power

In the context of emerging new world, key global powers are thumbing up their strategic agendas, seriously evaluating their approaches in taking positions on diverse issues including security, trade and economics with implications for and impact on developing countries. Notwithstanding, Africa has seemingly become the center of the geopolitics, and the United States tariffs China’s trade while Russia attempts to assert its control over Ukraine’s ambitions to join North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO].

In early May 2025, MD Africa editor Kester Kenn Klomegah had the chance to talk with Professor Arnold Boateng over a number questions connecting evolutionary geopolitical process and its implications and likely impact on shaping world’s landscape. Professor Arnold Boateng is an Entrepreneur, Consultant, Speaker and Author. [Books: Dreams of Our Youth: The African Youth Question: Ananse Verses: Foundations for Life…Available from Amazon & Kindle Store].  Here are the interview excerpts:

Which global power is emerging and could, in the near future, be recognized as the super power?

Professor Arnold Boateng: In terms of Security Russia is already a superpower. It has a much [official records] ICBMs and nuclear weapons as the United States. On the economic front, China is more likely to take over. It has the ambition and intent. By purchasing power parity, it surpassed the United States a year ago or two ago.

Russia on the other seems to be more interested in dethroning the United States to put an end to America’s unilateralism, exceptionalism and the chaos in Eastern Europe, the Pacific and Latin America. Recently, Robert Gates was quoted as saying; “The United States is  the most destabilizing force on earth.”

China has a long way though. The final chip for a really superpower is to have your currency as “reserve currency.” China is a long way from that but within reach in a couple of years.

Would China want to be a superpower having seen what unchecked power has altered American foreign policy and excesses?

AB: Global majority is seriously betting on China. And my bet is on China too. But this does not rule out Russia if it could have the ambition. China should learn from the errors of the United States. It should acknowledge that one leader may sit on the throne but he does not rule alone. If Beijing is willing to have a multipolar world, then as they say;” China would have the Mandate of Heaven to lead and NOT rule.

Does it mean power is steadily moving from the northern hemisphere to South-South coalition?

AB: Power has already shifted. It did when Russia and China won Eurasia. We are merely waiting to see the reality play out in the open. Europe is deindustrialising. Their manufacturing sector has slowed due to high energy cost among other factors.

On security front, its benefactor has been the United States through NATO. With Trump’s policy of America first Europe has seen the writing on the wall. Resources for Europe’s industrial drive have largely come from the south. Nigerien uranium power 70% of France’s energy needs. Cobalt, gold, and other minerals driving their tech and general industrial push have come from the south.

The South-South coalition is on the rose. First, they have the raw materials and energy resources. They have a Highly educated and skill workforce in STEM. They have a youthful population and fast moving economies.

Apparently is it rather West vs. East?

AB: It should be the East. The world, especially Africa, has seen the enough to choose the East over the West. The West’s colonial project set Africa back for more than a century. We have endured their economic hitmen, wars and falsification of African history. Everywhere they have been, had been destabilized. In India, during the colonial project, opium wars in China; Libya, Iraq and regime change in Latin America and all over the world.

In a context of this inevitable evolutionary process, how can describe Africa’s position in the shifting power dynamics?

AB: For now Africa is divided. Africa looks either confuse or has failed to read the shifting power centres.

Africa is central to China’s rise and maintaining their position. Without DRC cobalt, the electronic industry and new tech economies could  not be sustained.

Africa is the King who does not know who he is. 

Can we conclude that China is the leading economic power? What makes Africa’s economic position uncertain in sharing global power?

AB: China controls more 85% of global supply chain. It is in the lead but it cannot get to the top alone. It lacked historical prestige. Much of its 5,000 year history it has been a closed system especially after the Ming took over from the Yuan Dynasty. It opened up under British Imperial project and closed again until President Nixon opened it up. Then Tiananmen happened.

The world is not seeking for another Superpower again considering the excesses of the United States around the globe when the Soviet Union declined in the 1990s. We are looking for a round table leadership. Africa is divided. We lack a coherent continent wide vision. Clearly, without sounding disrespectful, it looks like Africa does not know what is going on. We are oblivious to the shifting centres of power. African must stand together. We must have a common BRICS policy. A common China policy and assert good governance; regional industrial policy; common resource extraction and contracts policy. Common intelligence and security infrastructure among other critical systems necessary for being part of the shapers of the emerging global order.

The radiation containment domes at Arizona’s Palo Verde Generating Station were, truth be told, pretty boring to look at: giant mounds of concrete, snap a picture, move on. The enormous cooling towers and evaporation ponds were marginally more interesting — all that recycled water, baking in the Sonoran Desert.

You know what really struck my fancy, though? The paintings on conference room walls.

