‘It doesn’t make sense’: Marine biologist on Kenya’s proposed nuclear power plant

Kenya is in the process of building its very first nuclear power station. According to forecasts by the Kenya Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (NuPEA), construction is due to start by 2027 and will produce 1,000 MW of power. The town of Uyombo, in Kilifi county on the Kenyan coast, is one of three sites where NuPEA considers building the plant. Very quickly, a cry united the population: “Sitaki Nuclear,” no to nuclear power in Swahili. Demonstrations broke out, followed by a lawsuit filed by citizens, which was later dismissed, and a petition was also circulated online. But the project still seems to be going ahead, much to the dismay of residents and some environmentalists.

Uyombo is located on the edge of the Mida Creek mangrove swamps, a few kilometers from the Arabuko Sokoke Forest Reserve, the largest remaining coastal forest in East Africa, recognized as a biodiversity hotspot due to the concentration of many endemic species and habitat loss. It lies in close proximity to Watamu National Marine Park and Reserve, recognized as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve because of its coral reefs and the richness of its marine life, including whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) and manta rays (Manta alfredi).

What impact could this project have on this biodiversity? Peter Musila is a marine biologist and program coordinator with the NGO A Rocha Kenya. For the NGO, he monitors the state of the region’s corals and is involved in their restoration. As a coral specialist, he is livid about this nuclear power station project.

Mongabay met him in the town of Watamu.

Mongabay: When you heard that a nuclear power station could be built in Uyombo, what was your first reaction?

Peter Musila: I first heard of this nuclear power plant in 2022. For me, it doesn’t make sense because the area they are trying to put it in is a very pristine area for wildlife, with all sorts of wildlife, even terrestrial wildlife, including birds. Mida Creek is one of the most important areas for birds. It hosts a lot of migratory birds that come here to breed. There’s so much wildlife here.

It’s also an important marine mammal area [like dolphins and whales], and the sharks and rays are here. They use this space for breeding, for nesting. We don’t want a nuclear power plant in our area.

Mongabay: As you said, this is an important marine area. As well as mammals, there are also corals. What state are they in?

Peter Musila: Before the 1990s, the reef was very good. It was very pristine. I did not see it back then, but I wish I did. There were over 200 genera of corals. The major problem that has affected this area, coral-wise, is bleaching. The first time it happened was in 1997. After that, the coral cover declined quite substantially. It was 60% [preserved before 1997] and then it declined to 10% [in 1998]. That was really bad. And then it has been trying to recover. But bleaching is now occurring more often because there was another one in 2005 and then 2007, 2013, 2016 and 2020.

In 2024, we witnessed a major coral bleaching event, which was as bad as the first one in 1997. Although the coral cover remains very low in the lagoon, there’s still hope, as many corals are showing a lot of positive resilience. It’s recovering slowly, slowly.

Many factors are causing this degradation. But it is when all these factors come together that we have a problem. The main cause of bleaching is an increase in water temperature, which is not a local issue. That’s global. It’s the global warming phenomenon. So, you can’t sort that with local measures. Another factor is the water quality in terms of nutrients that the corals get from the surrounding area. There’s a lot of urbanization, and there are a lot of resorts that are coming into the area. So, that is affecting the water quality of the area.

The idea is to limit these local pressures to make sure that the global issues won’t have too much effect.

Mongabay: Why do you think NuPEA is considering building a nuclear plant near the Indian Ocean shore? What impact could its presence have on its corals?

Peter Musila: I saw in one of the nuclear power plant’s documents that they have put out that the reactor needs water. That’s why they chose Uyombo [one of the potential sites for the plant located on Kenya’s eastern coast]. It requires a lot of water.

The water will be used to cool the reactor [of the plant ], which will have a lot of negative effects. That will definitely increase the water temperature because if they are putting cold water in the plant to cool it down and then dump it back into the ocean, , the water dumped will have a higher temperature than the [water] they took. It will then raise the temperatures of the marine surrounding and that now affects the corals. The temperature [rise], could make them bleach even more. I wonder what is even the point of protecting the area?

Even siphoning the water, it will definitely come in with a lot of marine life, a lot of organisms. There are all these tiny plankton that are not even visible, and they are so important for even the biggest of marine life. Whale sharks are found here and they eat plankton. So, if now they [people from the plant] suck those things and then they warm them in the reactor, they [marine life like plankton] won’t survive the whole process. Things like that make me quite sad.

I’ve submitted a report, there’s a team that is working on fact sheets to show what can be affected and there has [been] a lot of advocacy, and there are a lot of reports, even up to the government level, up to the Parliament.

