- The proposal to build a 1,000-MW nuclear power plant on Kenya’s southeastern coast has faced strong opposition from residents and environmental experts, who warn of potential harm to communities, fisheries and the environment.
- Government agencies are now holding consultations at another prospective location on the other side of the country, near Lake Victoria, Africa’s largest freshwater lake.
- Kenya’s energy needs today are met mostly from low-carbon sources, and the country is on track to achieve universal energy access by 2030, but authorities say nuclear power is needed to meet future development goals.
- Some experts, however, warn about the high costs, delays, and long-term environmental risks associated with nuclear power projects.
“It is perfect!” exclaims Anthony Kingi, a member of Uyombo community and an environmental activist. “Kenya doesn’t need it. However, if they must build it, I’m glad it’s not in my backyard.”
The “it” Kingi is referring to is a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant that Kenya plans to build. The government has shortlisted three potential locations for the $3.8 billion project.
“Kenya is currently in the second phase of nuclear power programme development, with a clear target of connecting nuclear power to the national grid by 2034,” Kenya’s Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (NuPEA) said in a statement to Mongabay.
Initial consultations about the project centered on Uyombo, a fishing village in Kilifi county on Kenya’s southeastern coast. The decision sparked significant opposition from both local residents and environmental experts. Over the years, as protests amplified, demonstrators were assaulted by the police, and some were arrested.
On June 27 this year, with very little fanfare, the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum announced at the Nuclear Power Conference at Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology (JOOUST) that it’s considering building the plant in Luanda Kotieno, in the Bondo area of Siaya county, on the other side of the country.
Paul Otiende Amollo, member of parliament for Rarieda, one of six constituencies in Siaya, said during that conference: “Acceptance is important. In Kilifi, they have issues because of nonacceptance. In our case, I understand from NuPEA that they have identified a site around Luanda Kotieno. As the elected member of parliament for Rarieda, I can say that we fully accept, even though we will continue engaging [with the population].”
In its statement to Mongabay, NuPEA said no final decision has been made about the project site.
The agency added that “the country is still in the process of developing its Nuclear Power Programme and undertaking feasibility studies, which include identification of potential sites. No final site has been approved, and any such decision will be subject to comprehensive Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs), public participation, and regulatory approvals.”
It said that “a series of structured engagement activities” have taken place in Kilifi and Siaya counties.
The ministries of environment and of energy didn’t respond to Mongabay’s requests for information about the plant’s location.
NuPEA published a draft of its Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) report for the nuclear power plant online. According to the document, there are three potential sites: in Uyombo in Kilifi county; in Luanda Kotieno in Siaya county; and in an unspecified location in Turkana county, in northwestern Kenya. That county hosts Lake Turkana, recently in the news because of the discovery of oil. Luanda Kotieno is located on the banks of Lake Victoria.
The decision to consider Luanda Kotieno as a potential site was welcomed by county leaders present. Former Kenyan prime minister Raila Odinga, who hails from the region, appeared to be supportive of the project. “In the era of climate change, nuclear is accepted as one of the clean energy sources that is free of carbon emissions,” he said at the June conference held at JOOUST. “The fact that we took this region as a candidate host for the power plant is a recognition of its unique strategic advantages.”
The 2023 U.N. climate summit in Dubai, COP28, called for an acceleration in the development of nuclear power as a low-carbon electricity source. But some experts question the need for Kenya to turn to nuclear energy.
Kenya is seen as a renewable energy leader on the African continent. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the country is on track to achieve universal electricity access by 2030 with an energy mix already made up of 90% low-emissions technologies such as geothermal, hydropower, wind and solar. The country hosts the largest wind farm on the continent; the Lake Turkana Wind Project can supply up to 307 MW to the Kenyan national grid.
However, according to NuPEA, the country’s development ambitions could significantly increase its electricity needs, rendering the current power production insufficient — hence the decision to explore nuclear energy. “Diversifying our energy sources and maintaining a clean environment are critical to our development agenda,” Odinga said at the conference. “Part of the reason this country has not been able to generate and sustain well-paid jobs is the cost of energy.”
Still, experts point to major hurdles before the project can proceed safely. “The main thing is the finances,” said Hartmut Winkler, professor of physics at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa and a nuclear energy specialist. “Nuclear projects are extremely expensive, and you won’t see anything coming out of them for at least 10 years, probably 20 years. Nuclear projects are notorious for always being late and always costing much more than they were supposed to.”
Winkler also raised the issue of nuclear waste: “Eventually, you are going to end up with nuclear waste. And that will have to go somewhere. Are they going to sell it to somebody? That’s something that needs to be thought about; it’s a long-term problem that won’t go away,” he said.
