Since 2004 Nigeria has a Chinese-origin research reactor at Ahmadu Bello University , and has sought the support of the International Atomic Energy Agency to develop plans for up to 4,000 MWe of nuclear capacity by 2027 according to the National Program for the Deployment of Nuclear Power for Generation of Electricity.

[1] Nigeria hoped to begin construction in 2011 and start nuclear power production in 2017-2020. On 27 July 2007 Nigeria's President Umaru Yar'Adua has urged the country to embrace nuclear power in order to meet its growing energy needs.

[2]Construction has not begun but plans have not been canceled by 2016. More recently, in April 2015, Nigeria began talks with Russia's state-owned Rosatom to collaborate on the design, construction and operation of four nuclear power plants by 2035, the first of which will be in operation by 2025.

[3] In June 2015, Nigeria selected two sites for the planned construction of the nuclear plants. Neither the Nigerian government nor Rosatom would disclose the specific locations of the sites, but it is believed that the nuclear plants will be sited in Akwa Ibom State, in Southeast Nigeria, and Kogi State, in the central northern part of the country.[4] Both sites are planned to house two plants each.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Nigeria

www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/emerging-nuclear-energy-countries.aspx

Emerging Nuclear
Energy Countries
(Updated February 2016)
Over 45 countries are actively
considering embarking upon
nuclear power programmes.
These range from sophisticated
economies to developing nations.
The front runners are UAE, Turkey,
Vietnam, Belarus, and Poland.
Nuclear power is planned in over 20
countries which do not currently have
it, and under some level of
consideration in over 20 more (in a
few, consideration is not necessarily at
government level). For countries listed
immediately below in bold, nuclear
power prospects are more fully dealt
with in specific country papers:
In Europe: Italy, Albania, Serbia,
Croatia, Portugal, Norway, Poland,
Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Ireland,
Turkey .
In the Middle East and North
Africa: Gulf states including UAE ,
Saudi Arabia , Qatar & Kuwait,
Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt,
Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco,
Sudan.
In west, central and southern
Africa: Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal,
Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Namibia.
In Central and South America:
Cuba, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela,
Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay.
In central and southern Asia:
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Mongolia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka
In SE Asia: Indonesia , Philippines,
Vietnam, Thailand, Laos,
Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore,
Myanmar, Australia, New Zealand .
In east Asia: North Korea.
Despite the large number of these
emerging countries, they are not
expected to contribute very much to
the expansion of nuclear capacity in
the foreseeable future – the main
growth will come in countries where
the technology is already well
established. However, in the longer
term, the trend to urbanisation in less-
developed countries will greatly
increase the demand for electricity,
and especially that supplied by base-
load plants such as nuclear. The
pattern of energy demand in these
countries will become more like that of
Europe, North America and Japan.
Some of the above countries can be
classified according to how far their
nuclear power programmes or plans
have progressed:
Power reactors under construction:
UAE, Belarus.
Contracts signed, legal and
regulatory infrastructure well-
developed or developing: Lithuania,
Turkey, Bangladesh , Vietnam .
