Nuclear Energy Safe & Efficient-Every African Nation Should Have Multiple Nuclear Power Plants
Alec Soth/Magnum Photos: Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Station, California
May 2, 2023
Nuclear energy is safe, clean, and the most efficient form of energy existing today. Almost a third of the nations of Africa have plans to include nuclear in their electricity grid. South Africa is the only nation with an existing nuclear energy plant and Egypt is constructing their first nuclear power plants in cooperation with Rostrum.
The massive lack of energy throughout Africa is the biggest single impediment to advancing the economies of African nations. My rough calculations are that Africa nations combined with require a minimum of 1,000 gigawatts (1 gigawatt equals billion watts) of additional electricity to upgrade their primarily agricultural and resource based economies to modern industrialized societies. This cannot be achieved without nuclear energy. This is not an option with the population of Africa projected to reach 2.5 billion in the next 30 years. That is why I am suggesting that each nation must have one or more nuclear energy producing plants. The naysayers and zero growthers are wrong.
The article below exposes the fraud of fear mongering about nuclear waste. Let us end this anti-scientific propaganda and move forward with technologically driven progress.
Opinion | Nuclear Waste Is Misunderstood – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Nuclear Waste Is Misunderstood
by Madison Hilly, founder of the Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal.
On a visit in February to the site of the Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown in Japan, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York did something refreshing: She discussed radiation exposure and nuclear waste without fanning fear. The radiation she got from her visit — about two chest X-rays’ worth — was worth the education she received on the tour, she told her 8.6 million Instagram followers. She then spoke admiringly of France, which, she said, “recycles their waste, increasing the efficiency of their system and reducing the overall amount of radioactive waste to deal with.”
Progressive lawmakers, along with environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, have historically been against nuclear power — often focusing on the danger, longevity and storage requirements of the radioactive waste. During the 2020 presidential campaign, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said, “It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me to add more dangerous waste to this country and to the world when we don’t know how to get rid of what we have right now.” Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts echoed these concerns and pledged not to build any new nuclear plants if elected president.
So it’s no surprise that many Americans believe nuclear waste poses an enormous and terrifying threat. But after talking to engineers, radiation specialists and waste managers, I’ve come to see this misunderstanding is holding us back from embracing a powerful, clean energy source we need to tackle climate change. We must stop seeing nuclear waste as a dangerous problem and instead recognize it as a safe byproduct of carbon-free power.
Why is nuclear so important for reducing carbon emissions? The countries that have cleaned up their electricity production the fastest have generally done so with hydroelectric power, nuclear, or a combination of the two. The distinct advantage of nuclear is that it requires little land and can reliably produce lots of power regardless of weather, time of day or season. Unlike wind and solar, it can substitute directly for fossil fuels without backup or storage. The International Energy Agency believes it’s so crucial that global nuclear capacity must double by 2050 to reach net-zero emissions targets.
For this reason some U.S. investors, policymakers and even the movie director Oliver Stone are calling for greatly expanding our nuclear capabilities. The Inflation Reduction Act is now rolling out credits for the 54 plants currently in operation and incentives for new ones worth tens of billions of dollars. States across the country are overturning decades-old bans on nuclear construction and exploring investment opportunities. A demonstration project in Wyoming is underway to replace a retiring coal plant with a nuclear reactor.
There are many legitimate questions about the future of nuclear — How will we finance new plants? Can we build them on time and under budget? — but “What about the waste?” should not be one of them.
One of our few cultural references to nuclear waste is “The Simpsons,” where it appeared as a glowing green liquid stored in leaky oil drums. In reality, nuclear fuel is made up of shiny metal tubes containing small pellets of uranium oxide. These tubes are gathered into bundles and loaded into the reactor. After five years of making energy, the bundles come out, containing radioactive particles left over from the energy-making reactions.
The bundles cool off in a pool of water for another five to 10 years or so. After that, they are placed in steel and concrete containers for storage at the plant. These casks are designed to last 100 years and to withstand nearly anything — hurricanes, severe floods, extreme temperatures, even missile attacks.
To date, there have been no deaths, injuries or serious environmental releases of nuclear waste in casks anywhere. And the waste can be transferred to another cask, extending storage one century at a time.
With this kind of nuclear waste, I’m not referring to water containing the radioisotope tritium that nuclear plants regularly release. Antinuclear activist groups like to scaremonger about this, despite the fact that you’d need to drink over a gallon of the treated water being released from Fukushima to get the equivalent radiation exposure of eating a banana.
But what about the spent nuclear fuel — isn’t it radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years? The way radiation works, the waste products that are the most radioactive are the shortest-lived, and those that last a long time are far less dangerous. About 40 years after the fuel becomes waste, the heat and radioactivity of the pellets have fallen by over 99 percent. After around 500 years, the waste would have to be broken down and inhaled or ingested to cause significant harm.
Compare this to other hazardous industrial materials we store in less secure ways that don’t become less toxic over time. Take ammonia: It is highly toxic, corrosive, explosive and prone to leaking. Hundreds of ammonia-related injuries and even some fatalities have been reported since 2010, and we continue to produce and transport millions of tons of it annually by pipelines, ships and trains for fertilizer and other uses.
Yet because nuclear waste seems to pose an outsize risk in the imaginations of many — especially those who lived through the Cold War — the conversation veers toward permanent solutions, like burying it deep underground in a facility like the proposed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada. There may be other benefits to consolidating spent fuel in a central facility, but safety is not the primary concern.
By failing to construct such a facility, some worry that we’re saddling the next generation with the burden of waste management. But as a young person in my 20s expecting a child this year, I feel very comfortable with the way we manage nuclear waste, with making more of it and with passing this responsibility on to our kids. I hope my daughter’s generation will inherit many new nuclear plants making clean power — and the waste that comes with them.
