Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites - Politics (4) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites (35972 Views)
Fashola: How We Added 400MW To Power Nat Grid Despite Sabotage / Nationwide Darkness Looms As Electricity Supply Drops To 1,400MW / FG To Build 2,400MW Nuclear Plants In Kogi, A' Ibom States (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by Nobody: 11:49am On Jun 17, 2015 |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by Nobody: 11:49am On Jun 17, 2015 |
GodMode: Solar....good...but not effective (You lose 80% of power generated....plus you have to build a large Solar farm to generate light for a town. And it is expensive (1.6million naira to power a one room apartment). Wind...you need a very windy spot...eg mountains, and out into the sea. And it costs money too. Waste....when your governors do not have daily waste collection? Or you want govt to organise waste collection for every city and village in Nigeria? (You get money so?). |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by Nobody: 11:53am On Jun 17, 2015 |
As the Holy Bible says "Seek ye the kingdom of God first, other things shall follow"  I Josh say, ban the importation of Generators first, then all hands would be on deck against all forms of Electricity sabotage....  Period!!! 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by pure2012soul(m): 11:55am On Jun 17, 2015 |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by GodMode: 11:57am On Jun 17, 2015 |
bushdoc9919: Solar is not expensive...blame it on exploitation and ignorance.. Akon's project is based on Solar... Yes there is money in Nigeria  Paid e-rats everywhere on Nairaland 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by elohorayodele: 11:59am On Jun 17, 2015 |
Okijajuju1: We cant secure/properly maintain ordinary oil and gas pipeline, how are we going to secure nuclear sites toxic waste from the oil industry is been dumped callously, ordinary gas flaring we cannot stop, where will the nuclear waste be disposed? Will a correct/truthful EIA be conducted? Is living in darkness not better than what happened in chernobyl? is nuclear power the only other alternative to generating power? 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by Nobody: 12:02pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
GodMode: I think the Solar power project,(have peeped at the site....http://akonlightingafrica.com/our-activities/overview/) would just provide light for some bulbs, and maybe the television. For powering things like the fridge and other big electrical items.....you may need more than that. And it was 240million for 20000 households. May cost more to do it in Nigeria. |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by IBBG(m): 12:03pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
BuddahMonk: |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by Nobody: 12:05pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
mathskill: And you think there are no safeguards now....especially as any new plant would be subject to IAEA investigation? Lessons have been learnt from Chernobyl. |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by chinae(m): 12:05pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
Keneking: Do your research though am no ones fan, just that i have read about this 2 nuclear plant since last year, the location of the plants is what sounds new in-here. |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by free13: 12:06pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
Hmm.... |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by miquelon(m): 12:08pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
elohorayodele: These were my exact concerns. We need to educate on the risks and rewards,before even thinking about breaking ground. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by bisten14: 12:09pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
vanunu: If he site it for Daura u guys go say he has stated d agenda. TANoids and their mentality. |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by harveyspec: 12:09pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
bushdoc9919: Pls what do you mean human error? Is Nigeria immune a from such? Look at the last flood catastrophe, how did we handle it? The various bombing that has taken place, how was it handled? See corpses being carried in wheelbarrow & ambulance being used to carry more than one patient nuclear plant is good, the question is can we maintain it, in the event of an emergency can we handle it? We both know that the answer is NO Even if we want the Russians to build & operate it forever, you & I know that when there is an emergency, our corrupt leaders will take a bribe & look the other way What was the outcome of the botched immigration recruitment? 4 Likes 2 Shares |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by princejayboss: 12:11pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
