Ghana has been ready for nuclear energy for the past 12 years, according to one nuclear science expert, who says that Government's announcement of "feasibility studies” this week are unnecessary, given the wealth of research and experience which already exists within the Ghana nuclear field.

Edmund Kwadwo Osae is a former Deputy Director of the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission, and a Professor in Physics at the University of Ghana, Legon. Speaking yesterday in an interview with The Statesman, he said that with a 30 kilowatt research nuclear reactor in use at the Atomic Energy Commission since 1995, there should be no question of the logistics of implementing nuclear energy in Ghana.

Rather, Government ought to take a firm decision on the energy form now, according to the nuclear specialist:
'We"re not ready, we’re not ready,’ has been the persistent cry of Government and its advisors, according to Prof Osae, “But rather - we have been ready for the last 11 or 12 years.”

Now, some say it could take up to 10 years to implement nuclear energy in Ghana; Prof Osae believes it should be no longer than seven or eight years, if the process is begun immediately.Atomic foundations

Nuclear research in Ghana began under the Government of Kwame Nkrumah, with the establishment of an Atomic Energy Commission in 1964 to ensure the peaceful use of energy in Ghana – with plans to build a 2 megawatt reactor.

At the time, the facility was to be a research one, but in exploring the new technology, the aim was that, within time, nuclear energy might be introduced in Ghana.

When Nkrumah was overthrown in 1966, the project fell by the wayside, however; although the National Centre for Radioisotope Application continued some of the work of the Atomic Energy Commission, its research focus was primarily on the medical uses of isotopes, rather than their potential as energy providers.

Furthermore, advice from scientists and development partners elsewhere during the Cold War era was firmly fixed against nuclear, carrying as it does the potential for nuclear weapons, and towards fossil fuel and hydro energy forms.

In 1973/74, the Acheampong government decided to reactivate the defunct Atomic Energy Commission, and since then there has been a constant body of nuclear researchers and testers working in Ghana, even though the concept of nuclear energy has been consistently crushed by successive governments, according to Prof Osae and others.

By 1993, Ghana had nonetheless developed a productive relationship with the International Atomic Energy Commission, and through them managed to acquire the 30 kilowatt research reactor, from the Chinese. It has been functioning since 1995. Why nuclear?

Prof Osae has been a firm advocate of nuclear energy for many years. "I was one of the people who always believed that with the resources that we have, we have no option but to go nuclear," he said.

He pointed out that the majority of Ghana’s energy still comes from hydro sources, despite the construction of the Tema thermal plant.

"Because of this trouble of Harmattan and irregular rainfall, Ghana is not going to make it with hydro power. Burkina Faso has also built a dam further up the same river, which is reducing the volume of water which reaches the Akosombo. We could all see it that year by year we experience this. So hydro now is going to be the least option for Ghana."

Last year, Government signed an agreement with the Chinese Government - $600m for the Bui Dam, which will be constructed on the Volta River by 2012, and is expected to provide some 400 megawatts of additional electricity to our national grid. Prof Osae is against the idea, however; for an extra $400m, Government could have built a nuclear reactor with capacity to create 1,000 megawatts, and which is not dependent on Ghana’s undependable weather system.

Even in terms of other energy, nuclear is the most reliable option, according to the physicist – with oil prices subject to fluctuation and affected by politics and war in the Middle East, and gas coming through the West African Gas Pipeline from Nigeria, another nation prone to volatility: "Suppose one day they say we are not very friendly, so they decide to shut it."

"Nuclear is the best option for any country with no natural resources of its own, because the fuel [uranium] is not used for anything else."

As for alternative energy sources, such as solar power, Prof Osae pointed to the limited potential of such sources: whilst solar power is an environmentally-friendly and cost effective way of providing energy for residential areas and individual homes, it would never produce enough power to fuel industry.

Ghana needs to add 100 megawatts of power every year for the next 20 years if it is to meet energy needs. Indeed, these projections are based on a 6 percent per annum economic growth; if Ghana is on track to meet Middle Income Status anytime soon, growth needs to be higher and energy demands increased, as Prof Osae points out.

"We are not talking about 10 megawatts here and there – and the kind of quantities we need, I believe only nuclear can provide, although no options should be thrown away."

On the question of safety, Prof Osae pointed out that everything will be imported. Nuclear also makes economic sense. Although the initial capital outlay will be higher, the running costs means that within several years, the expense would have been cancelled out. The running cost for uranium is only 20 percent that being spent on thermal electricity at Tema; and because only a small amount of fuel is needed, it can be stockpiled for 10 years, reducing significantly the risk associated with fuel supply and price instability.

Prof Osae also pointed out the vast improvements in nuclear technology in recent years, meaning that the reactors which are being built today take around five years to build and last for 60 years, compared to the previous reactors which took seven years to build and lasted for only 40 years.

In terms of safety, Prof Osae explained the vast improvements in technology since the devastating Chernobyl disaster in Russia in 1986 – a catastrophe which many still associate with modern nuclear energy production.

"The people who are going to provide the technology are the people who know it" – with suppliers likely to come from the UK or the US. "In the last few years, the emphasis has been on reactor safety; and therefore the new reactors that are being built have inherent safety mechanisms, so that when pressure builds, it would collapse within – rather than exploding without."

Certain measures will need to be put in place first, however: protection, safety and regulatory laws which will be supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Addressing those who have expressed concern about nuclear energy in Ghana, Prof Osae suggested that current opposition is concerned is due to, "lack of knowledge, and people not willing to change."

Further, "nuclear energy started on the wrong side," according to Prof Osae, "it was used in the war before it was used for peaceful purposes." It is telling, however, that Japan, which was twice attacked with nuclear bombs in 1945, has now firmly embraced nuclear energy. 140, 000 are estimated to have died from the Hiroshima bomb and its effects, and 70,000 in Nagasaki.

In 2003, the country had 54 nuclear reactors – third only to the 104 in the United States (now 102) and 59 in France. Nuclear power now accounts for 34.3 percent of all energy in Japan.

For more on nuclear energy, including the environmental implications, read The Statesman tomorrow.