The waste should really be a chief selling point for nuclear energy, particularly for those who care about the environment: There’s not very much of it, it’s easily contained, it becomes safer with time and it can be recycled. And every cask of spent nuclear fuel represents about 2.2 million tons of carbon, according to one estimate, that weren’t emitted into the atmosphere from fossil fuels. For me, each cask represents hope for a safer, better future.
Read my earlier posts:
Nuclear Power A Necessity for Africa’s Economic Growth
African Nations Desperately Need Energy for Economic Growth
Africa`s Future Depends on Adopting Nuclear Power Generation
In the Next Decade, Nuclear Power for Africa Is A Necessity, Not An Option
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, and consultant on Africa. He is also the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton
_________________________________________________
COP 27 “Climate Change” Will Reduce Economic Growth in African Nations-Causing Increased Death Rates
Interview – Lawrence Freeman – Political-Economic Analyst For Africa
November 9, 2022
In my interview above with Rogue News- roguenews.com, I explain why COP 27 demands for African nations not to exploit their own natural resources, is beyond hypocritical; it is evil. African nations should have the right to utilize every bit of their fossil fuels to generate energy while providing a transition to a nuclear energy platform. African nations must have abundant and accessible energy to power industrialized economies. Failure is not an option, if we are to prevent unnecessary deaths from hunger, poverty, and disease.
Read my earlier post: “Climate Change” A Weapon to Prevent Industrialization of African Economies: Expect Push-Back at COP 27 in Egypt
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, and consultant on Africa. He is also the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton
_________________________________________________________________________
“Climate Change” A Weapon to Prevent Industrialization of African Economies: Expect Push-Back at COP 27 in Egypt
November 6, 2022
Part I: Energy for Development
Western nations and their institutions are attempting to dictate that African nations do not exploit their own valuable energy resources of oil, gas, and coal. They are hysterically disseminating an unfounded fear that development of Africa’s energy will lead to catastrophic consequences for civilization. However, more African leaders are speaking out on the necessity and sovereign obligation for African nations to consume their natural resources to develop their economies.
Mo Ibrahim has added his voice to other African leaders who object to denying African nations the right to utilize their natural hydro-carbon resources for the benefit of their people. Sub-Saharan Africa is resource rich and energy poor, which is the leading cause of poverty and hunger for hundreds of millions of Africans. Unless and until and African nations install a density of energy to power the creation of industrialized economies, their people will continue to suffer.
In a recent interview in The Guardian, entitled, Billionaire Mo Ibrahim Attacks Hypocrisy Over Africa Gas, the philanthropist and Sudanese businessman, bluntly criticized the obscene and unfair policy to prevent African nations from exploiting their gas reserves.
“We have 600 million people without electricity. How can we even think of development if people don’t have power?…Development is a major issue for us, and power is essential.
“Nine hundred million people in Africa suffer from unclean cooking – mainly women. What about the pollution effect of that? It’s a serious problem, a health disaster, and an environmental disaster. That’s why we need gas.
Contrasting the dictates from the U.S. and EU, for Africans increasingly rely on so called renewables, Mr. Ibrahim appropriately objected: “If [renewable energy] is valid, why don’t those guys jump immediately and stop using gas? They’re not doing that – they’re building [LNG infrastructure], they’re actually even reopening coalmines. So, you’re giving me advice which you’re not following yourself.”
The hypocrisy of the West is blatantly obvious. Europe is in overdrive to obtain fossil fuels in Africa now that energy flows from Russia are in jeopardy. Last month, reporters from the New York Times wrote, “European leaders have been converging on Africa’s capital cities, eager to find alternatives to Russian natural gas.” NYT-Europe turns to Africa for natural gas.
What the West is demanding of African nations goes beyond hypocrisy; it is immoral and wicked.
Every competent leader, as well as any honest economist, knows from the history of the development of modern society, that abundant, and accessible forms of power have been essential for nations to progress. That is why all advanced sector nations have exploited fossil fuels in the past and continue to depend on them in the present, even as they demand that African nations do not.
It is scientifically known, that forcing African nations to rely on wind and solar as primary sources of energy will guarantee that these nations will not develop, will not become industrialized, will not be able to feed their populations. Resulting in endless poverty. Hence, is this not a new, modern form of imperialism?
African Leaders Speak Out
Mineral Resources and Energy Minister, Gwede Mantashe
- Speaking in December 2021, South African Minister of Energy, Gwede Mantashe, said:
“Africa deserves an equal chance to develop its economies on the strength of her natural resources.
“Several countries on the African continent have announced their oil and gas finds which present massive opportunities for economic growth, industrialization, and job creation. As these developments unfold, we have noted with interest, the pushback, and objections from environmental lobby groups against the development of these resources.
“I cannot help but ask myself, are these objections meant to ensure the status quo remains in Africa, in general, and South Africa, in particular? That is, the status quo with regards to energy poverty, high unemployment, high debt to GDP ratio at country level and economies that are not growing and, in some cases, jobless economic growth. Could it be possible that this is an extreme pure love for the environment or an unrelenting campaign to ensure that Africa and South Africa do not see the investment inflows they need?“
He concluded:
“South Africa deserves the opportunity to capitalize on its natural resources including oil and gas, as these resources have been proven to be game changers elsewhere. We consider the objections to these developments as apartheid and colonialism of a special type, masqueraded as a great interest for environmental protection.” Nigerian VP: Osinbajo “Climate Justice Must Include Ending Energy Poverty” Especially for Sub-Saharan Africa
- Speaking in October of this year, Minister Mantashe got to the heart of the matter:
“I see the protests outside this venue that said, ‘fossil fuels a killer’, but I can tell you that hunger kills faster”.