There were five of them, each representing one of the far-flung Southwestern cityscapes powered by Palo Verde. Two showcased Arizona: one for the Phoenix metro area — saguaro cacti and ocotillo in the foreground, freeway and skyscrapers in the background — and one for the red-rock country to the north. Another showed downtown Albuquerque. A fourth portrayed farm fields in El Paso, likely irrigated with water from the Rio Grande.

Then there was an image that may have looked familiar to Southern Californians: Pacific Coast Highway, twisting through a seaside neighborhood that looks very much like Malibu before the Palisades fire.

A painting of Pacific Coast Highway winding through Southern California, on display at Arizona’s Palo Verde nuclear plant.

(Sammy Roth / Los Angeles Times)

That’s right: If you live in Los Angeles County, there’s a good chance your computer, your phone, your refrigerator and your bedside lamp are powered, at least some of the time, by nuclear reactors.

The city of L.A., Southern California Edison and a government authority composed of cities including Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena all own stakes in Palo Verde, the nation’s second-largest power plant. In 2023, the most recent year for which data are available, the plant was L.A.’s single largest energy source, supplying nearly 14% of the city’s electricity. The reactors supplied just over 9% of Edison’s power.

During a tour last month, I walked past the switchyard, a tangle of poles and wires where energy is transferred to power lines marching west and east. When all three reactors are running, the yard can transfer “the equivalent of half of the peak [electric demand] of the state of California on its hottest day,” according to John Hernandez, vice president of site services for utility company Arizona Public Service, which runs the plant.

“So it is a massive, massive switchyard,” Hernandez said.

For all the heated debate over the merits of nuclear energy as a climate change solution, the reality is it’s already a climate change solution. Nuclear plants including Palo Verde generate nearly one-fifth of the nation’s electricity, churning out 24/7, emissions-free power. Shutting down the nuclear fleet tomorrow would cause a giant uptick in coal and gas combustion, worsening the heat waves, wildfires and storms of the climate crisis.

Phasing out the nation’s 94 nuclear reactors over a period of decades, on the other hand, might be manageable — and there’s a case to be made for it. Extracting uranium for use as nuclear fuel has left extensive groundwater contamination and air pollution across the Southwest, especially on tribal lands, including the Navajo Nation.

“When we talk about nuclear, thoughts often go toward spent fuel storage, or the safety of reactors themselves,” said Amber Reimondo, energy director at the Grand Canyon Trust, a nonprofit conservation group. “But I think an often overlooked piece…has been the impacts to those who are at the beginning of the supply chain.”

Reimondo participated in a panel that I moderated at Palo Verde, part of the annual conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists. She noted that the nation’s only active conventional uranium mill — where uranium is leached from crushed rock — is located in Utah, just a few miles from the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation.

Waste ponds at Energy Fuels’ White Mesa uranium mill in southeastern Utah.

(Jim West / UCG / Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Even during the Biden years, Reimondo said, it was tough to overcome bipartisan enthusiasm for nuclear energy and “get folks to take seriously the impacts that [tribal] communities are feeling” from mining and milling.

“We just haven’t reached a place in this country where we are listening to these folks,” she said.

That dynamic has remained true during the second Trump administration. Just this week, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said his agency would fast-track permitting for a uranium mine proposed by Anfield Energy in Utah’s San Juan County, completing the environmental review — which would normally take a year — in just 14 days.

Burgum and President Trump, like Biden-era officials before them, say it’s unwise for the U.S. to rely on overseas suppliers for nearly all its uranium. But many environmental activists, even some who are fans of nuclear, believe running roughshod over Indigenous nations and public lands is disgraceful. And counterproductive.

Victor Ibarra Jr., senior manager for nuclear energy at the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force, said rebuilding the U.S. nuclear power supply chain will require local buy-in — on the front end, where uranium is mined, and on the back end, where spent fuel is stored. Thus far, political opposition has derailed every attempt to build a permanent fuel storage site, meaning nuclear waste is piling up at power plants across the country.

If there’s any hope for more uranium mining and power plants, Ibarra said, it will involve a lot of conversations — conversations that lead to less pollution, and fewer mistakes like those made during the 20th century.

“I think it’s really unfortunate that the nuclear industry has behaved the way it has in the past,” he said.

The benefits of nuclear reactors are straightforward: They generate climate-friendly electricity around the clock, while taking up far less land than solar or wind farms. If building new nuclear plants were cheap and easy — and we could solve the lingering pollution and safety concerns — then doing so would be a climate no-brainer.

If only.

The only two nuclear reactors built in the U.S. in decades came online at Georgia Power’s Vogtle plant in 2023 and 2024, respectively, and cost $31 billion, according to the Associated Press. That was $17 billion over budget.

Units 1 and 2 at the Vogtle nuclear plant near Waynesboro, Ga., seen in 2024.