Keneking: Not from buhari.... Check me up you will see when GEJ advocated for this.... I know silly Nigerians will give buhari credit for GEJ works.... |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by ApexTitan(m): 12:12pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
gbl01: Where do you people pull out these figures from? Lalaland? Ajeokuta steel plant employed over 150,000 people? Na wa. |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by GodMode: 12:15pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
bushdoc9919: Akon's resources will be limited But Imagine over $20B spent on just solar consistently... Or $5B on solar, $5B on waste, $5B on dams, $5B on glass... All renewable energy no harm to anyone.. No possibility of a nuclear disaster.. Imagine if u had solar panels instead of generators that last for limited time and pollute the air. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by kraftykc(m): 12:16pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
ECOTERRORS: Except you can have an alternate timeline I believe GEJ was in charge in APRIL... please accord the blame accordingly. |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by miquelon(m): 12:16pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
Seems FG has been listening to you 1miccza |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by Nobody: 12:16pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
ApexTitan: Ignorance is bliss but before u accuse, ask questions. How many companies were part of the Ajaokuta steel company?. How many employees do they have? Calculate the contractors and all their employees. FYI they worked for Ajaokuta steel indirectly. |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by umar4info(m): 12:18pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
hypertension:biafran dog |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by princejayboss: 12:18pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
homerac7: I like to know you friend .... Am pleased to find few brains like you 3 Likes |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by homerac7: 12:18pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
MINISTER2000: Oga, cost of set-up per MW is cheaper with nuclear compared to solar. Solar is very costly and has limitations due to constrain of sun-hours. You must have backup system which is highly inefficient and vastly costly too; be it mechanical storage system or chemical (battery). Those countries you are mentioning (UK & Germany) are the richest in Europe, so stop comparing their choices with Nigeria's. Same with wind farms. They are capital intensive. Do you know how tall is a typical 10MW single unit of wind tower/turbine is? It is between 80 and 120m tall, that's like 40stories building with its base usually of about 40feet across! Germany and UK are installing hundreds of those silent giants on floating platforms anchored to seabeds on their coastlines offshore. That's a multi-billion dollar project , yet only a rich country can at yet afford such "luxury". Nigeria and every other third world country have no business with solar and wind mega projects, its not best use of our lean and scarce resources when we have alternatives of thermal, hydro and nuclear. harveyspec: What happens with T in the BOOT is not my decision. It is a public project which is normally influenced by lot of unmeasurable factors. Your refinery is not on same risk level with a nuclear plant, so what influences decision with one night not be same with other. I expect you to remind me again if Nigeria fell to Ebola virus when it got into the country. Nuclear waste for every nuclear plant in the world is under direct supervision of IAEA. So calm down and tame your ignorance. I'm sure you don't know that oil companies here in Nigeria have been using nuclear materials for their operation since forever, yet I'm yet to hear of any disaster so far. Technicians maintain power plants. I'm sure the nomenclature "technician" is hurting your ego somewhere. Note that what you call a technical is sometimes a PhD holder in quantum physics or engineering. It is simply the role he/she plays in the setup that matters. Plants runs with complement of several professional skills including accountants, tradesmen, technicians, scientists, administrators and lot more. We are building more gas plants, but we can't lay enough gas gathering facilities as required for constraint of fund and time. Also is the risk factor of sabotage of these facilities. But nuclear plant does away with need for such expensive and extensive feed stock facilities. Mind you, nuclear power is green energy. While gas is nonrenewable. |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by MINISTER2000: 12:19pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
homerac7: |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by juman(m): 12:22pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
Jorussia: You are right. That is too expensive. Very expensive. Government should be realistic and go for electricity generation from coal. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by Bome01(m): 12:23pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