“We have seen the increase of coal purchasing from us to EU growing eightfold, 780%. As they take our coal, they at the same time tell us to move out of it quickly. That is a contradiction that Africa must look at.
“Africa must determine its pathway from high carbon emissions to low carbon emissions. It must take into account our developmental needs & must not be dictated to by anybody else who is at a different level of development.” South Africa Energy Minister Rejects Western Dictates & Hypocrisy Against Africa’s Use of Energy Resources
- Yemi Osinbajo, Nigeria’s Vice-President, wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine in August 2021:
“But limiting the development of fossil fuel projects and, in particular, natural gas projects would have a profoundly negative impact on Africa. Natural gas doesn’t make sense in every African market. But in many, it is a crucial tool for lifting people out of poverty. It is used not only for power but for industry and fertilizer and for cleaner cooking. Liquified petroleum gas is already replacing huge amounts of hazardous charcoal and kerosene that were most widely used for cooking, saving millions of lives that were previously lost to indoor air pollution. The role of gas as a transition fuel for developing countries, especially in Africa, cannot be overemphasized.
“Yet Africa’s progress could be undone by the rich world’s efforts to curb investments in all fossil fuels.” Nigerian VP: Osinbajo “Climate Justice Must Include Ending Energy Poverty” Especially for Sub-Saharan Africa
- Nigerian President, Muhammadu Buhari wrote in Newsweek magazine, (10/31/21):
“It is an inconvenient truth, but energy solutions proposed by those most eager to address the climate crisis are fuel for the instability of which they warn. No more clearly can this be seen than in Africa.
“For today’s 1.3 billion Africans, access to low-cost and reliable energy is the highest of all possible concerns. Estimated to rise to 2.5 billion by 2050—by 2100 Nigeria alone is projected to have the second largest population on the planet—this “great doubling” (for Nigeria, quadrupling) has the right to more dependable electricity than their forebears.
“Without extra and stable power, we cannot build the factories that will transform Africa from a low-job, extractives-led economy to a high employment middle-income continent. Children cannot learn for longer and better by battery light any more than by candlelight. No more than the Africa of today, the Africa of tomorrow cannot advance using energy production that intermittently delivers.” President Buhari of Nigeria, Demands More and Reliable Energy for Africa from COP26
Part II: Climate Change Is Complex
Hysterical claims that human generated carbon dioxide (CO2), will destroy civilization, is simply not true. Civilization is not facing a cataclysmic future from “Anthropogenic Global Warming.” Destruction of civilization by nuclear war is a far more likely possibility if we do not pull back from the brink of confrontation with Russia.
Even the term “climate change” is a misnomer and completely misleading. Our planet, since its creation, estimated to be over four billion years old, has undergone constant climate change, driven by geological, solar, astronomical, and galactic forces.
One cannot determine the causes for climate change in days, months, or even years. Serious thinkers seek to understand changes in climate by examining data from hundreds, thousands, and millions of years ago.
Our Solar System not only rotates around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy every 230 million years, but also bobs above and below the elliptic plane of the Milky Way every 60 million years. Both of these long cycle movements affect weather. The intensity and density of the 11-year cycle of Sunspots also affects our climate.
Over millions of years, there have been huge temperature swings. Our planet has experienced many ice ages followed by warming periods. The Sahara Desert only came into existence a few million years ago, as the African tectonic plate crashed into what is today known as Europe. However, even the Sahara, which is the largest, driest, hottest desert in the world is constantly undergoing change from wet to dry. This is the result of a 22,500-25,000-year cycle caused by the wobble of the earth due to its tilted axis, as it rotates around the Sun. This wobble causes dramatic changes in temperature and rainfall.
C02 Is Not Our Enemy
The theory, if you can call it that, falsely predicts that civilization will die from rising temperatures as a result of industrial societies producing too much CO2. It is based on the simplistic assumption that if you pump CO2 into a sealed container, it will heat up. This heat-death scenario for the human race relies on the erroneous theory that our universe is entropic. In fact, our universe is not marching towards ultimate heat-death. Our biosphere is a developing organism, which does not function as a closed system, but exists in a growing living universe.
Anthropogenic contributions to CO2 emissions are minuscule and have no impact on our climate. Examine the facts from In Defense of co2 and Astro Climatology listed below.
Today, large amounts of carbon dioxide are regularly generated by biotic and abiotic activity from living animals, decaying biomass as well as volcanos which constantly emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases. A surprisingly small portion of that naturally occurring CO2 is caused by human economic activity.
Taking the entire composition of greenhouse gases together, water vapor makes up 95% of the bulk, carbon dioxide makes up 3.6%, nitrous oxide (0.9%), methane (0.3%), and aerosols about 0.07%.
Of the sum total of the 3.6% carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, approximately 0.9% is caused by human activity. To restate this statistic: Human CO2 makes up less than 1% of the 3.6% of the total greenhouse gases influencing our climate. (Emphasis added)
Causation between CO2 and rising temperatures has not been proven. During the ice ages, thousands of years ago, CO2 levels were magnitudes higher. More recently, from 1000-1350 A.D., during the age of the Vikings, global mean temperatures were also elevated. This was followed by the Little Ice Age that lasted from (1450-1850). Both these periods of history existed before human industrialized activity, which is falsely claimed to be the cause of global warming.
