By Oduor Ong’wen
In 2010, the National Economic and Social Council (NESC) recommended the development of nuclear energy as a foundational policy within Vision 2030 to meet surging long-term electricity demands.
The then President Mwai Kibaki in 2012 established the Kenya Nuclear Energy Electricity Board (KNEB), chaired by Ochillo Ayacko (current Governor of Migori), to fast-track roadmap development. KNEB was transformed into the Nuclear Power and Energy Authority (NuPEA) in 2019 by then President Uhuru Kenyatta.
NuPEA is currently chaired by Prof. Larry Gumbe with Justus Wabuyabo as its Chief Executive Officer. Question Number One is whether Kenya needs nuclear energy or not.
Kenya’s energy sector has undergone remarkable transformation over the past two decades, emerging as one of Africa’s leaders in renewable energy generation.
Today, a significant proportion of the country’s electricity is generated from renewable sources such as geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, and solar power. Despite this impressive achievement, the country continues to nurture imperialism as a net importer of steel and steel products made from iron ore. Kenya has large deposits of Iron ore in the Kishushe area of Taita Taveta, the Ikutha and Mutomo areas of Kitui, the Marimanti area of Tharaka Nithi, the Samia Hills of Busia, the Homa Hills of Homa Bay, and the Kathonzweni area of Makueni, as well as parts of Laikipia and West Pokot.
Apart from Kishushe, where the ore is mined and exported without value addition, the rest of this potential lies idle. Reason? Kenya’s electric power generation capacity of between 3,272MW and 3,840MW cannot support steel manufacturing.
All the raw materials (silica sand, soda ash, and limestone) needed for the manufacturing of glass are locally available in Kenya. Yet the country spends close to KSh 800B annually on glass imports. This is because the manufacturing process requires high-temperature furnace heating (1,500 – 1,600 degrees Celsius).
Our current power generation capacity cannot sustain this. Who is benefiting from our soda ash being mined in metric tonnes from Magadi in Kajiado West? The countries from which Kenya imports sheet/float glass and industrial glass include China and Egypt.
The country equally has high deposits of copper in Kericho, Kajiado, Embu, Meru, Kitui and Turkana counties. Copper smelting and the manufacture of copper products require a significant amount of electric energy. Kenya has other minerals and non-mineral resources that could spur industrialisation, but one of the major handicaps is energy deficiency.
Kenya therefore continues to experience growing electricity demand driven by rapid population growth, urbanisation, industrialisation, and technological advancement. With our per capita electricity consumption of 190 KWh and an installed capacity of 3, 840 MW, we still face a significant energy deficit to achieve industrial status, which requires not less than a minimum energy consumption of 3,000 MW and an installed capacity of 60,000 MW.
The current energy generation in Kenya is 1,000 MW from geothermal, 800MW from hydro, and the balance (about 2,000 from solar, wind, thermal, and wind. The remaining potential generation capacity is 5,000MW each from hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar – all summing up to 20,000MW.
This leaves a gaping deficit of 40,000MW. The only available options for bridging this energy deficit are increasing thermal capacity or going nuclear. To generate electricity thermally, the fuel must be fossil (coal, which we have in plenty, natural gas, or petroleum). From the addressing climate change needs, these are null options; hence the mantra of “keep oil in the soil and coal in the hole.”
One of the most compelling advantages of nuclear energy is its ability to provide reliable and uninterrupted electricity. Unlike solar and wind power, which depend on weather conditions, nuclear power plants generate electricity continuously throughout the year.
This dependable supply, commonly referred to as baseload power, is essential for industries that require uninterrupted electricity, including steel manufacturing, cement production, fertilizer plants, mining, and large-scale processing industries. Reliable electricity would enhance Kenya’s competitiveness as a manufacturing hub within East Africa and support the government’s industrialisation agenda.
Nuclear energy also contributes significantly to energy security. Kenya currently relies heavily on geothermal energy, hydropower, wind, and solar energy. Although these resources are largely renewable, each has its limitations. Hydropower is vulnerable to prolonged droughts resulting from climate change, while wind and solar generation fluctuate according to weather conditions.
