addition to the discussions with Areva, agreements to build local engineering abilities are already falling into place:

Last year, President Hifikepunye Pohamba also signed an agreement with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to "build nuclear power plants" and "train personnel".

Now, we've already noted that Namibia is a major uranium ore producer; it makes a great deal of sense for the country to use that abundance domestically for electric power generation - and to engage in the trade of uranium to places that can bring know-how to Namibia.

But what else does Namibia have in abundance?

Let's go back to that archival e-mail report of mine from September, 2007:

The night sky looks different and the moon looks upside down, but it is spring here and the Namib desert is in bloom, with beautiful red flowers and the lavender jacaranda tree.

This desert isn't the sandscape of the Kalahari, but actually has a good cover of scrubby vegetation. Outside town, it reminds me very much of the high desert regions of New Mexico and Arizona. The sky has been crystal clear and the sun is very, very bright - both because of the latitude (22 south, which is technically inside the tropics) and the high elevation (Windhoek is up at about 6200 feet).

(Emphasis mine.)
When I wrote that, I wasn't actually thinking about what one could interpret from the above - but we can do that here. Namibia is almost entirely a desert country - one which sits mostly inside the tropics, is in large part at high elevation, and has nearly year-round crystal-clear skies and powerful sunshine. In other words, it would be hard to find a better place on Earth for extensive solar power production.

Further, from the September 2007 e-mail, in reply to some questions I'd been sent about how Windhoek got its name:

"Windhoek" is actually a compound Afrikaans word. The "wind" part is obvious (and it IS frequently windy), but "hoek" is an Afrikaans word that means "bend" or "corner." Apparently Windhoek was created at some bend in a usually-dry river bed, but the most poetic translation of the name is "Windy Corner."

So Namibia is also rather windy - both inland and along its long Atlantic coastline.

In other words, there is simply no better place on Earth for "alternative" energy than Namibia - yet they are moving fully toward the construction of a domestic nuclear power industry.

As noted above, Namibia is a developing country - and the present government is very serious about the 2030 development goals. They have no interest in depending on expensive, unreliable, ideologically-based "clap-your-hands-and-believe-real-hard" forms of energy production - particularly when they're sitting on a vast supply of what is presently humanity's best source of primary energy (uranium).

To conclude, going back to that September 2007 e-mail communiqué, I can't help but note a comment that I made regarding an impression from meeting President Pohamba:

He is very well-spoken (but soft-spoken) man and is strikingly modest. He seems more like someone you'd run into in a grocery store.
Astute readers will require no explanation of why that comment was included here....

[tjommie]

Add "energy conservation programs" in the options.

I believe that the days of generating abundant energy is over. We now have to conserve and recycle energy. Remember, energy is not created or destroyed only transformed. We need to learn to recycle as well.

The three biggest electricity uses: geysers, stoves and heaters, airconditioners! (We don't have a hugh INDUSTRIAL economy generating the revenue streams).

First off, as with HIV/AIDS campaigns, we should have energy conservation campaigns too. Secondly incentivise people for conserving energy or transforming energy and thirdly, build THE GAS PIPE!!! Let's get Kudu going!!!

We are very lucky. Small populace therefore we can get the word around quickly and implement new technology easily. Our days and nights are practically equal during the whole year which means that lights will be on for approximately the same time per day during the year. Not 14 hours per day during winter and 4 during summer, but about 5-6 hours per day for practically the whole year. So, we should bet people to use power less per day.

Then, solar heated geysers!! Incentivise/rebate/subsidise residents who install solar heated geysers. These are not the prettiest contraptions for the homes, but if you pay less insurance with an alarm they why not a solar heated geyser. Let buildings power their airconditioners with solar panels and wind turbines! That should reduce our electricity usage by maybe 60%.

Finally....cooking/heating.....GAS, GAS, GAS!!!!!!!! The infrastructure to have gas pipes running from Kudu to each and every home will cost less that building a nuclear power station (I'm sucking that out of my thumb, but I'll be happy to do a study to confirm if its true). And its a clean form of energy generation.