Dr. Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and former Chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation, has written: “Another interesting observation, which is regularly overlooked, is that there are clear indications that atmospheric temperature increase precedes CO2 concentration, and not the other way around…if even a shallow depth of the oceans warms by a small amount, huge amounts of CO2 would be expected to be released. So, CO2 atmospheric concentration lagging behind temperature change strikes one as extremely logical.” Climate Change ebb and flow of the tide
Dr Kemm’s point is corroborated by scientific data. If one looks a temperatures and levels of C02 going back hundreds of thousands of years, one observes that rising temperatures proceeded higher concentrations of CO2.
The Promethean Principle
It is scientifically known that any short term drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels as an energy source will lead to more poverty, and an increase in the death rate. So-called renewables are a poor substitute for 24×7 abundant reliable energy. More dangerously for civilization is the neo-Malthusian ideology of the extreme environmentalists. This anti-scientific belief asserts that humankind’s existence is in a fundamental antagonistic relationship to the physical universe, and to the environment. The followers of this dogma have a not so hidden prejudice against the human race, who they see as malignant disrupters of so called pristine nature. They believe that humankind is inherently evil, thus it must have its behavior modified.
Like Thomas Malthus, they falsely claim that we live in a fixed universe, with fixed resources, and therefore the human race must be controlled and curtailed. Sadly, a substantial portion of the world’s population has imbibed their anti-scientific propaganda. To wit: that too many people will use up the planet’s resources, thus we must limit population growth. To this end they intend to use the hysteria of climate change to prevent African nations from ever becoming industrialized. This same ideology will contribute to the deindustrialization of the West, serving the same goal; population reduction and decreasing people’s standard of living.
Enter Prometheus and his successful battle for the soul and mind of humankind against Zeus, the tyrant of the all-powerful Gods of Olympus. According to the Greek myth, Prometheus accepted to be tortured for centuries for his crime of giving fire-energy to the human species. Prometheus brought light, science, and knowledge to the “mud-people,” as Zeus referred to them. In so doing, Prometheus fashioned the human race uniquely endowed with the power of creative imagination, the power to discover the embedded principles of our physical universe. Millions of years of history, provide unmistakable evidence that we humans are not mere care takers or stewards of the universe. Rather, humankind are transmitters of change. We lawfully transform the universe for the perpetuation of our species.
Recent images from NASA’s Webb telescope reveal a highly structured and living universe. Our universe is governed by a creative principle, which corresponds to humankind’s potential of willful creativity. As the great philosopher Gottfried Leibniz understood and eloquently wrote, humankind lives in an “pre-established harmony” with the universe. Humans are not outsiders intruding on a predetermined ecosystem. Quite the opposite. The Promethean human race was created to uniquely intervene through the power of reason to advance the universe to a higher manifold of existence.
Africa’s Energy Future
Governments are obligated to act with speed and determination to produce as much energy as possible from every resources available to address the massive energy deficit that is killing Africans throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Immediately, nuclear fission energy should proliferate across the African continent to power industrialized economies. A fission energy centered economic platform will prepare the transition to a fusion powered economy. Nuclear fusion energy, which replicates the power of the Sun here on earth, will generate energy at magnitudes greater than what we produce from fossil fuels and fission.
Some may object to my optimism that Africa will be powered by fission and fusion energy in the future. Better to be proud Prometheans, than accept today’s diktats from the would be “Gods of Olympus” to remain economically underdeveloped, plagued with hunger, poverty, and death.
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, and consultant on Africa. He is also the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton
________________________________________
South Africa Energy Minister Rejects Western Dictates & Hypocrisy Against Africa’s Use of Energy Resources
Fossil fuels kill, but hunger kills faster, Mantashe tells conference
Mineral Resources and Energy Minister, Gwede Mantashe
The paucity of energy in sub-Saharan Africa is killing Africans every day. South Africa Energy Minister Mantashe has continually rejected demands by Western nations and their political-financial institutions for African nations not to exploit their own natural resources. To improve the living conditions of their citizens, African nations must industrialize their economies, which necessitates exploiting every resource available. Not only are these dictates an infringement on the sovereignty of African nations, but those in the West, who are trying to prevent Africa’s energy utilization, are contributing to poverty, hunger, and loss of life.
Reported on October 4, from news24.com
Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe says the African continent should not be dictated to when it comes to the pace of its energy transition. This as a R150 billion funding deal from rich countries to help fund South Africa’s transition from coal hangs in the balance.
In an address to the 2022 Africa Oil Week in Cape Town on Tuesday, Mantashe said the war in Ukraine has hit developing economies with high energy costs, along with increasing food prices and interest rates.
He said the climate change question “sits uncomfortably with energy poverty”, adding that the pressure on African economies to decarbonize quickly will expose it to the risk that its people will not have access to reliable and affordable energy if handled with haste.
“Africa must determine its pathway from high carbon emissions to low carbon emissions. It must take into account our developmental needs, & must not be dictated to by anybody else who is at a different level of development.”
“I see the protests outside this venue that said ‘fossil fuels a killer’, but I can tell you that hunger kills faster”.
“We have seen the increase of coal purchasing from us to EU growing eightfold, 780%. As they take our coal, they at the same time tell us to move out of it quickly. That is a contradiction that Africa must look at,” he said.
Read entire article here from news24.com
Originally posted below by africanagenda.net
Read below earlier posts from my website on this subject:
South Africa and China Articulate Principles for Global Development at United Nations
African Nations Desperately Need Energy for Economic Growth
South African Activist Campaigns for Nuclear Energy For Africa: Essential for Industrialization
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, and consultant on Africa. He is also the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton
___________________________________________________________
Africa Nations Desperately Need Energy for Economic Growth
Op-ed: Putting coal into an African perspective
June 7,2022
My colleague, PD Lawton, creator of: africanagenda.net, has authored an excellent article on the energy needs of Africa, and South Africa in particular, published by ESI-Africa-(see above). She makes an excellent case for African nations to utilize all forms of energy as a transition to developing a nuclear powered industrialized economy.