There have been reports. I have also participated in those reports, by documenting what type of biodiversity we have here, how it will be affected, and why it’s not the best option for them to do it [build that nuclear plant]. All these things are available online, publicly, for everyone to see. There are groups, mobilizing groups, and WhatsApp groups in the communities. The information is there. These guys [the government] just don’t want to listen.

Mongabay: Why are corals important to the ecosystem?

Peter Musila: Personally, I think reefs are very undervalued; people don’t know much about them. But if we had no corals, there would be no life on Earth for sure. It’s a very important ecosystem; it hosts so much biodiversity. Globally, all the reefs host over 25% of all the biodiversity in the ocean. And reefs [make up] less than 1% of the ocean. Only that fact makes it so important because it means all life in the ocean has something to do with the reef. And there is an economic value: It provides all the food for coastal communities, provides income in so many ways, like the tourism activities. Watamu is a tourist destination, and most of the guests want to go to the reef. So, it gives so much income to the national government, the local government and even to the communities themselves. And they [the corals] are protecting us from the waves. The sea is very rough, and if the reefs were not there, all these waves would just be coming to our doorsteps. People are not aware of the importance of reefs, but if they were not there, it would really be a different world.

Mongabay: In January 2023, NuPEA released a draft strategic environmental and social assessment (SESA) report. The purpose of this document is to “systematically address environmental and socio-economic management issues pertaining to Nuclear Power Programme activities.” What did you think of this report?

Peter Musila: We [Musila and other scientists and civil society] looked very keenly, line by line, at what they were saying there. There were a lot of corrections that needed to be made. They were not accurate in terms of the negative effect. They have done a lot of sugarcoating in that risk management, but it was reviewed reviewed [by the Netherlands  Commission for Environmental Assessment, an independent nonprofit knowledge institute that advises governments, organizations and institutes around the world]

I don’t know if they [the Kenyan government] have taken the feedback into account. They’re just doing their thing by the side. They’re not straightforward. They are not saying to the people, ‘That this is what will happen. This is what a nuclear power plant involves.’ They’re not educating people. They’re just like forcing it on them. And that’s why there are a lot of protests. The waste, what will they do with the [nuclear] waste? They don’t communicate properly about who is handling what.

There’s a lot of trust deficit towards the government, and the way they are acting makes it even harder to trust them. Because if they [the government] are pushing the nuclear power plant down the throats of communities, they [the government] are selling, destroying their resources. They are not thinking about them [the communities]. They are just thinking about themselves. So, there’s a lot of pushback. And it will continue.

Mongabay: So far, only a draft version of the SESA is available on the NuPEA website. It makes no mention of how nuclear waste will be handled, other than to say that it will be based on the recommendations of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). How do you feel about this?

Peter Musila: The problem with these guys [NuPEA] is that they’re not communicating effectively. They don’t say where they will put the toxic waste. Sometimes they’re suggesting it [into] the space, which is absurd. Sometimes they’re saying they take it to Turkana [lake area] and dig it in a pit. This information should be available to the communities. People need to know before they start agreeing to anything, they just need to know what it is, what a nuclear power plant is, what it looks like, and what is the waste it produces. All these procedures need to be laid down. And just considering the cost of putting it up and the output it will produce. And then comparing it to the other sources of energy, like other renewable energies. I believe a nuclear power plant is not necessary.

Mongabay: What do you think would be the consequences of an accident at the power station?

Peter Musila: I don’t even want to think about that. Leakage, a toxic leakage of nuclear waste … something like that makes me terrified. This area is so important for all sorts of organisms, for birds, for whales, for sharks, for fish, for corals. And the communities. How much would they be affected?

I can’t think about such a situation. Would you imagine if something like Fukushima happened here? It will be the worst. It just feels like a genocide or something. Nuclear is very toxic. If nuclear waste comes in contact with any form of water life, everything will be affected negatively. And there is the food chain. Everything would be affected, from the smallest component of the food chain all the way to the big world life, the sharks and the whales, everything. And people feed on the fish, so that the waste could reach them.

Another concern is with the government, given how the Kenyan government operates in other projects. There are always people making money on the side, and then they’re just constructing something that is not up to standard. Would you imagine building a nuclear power plant that is not up to standard? Things like this make me terrified.

Even if it were to be built up to standard, with no corruption, it can still go wrong. That is why other big countries are going against nuclear energy because it’s not the most sustainable energy source. I don’t know why we as Kenyans are even putting that on the table, considering there are all these other technologies that can produce energy more sustainably, more cheaply. I don’t get it.

Banner image: Women planting mangroves in Uyombo. Image by Elodie Toto/Mongabay.

Credits

Malavikavyawahare Editor

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.