While the 300-page SESA repeatedly mentions nuclear waste, it only cites the existence of regulations, both Kenyan and international, without offering any concrete strategies for the project in question. The final version of the SESA isn’t available on the NuPEA website or on the websites of the environment and energy ministries.
But at the request of the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), an independent advisory body, the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), reviewed the SESA. It concluded that the assessment doesn’t meet the standards of good practice prescribed by the International Agency for Atomic Energy (IAEA), and “therefore does not constitute a basis for well-informed decision-making.” The SESA report needs key revisions, the NCEA said, calling the lack of details a “shortcoming.”
It’s unclear whether the ministries concerned have acted on the NCEA’s recommendations. Mongabay contacted the Kenyan Ministry of Energy and Petroleum and the Ministry of Environment for details, but neither responded to our requests for interviews.
Furthermore, the project appears not to comply with some criteria from its own SESA, such as the requirement that “the site should not be located near ecologically valuable or vulnerable areas nor densely populated areas.”
Uyombo is located near the popular Watamu seaside town, just meters from Mida Creek, whose mangroves are part of the Malindi-Watamu Biosphere Reserve, and the Arabuko Sokoke Forest, both of which are listed as UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
“We have turtles here, an endangered sea species,” said Kingi, the environmental activist. “We also have very sensitive corals — corals that only exist here. And animals in the Arabuko Forest and the mangroves that are endemic. You can only find them here. We do not want to lose these endangered species.”
This biodiversity is also crucial for the livelihoods of coastal communities. “We as fishermen, we don’t like that project to be in Uyombo,” said Elisha Bombosho Mzee, a 40-year-old who has been fishing in Uyombo for more than 25 years. “We don’t like it because we heard they will use seawater for the cooling system. They take water, then return warm water to the sea, which will affect us. Fish will migrate to areas we can’t reach. It’s not a good idea to have a nuclear plant here on the coast.”
The presence of a nuclear plant near the ecologically valuable site of Lake Victoria, Africa’s largest freshwater body, could also be a concern for fishing communities that depend on it. According to a recent WWF report, Africa’s Great Lakes harbor the highest diversity of freshwater fish species in the world. But invasive species have caused Lake Victoria to suffer the most significant vertebrate extinction in modern history, the report said. Still, the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization reports that the lake yields more than 800,000 metric tons of fish annually — fish that could be contaminated if waste from the nuclear plant is mismanaged or in case of an accident.
Moreover, the lake connects to major water bodies, including the Nile, the world’s longest river.
The draft SESA acknowledges that the wider Lake Victoria region includes “over 100 globally or regionally significant ecosystems, including Maasai Mara–Serengeti, Mount Elgon, the Nabugabo RAMSAR Site in Uganda, and the Nyungwe–Kibira trans-boundary landscape.”
Water requirements for cooling are also expected to be high. According to the draft SESA, “The water requirements of a nuclear power plant are about 15-25% higher than for a coal-fired plant. Given Kenya’s tropical climate, the need for water will likely be even higher than in Western Europe.”
Still, Oluwole Olutola, postdoctoral research fellow in climate change and environmental politics at the University of Johannesburg, who works on nuclear energy, said he was optimistic about the prospects of nuclear power in Kenya. “If it is possible elsewhere, it should be possible in Africa. There are international standards for managing waste, and African countries are part of these protocols and agreements. It’s just a matter of compliance,” he said. “I feel this is the way out of the serious energy crisis Africa has faced for many years.”
But what residents of Uyombo say worries them the most is the lack of communication from the government. “We heard they chose another location, but we are still waiting for clear communication from NuPEA,” said Sanita Kitole, an Uyombo resident and a member of the Center for Justice Governance and Environmental Action, who opposed the project in his hometown.
“They just came and said, ‘This is where we’ll build the power plant.’ They didn’t involve us from the start, didn’t explain what nuclear energy is. When we asked questions, we got arrested.”
Since then, Kitole said, he has lived in fear. “They confiscated my phone, took my number, everything. I still don’t feel safe. Sometimes when I speak, I hear strange interference, like someone is tapping my phone.”
During the JOOUST conference, government officials, politicians and NuPEA representatives repeatedly emphasized the need to engage local communities and ensure they are informed and involved.
According to the NuPEA communication team, consultations were held with residents in Siaya county this September.
Banner image: Fishers with a net on Lake Victoria in Kenya. Image by Zoriah via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0).
‘It doesn’t make sense’: Marine biologist on Kenya’s proposed nuclear power plant
Credits
This story first appeared on Mongabay
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and Mongabay, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.
