They could pay someone else to deal with. Like Native Americans, who, living on sovereign land, aren't subject to the same regulations as the rest of us. Tribes that don't have the wherewithal to build casinos are finding it fairly lucrative to use their own lands as medical, toxic and nuclear landfills. I'm sure there's someone in Africa who's willing to get paid by Senegal to take their old nuclear fuel. Shit - pay Iran, they could make an atomic bomb out of it.

You know, back in the day, nations that couldn't mine or afford to buy enough tin to make their own bronze ended up learning how to forge their own iron tools and weapons, which later took over the world. The rich always end up complacent and stagnant because well, if it ain't broke, why fix it? And so they are slow to see change coming, which usually turns out to be disastrous for them.

In this way the poor nations that have neither their own fossil fuels nor the military power to capture foreign fossil fuels must needs make do with innovation, which in turn will make them rich (just you wait) when the existing status quo runs out of, well, fossil fuel.

I'm hoping that Senegal will find that building nuclear power plants is a risky venture, even more so if you have (gasp!) Muslim population or if you happen to make the wrong kind of friends. I'm hoping they figure this out very quickly and pursue innovation instead. It's horrific poverty may be Africa's best hope for future prosperity.

Or I may be on crack. Whichever.

Nuclear waste is unlikely to be the problem with nuclear power for Senegal. I am sure that French companies will be happy to reprocess the Senegalese spent nuclear fuel. In fact, my guess would be that the international community would prefer if France took care of the fuel. Or maybe they will end with ties to the South Africans. I don't pretend to know enough of African politics to hazard a guess on which is more likely.

Regardless, from what little I know of Senegal, dealing with nuclear waste won't be their biggest problem. Developing and importing technical know-how are bigger issues, but if the price is right I am sure they can find people willing to it.

But the UN's Atoms for Peace program put several dozen reactors in Africa in the 50's and 60's.

I am afraid that they are not exploring every option. In a country with abundant supply of sunshine, and hundreds of kilometres of ocean coastline, people are extremely sceptical about the present government's talk of biofuel and nuclear power. Citizens have questioned why very little is being done in terms of government policy to boost interest in solar energy, which could turn out to be a more sustainable energy source for Senegal. People are more worried that in a country beset with perenial drought conditions, there is very little rain and when it comes, it virtually washes away the parched earth, where food production is far from sufficient, the government wants to focus on biofuel, which could become the focus of agriculture production, rather than for much needed food crops...the list of worries is long. The minister's talk is just an example of government leadership that believes it alone knows what is best for the citizens, regardless of glaring facts on the ground, and not that of a forward thinking leadership working for the best interest of its citizens that the writer seems to hope.

I don't know the details of the reactor but it sounds very suspicious.

Coal is the cheapest fuel , and will be well into the future. Uranium is already skyrocketing in price. suspicious. (I hate coal but this a poor country)

Linking the country with power lines is very expensive. suspicious

Indeed it sounds like the work of an economic hitman, whereby a country is lured into massive debt then forced into restructuring its laws and governmeent spending to suit the creditors. Classic neoliberal colonialism.

Read : Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins

Questions not asked: does Senegal have a state-owned oil company? Yes:

http://www.petrosen.sn/

Do they subsidize the price of those products? Yes again:

http://tinyurl.com/2oastc

Behind every shortage, you'll find a subsidy.

Yeah that's probably not a great idea. Unless you have a way to deliver a coupla billion cu ft of water.

Jatropha curcas is the species currently being used in biofuels production. Like the other species of Jatropha, it is well-adapted to grow in arid and semi-arid conditions, and can be interplanted with other crops, so that farmers are not faced with growing either food or fuel, but can grow both simultaneously. One of the reasons its use in Senegal is being promoted is precisely because its cultivation does not squeeze out food production. Unlike corn or sugarcane, it does not require fertilizer. Neither does it require irrigation, so it can be planted on land unsuitable for food production. One more advantage: it is a perennial plant, so more of its seed production can go toward fuels, rather than replanting. It requires a semi-tropical or tropical temperature regime, so it is unsuitable for extensive use in temperate climates.

Coal may be cheap in the USA, but even here shipping that coal is a huge fraction of the cost the coal. This is why, for example, there is currently a push underway for Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad (which is merging with Canadian Pacific) to get government subsidies to expand it lines connecting Wyoming coal mines with the Eastern US.

For a country with no coal reserves, building coal plants may not make any sense. Though I agree with other that Senegal should probably be looking into solar power, nuclear power may make sense as well. Uranium prices may be rising, but the cost of uranium is a relatively small part of the cost of a nuclear power plant.