(Mike Stewart / Associated Press)

Meanwhile, efforts to build small modular reactors have proved more expensive than large nuclear plants.

“It would really be quite unprecedented in the history of engineering, and in the history of energy, for something that is much smaller to have a lower price per megawatt,” said Joe Romm, a senior researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media. “We try to make use of the economies of scale.”

Those setbacks haven’t stopped wealthy investors including billionaires Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos from bankrolling efforts to bring down the cost of small modular reactors, in hopes that mini-nuclear plants will someday join solar panels and wind turbines as crucial tools in replacing planet-warming fossil fuels.

I hope they succeed. But I’m not going to spend much time worrying about it.

Like I said earlier: Love it or hate it, nuclear is already a huge part of the nation’s power mix, including here in L.A. We’ve lived with it, almost always safely, for decades — at Palo Verde, at Washington state’s Centralia Generating Station, at the Diablo Canyon plant on California’s Central Coast. Nuclear, for all its flaws, is hardly the apocalyptic threat to humanity that its most righteous detractors make it out to be.

It’s also not the One True Solution to humanity’s energy woes, as many of its techno-optimist devotees claim it to be. There’s a reason that solar, wind and batteries made up nearly 94% of new power capacity built in the U.S. last year: They’re cheap. And although other technologies will be needed to help solar and wind phase out fossil fuels, some researchers have found that transitioning to 100% clean energy is possible even without nuclear.

So what’s the answer? Is nuclear power good or bad?

I wish it were that simple. To the extent existing nuclear plants limit the amount of new infrastructure we need to build to replace fossil fuels: good. To the extent we’re unable to eliminate pollution from uranium mining: bad. To the extent small reactors might give us another tool to complement solar and wind, alongside stuff like advanced geothermal — good, although we probably shouldn’t spend too much more taxpayer money on it yet.

Sorry not to offer up more enthusiasm, or more outrage. The climate crisis is a big, thorny problem that demands nuance and thoughtful reflection. Not every question can be answered with a snappy soundbite.

Before leaving Palo Verde, I stopped by the conference room for a last look at the paintings: Arizona. New Mexico. Texas. California. It was strange to think this plant was responsible for powering so many different places.

It was strange to think the uranium concealed beneath those domes could power so many different places.

A painting of metro Phoenix, on display at Arizona’s Palo Verde nuclear plant.

(Sammy Roth / Los Angeles Times)

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our “Boiling Point” podcast here.

For more climate and environment news, follow @Sammy_Roth on X and @sammyroth.bsky.social on Bluesky.

Taipei, Taiwan – As Taiwan prepares to shut down its last nuclear reactor, soaring energy demand driven by the island’s semiconductor industry is rekindling a heated debate about nuclear power.

Taiwan’s electricity needs are expected to rise by 12-13 percent by 2030, largely driven by the boom in artificial intelligence (AI), according to the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Environmental group Greenpeace has estimated that the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), the world’s largest contract chipmaker, will by itself consume as much electricity as roughly one-quarter of the island’s some 23 million people by the same date.

The self-ruled island’s soaring appetite for power complicates Taipei’s pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, which is heavily dependent on raising renewable energy production to about 60-70 percent of the total from about 12 percent at present.

Nuclear power advocates argue that the energy source is the most feasible way for Taiwan to reach its competing industrial and environmental goals.

On Tuesday, Taiwan’s legislature passed an amendment to allow nuclear power plants to apply for licences to extend operations beyond the existing 40-year limit.

The opposition Kuomintang and Taiwan People’s Party passed the bill over the objections of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, which came to power in 2016 on a pledge to achieve a “nuclear-free homeland”.

The legal change will not halt Sunday’s planned closure of the last operating reactor – the No 2 reactor at the Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant – though it casts doubt over the island’s longstanding opposition to nuclear power.

The government said after the vote that it had no immediate plans for any future nuclear power projects, though Premier Cho Jung-tai indicated earlier that the government would not oppose the restoration of decommissioned reactors if the amendment passed.

Cho said Taipei was “open” to nuclear power provided safety was ensured and the public reached a consensus on the issue.

Any move to restart the local nuclear industry would, at a minimum, take years.

Taiwan began its civilian nuclear programme in the 1950s with the assistance of technology from the United States.

By 1990, state-owned power firm Taipower operated three plants with the capacity to generate more than one-third of the island’s electricity needs.

‘Renewable energy isn’t stable’

Angelica Oung, a member of the Clean Energy Transition Alliance who supports nuclear power, said Taiwan could generate about 10 percent of its energy requirements from nuclear plants when the DDP came to power nearly a decade ago.

“Energy emissions at the time were lower than now – isn’t that ridiculous?” Oung told Al Jazeera.