Because we have stacks and stacks of uranium does not imply that we MUST has a nuclear power plant. Would be nice, but not a "have-to-have"!. Remember that well have to produce the fuel for the plant from that uranium-238 "in-house" which will be another head-ache....!! If we can mine the stuff and produce the fuel, then we are in business. We can sell the raw material as well as the fuel.....just a thought! But try getting that by the Americans.....with that enrichment idea.....good luck!

[Admin]

Thanks for the suggestion - the option is now available.

[Mie1]

tjommie,

Thanks for the "incentive" reply. I must add, though, that I am bitterly disappointed with my first foray into solar energy. I asked a local (BEE) company about solar options. I don my geyser not working for a day or my TV, BUT I need my computer and peripherals!

The quote I received was stiff but bearable: N$ 30 000 - to power 1 dt, one lt, one printer and scanner ... and not all simultaneously either.

What really put me off, though, was the comment that they couldn't do it and basically told me that they were not really interested either! That irked me!

Another bunch of "wannaget-rich quickly's"? We don't need more of those in Namibia!!

[tjommie]

I'm very specific on this point. Geysers - Solar; Cooking/heating - Gas!

I love the untouched wilderness that characterizes Namibia. Massive wind or solar farms is something I strongly oppose. There is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels; the amount is the problem. Having our servers, electronic equipment and peripherals powered by "coal or diesel" is OK! They need a stable supply of electricity!

Massive solar farms are extremely expensive and solar panels fail regularly. Also, they destroy the natural landscape.....we generate an income from tourism due to our country's desolate and untouched beauty. Don't rob the land and country from this resource. If we can remove geysers, stoves and heaters from the power grid, I suspect we would possibly have an oversupply of energy (sucking that out of my thumb as well).

If we were to have a similar attitude with "saving" electricity as we have with saving water, we can reduce our demand substantially.

I know that solar powered geysers are expensive, but if we were to have a policy (whether on national, local government or municipal level) with respect to incentives/rebates/subsidies to alternate energy generating sources, their supply, maintenance, quality, etc., we will be moving in the right direction.

[Comrade_007]

I think we should invest in solar and wind technologies - it's a no-brainer in a way: over 350 days of sunshine per year, areas with very strong and sustained wind patterns and vast open spaces. These power generation technologies are available and mature. Sure, expensive, but readily available. Although I'm not against nuclear technology, and I think the Government should have a policy on it one way or another as part of the energy mix, I'm not sure Namibia will have the capacity or the means to build and run a nuclear power station. Even South Africa is struggling to do so. In the near term it has to be wind and solar. One large solar array in the Namib could generate huge amounts of electricity , both for domestic and export use. I think nuclear is attractive because it requires the development of other areas of the economy, but are we too ambitious? Think about it: How many wind turbines will it take to supply towns like Lüderitz, Swakopmund and Walvis Bay with suffficient power. It can't be that many? Even Windhoek would be an ideal location.

[cyberclark]

Nuclear power generation is hard hit and mistreated like no other industry. For environmentalists it is possibly the greenest of the green. It usually comes in at the same price as coal generation but is very clean.

Nuclear Waste gains a lot of bad publicity. A 2000 MW plant would produce expended rods which would fill your home refrigerator. Sites designed now are able to store 60 or 80 years of so called waste on site.

Waste is waste because of legislation; The rods only give up a very small percentage of their energy before they are pulled from service. If these rods can be reshaped and, that would be determined before the plant is built, there is no waste.

Most generation and power lines largest expenses come from interest rates. Not unlike your homes. Finance is the biggest expense; the one to keep your eye on.

The early plants in the US had problems. The plants were developed in Canada at Caulk River. They had the problem of deteriorating the cooling lines (A relative of Kirchhoff law I think) . The US were using this technology in their Natalus submarines of the day, knew of the problems but didn't tell the civilian group about it.

This resulted in the new plants having to go to 50% production as they shut down cooling pipes. Secrecy!

I'm all for nuclear power and put in a fair amount of time giving people a different view of a really excellent industry.