Listen to This Article Enhance your reading experience by listening to this article.

Kenya’s ambition of building a nuclear energy plant seems to be still alive. But it is a journey that is precarious as it is daunting. The bottom line, based on the viability and safety of nuclear energy in a Kenyan context, is whether we are ready for such a delicate, complicated and massive undertaking. Do we have enough resources, both financial and human resource, to initiate and sustain a nuclear energy project?

Globally, there is increasing debate about the cost and benefits of nuclear power. While there are those who feel that nuclear energy is a safe, sustainable and environmentally friendly source of energy, others feel that the potential risks are not worth it.

Opponents cite major nuclear reactor accidents like the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the former United Soviet Socialist Republic and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan as examples of the deadly effects of a nuclear meltdown. They say the radiological effects on the environment are irreparable.

Secondly, even considering the contribution of private investors, the cost of building a nuclear plant is simply prohibitive. Local nuclear experts estimate that building such a facility would cost the government about Sh3.5 trillion, more than double our annual budget. Now, with all the unmet demands of national development, this looks like a pipe dream.  Moreover, a nuclear plant’s lifespan has a maximum of 60 years, after which it must be decommissioned.

With decommissioning comes the nightmare of managing nuclear waste. The used fuel, which has a lifespan of 300 years, is currently put in special receptacles and buried deep in geological depositories. Any leakage would be catastrophic to life in all its forms.

A nuclear plant needs colossal amounts of fresh water – three tonnes per minute – to cool the core of the reactor and avoid a meltdown. Sea water is not used since it is corrosive. Can our water bodies deliver such capacity? Furthermore, climate change poses a major risk to nuclear energy infrastructure due to reduction of precipitation levels and droughts. Shortage of fresh water can lead to hampering of power output or shutting down of nuclear reactors. Such disruptions might become a common phenomenon in the long run, unless global warming is arrested now.

But we still cannot dismiss the benefits of nuclear power offhand. First, it produces high energy density at a much lower cost compared to other sources. For instance, it uses a few grams of uranium to generate the same amount of power that would use tonnes of coal to produce.

When it comes to safety, proponents of nuclear power observe that fission-electric reactors have caused fewer fatalities per unit of energy generated than the other major sources of energy generation. They note that energy production from coal, petroleum, natural gas and hydroelectricity has caused a greater number of fatalities per unit of energy generated due to air pollution and energy accident effects.

Nuclear energy is also reliable unlike other sources like hydro, wind and solar which depend on the weather. In addition, the energy can be stored in large amounts for future use.

Ultimately, however, it is all about priorities. Does Kenya really have the capacity and wherewithal for such an undertaking, even as we are still struggling to meet the most basic

UN social development goals?

In December 2013, Forbes magazine reported that in developed countries, reactors are not a viable source of new power. The globally respected magazine also noted that even in developed nations where they make economic sense, they are not feasible because of nuclear’s enormous costs, political and popular opposition, and regulatory uncertainty. 

— The writer is PhD student in International Relations