As I shall be discussing in future articles, the objective of the dictates of the now “all-popular” green ideology is to prevent Africa nations from exploiting their natural hydro-carbon resources. The intention is to obstruct the industrialization of African. Without a platform of energy dense manufacturing and agricultural industries, African economies will not grow, thus
allowing the conditions for poverty, hunger, and death to continue.
As a physical economist, I know that by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton, we can eliminate abject poverty and starvation. This will require abundant supplies of cheap, accessible energy. Western nations grew their economies through the consumption of gas, coal, and oil, much of it extracted from the African continent. Who gave the Western governments and financial institutions the authority, the right to disallow Africans from exploiting their own energy resources for their own people? African nations have the sovereign right and obligation to provide for the general welfare of their citizens, free from external decrees.
Excerpts from Lawton’s’article:
“Electricity means life is better. And 80% of that better life in South Africa is from coal. So, when Europeans impose green energy policies on Africa, they do it with total ignorance of the Sleeping Giant. And by their total ignorance of condemning coal and nuclear energy, they condemn 1,4 billion people to a future of poverty when the majority of those 1,4 billion people do not use so much as one light bulb’s worth of electricity.
“Every human being wants to breathe clean air and drink pure water. Most human beings want to protect the natural kingdom which is our God-given role. No one wants to live in creativity-crippling, futureless poverty. Only creative human innovation can bring solutions.
“Nuclear power technology fulfils all the requirements of clean energy. And until nuclear energy can power African cities and industries, let fossil fuels, hydro, gas, solar and wind reduce sub-Saharan Africa’s energy deficit. Africans are tired of living in the dark and they are tired of Eurocentric energy policies.”
Read the entire article: op-ed-putting-coal-into-an-african-perspective
Read my earlier posts:
- South African Activist Campaigns for Nuclear Energy For Africa: Essential for Industrialization
- Nuclear Energy Challenges Western Colonial Mind-Set: Cheikh Anta Diop & John Kennedy Would Concur
- Mozambique is Obligated to Exploit Its Resources For the Development of Its Economy
- Nigerian VP: Osinbajo “Climate Justice Must Include Ending Energy Poverty” Especially for Sub-Saharan Africa
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the 0blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.
______________________________________________________________
South African Activist Campaigns for Nuclear Energy For Africa: Essential for Industrialization
May 22, 2022
The post below is provided by my colleague, PD Lawton, creator of the website: africanagenda.net
It is abundantly clear that African nations must become economically sovereign republics, and that is not possible without becoming industrialized economies with advanced agricultural and economic sectors. . For this transformation to occur, massive amounts of additional reliable, powerful energy is required. My estimations is that a minimum of 1,000 gigawatts of additional power is required. Without doubt, this will require the construction of nuclear energy plants across the continent. Listen to Princy Mthombeni, founder Africa4Nuclear
Princy Mthombeni: Nuclear Technology for Africa`s Agenda for Sustainable Development
Read my earlier posts on this subject.
Nuclear Energy Challenges Western Colonial Mind-Set: Cheikh Anta Diop & John Kennedy Would Concur
Nuclear Power A Necessity for Africa’s Economic Growth
Mozambique is Obligated to Exploit Its Resources For the Development of Its Economy
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.
_________________________________________________________________
Mozambique is Obligated to Exploit Its Resources For the Development of Its Econom
Mozambique: Energy transition must take into account realities of a country
May 3, 2022
Mozambique joins other African nations that are putting the needs of their people ahead of the dictates from Western governments and financial institutions. African nations understand that unless energy poverty is eliminated there will be not be sufficient economic growth to end poverty and hunger. Ratner than allowing Africans to live in abject poverty and suffer unnecessary deaths, more African nations are insisting they have the right, nay obligation to use their sovereign natural resources to produce vitally needed energy. They are correct in this policy, which I support.
From slavery, through colonialism, and following independence, African nations have been denied what Kwame Nkrumah, and Cheikh Anta-Diop knew was essential for their sovereignty: the right to have industrialized economies.
Without energy dense, and infrastructure dense economies, to include mechanized farming, and robust manufacturing sectors, large portions of African nations will be forced to exist in miserable living conditions, which will lead to higher death rates.
It is criminal to prohibit African nations from using their own natural resources for the development of their economies, without which, hundreds of millions of their citizens will remain in wretched poverty. (Lawrence Freeman, April 29, 2022)
Read my earlier post: Nigerian VP: Osinbajo “Climate Justice Must Include Ending Energy Poverty” Especially for Sub-Saharan Africa
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.
__________________________________________________________________
Nigerian VP: Osinbajo “Climate Justice Must Include Ending Energy Poverty” Especially for Sub-Saharan Africa
April 29, 2022
Nigerian Vice President, Yemi Osinbajo, over the last year, has repeatedly demanded ending global energy poverty, which is a life and death necessity for the majority of the world’s population. Speaking at the Atlantic Council on April 13, VP Osinbajo challenged the prevailing green-environmental dictates against using fossil fuels to supply energy to energy starved nations. He told his virtual audience, “climate justice must include ending energy poverty .” (Osinbajo seeks justice for Africa.) (Emphasis added)
For sub-Saharan Africa, there is no more vital need to the survival of these African nations, than energy, energy, and more energy. Over 600 million Africans living in sub-Saharan Africa are without access to electricity. Another 300 million use charcoal and firewood to cook, both environmentally harmful. For Africa to end poverty and hunger, nothing is more essential than to have on-grid, plentifully, and accessible energy, with the capability to power an industrialized economy, for which solar and wind are insufficient. Any advocate for Africa, who does not fight for the creation of abundant energy for the continent, does not have Africa’s best interest at heart.
