NA Market Africa
be developed as a substitute for nuclear power generation
countries on to an even higher economic development [path]”. It seems strange that any African coun-
try would have to rely on deadly nuclear energy when the whole continent is blessed with an inexhaustible and completely clean supply of solar energy. Of course the neces- sary technology to make solar energy usable to consumers would be needed. Yet the nec- essary capital seems to be there, or otherwise Zuma’s government could not invest it in an expanded nuclear energy programme. Nuclear energy production results in
of nuclear energy is a lie that depends on the shifting of a large part of the costs to Africa.”
(out of 173 countries). In 2009, French President Nicolas
Sarkozy accompanied Areva’s chief execu- tive Anne Lauvergeon to DRCongo and Niger to secure a new deal with the politi- cians of those countries. Yet in 2010, Areva encountered some troubles with Niger of- ficials and is now increasing its focus on the nuclear resources of South Africa, Namibia, DRCongo, Gabon and others. Te main regions in DRCongo where
Areva is mining massively are Nord-Kivu and Katanga, not really surprisingly also the areas where the long and bloody Congolese rebel war is raging the most ferociously. Areva controls 20-25% of the world market for uranium, while 80% of the energy that the French consume comes from nuclear power plants. Trough its colonial imperium, France
maintains itself in a position to extract nuclear material at cheap prices for itself. France’s state-dominated main energy sup- plier EDF is proud of itself for providing “Europe’s cheapest energy”. Tat it is able to offer such competitive rates is due to the sourcing of crude nuclear materials in Africa at low production costs. Te often highlighted cost-effectiveness of nuclear energy is a lie that depends on
74 | June 2011 New African
the shifting of a large part of the costs onto Africa. African people continuously bear the costs of the energy that Europeans and others are able to enjoy at such competitive prices – financially, environmentally and indeed with their lives. Yet African politicians continue to col-
laborate. At the beginning of this year, the South African president, Jacob Zuma, travelled to France and signed agreements to expand South Africa’s nuclear programme. French energy minister, Eric Besson, de- scribed the accords as “at the heart of the strategic partnership between France and South Africa”, extending the long-standing “cooperation” between the two countries in the realm of the nuclear industry. Of course, that cooperation was firmly established through apartheid. Zuma’s government says it will need 30
billion euros’ worth of extra energy in order to be able to meet the country’s demand in the near future. Last year, South Africa also signed a nuclear cooperation deal with Algeria. Te South African energy minister, Dipuo Peters, stated that “we believe that the peaceful use of nuclear energy among African countries is critical in contribut- ing to the decimation of energy poverty on our continent and will catapult our two
“The often highlighted cost-effectiveness
indefinite costs, because plants can only be operated for a limited amount of decades, but need to be maintained and secured for eternity. Te crucial point seems to be that solar energy production naturally tends to be decentralised, whereas nuclear energy production needs to be centralised. If solar energy generation is developed
to a level where it would be possible for in- dividuals or cooperatives to acquire panels at a reasonable price (and the price would be reasonable if there is a large demand), energy would f low in abundance into African households at no further cost, thus denying both the nuclear companies and politicians around the globe of their prof- its generated through centralised nuclear power generation.
Concerned voices In practically all areas of nuclear mining in Africa, the population is not sufficiently informed about the risks and when people get sick, they experience difficulties proving that their problems come from uranium mining. Africa must by all means refuse to tread
the road that powerful forces want it to take in the realm of nuclear resources and energy. Tis path would not only most cer- tainly lead to pollution of the continent, but also create huge long-term financial costs. Apart from South Africa and some
North African states, there is presently not much interest in building any more nu- clear power plants on the continent. Tus, further nuclear plant construction in Africa must be avoided, as an accident there would affect large parts of the continent.
Solar energy production could
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100