Why nuclear power generation remains a viable option for Kenya

Nuclear power plant in Bollene, southern France. PHOTO |AFP 

By GEORGE WACHIRA

More by this Author

Summary

Kenya should not be ‘scared’ of taking an informed risk on nuclear generation once certified for compliance by global agencies

Nuclear power generation for any ‘new-entry’ country such as Kenya is a long process which must be walked to ensure that the country has developed sufficient knowledge, laws, regulations, institutions and systems to guarantee a safe nuclear power sector.

For nearly 10 years, Kenya has undertaken a step-by-step capacity building process to meet safety and governance standards set by international atomic certifying agencies.

Recently, the Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board indicated that the country is targeting a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant by 2027.

Nuclear power is a clean renewable source of energy with a minimal carbon footprint. It provides a very reliable and stable base-load generation round-the-clock and throughout the year which is essential for balancing a fluctuating grid power demand and supply.

Although the initial capital costs for nuclear plants are quite high, this is balanced by lower operating costs.

Nuclear fuel is also immune from global price volatility, and replenishments are at long intervals. Freshwater is the other key input needed for steam generation.

Site selection for nuclear plants is mainly advised by water supply reliability and absence of tectonic activities such as earthquakes

However, it is the perceived safety concerns and fears that make nuclear power generation a difficult ‘sell’ and a tough political path to navigate, especially in developing countries. In the absence of public awareness and education, perceptions persist of potential nuclear leakages whose impacts would be difficult and expensive to mitigate. These fears are informed by real-life examples of such disasters around the world.

There is also the peripheral relationship between nuclear power generation and technological capacity to make nuclear weapons for either offensive or defensive purposes.

For this reason, global protocols are required to give assurances that the nuclear plant will solely be for power generation.

Venturing into nuclear power is essentially a political decision by the government which must re-assure Kenyans on the state of readiness by the country to safely embark on its generation.

In addition to safety, the government will also need to ascertain that the generation is in harmony with the policies for an optimum national generation mix which includes the least-cost criterion, national energy security, grid supply/demand stability, cost of transmission, and climate change impacts.

Nuclear generation, like all the other sectors — gas turbines, oil thermal, coal, geothermal, hydro, wind and solar, among others — has its own club of global investors and lobbies.

And all these sectors compete for the ‘ear’ of government energy planners. That is why each sector, including nuclear, will need to sufficiently justify its place in our national energy mix.

Based on the yardsticks listed above, geothermal is currently considered a high scorer on the generation-mix priority list. Nuclear power will, therefore, need to exceed geothermal in technical, economic and environmental attributes so as to earn a priority rating.

My opinion is that Kenya should not be ‘scared’ of taking an informed risk on nuclear generation once certified for compliance by global agencies.

READ: Kenya plans to set up first nuclear plant by 2027

Over the past ten years, technological advances have significantly de-risked nuclear plants especially from safety viewpoints, while new designs continue to reduce project costs. We, therefore, need to be opening minded and give nuclear generation a fair chance.

Across the globe, many nuclear projects continue to be committed. public-private partnership investors are ready with funding for suitable nuclear projects provided that feed-in tariffs are suitable and other regulatory and country risks are manageable.

Among our peers, South Africa is seeking to increase its nuclear power generation, while Nigeria plans to embark on it.

The energy planners should in the meantime undertake a serious national electricity demands study. Five years ago, an overstated ‘5000-megawatt’ demand misinformed decisions on quantity and types of generation needed and this may have led to crowding-out of priority generation sectors while creating surplus capacity which is paid for by consumers.

Kenya is ‘spoilt’ for choice with so many alternative energy generation options which now include nuclear power.

All these will need to compete fairly on technical, economic and environmental evaluations. The driving objectives should be cost, quality and security of supply.