“At the time, it was reasonable to launch the anti-nuclear policy as the public was still recovering from the devastating Fukushima nuclear disaster … but now even Japan has now decided to return to nuclear,” Oung said, referring to Tokyo’s plans to generate 20 percent of its power from the energy source by 2040.

“That’s because renewables simply don’t work.”

“The supply of renewable energy isn’t stable … solar energy, for example, needs the use of batteries,” Oung added.

While the 2011 Fukushima disaster helped solidify opposition to nuclear power, Taiwan’s history of anti-nuclear activism stretches back decades earlier.

The DPP was founded just months after the 1986 Chornobyl disaster and included an anti-nuclear clause in its charter.

The following year, the Indigenous Tao people launched protests against Taipower’s policy of dumping nuclear waste on Orchid Island, helping cement the civil anti-nuclear movement.

Nuclear energy attracted further negative scrutiny in the 1990s, when it emerged that about 10,000 people had been exposed to low levels of radiation due to the use of radioactive scrap metals in building materials.

In 2000, Taipei halted construction of a planned fourth nuclear plant amid protests by environmental groups.

A 2021 referendum proposal to restart work on the mothballed project was defeated 52.84 percent to 47.16 percent.

Chia-wei Chao, research director of the Taiwan Climate Action Network, said nuclear power is not the answer to Taiwan’s energy needs.

“Developing nuclear energy in Taiwan often means cutting the budget for boosting renewables, as opposed to other countries,” Chao told Al Jazeera.

Chao said Taiwan’s nuclear plants were built without taking into account the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis, and that establishing a local industry that meets modern standards would be costly and difficult.

“Extension of the current plants and reactors means having to upgrade the infrastructure to meet more updated safety standards and factoring in quake risks. This costs a lot, so nuclear energy doesn’t translate into cheaper electricity,” he said.

Lena Chang, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia, said that reviving nuclear energy would not only be costly, but potentially dangerous, too.

“We, Greenpeace, firmly [oppose] restarting nuclear plants or expanding the use of nuclear because nuclear poses an unresolved safety, waste and environmental risk, particularly in Taiwan – a small island that can’t afford a nuclear and environmental disaster,” Chang told Al Jazeera.

Chang said the chip industry should have to contribute to the cost of switching to renewable energy sources.

“They should be responsible for meeting their own green energy demand, instead of leaving all the work to Taipower, as any of the money to build more energy plants and storage facilities ultimately comes from people’s tax money,” she said.

Chao agreed, saying chip giants such as TSMC should lead the push to go green.

“The chipmaking industry is here to stay … Sure, energy supply will be tight in the next three years, but it’s still enough,” he said.

SHOPPERS are calling this popular portable charger a travel essential.

The Anker Zolo Power Bank is currently on sale for just £12.98, an absolute bargain for such a trusted brand.

1

Anker Zolo Portable Power Bank, £19.99 £12.98

I spotted it at number two on Amazon’s best-selling portable chargers list, and at this price, it’s no surprise it’s climbing the ranks.

The Anker name has become synonymous with portable chargers, and this Zolo Power Bank, typically priced at £19.99, is now slashed to just £12.98.

With such a great deal, it’s no wonder more than 5,000 have been snapped up on Amazon in the past month alone.

If you’re always on the go, whether travelling abroad or commuting, the Anker Zolo is perfect for keeping your gadgets powered up.

This model comes with 30W fast charging, ideal when checking out of a hotel or heading to a flight with a dying battery.

It promises to boost an iPhone from 0 to just shy of 60% in just 30 minutes, which is good going.

It packs a 10,000mAh battery, which is small enough to tuck into your carry-on or pocket but powerful enough to give your phone up to two full charges.

If you juggle multiple tech devices, the bi-directional charging is a lifesaver, letting you power your devices and recharge the power bank itself in no time.

The built-in woven USB-C cable is a smart touch, too, and durable enough to survive over 10,000 bends.

That’s reassuring, especially as counterfeit power banks can pose serious risks, including overheating and starting fires.

Shoppers are won over, with the product boasting an impressive 4.5-star rating and plenty of glowing reviews.

One shopper called it “essential for travelling,” adding, “So good I bought two of them (one for the car, one for my work bag).

They continued, “I’m particularly impressed how compact it is, and the tethered cable means you don’t have to bring one.”

Another praised its performance, saying, “Small charger with fast charger capabilities. Recharges fast as well compared to my previous power bank.”

A third reviewer summed it up perfectly: “Probably the best one I’ve used so far, and I have tried around three or four different ones, charges fast and has a good capacity.”

There are also surprising power-saving mobile tricks to keep your battery from draining, like avoiding using dark mode.

This isn’t the first time Amazon has dropped the price on a popular power bank, with another ‘reliable and powerful’ Anker charger reduced from £23 to just £8 last week.

Anker Zolo Portable Power Bank, £19.99 £12.98