4800mw by 2035?! U gotta be kidding me. God give me my own money make I install my own power supply either by wind or solar. The government has been taking us for granted since 1960. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by ApexTitan(m): 12:24pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
gbl01: Kindly show how you arrived at a workforce of "over 150,000". So you mean that the steel plant had more staff than say the Nigerian Army? Substantiate your claim by citing some kind of evidence. I know you just made that up so we'll let that slip for now lest we derail this thread with this side issue. Just don't do it again. |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by Calebosko(m): 12:25pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
tempest01:wey are u in akwaibom |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by ApexTitan(m): 12:34pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
@homerac7 are there any nuclear power plants in Africa? Just curious to know how the rest of the continent is meeting it's power needs. |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by homerac7: 12:38pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
ApexTitan: Yes sir! South Africa has nuclear plants. Congo DR has an old nuclear plant which I'm not sure of the state. I'm not sure about Egypt, but I will go through my library and confirm to you later. As matter of dact, Nigeria Energy Commission has a research nuclear power plant in Kaduna (?) which has been working for years. |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by homerac7: 12:41pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
ApexTitan: Yes sir! South Africa has nuclear plants. Congo DR has an old nuclear plant which I'm not sure of the state. I'm not sure about Egypt, but I will go through my library and confirm to you later. As matter of dact, Nigeria Energy Commission has a research nuclear power plant in Kaduna (?) which has been working for years. princejayboss: Oh! I'm pleased my posts was found so appealing sir. Regards. 2 Likes |
| Re: Fg Picks Geregu, Itu As 2,400mw Nuclear Power Sites by princejayboss: 12:42pm On Jun 17, 2015 |
This is a welcome development for Nigeria though no credits to PMB cause he knows nothing about this project as I have followed for a while now but one fear I have Is the radical nature of or brothers in the north? A short break down on how the facility sets up below: Power is measured in watts or kilowatts (1,000 watts) or megawatts (one million watts. An electric generator is rated in watts. A large nuclear power plant has a power of 1,000 megawatts (or one gigawatt). If a one kilowatt generator runs for an hour, it produces a kilowatt-hour of electric energy. The amount of energy handled by humanity is still small compared to the amount of energy in the sunlight that strikes the earth. It's about one part in 50,000. Energy is conserved. It can be transformed among various forms, (e.g. mechanical, electrical, chemical, heat) but the total remains the same. In each transformation, some of the energy becomes unusable, usually in the form of heat. All matter is composed of elements. The important elements for our discussion of nuclear energy are uranium, plutonium, carbon and hydrogen. Uranium and plutonium are involved in nuclear energy production, and carbon and hydrogen are the main elements in conventional fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. An atom of an element consists of a nucleus surrounded by electrons. What element it is is determined by the number of protons in the nucleus, but the elements come in various isotopes, and the isotope is defined by the number of neutrons in the nucleus. Matter takes part in two kinds of reactions involving atoms of different kinds - chemical reactions and nuclear reactions. Chemical reactions are common and re-arrange how the atoms are combined into molecules but never change what element an atom is - or even what isotope it is. The reactions involved in the production and use of non-nuclear fuels are all chemical reactions. Nuclear reactions can change what element an atom is, occur on earth only under special conditions and involve something like ten million times the energy. Thus enormously more energy can be obtained from suitable nuclear reactions than from chemical reactions. Uranium has 92 protons. Two isotopes are important. U-235 has an atomic mass of 235 and U-238 has an atomic mass of 238. Natural uranium as it comes from mines contains 140 times as much U-238 as U-235. Because the 235 is the total of protons and neutrons U-235 has 235 - 92 = 143 neutrons. Plutonium has 94 protons. Its important isotopes are Pu-239, which is used in power plants and bombs, and Pu-240 which is ok in power plants but which is a nuisance for those making bombs out of plutonium. There is also Pu-238 which is not fissionable but emits alpha particles and thereby generates heat. The amount of heat produced is convenient for powering spacecraft systems. There is very little natural plutonium. When an atom of U-238 absorbs a neutron in a nuclear reactor, it becomes