Committed plans, legal and
regulatory infrastructure
developing: Jordan, Poland , Egypt.
Well-developed plans but
commitment pending: Thailand,
Indonesia, Kazakhstan , Saudi
Arabia, Chile; or commitment
stalled: Italy .
Developing plans: Israel, Nigeria,
Kenya, Laos, Malaysia, Morocco.
Discussion as serious policy
option: Namibia , Mongolia,
Philippines, Singapore, Albania,
Serbia, Croatia, Estonia & Latvia,
Libya, Algeria, Kuwait, Azerbaijan,
Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Syria, Qatar,
Sudan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru.
Officially not a policy option at
present: Australia, New Zealand,
Portugal, Norway, Ireland, Kuwait,
Cuba, Paraguay, Myanmar,
Cambodia, Tanzania.
A September 2010 report by the
International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) on International Status and
Prospects of Nuclear Power said that
some 65 countries without nuclear
power plants “are expressing interest
in, considering, or actively planning for
nuclear power” at present, after a “gap
of nearly 15 years” in such interest
worldwide. Of these 65 un-named
countries, it said that 21 are in Asia/
Pacific, 21 in Africa, 12 in Europe
(mostly eastern Europe), and 11 in
Latin America. However, of the 65
interested countries, 31 are not
currently [2010] planning to build
reactors, and 17 of those 31 have
grids of less than 5 GW, “too small to
accommodate most of the reactor
designs on offer.” The report added
that technology options may also be
limited for countries whose grids are
between 5 GW and 10 GW.
Of the countries planning reactors, at
September 2010: 14 “indicate a strong
intention to proceed” with introduction
of nuclear power; seven are preparing
but haven’t made a final decision, 10
have made a decision and are
preparing infrastructure, two have
ordered a new nuclear power plant and
one has a plant under construction,
according to the IAEA assessment (see
below re IAEA 'milestone' approach).
These are identifiable in our
development breakdown above, though
Belarus and Poland have been moved
up one category as of early 2012, and
Saudi Arabia in mid 2012.
However, by September 2012 the
picture was less positive for the
leading 14 countries, and the IAEA
expected only seven newcomer
countries to launch nuclear programs
in the near term. It did not name
these, but Lithuania, UAE, Turkey,
Belarus, Vietnam, Poland, and
Bangladesh appear likely candidates.
Others had stepped back from
commitment, needed more time to set
up infrastructure, or did not have
credible finance.
One major issue for many countries is
the size of their grid system. Many
nuclear power plants are larger than
the fossil fuel plants they supplement
or replace, and it does not make sense
to have any generating unit more than
about one tenth the capacity of the
grid (maybe 15% if there is high
reserve capacity). This is so that the
plant can be taken offline for refueling
or maintenance, or due to unforeseen
events. The grid capacity and quality
may also be considered regionally, as
with Jordan for instance. In many
situations, as much investment in the
grid may be needed as in the power
plant(s). Kenya sought to evaluate its
grid system before considering the
generation options.
Another issue is that of licensing
reactor designs. Emerging countries
generally do not have the expertise for
this, and must initially rely on design
licensing by countries such as UK,
USA, and France while they focus on
building competence to license the
actual operation of plants.
IAEA support for new nuclear
program s
In all countries governments need to
create the environment for investment
in nuclear power, including
professional and independent
regulatory regime, policies on nuclear
waste management and
decommissioning, and involvement
with international non-proliferation
measures and insurance arrangements
for third party damage.*

