Analysis: A nuclear shakeup of Kenya’s energy mix stirs opposition

By Hannington Osodo

Kenya’s planned 2GW nuclear power facility near Lake Victoria has sparked intense debate and irked the lakeside community, who claim they weren’t consulted.

The controversy reflects a broader national conversation about how Kenya should meet its growing energy needs while balancing economic development, environmental protection, and public trust.

Kenya has long been celebrated as one of Africa’s leaders in the renewable energy sector. Through its vast investments in geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, and solar power, the country has built an electricity system that is among the greenest on the continent.

As the population grows and the country becomes more industrial and urban, Kenya needs more reliable energy to keep the economy running.

“This has now been cemented, and the plane is ready to take off,” Barrister Justus Wabuyabo, CEO of Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (NuPEA), told a charged Greenpeace Africa hosted forum on Wednesday.

Wabuyabo reiterated that nuclear energy offers a dependable source of electricity capable of powering economic transformation and moving the country forward.

“People should seek the truth and share correct information instead of spreading doomsday fear,” he said.

Kenya’s nuclear ambitions aren’t new. For more than a decade, the country has spent billions of shillings developing capacity and a framework for the project. But critics claim the money went largely to hefty salaries.

The initially planned location for Kenya’s first nuclear facility was Kilifi County on the coast, until residents rejected it, forcing the government to shift to a new site in Siaya on the shores of Lake Victoria. The move to the new location has also sparked protests.

Dickens Ochieng is a civil activist leading a petition against nuclear power in Kenya.

“We were never consulted…the community was never consulted,” he said during the intense Greenpeace Africa online discussion forum.

“If a few people were consulted in hotels in Kisumu and given tea, they don’t represent the community.”

“Let them show us the Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment Study and the full Environmental Feasibility Study.”

Greenpeace Africa, which has been at the forefront of campaigns against the project, warned of environmental safety, financial and geopolitical risks.

“The question facing Kenya is not merely whether nuclear power can generate electricity, but whether its benefits outweigh its dangers in a developing nation still building its industries and regulatory capacities,” said Fred Njehu, the Pan African Political Strategist, Greenpeace Africa.

Kenya’s drive towards energy consistency is essential for industries such as manufacturing, mining, steel production, and digital infrastructure. The country’s ambition to become a middle income industrialised economy under its development frameworks depends heavily on access to uninterrupted, affordable electricity.

Wabuyabo also cited the experiences of France and other countries, such as the US, which illustrate the transformative potential of nuclear energy.

“Following the oil shocks of the 1970s, France invested heavily in nuclear power and today derives the majority of its electricity from nuclear reactors.”

“France’s investment resulted in decades of reliable electricity, relatively low carbon related emissions and greater independence.”

He said countries like South Korea used nuclear energy as a cornerstone of industrial development, supporting the growth of globally competitive industries in electronics, shipping and manufacturing.

“There is nothing wrong with Kenya following a similar path by harnessing nuclear power to strengthen industrial productivity and investment.”

Wabuyabo argued that nuclear energy has low greenhouse gas emissions, making it an attractive proposition.

“Climate change poses an increasing threat to Kenya through prolonged droughts, unpredictable rainfall, and decreasing agricultural production.”

Already, Kenya relies heavily on renewable energy, and electricity demand is expected to rise dramatically over the coming decades. Meeting this demand entirely through intermittent renewable energy sources may prove difficult without substantial energy storage infrastructure.

This comes as energy security remains a major strategic concern globally. The war between Russia and Ukraine exposed Europe’s dependence on imported fuel and highlighted the importance of diversified energy sources.

More recently, tensions and military confrontations involving the United States, Israel and Iran contributed to volatility in global energy markets. Countries with established nuclear sectors found themselves better positioned to maintain stable electricity supplies during periods of market volatility.

Kenya could potentially gain similar advantages by diversifying its energy portfolio. Many countries seeking to reduce emissions while maintaining economic growth have often turned to nuclear energy. Sweden, for example, combined nuclear and hydroelectric power to achieve one of the world’s lowest carbon electricity systems.

Despite the benefits, the dangers associated with nuclear power are substantial. The most obvious concern is the possibility of a nuclear accident. Although modern reactors incorporate advanced safety systems, no technology is completely immune to human error, natural disasters, equipment failure and unforeseen circumstances.

Anti nuclear activist Gwendolyn Hallsmith said catastrophic nuclear accidents in the developed world have demonstrated the devastating consequences of nuclear plant failures.

“Kenya must weigh both the promise of energy and the peril before committing fully to a nuclear future,” she said.

She cited the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, which remains the worst nuclear accident in history. A reactor explosion released massive amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere, contaminating large areas across eastern Europe.