Nuclear energy would diversify Kenya’s energy mix, reducing dependence on any single source and making the electricity system more resilient against climatic and seasonal variations.
Another important advantage of nuclear power is its contribution to climate change mitigation. During operation, nuclear reactors emit very low levels of greenhouse gases compared with fossil-fuel-based power stations.
As Kenya seeks to meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement and contribute to global efforts to reduce carbon emissions, nuclear energy could provide large quantities of clean electricity while supporting sustainable economic growth. This would enable Kenya to expand electricity generation without significantly increasing its carbon footprint.
The high energy density of nuclear fuel is another significant benefit. Small quantities of uranium can produce enormous amounts of electricity, making nuclear fuel highly efficient. Compared with coal, oil, or natural gas, nuclear fuel requires less transportation, storage, and handling.
Modern nuclear reactors are also designed to operate for between sixty and eighty years, making them long-term investments capable of providing reliable electricity over several generations. Such longevity can justify the high initial investment when considered over the plant’s operational lifespan.
In addition to electricity generation, a nuclear energy programme could stimulate technological advancement and human capital development. Establishing nuclear power would require Kenya to invest heavily in engineering education, scientific research, regulatory institutions, and specialized technical training.
Universities would expand programmes in nuclear engineering, physics, radiation protection, and environmental science. This investment in knowledge and skills could have positive spillover effects in medicine, agriculture, manufacturing, and scientific research, thereby strengthening Kenya’s innovation ecosystem.
Having appreciated that nuclear energy presents significant opportunities for Kenya’s economic and social transformation, it also poses considerable environmental, technological, and social challenges. A balanced assessment of its advantages and disadvantages is therefore essential.
Question Two: Is Kenya currently capable of satisfactorily addressing all the following challenges and disadvantages?
Despite the aforementioned considerable advantages, nuclear energy presents serious challenges that Kenya must carefully evaluate. The management of radioactive waste remains one of the most controversial aspects of nuclear energy. Spent nuclear fuel remains hazardous for many years and requires secure long-term storage under strict safety conditions.
NuPEA must assure us that Kenya has built the infrastructure, regulatory experience, and technical capacity necessary to safely manage high-level radioactive waste. Establishing appropriate waste management systems would require significant investment, international cooperation, and continuous institutional oversight.
Safety concerns also present a major challenge. Although modern nuclear reactors incorporate advanced safety systems and serious accidents are extremely rare, incidents such as Chornobyl (former Soviet Union) in 1985 and Fukushima (Japan) in 2011 have demonstrated that nuclear accidents can have devastating environmental, economic, and social consequences.
Kenyans should be reassured that we have an independent, competent nuclear regulatory authority, comprehensive emergency preparedness plans, robust environmental monitoring systems, and effective disaster response capabilities before commissioning any nuclear facility.
The greatest obstacle is the enormous financial cost associated with constructing nuclear power plants. Modern nuclear reactors require investments amounting to several billion dollars before they become operational.
For a poor country such as Kenya that can hardly finance education, such expenditure could significantly increase public debt or require complex financing arrangements involving international lenders and technology suppliers.
Another significant disadvantage is the lengthy period required to develop a nuclear power project. From feasibility studies and environmental assessments to licensing, construction, testing, and commissioning, a nuclear power plant typically requires between eight and fifteen years before electricity generation begins.
During this period, electricity demand continues to grow, requiring Kenya to identify alternative short- and medium-term energy solutions. This lengthy timeline may reduce nuclear energy’s attractiveness compared to renewable technologies that can be deployed much more rapidly.
Security considerations are equally important. Nuclear installations are strategic national assets requiring protection against terrorism, sabotage, cyberattacks, and unauthorised access to nuclear materials.
This demands substantial investment in national security infrastructure, intelligence capabilities, cybersecurity systems, and international safeguards to ensure compliance with global nuclear safety standards.