My own estimate is that for African nations to achieve the levels of energy consumption of the advanced sector, a minimum of 1,000 additional gigawatts of electrical power must be created. In his remarks VP Osinbajo stated, “For every Nigerian to consume the Modern Energy Minimum of 1,000 kilowatt hours per year by 2050 would require a 15-fold increase in our national power generation.” To achieve that goal, “Nigeria must add 200 gigawatts of new power capacity by 2060…”
West’s Green Hypocrisy
Writing in Foreign Affairs, August 31, 2021, The Divestment Delusion: Why Banning Fossil Fuel Investments Would Crush Africa, VP Osinbajo, confronted the discriminatory green anti-development “policies directed at African nations.
Hitting at the hypocrisy by developed nations, the Vice President wrote:
“After decades of profiting from oil and gas, a growing number of wealthy nations have banned or restricted public investment in fossil fuels, including natural gas. Such policies often do not distinguish between different kinds of fuels, nor do they consider the vital role some fuels play in powering the growth of developing economies, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. As development finance institutions try to balance climate concerns against the need to spur equitable development and increase energy security, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union have all taken aggressive steps to limit fossil fuel investments. The World Bank and other multilateral development banks are being urged by some shareholders to do the same. The African Development Bank, for instance, is increasingly unable to support large natural gas projects in the face of European shareholder pressure. Even UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called on countries to end all new fossil fuel exploration and production. ”
(Courtesy of Inside Africa-Facebook)
Under the subhead: Little Gain, Much Pain, he wrote:
“Curbing natural gas investments in Africa will do little to limit carbon emissions globally but much to hurt the continent’s economic prospects. Right now, Africa is starved for energy: excluding South Africa, sub-Saharan Africa’s one billion people have the power generation capacity of just 81 gigawatts—far less than the 108-gigawatt capacity of the United Kingdom. Moreover, those one billion people have contributed less than one percent to global cumulative carbon emissions.”
He continued:
But limiting the development of fossil fuel projects and, in particular, natural gas projects would have a profoundly negative impact on Africa. Natural gas doesn’t make sense in every African market. But in many, it is a crucial tool for lifting people out of poverty. It is used not only for power but for industry and fertilizer and for cleaner cooking. Liquified petroleum gas is already replacing huge amounts of hazardous charcoal and kerosene that were most widely used for cooking, saving millions of lives that were previously lost to indoor air pollution. The role of gas as a transition fuel for developing countries, especially in Africa, cannot be overemphasized.
Yet Africa’s progress could be undone by the rich world’s efforts to curb investments in all fossil fuels. Across sub-Saharan Africa, natural gas projects are increasingly imperiled by a lack of development finance.
Gas pipelines and power plants in the most energy-hungry markets need development finance to attract other capital and enable such projects to proceed
But many more such power plants are needed to deliver electricity to our people, to power our industry and growing cities, and to balance intermittent solar power. A blanket ban on finance for all fossil fuels would jeopardize those objectives.” (Emphasis added)
African Leaders Contest Green Agenda
Gwede Mantashe (Courtesy of bussinesslive.co.za)
Gwede Mantashe, Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy of South Africa, has echoed VP Osinbajo, in his ddetermination to use South Africa’s abundant energy resources to end energy poverty. On December 9, 2021, Minister Mantashe, issued a powerful statement asserting that South Africa’s “deserves the opportunity to capitalize on its natural resources.” (Shell: Gas and oil industry in SA under attack).
He wrote in language more vigorous and iconoclastic than VP Osinbajo:
“Oil and gas exploitation has been carried out for decades across other economies in the World, including for more than 50 years in Norway, more than 80 years in Saudi Arabia and over 100 years in Germany. These economies are thriving today, and they were built on the back of the exploitation of these resources. Africa deserves an equal chance to develop its economies on the strength of her natural resources.
“Several countries on the African continent have announced their oil and gas finds which present massive opportunities for economic growth, industrialization, and job creation. As these developments unfold, we have noted with interest, the pushback, and objections from environmental lobby groups against the development of these resources.
“I cannot help but ask myself, are these objections meant to ensure the status quo remains in Africa, in general, and South Africa, in particular? That is, the status quo with regards to energy poverty, high unemployment, high debt to GDP ratio at country level and economies that are not growing and, in some cases, jobless economic growth. Could it be possible that this is an extreme pure love for the environment or an unrelenting campaign to ensure that Africa and South Africa do not see the investment inflows they need?”
He concludes:
“South Africa deserves the opportunity to capitalize on its natural resources including oil and gas, as these resources have been proven to be game changers elsewhere. We consider the objections to these developments as apartheid and colonialism of a special type, masqueraded as a great interest for environmental protection. South Africa’s economic development is oppressed in the name of environmental protection when we have environmental framework that ensures that licensing is done with the utmost environmental care founded on Section 24 of our Constitution. We therefore appeal to all objectors to acknowledge this and allow South Africa to exploit its natural resources for the benefit of its citizens.” (Emphasis added)
Presidents Yoweri Museveni-left and Muhammadu Buhari-right (courtesy of dailypost.ng)
President Buhari of Nigeria has also challenged the attempt to keep African nations from utilizing their resources to industrialize their nations for the benefit of their citizens. Read: President Buhari of Nigeria, Demands More and Reliable Energy for Africa from COP26. President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda has raised similar objections. Read: Solar and Wind Force Poverty on Africa: Africa Needs Reliable Energy-Nuclear-to Power Industrialized Economies
Live With Energy or Die with Green
Will the Western dictated green-reset to shield civilization from climate change end up killing more people than it purports to save? How many lives will perish from the dearth of plentiful and reliable energy, which is required to end poverty and hunger in Africa?