U-239, which decays in a short time to Pu-239. If a Pu-239 atom stays in the reactor long enough, it absorbs another neutron and becomes an atom of Pu-240 if it doesn't fission. When an atom of U-235 or plutonium absorbs a neutron it almost always fissions. Namely, it splits into two atoms of lighter elements and emits neutrons - on the average a bit more than two. The emitted neutrons can cause further fissions in a chain reaction. In a bomb the chain reaction is very fast; in a power reactor it is slow. The two fragments are emitted at high velocity, and when they are absorbed in the fuel rod a lot of heat is produced. This heat is what powers the nuclear power plant. Separating the isotopes of elements is very expensive. There are big plants for separating U-235 from the U-238 in natural uranium. For nuclear reactors, it is economical to use uranium that has been enriched to contain 4 to 5 percent U-235 instead of the 0.7 percent U-235 of natural uranium. Bombs need over 90 percent U-235. Separating Pu from U is not very expensive, and bombs are mostly made of Pu made from U in special reactors in which the Pu-239 is promptly removed. In ordinary power reactors, the Pu-239 gets contaminated with Pu-240. Separating Pu-240 from Pu-239 is very expensive. Here are some facts about nuclear power plants. Present nuclear power plants consume uranium (specifically U-235) as fuel. When the power plant is loaded with fuel, it can run for 18 months or 2 years before it has to be refuelled, a process that takes a month or two. As the power plant operators have become more experienced, they have learned to operate longer between refuellings and take a shorter time for refuelling. When an atom of U-235 absorbs a neutron it fissions, i.e. it breaks up in parts. These parts consist mainly of two atoms of smaller elements and some neutrons. When a reactor is operating, fission of an atom of U-235 generates on the average a bit more than two neutrons. If each of two neutrons produced by a fission was absorbed by an atom of U-235 the number of fissions would double in a fraction of second and then double again and again. If this were allowed to continue, in a few seconds the reactor would be generating enough power to melt. When the reactor is turned on, the multiplication of fissions is allowed to continue until the reactor is generating power at the desired rate. Then control rods that absorb neutrons are inserted until exactly one neutron from each fission causes another fission. Because some of the neutrons caused by a fission are emitted from the fission products only after a delay of a minute or so, it is not difficult to control the power level of the reactor. Nevertheless, there are safety systems that will shut down the reactor if the power level gets too high or if the cooling water stops flowing. The power to produce electricity comes from the fact that the two atoms produced by the fission of a U-235 atom fly off at high speed, but they don't get even an inch before they hit something and are stopped. Stopping converts their energy of motion into heat, and the reactor heats up. If the heat weren't taken away, the reactor would melt. The heat from fission is taken up by water or steam pumped through the reactor. The hot steam goes through turbines connected to electric generators. About 2/3 of the heat energy is lost, and is emitted to the atmosphere or to a body of water, a river or the ocean. This loss is a consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and applies to all power plants, nuclear or coal-burning. If the highest temperature in the steam plant is T1 and the temperature at which heat is exhausted to the environment is T2, the fraction of the heat generated that can be turned into electricity is (T1 - T2)/T1. The fraction of the heat energy transformed into electric energy is called the efficiency of the power plant. For high efficiency T1 should be as high as possible and T2 as low as possible. How high T1 can be is determined by how high a temperature the materials of the reactor can be without softening. How low T2 can be is limited by the environment. Cold seawater gives a good T2. After 18 months or two years, most of the U-235 in the fuel is used up, and the fuel rods consist mainly of the products of fission, which remain radioactive and continue to generate heat. The fuel rods are placed in large pools of water which takes the remaining heat. The fuel rods become less and less radioactive with time. After the rods have cooled off for a while, they should be chemically reprocessed to extract left over uranium and some plutonium that has been produced. The left-over uranium and the plutonium can then be converted to more reactor fuel. The fission products can then be buried in stable rock formations 1 Like |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply)
Imo Governorship Re-run Election: Okorocha In Early Lead / Senator Mohammed Sani Musa Celebrates Supreme Court Victory With Lawan Omo-Agege / Buhari Snubs APC Over ‘mismanaged’ N7bn Fund.
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 106 |