“Thousands were displaced, and the environment and health consequences continue to be studied decades later.”

More recently, the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan demonstrated that even technologically advanced countries with strong regulatory institutions can experience severe nuclear accidents. A powerful earthquake and tsunami triggered reactor failures, resulting in large scale evacuations and billions of dollars in cleanup costs.

For Kenya, the lessons of Chernobyl and Fukushima are especially important. Nuclear energy requires rigorous oversight, highly trained personnel, robust emergency response systems, and a culture of safety that must be maintained consistently over decades.

“A single accident near Lake Victoria could have catastrophic consequences for millions of people who depend on the lake for water, fishing, transportation and agriculture,” said Hallsmith.

Hallsmith said the location itself raises additional concerns. She said Lake Victoria is Africa’s largest freshwater lake and serves as a critical resource for Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania before emptying into the River Nile, which flows through South Sudan, Sudan and Egypt.

“More than forty million people rely directly or indirectly on the lake for their livelihood. Any radioactive contamination would have cross border consequences, affecting ecosystems and communities far beyond Kenya’s borders.”

Historical examples demonstrate how water contamination can become a major concern following a nuclear accident. After the Fukushima accident, Japanese authorities struggled to manage radioactive water generated during reactor cooling operations.

Although scientific assessments concluded that many risks could be controlled, public concern remained intense, both domestically and internationally. In the context of Lake Victoria, even a relatively minor incident could undermine public confidence in fisheries, tourism and agricultural products. The economic damage could extend far beyond the immediate vicinity of the nuclear facility.

Hallsmith pointed out that apart from nuclear plant accidents, another major challenge looms.

“No country has completely solved the problem of permanent nuclear waste disposal. Many continue to store spent fuel in temporary facilities while searching for long term solutions.”

Nuclear reactors produce spent fuel and other radioactive materials that remain hazardous for thousands of years and require storage or disposal.

The US, despite operating one of the world’s largest nuclear fleets, has struggled for decades to establish a permanent repository for high level nuclear waste.

Finland’s Onkalo facility represents one of the most advanced long term disposal projects in the world, but its development has required enormous financial resources, extensive geological studies, and decades of planning.

Kenya would need to determine how and where radioactive waste could be safely managed for generations. This responsibility would extend far beyond the lifespan of any government currently in office.

Kenya plans to spend up to $5 billion, however, experience has demonstrated that construction frequently takes longer and costs more than originally anticipated.

Greenpeace’s Njehu raised concerns about the cost of the plant and said it deserved careful scrutiny.

“For a developing country like Kenya, committing billions to nuclear energy could divert resources from priorities such as education, healthcare, transportation and renewable energy expansion.”

Examples of runaway projects include the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland and Flamanville in France, which experienced significant delays and cost overruns, with final expenses far exceeding original estimates. In the UK, the Hinkley Point C reactor has also faced escalating costs and timelines.

The question of economic competitiveness also raises concerns about the need to fund nuclear plants. The cost of solar and wind power has fallen dramatically over the past two decades. Battery storage technologies are improving rapidly, making renewable energy increasingly capable of providing reliable electricity.

“Kenya’s abundant geothermal resources offer a more practical alternative. The country already possesses world class geothermal expertise, particularly in the Rift Valley…the potential is available,” said Hallsmith.

Kenya’s security concerns further complicate the debate on nuclear energy. Nuclear facilities can become targets for terrorism, sabotage, cyberattacks, or political instability.

Protecting reactors and nuclear material requires highly sophisticated security systems and continuous vigilance. While modern safeguards are effective, they also impose significant financial and institutional strain.

Yet rejecting nuclear power outright also carries risks. Africa’s population is expected to grow substantially in the coming decades, accompanied by rising energy demand. If reliable low carbon energy sources are not developed, countries may increasingly rely on coal, diesel generators or imported fossil fuels. Such a trajectory would undermine climate goals, increase pollution, and expose economies to volatile global fuel prices.

The argument, therefore, should not be framed simply as a choice between nuclear energy and renewable energy. Rather, it concerns how nuclear power might fit within a broader and diversified energy strategy.

For Kenya, the central issue is governance. Nuclear technology itself is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. Its outcomes depend on how responsibly it is managed. Countries such as France,  Russia, South Korea, Canada and the US demonstrate that nuclear power can be operated safely and contribute significantly to economic development.

Nuclear power presents Kenya with both extraordinary opportunities and profound risks that cannot be ignored.

Kenya’s challenge, therefore, is to determine whether it possesses the resources, expertise, and governance structures necessary to harness the benefits of nuclear energy while minimising danger.

The future of nuclear power on the shores of Lake Victoria will ultimately depend not on the technology itself, but on the wisdom and responsibility with which it is pursued.

OPA News | One Planet Agency