At the highest echelons of the corporate and financial world, in conjunction with Western governments, it has been decided that investments in fossil fuels-hydrocarbons will be halted. Coal, oil, and gas production will be replaced by channeling money into solar and wind renewables, which are both unreliable to supply energy 24/7. Given that it is known that neither solar nor wind are capable of providing sufficient power to drive an industrialized economy,* it should be obvious the intent of these policies: prevent African nations from industrializing. The fact there is not an all-out effort to invest in nuclear energy, especially Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which will provide safe, reliable power, indicates that there is an intent to keep Africa in energy poverty.
From slavery, through colonialism, and following independence, African nations have been denied what Kwame Nkrumah, and Cheikh Anta-Diop knew was essential for their sovereignty: the right to have industrialized economies.
Without energy dense, and infrastructure dense economies, to include mechanized farming, and robust manufacturing sectors, large portions of African nations will be forced to exist in miserable living conditions, which will lead to higher death rates.
It is criminal to prohibit African nations from using their own natural resources for the development of their economies, without which, hundreds of millions of their citizens will remain in wretched poverty.
*The sun “miraculously” maintains life on our planet, but is not an efficient energy source to perform work, because solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface is too diffuse i.e., has a low energy-flux density. Windmills are not cost efficient when one compares the energy required to construct acres of windmills, to the net energy produced. Both solar and wind are also dependent on weather conditions.
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.
President Buhari of Nigeria, Demands More and Reliable Energy for Africa from COP26
Mahammadu Buhari, president of Nigeria, issued a forceful statement (printed below) to the COP26 Summit, on the need for African nations to have access to abundant and reliable energy. This followed by one week, a likeminded statement from President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda.
The Climate Crisis Will Not be Fixed by Causing an Energy Crisis in Africa | Opinion
MUHAMMADU BUHARI , PRESIDENT, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
10/30/21, Newsweek Magazine OPINION
Western nations, global institutions, and the international banks, have declared that African nations should not have the energy-i.e., electricity needed to fully develop their nations. So called renewables, wind and solar energy are inefficient and inadequate to power industrialized nations. COP26 and the fanatical neo-Malthusians who spawned the radical environmentalist movement, do not want African nations to develop. They do not want to see African nations become industrialized. They would rather see the population of Africa reduced. They are using so called environmental concerns to deny African nations the right to eliminate poverty and have access to 1,500 watts of electricity 24 hours a day-7 days a week, like Western nations. Western nations developed because they had access to abundant and reliable energy. Sub-Saharan African needs an additional 1,000 gigawatts of power. Yet, COP26 is trying to impose inferior and limited energy for African, and all developing nations. Why was nuclear energy, which is an absolute necessity for Africa, not even allowed to be brought up for discussion at COP26? For six decades, since the liberation of Africa from the colonial powers, there has been no effort to bring light i.e., electricity to Africa. However, now these same nations want to limit energy to prevent the industrialization of African nations. This is a complete fraud! Africans are dying daily from multiple causes; all related to the lack of energy. Why hasn’t the international community been concerned enough for the last sixty years to empower African nations to build adequate national electricity grids? Worth thinking about.
“Without extra and stable power, we cannot build the factories that will transform Africa from a low-job, extractives-led economy to a high employment middle-income continent. Children cannot learn for longer and better by battery light any more than by candlelight. No more than the Africa of today, the Africa of tomorrow cannot advance using energy production that intermittently delivers.”
Dire warnings of the end of the world are as old as civilization itself. But each year as the countdown to United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) begins, they grow in volume and intensity. Recently, senior United Nations officials raised the alarm of “world conflict and chaos” and mass migrations and institutional collapse should greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked for much longer.
Mankind has a duty to act on these dangers. But because of their seriousness we must not do so rashly. It is an inconvenient truth, but energy solutions proposed by those most eager to address the climate crisis are fuel for the instability of which they warn. No more clearly can this be seen than in Africa.
For today’s 1.3 billion Africans, access to low-cost and reliable energy is the highest of all possible concerns. Estimated to rise to 2.5 billion by 2050—by 2100 Nigeria alone is projected to have the second largest population on the planet—this “great doubling” (for Nigeria, quadrupling) has the right to more dependable electricity than their forebears.
Without extra and stable power, we cannot build the factories that will transform Africa from a low-job, extractives-led economy to a high employment middle-income continent. Children cannot learn for longer and better by battery light any more than by candlelight. No more than the Africa of today, the Africa of tomorrow cannot advance using energy production that intermittently delivers.
Yet in our rush to address climate concerns, and for western aid agencies and investors to burnish their green credentials, we rush to install the most alternative of energy sources which are often the most unreliable. Wind and solar, the most fashionable of modern energy technologies, are flawed by their reliance on back-up diesel generators or batteries for when there is no wind for the turbines or sun for the panels.
It also seems unnoticed that in our global rush for electric cars we risk replacing the last century’s scramble for fossil fuels with a new global race in lithium for batteries. Where significant deposits are to be found, such as in Africa, this could endanger geopolitical stability. This makes the economic migrations the U.N. warned of more likely. We must think carefully whether our dash to terminate the use of fossil fuels so swiftly is as wise as it sounds.
