Title of paper

5. References

Hoogenhout, P. 2007. Electicity in Namibia – Quo vadis?; The Namibian, 11 May 2007.
Von Oertzen, D. 2011. Namibia’s energy future – a case for renewables. Windhoek. Konrad Adenauer Foundation.

6. Further reading recommendations

NaDEET / Namib Desert Environmental Education Trust. 2011. Sustainable Energy for All!; at http://www.nadeet.org/sites/default/files/pdf/educational_material/BT%20Vol%2011%20No%201.pdf; last accessed 13 February 2014.
Ndhlukula, K. 2012. Namibian policy perspectives on solar energy; at http://ir.polytechnic.edu.na/handle/10628/305; last accessed 13 February 2014.
Ndhlukula, K. 2012. Renewable for growing cities in Africa – a roadmap form 2012; at http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/events/NaplesSeptember2012/Kuda_Ndhlukula.pdf; last accessed 13 February 2014.

Chapter 3

Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power

The Current Nuclear Situation – is Uranium a Blessing or a Curse for Namibia?

By Bertchen Kohrs

1. Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to inform on the current situation of Namibia’s nuclear industry. Namibia is currently the fifth biggest uranium producer and is striving to become second on the global uranium market. This puts huge responsibilities on the Namibian government.
Is uranium a blessing or a curse? Through heated debates, concerned people try to find an acceptable answer to this question. Environmentalists and human rights activists see the situation very differently than politicians, developers and investors. While discussing nuclear energy people normally think about the persistent risks of nuclear power plants, the nuclear waste generated and the unsolved problem to safely store the waste for 100,000 years, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
The severe impact on the natural environment and the health of the mine workers through the mining of uranium is hardly ever mentioned, while most countries with nuclear power plants need to import uranium to fuel their plants. The many ecological, social and long-term impacts caused through mining and processing uranium must also be included in deliberations on nuclear power.
Uranium mining in African countries is regarded as future position for many foreign prospecting and mining companies, while the consumers of uranium are industrialised countries. Environmental and social legislation in countries with own huge uranium deposits such as Canada and Australia became very strict, making it too cost intensive to mine uranium at home. “The Canadian and Australian have become over-sophisticated in their environmental and social concerns over uranium mining, the future of uranium is in Africa”, as John Borshoff, the Managing Director of the Australian mining company Paladin Energy, put it (Sun Herald, 2006).
Lack of legislative frameworks on the uranium industry and on labour issues invite foreign companies to come to Africa. Other incentives are the high unemployment rate in African countries, labour conditions often ignoring human rights, generally low wages and workers not properly informed about the danger they are exposed to when mining uranium. Some African countries are competing against each other by attracting foreign investment, thereby lowering environmental health, safety and human rights standards in a race for quick and short-term gain.
In the time of climate change, the nuclear lobby tries to make people believe that nuclear power generation is the answer to prevent global warming and climate change and is safe and clean. People in countries where uranium is mined can tell another story, but their voices are ignored.
As long as the uranium is kept in the ground it is relatively harmless to the environment and the people. Only through mining the toxic and radioactive elements and all its decay products (radio nuclides) are released in huge amounts into the biosphere, where they contaminate soil, air, and water, at the same time negatively affecting the health of mine workers and nearby residents. The effects of uranium mining spread far beyond the mining sites.
Huge amounts of waste rock and tailings are produced during mining and processing containing elevated concentrations of toxic and radioactive substances. The waste continues to threaten people and the environment long after closure of the mine due to their constant release of radon gas and seepage containing radioactive and toxic substances likely to contaminate the groundwater persistently. Dust containing raised levels of radioactivity and toxic substances is dispersed through wind over large areas, sometimes carrying dust over hundreds of kilometres affecting residents far away from the mining site.

Map 1: Dust plumes are blown (probably carrying radioactive and toxic substances) from the Central Namib out to the sea for hundreds of kilometres with seasonal berg winds, as seen in this satellite photo (Source: Pallett, Roan News 2008: 13).
Land degradation takes place on a big scale. Huge areas of land cannot be used for crop production or keeping of life-stock or tourism anymore. Uranium extraction can cause long-term contamination of surface and groundwater, soil, air, fauna and flora and loss of biodiversity.
Rehabilitation of mine sites is a big challenge to government and mining companies. Insufficient knowledge of the ecosystem of the Namib Desert and the absence of a well defined regulatory framework regarding the issue of rehabilitation are the major reasons why mining companies do not have proper closure plans in place.

2. Background information on Namibia’s uranium

In Namibia, uranium deposits are mainly situated in the Namib Desert of the Erongo Region in the protected National Namib Naukluft Park and the recently proclaimed Dorob Park.


Map 2: Black spots indicate the deposits of uranium. Most deposits are located in the National Namib Naukluft Park and the Dorob Park (Source: MME).