* see WNA papers on Safeguards to Prevent Nuclear Weapons Proliferation, and Liability for Nuclear Damage respectively. In different countries, institutional arrangements vary. Usually governments are heavily involved in planning, and in developing countries also financing and operation. As emerging nuclear nations lack a strong cadre of nuclear engineers and scientists, construction is often on a turnkey basis, with the reactor vendor assuming all technical and commercial risks in delivering a functioning plant on time and at a particular price. Alternatively the vendor may be set up a consortium to build, own and operate the plant. As the industry becomes more international, new arrangements are likely, including public-private partnerships. The IAEA has published a small book Considerations to Launch a Nuclear Power Programme (2007 ) which addresses the issues involved in a country deciding upon and implementing a nuclear power program. In particular it looks at those considerations before a decision is made, before construction starts and subsequently. It then briefly covers twelve factors for consideration. According to the IAEA in mid 2010, 20 new countries expected to have nuclear power on line by 2030, though since then some have pulled back and only seven new countries are expected to have capacity on line by the early 2020s. The IAEA sets out a phased 'milestone' approach to establishing nuclear power capacity in new countries*, applying it to 19 issues. In broad outline the three phase approach is (milestones underlined): Pre-project phase 1 (1-3 years) leading to knowledgeable commitment to a nuclear power program, resulting in set up of a Nuclear Power Program Implementing Organisation (NEPIO). This deals with the program, not the particular projects after phase 2. Project decision-making phase 2 (3-7 years) involving preparatory work after the decision is made and up to inviting bids , with the regulatory body being established. In phase 2 the government role progressively gives way to that of the regulatory body and the owner- operator. Construction phase 3 (7-10 years) with regulatory body operational, up to commissioning and operation. * Milestones in the development of national infrastructure for nuclear power (2007), and Evaluation of the national nuclear infrastructure development status (2008). These are being updated with a view to new editions about 2013. In 2009 the IAEA began offering Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR ) missions to assess national developments, and six INIR missions were conducted during 2009-11 to evaluate the status of countries’ nuclear infrastructure development. The first three were to Jordan, Indonesia and Vietnam. followed by others to Bangladesh, Belarus, Thailand and UAE to the end of 2012. In 2013 INIR missions were to South Africa – the first country with an operating nuclear power program that has requested this service – Poland and then Turkey. In 2014 an INIR mission to Nigeria is planned. Several countries including Egypt, Kenya, and Malaysia have also expressed interest. More broadly than these INIR missions are Nuclear Energy System Assessments (NESA) , using the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) methodology to help countries develop long-term national nuclear energy strategies. The INPRO methodology identifies a set of Basic Principles, User Requirements, and Criteria in a hierarchical manner as the basis for the assessment of an innovative and sustainable nuclear system. The NESA program helps members “in gaining public acceptance, getting assistance in nuclear energy planning in their country, and increasing awareness of innovations in nuclear technologies”. NESAs have been carried out in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Indonesia. The IAEA also has an Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) to scrutinise the regulatory structures in particular countries, upon invitation from the government. This may be used for countries embarking upon nuclear power programs, as in Poland early in 2013. WANO and ASN support for new nuclear programmes For new entrants to the nuclear industry which are moving towards fuel loading in their first reactor, the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) offers pre-startup peer reviews as part of its peer review programme, particularly to address the situation of new plants in countries and organisations without previous nuclear power experience. As of early 2011 it had undertaken 12 such reviews and with the great increase in construction happening, had 62 scheduled for the next five years. WANO’s goal is to do a pre-startup review on every new nuclear power plant worldwide. The reviews seek to evaluate how each operating organization is prepared for startup and make recommendations for improvements based on the collective experience of the world industry. The transition between construction and operation at a nuclear power plant is a delicate period, and many incidents occur during the early months of plant operation – both Three Mile Island 2 and Greifswald 5 were almost new units when accidents destroyed them. In January 2008, the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) indicated that it would pay attention to new nuclear power projects in countries with no experience in this area. It said that the development of nuclear industry in a country needs at least 10 to 15 years in order to build up skills in safety and control and to define a regulatory framework. In a June 2008 position paper the five-member commission of ASN said that building the infrastructure needed to safely operate a nuclear power plant required time and that it would be selective about providing assistance. The commissioners said ASN would give priority to countries using French technologies, that it would apply "geophysical, economic, political, social, and technical" criteria, and require countries to be party to relevant international treaties. ASN said it takes at least five years to set up the legal and regulatory infrastructure for a nuclear power program, two to ten years to license a new plant, and about five years to build a power plant. That means a "minimum lead time of 15 years" before a new nuclear power plant can be started up in a country that does not already have the required infrastructure. These comments relate to France's creation of Agency France Nuclear International (AFNI) under its Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) to provide a vehicle for international assistance. AFNI will be focused on helping to set up structures and systems to enable the establishment of civil nuclear programs in countries wanting to develop them, and will draw on all of France's expertise in this. It will be guided by a steering committee comprising representatives of all the ministries involved (Energy, Foreign Affairs, Industry, Research, etc) as well as representatives of other major French nuclear institutions including the CEA itself and probably ASN, though this is yet to be confirmed. The rest of this paper documents progress in a number of countries. Where an individual paper on the particular country exists (as indicated), more detail will be found there.

