Nuclear energy is low carbon, high intensity and consistent, but also expensive, hazardous, and perhaps simply unnecessary.
As countries in Africa envision their future energy systems, more and more governments are considering the nuclear option. South Africa already operates a nuclear power station, while the likes of Egypt and Nigeria are actively exploring possibilities.
For some, this trend towards nuclear is a sign of sensible policymaking and a source of hope for the continent. For others, it is emblematic of wrongheaded calculations and a source of great concern.
Why is nuclear power so contentious? Is it a truly viable option for Africa? Is it worth pursuing?
The case for nuclear
On the surface, nuclear energy appears to be a straightforward technology. Nuclear reactions generate heat to turn water into steam, which powers turbines to produce electricity. The process mirrors that of coal, oil, and gas plants, expect that unlike burning fossil fuels, nuclear generation does not emit carbon dioxide emissions. This is why advocates consider it to be a clean energy source.
Nuclear energy is also valued for its remarkably high energy density. Estimates suggest that just 1 kg of enriched uranium can produce the equivalent of over 162 metric tons of coal or 41,000 gallons of liquified natural gas. In terms of land use, a nuclear plant producing 1 GW could occupy as little as 0.1 km². A solar farm generating the same output would need approximately 2.8 km², according to calculations from The Breakthrough Institute.
Nuclear power has further benefits. Its capacity factor – a measure of how often a power plant runs at full capacity – is an impressive 92.7%. This far exceeds that of solar (24.6%) or wind (34.6%), whose output depends on weather conditions. Nuclear energy also offers high power output. A typical nuclear plant can produce between 1,000 and 1,500 megawatts of electricity – enough to power millions of households and sustain industrial growth. While solar and wind technologies are improving, they are still far behind nuclear in terms of large-scale, consistent generation.
In terms of the lifespan of infrastructure, nuclear has an edge too. Nuclear plants typically operate for 40-60 years, with the possibility of extending to up to 80 years with proper maintenance, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Solar panels and wind turbines generally require significant refurbishments after just 20-30 years.
This set of advantages explains why numerous African countries are pursuing nuclear as a part of their energy strategies. South Africa is the only country on the continent currently operating a nuclear plant, with its Koeberg Nuclear Power Station generating around 5% of the nation’s electricity. But Egypt has struck a deal with Russia to build the El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant, which is projected to add 4,800 MW to its energy mix – accounting for 50% of national power generation capacity – when it becomes fully operational in 2030. Nigeria meanwhile has expressed interest in nuclear power, with feasibility studies underway.
The case against nuclear
While the allure of nuclear energy is clear, the technology is not without significant drawbacks.
To begin with, constructing a nuclear power plant takes a lot of money – often running into tens of billions of dollars – and time. In fact, building a nuclear power plant costs between $6,000-$12,000 per kilowatt of capacity and typically takes 5-10 years. By comparison, installing solar photovoltaic systems costs between $800-$1,500 per kilowatt, and onshore wind turbines cost about $1,200-$2,000 per kilowatt, according to IRENA’s 2021 report. Moreover, renewable projects can be completed within 1-3 years, providing a much quicker return on investment and reducing financial risks.
The much higher financial costs of nuclear pose serious challenges, particularly for African countries already struggling with significant debt burdens. According to the latest data from the World Bank, public debt in African countries has doubled since 2010, with 22 low-income countries now on the verge of debt distress. Embarking on unnecessarily costly projects can deepen African countries’ dependency on foreign powers and undermine their national sovereignty. To build the El Dabaa nuclear plant, Egypt, whose debt-to-GDP ratio stood at 87.2% in December 2022, took on a $25 billion state loan from Russia, representing 6% of the country’s GDP.
Beyond economic risks, nuclear presents severe safety concerns. Nuclear energy may not emit carbon dioxide, but it does produce radioactive waste that remains hazardous for thousands of years. Safe handling and storage require technical expertise and long-term solutions that can costs billions of dollars. The US Department of Energy estimates that the costs of managing its nuclear waste could exceed $200 billion, while the UK government has projected costs of about £117 billion ($150 billion) for cleaning up nuclear sites.
The risks to people’s health and the environment from poorly managed nuclear waste are enormous. Moreover, the continent is not immune to the kinds of grand catastrophes that unfolded in Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011. These major accidents led to horrendous environmental destruction and long-term public health crises. Though safety measures may be improving, the potential for cataclysmic failure due to human error, natural disasters, or political instability is an escapable risk that comes with nuclear power. The potential consequences of such incidents are staggering. The clean-up costs from safety failures can exceed $1 trillion and the impacts on human health and the environment last for generations.
Weighing risks and rewards
With 600 million people in Africa still lacking access to electricity, the continent urgently needs to expand its energy capacity. At the same time, the deepening climate crisis requires governments to shift towards clean energy solutions, not only to meet growing energy needs but also to avoid ending up with stranded fossil fuel assets.
With its mix of impressive advantages and profound risks, nuclear offers a hugely imperfect solution to these challenges, but what’s the alternative? How else can Africa provide energy to its populations, power much needed industrialisation, and keep carbon emissions to a minimum?
The answer is renewables like solar and wind.
Studies suggest that, if fully harnessed, Africa’s renewable energy potential would exceed electricity demand by more than 1,000 times by 2040. The continent also holds 60% of global solar potential and 30% of the world’s critical minerals essential for developing renewable technologies.
Africa’s renewable energy potential is hard to overstate. Moreover, renewable technologies offer faster deployment, lower costs, and fewer environmental risks than nuclear or fossil fuels. While financing remains a challenge, the investments required for solar and wind energy are far more manageable than the much higher costs associated with nuclear projects. Renewables also provide greater flexibility, quicker returns, and avoid the complex – and potentially eye-wateringly expensive – safety risks of nuclear technology.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
This is not to say that nuclear doesn’t still have some advantages, most notably its consistency which makes it ideal for industrialisation. However, this gap is closing too. Technological advancements in energy storage, grid modernisation, and integrated energy systems are making renewables increasingly capable of meeting both industrial and societal demands at scale. South Africa has begun deploying large-scale battery storage to improve grid stability and enable smoother integration of renewables, while similar efforts to efficiently accommodate renewable energy sources are taking place elsewhere across Africa. The concern that solar and wind cannot support large-scale industrialisation due to variability in energy supply is quickly becoming outdated.
Debates over whether nuclear energy’s positives outweigh its negatives will no doubt continue, but in Africa, there is simply no need to take on the financial, environmental, and safety risks that come with nuclear. The continent can meet its energy needs sustainably and affordably through renewables, achieving energy sovereignty – by which communities control their energy systems and resources – and positioning itself as a global leader in the clean energy transition.
Dr Wafa Misrar is the Campaign and Policy Lead for CAN (Climate Action Network) Africa. She has a PhD in materials and environmental chemistry from the University of Cadi Ayyad, Morocco.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by PostX News and is published from a syndicated feed.)