There is no single “green bullet” that can be deployed either in Africa or the world that solves concerns of environmentalists while simultaneously offering the power to fuel hope of greater wealth and progress for the extra 1 billion citizens of our African future.
But there are certain things we can and must do—starting with transitioning to cleaner, but consistent, energy production. Fossil fuel power generation that can provide electricity 24 hours a day in all conditions can be re-tooled greener through carbon capture and the conversion of coal and heavy fuel oil power stations to biomass. We can bring forward new technologies such as mini-hydro power plants which can operate and produce power day and night along shallow waterways without damaging the aquatic life on which local communities are sustained.
We can also invest in nuclear. Though not renewable it is carbon neutral and capable of producing baseload, constant electricity production on which sustained economic progress can be built. Nigeria is among a handful of African countries exploring nuclear power, with a research reactor already operational.
And we can also learn from our friends in Europe and America who do not always practice what they preach. We call on them to lift the moratorium they have placed on fossil fuel investments in Africa. Nigeria has pledged to eliminate illegal gas flaring by 2030—a by-product of our oil industry—and harness it for electricity production. Our intention to end Nigeria’s single greatest contribution to greenhouse emissions may stall without it. Yet there are no such limitations on investment in natural gas power in the West where it is considered a transitional energy source.
There is a deal to be done at COP26, but none without the agreement of the nations of Africa. The climate warnings we hear them. We live them. But no one has the right to deny the advancement of our continent. Yet unless the developed world wakes up, we run the risk of trying to fix the climate crisis with an energy crisis.
Muhammadu Buhari is president of Nigeria
Read statement from President Museveni : Solar and Wind Force Poverty on Africa: Africa Needs Reliable Energy-Nuclear-to Power Industrialized Economies
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.
____________________________________________________________________
Solar and Wind Force Poverty on Africa: Africa Needs Reliable Energy-Nuclear-to Power Industrialized Economies
Wind turbines operate at a wind farm near Vredenburg, South Africa, Oct. 6. Photo: Dwayne Senior/Bloomberg News
The comments below by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, are very timely as G-20 nations convene in Glasgow for the COP26 Summit. President Museveni is absolutely correct. The Green energy movement proposed by the West will lead to more deaths, increase poverty, and impose more misery, and suffering across the continent of sub-Saharan African (SSA). Under the guise of reducing C02, the “Green Reset” supported by all the global financial instructions, will suppress the growth of agriculture, manufacturing and industry in SSA. The deficit of energy in SSA is killing Africans today and has retarded economic growth in SSA for decades. Over the last several decades Western nations and intuitions have done nothing to address the huge infrastructure needs in Africa. However, now these same institutions are using the Green ideology to prevent Africa from developing. My estimates are that SSA needs at least 1,000 gigawatts of energy. I support burning as much oil, gas, and coal as necessary in preparation to transitioning into economies powered by nuclear energy. Only in the last ten years as we seen minimally, but important construction of vital infrastructure by China and Belt and Road Initiative.
OPINION | COMMENTARY-Wall Street Journal
Solar and Wind Force Poverty on Africa
Letting us use reliable energy doesn’t mean a climate disaster.
By Yoweri K. Museveni
Oct. 24, 2021
Africa can’t sacrifice its future prosperity for Western climate goals. The continent should balance its energy mix, not rush straight toward renewables—even though that will likely frustrate some of those gathering at next week’s global climate conference in Glasgow.
My continent’s energy choices will dictate much of the climate’s future. Conservative estimates project that Africa’s population of 1.3 billion will double by 2050. Africans’ energy consumption will likely surpass that of the European Union around the same time.
Knowing this, many developed nations are pushing an accelerated transition to renewables on Africa. The Western aid-industrial complex, composed of nongovernmental organizations and state development agencies, has poured money into wind and solar projects across the continent. This earns them praise in the U.S. and Europe but leaves many Africans with unreliable and expensive electricity that depends on diesel generators or batteries on overcast or still days. Generators and the mining of lithium for batteries are both highly polluting.
This stands to forestall Africa’s attempts to rise out of poverty, which require reliable energy. African manufacturing will struggle to attract investment and therefore to create jobs without consistent energy sources. Agriculture will suffer if the continent can’t use natural gas to create synthetic fertilizer or to power efficient freight transportation.
A better solution is for Africa to move slowly toward a variety of reliable green energy sources. Wildlife-friendly minihydro technologies should be a part of the continent’s energy mix. They allow for 24-hour-a-day energy production and can be installed along minor rivers without the need for backup energy. Coal-fired power stations can be converted to burning biomass, and carbon capture can help in the meantime. Nuclear power is also already being put to good use in South Africa, while Algeria, Ghana and Nigeria operate research reactors with the intent of building full-scale nuclear facilities.
All this will take time, meaning Africa will have to use fossil fuels as it makes the transition. Natural gas is a greener option that will help the continent reduce emissions even as it grows, as developed nations have done themselves.
Saying any of this meets with backlash from developed nations. Instead of reliable renewables or greener fossil fuels, aid money and development investments go to pushing solar and wind, with all their accompanying drawbacks. And many Western nations have put a blanket ban on public funding for a range of fossil-fuel projects abroad, making it difficult for Africa to make the transition to cleaner nonrenewables.
In the coming decades my continent will have a strong influence on global warming. But it doesn’t now. Were sub-Saharan Africa (minus South Africa) to triple its electricity consumption overnight, powering the new usage entirely by gas, it would add only 0.6% to global carbon emissions.
Africans have a right to use reliable, cheap energy, and doing so doesn’t prevent the development of the continent’s renewables. Forcing Africa down one route will hinder our fight against poverty.
Mr. Museveni is president of Uganda.
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.
.