* see WNA papers on Safeguards to Prevent Nuclear Weapons Proliferation, and Liability for Nuclear Damage respectively. In different countries, institutional arrangements vary. Usually governments are heavily involved in planning, and in developing countries also financing and operation. As emerging nuclear nations lack a strong cadre of nuclear engineers and scientists, construction is often on a turnkey basis, with the reactor vendor assuming all technical and commercial risks in delivering a functioning plant on time and at a particular price. Alternatively the vendor may be set up a consortium to build, own and operate the plant. As the industry becomes more international, new arrangements are likely, including public-private partnerships. The IAEA has published a small book Considerations to Launch a Nuclear Power Programme (2007 ) which addresses the issues involved in a country deciding upon and implementing a nuclear power program. In particular it looks at those considerations before a decision is made, before construction starts and subsequently. It then briefly covers twelve factors for consideration. According to the IAEA in mid 2010, 20 new countries expected to have nuclear power on line by 2030, though since then some have pulled back and only seven new countries are expected to have capacity on line by the early 2020s. The IAEA sets out a phased 'milestone' approach to establishing nuclear power capacity in new countries*, applying it to 19 issues. In broad outline the three phase approach is (milestones underlined): Pre-project phase 1 (1-3 years) leading to knowledgeable commitment to a nuclear power program, resulting in set up of a Nuclear Power Program Implementing Organisation (NEPIO). This deals with the program, not the particular projects after phase 2. Project decision-making phase 2 (3-7 years) involving preparatory work after the decision is made and up to inviting bids , with the regulatory body being established. In phase 2 the government role progressively gives way to that of the regulatory body and the owner- operator. Construction phase 3 (7-10 years) with regulatory body operational, up to commissioning and operation. * Milestones in the development of national infrastructure for nuclear power (2007), and Evaluation of the national nuclear infrastructure development status (2008). These are being updated with a view to new editions about 2013. In 2009 the IAEA began offering Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR ) missions to assess national developments, and six INIR missions were conducted during 2009-11 to evaluate the status of countries’ nuclear infrastructure development. The first three were to Jordan, Indonesia and Vietnam. followed by others to Bangladesh, Belarus, Thailand and UAE to the end of 2012. In 2013 INIR missions were to South Africa – the first country with an operating nuclear power program that has requested this service – Poland and then Turkey. In 2014 an INIR mission to Nigeria is planned. Several countries including Egypt, Kenya, and Malaysia have also expressed interest. More broadly than these INIR missions are Nuclear Energy System Assessments (NESA) , using the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) methodology to help countries develop long-term national nuclear energy strategies. The INPRO methodology identifies a set of Basic Principles, User Requirements, and Criteria in a hierarchical manner as the basis for the assessment of an innovative and sustainable nuclear system. The NESA program helps members “in gaining public acceptance, getting assistance in nuclear energy planning in their country, and increasing awareness of innovations in nuclear technologies”. NESAs have been carried out in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Indonesia. The IAEA also has an Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) to scrutinise the regulatory structures in particular countries, upon invitation from the government. This may be used for countries embarking upon nuclear power programs, as in Poland early in 2013. WANO and ASN support for new nuclear programmes For new entrants to the nuclear industry which are moving towards fuel loading in their first reactor, the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) offers pre-startup peer reviews as part of its peer review programme, particularly to address the situation of new plants in countries and organisations without previous nuclear power experience. As of early 2011 it had undertaken 12 such reviews and with the great increase in construction happening, had 62 scheduled for the next five years. WANO’s goal is to do a pre-startup review on every new nuclear power plant worldwide. The reviews seek to evaluate how each operating organization is prepared for startup and make recommendations for improvements based on the collective experience of the world industry. The transition between construction and operation at a nuclear power plant is a delicate period, and many incidents occur during the early months of plant operation – both Three Mile Island 2 and Greifswald 5 were almost new units when accidents destroyed them. In January 2008, the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) indicated that it would pay attention to new nuclear power projects in countries with no experience in this area. It said that the development of nuclear industry in a country needs at least 10 to 15 years in order to build up skills in safety and control and to define a regulatory framework. In a June 2008 position paper the five-member commission of ASN said that building the infrastructure needed to safely operate a nuclear power plant required time and that it would be selective about providing assistance. The commissioners said ASN would give priority to countries using French technologies, that it would apply "geophysical, economic, political, social, and technical" criteria, and require countries to be party to relevant international treaties. ASN said it takes at least five years to set up the legal and regulatory infrastructure for a nuclear power program, two to ten years to license a new plant, and about five years to build a power plant. That means a "minimum lead time of 15 years" before a new nuclear power plant can be started up in a country that does not already have the required infrastructure. These comments relate to France's creation of Agency France Nuclear International (AFNI) under its Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) to provide a vehicle for international assistance. AFNI will be focused on helping to set up structures and systems to enable the establishment of civil nuclear programs in countries wanting to develop them, and will draw on all of France's expertise in this. It will be guided by a steering committee comprising representatives of all the ministries involved (Energy, Foreign Affairs, Industry, Research, etc) as well as representatives of other major French nuclear institutions including the CEA itself and probably ASN, though this is yet to be confirmed. The rest of this paper documents progress in a number of countries. Where an individual paper on the particular country exists (as indicated), more detail will be found there.

Arms crossed

K

Summary pls