Furthermore, I am not convinced that Kenya currently has sufficient numbers of highly trained nuclear engineers, reactor operators, radiation protection specialists, and nuclear scientists. Building this workforce would require many years of education, specialized training, and international partnerships.
Until adequate domestic expertise is developed, Kenya would likely depend heavily on foreign technical assistance, increasing both operational costs and external dependence.
Public acceptance also represents a significant challenge. Communities may oppose the construction of nuclear facilities because of concerns about radiation exposure, environmental degradation, land acquisition, and safety risks.
Without effective public dialogue, transparent decision-making, and meaningful stakeholder participation, resistance from local communities could delay or even derail these nuclear projects.
Progressive Kenyans, however, have to dissect the public protests, as they, in my view, fall into three categories. Category One is autochthonous. This is the case where local communities have genuine fears of being exposed to dangerous toxic radiation, land alienation, and involuntary displacement or environmental degradation.
Category Two is the ignorant or less informed who do not want to risk their current and future well-being without being assured that all potential risks have been addressed.
Category Three is as dangerous as those who would expose the Kenyan people or the environment to the risks mentioned above. These are the so-called international donors who promote free speech. One such entity is the Open Society Foundation.
This initiative, formed and almost fully funded by George Soros, played a central role in undermining and dismantling socialism in the USSR and Eastern countries in the late 1980s and early 1990s through the funding of dissident groups and cultural exchanges “behind the Iron Curtain.” Soros is infamously remembered for creating what became known as the East Asian Financial Crisis, in which, in July 1997, he triggered a near financial meltdown in Thailand in which the Thai currency – the Bhat – was devalued overnight from 25 to a dollar to 50 baht.
This had regional effects by late 1998, 3.5 million South Koreans lined up not for emergency rations or to protest, but to willingly hand over their wedding rings and other gold valuables to the government in the “Gold Collection Campaign” launched by civil society to prevent total bankruptcy.
In just a few months, ordinary people had contributed 226 metric tonnes of gold, valued at over $2 billion. The citizens thus saved their country from Soros-induced financial meltdown. In Indonesia, the crisis led to the fall of Suharto’s 30-year rule. Responding to international public outrage, Soros said that “as a financial speculator, my role is to make a profit rather than deal with social outcomes.”
Other groups that have provided funds with neocolonial goals include the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. Greenpeace, a citizens’ movement that originated with noble environmental and human rights objectives, has also been infiltrated by the CIA and other such covert anti-nationalist intentions. I have interacted with progressive persons working in senior positions but are not privy to what the boards want when they give them funding criteria for each region or country.
Engagement with some comrades actively engaged in this matter to educate and mobilise the concerned communities to identify, frame and present these issues to NuPEA and other promoters of nuclear energy during public participation drew the following response: “Our mission is to disrupt those meetings.”
Finally, Kenya possesses one of the world’s richest geothermal resources, much of which remains untapped. Combined with abundant solar radiation, significant wind resources, and rapidly advancing battery storage technologies, renewable energy may continue to provide more affordable and flexible options for expanding electricity generation.
Kenya’s decision should therefore be guided by careful economic analysis, comprehensive public consultation, strong regulatory preparedness, and a balanced comparison with alternative renewable energy investments. If managed prudently, nuclear energy could become a key component of the country’s future energy mix, complementing rather than replacing the country’s considerable renewable energy resources.
When in doubt, refer to Lenin’s development flight paths in which electrification was a key pillar. Addressing the significance of electrification, he mentioned the restoration and enhancement of productive forces, maximum centralisation, and focusing people’s attention and energies as a way of general integration. Lenin described communism as “Soviet power plus electrification.” Note should also be taken that the People’s Republic of China’s renewable energy accounts for 40% (nearly 2 trillion kWh) of which nuclear energy generation of 450TWh, ranking it second only to the US (782TWh).
I would caution Kenyans against throwing out the baby with the bath water. But who am I?
