(Opinion) Nuclear power will never be a viable solution to Africa’s energy needs

Source : Daily Maverick: Nuclear power will never be a viable solution to Africa’s energy needs https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2025-03-25-nuclear-power-will-never-a-viable-solution-to-africas-energy-needs

by Neil Overy • 25 March 2025

On 23 January 2025, Daily Maverick carried an opinion piece by Jakkie Cilliers from the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) which concluded that nuclear power was “a viable future option for many African countries”.

This conclusion was based on many false assumptions about nuclear power, and – surprisingly for the ISS – was so devoid of any political analysis that a rejoinder is necessary to illustrate how nuclear power is an extremely poor choice for Africa.

The first point that Cilliers makes is that Africa needs to wean itself off fossil fuels in the interests of keeping “even a 2°C goal alive” by finding alternative means by which to power the continent’s economies. On that there is, of course, broad agreement.

Cilliers claims, however, that renewables cannot fulfil this role, which is patently untrue. There is now an overwhelming amount of peer-reviewed evidence from across the globe that widely distributed renewables, managed by “smart grids” and backed up by various forms of energy storage such as batteries and pumped storage, can meet the energy needs of growing economies, including those in Africa.

This is confirmed by the International Energy Agency’s “Sustainable Africa Scenario”which sees renewables providing at least 80% of all new power generation in a system “that provides universal access to modern energy services by 2030 and the full implementation of all African climate pledges”. The remaining 20% of new electricity generation comes from the introduction of peaking natural gas plants.

During the realisation of this scenario, African countries are gradually weaned off oil, and no new coal and, significantly, no nuclear power stations are built. This scenario is confirmed by peer-reviewed research which shows that renewables can meet 75% of Africa’s electricity needs by 2040 and 100% by 2050.

Nuclear power is in terminal decline because it is catastrophically expensive to build, leading to higher electricity costs which, as we painfully know in South Africa, suppress economic growth.

This is possible because Africa is blessed with enormous renewables potential from solar, wind, geothermal and hydro, and, as Cilliers notes, “Africa’s limited fossil fuel infrastructure (such as refining capacity and pipelines) positions it well for a more rapid transition to clean energy sources”.

Despite acknowledging this fantastic potential, Cilliers turns to nuclear as the solution to Africa’s energy needs, saying “the emphasis on reducing carbon emissions has boosted the industry”.

This statement is factually incorrect because the nuclear industry remains in decline, as it has been for more than two decades. Since 2004 there has been a net decline in nuclear reactors operating worldwide, while nuclear energy’s share of global gross electricity generation continues to fall.

In 2023, nuclear power accounted for only 9% of global commercial gross electricity generation, far below its peak of 18% in 1996 (over the same period electricity generated from renewables has risen from 18% to more than 30% and continues to rise and is expected to meet at least 50% by 2030).

Thus, nuclear power has not been “boosted”, just as there has been no “nuclear renaissance”. There has been, however, a coordinated global campaign (which has been very visible in South Africa) from the nuclear industry to hype an industry that is in terminal decline.

It is in terminal decline because it is catastrophically expensive to build, leading to higher electricity costs which, as we painfully know in South Africa, suppress economic growth.

Cilliers references Egypt’s El Dabaa nuclear power station currently being built by Russia’s Rosatom, which he says will cost $30-billion and “should” become operational in 2026.

In fact, Unit One of El Dabaa is now officially expected to be operational in late 2028, a date which the World Nuclear Industry Status Report notes would be a “remarkable achievement” given that construction of the unit only began in late 2022. The operational dates for units Two, Three and Four are unknown.

The plant will also cost far more than $30-billion because that amount only refers to construction costs. If you factor in interest on the $25-billion, 22-year loan that Egypt accepted from Rosatom, and the $5-billion the Egyptian government is to invest in the project, Egyptian economists estimate the total cost will be at least $45-billion.

Even Egypt’s $5-billion investment is proving problematic, with Egyptian newspapers reporting that Rosatom’s representative in Egypt had asked the Egyptian government to introduce a new tax on Egyptians to cover the $5-billion.

Russia’s stake in El Dabaa raises interesting questions about energy and political sovereignty, which are ignored by Cilliers. With Russia owning and operating El Dabaa, it gives the Russian state enormous influence over the Egyptian government. Analysts note that this power seems to have been exercised in 2021, when the construction of El Dabaa appeared to suddenly cease because of tensions between Egypt and Russia over Russia’s support for the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.

Having fleets of small modular reactors dotted around Africa poses a massive safety risk given ongoing conflicts in parts of the continent.

Given that vendors like Rosatom will have to build and finance any proposed nuclear power stations because African countries lack the technical expertise to do so and because they cannot possibly raise the necessary funds (international financial institutions like the World Bank and the European Investment Bank will not fund nuclear power), such neocolonial relationships of dependency will accompany any nuclear development on the continent.

The energy security and geopolitical dangers of this for Africa are obvious.

Cilliers then turns his attention to small modular reactors (SMRs) which are currently being hyped by nuclear vendors and start-ups despite the fact that the technology is unproven, has failed before (who can forget the [R10-billion-wasted>https://mg.co.za/article/2016-05-27-00-storm-over-pebble-bed-modular-reactor-as-eskom-ponders-its-resurection/] on the pebble-bed modular reactor?), and is proving to be spectacularly expensive to even pass regulatory hurdles, let alone commercialise. These factors explain why SMR companies are routinely going bankrupt.

Cilliers asserts that safety problems with SMRs “seem solvable”. It is not clear on what evidential basis this claim is made because no technology will ever be entirely safe, while having fleets of SMRs dotted around Africa poses a massive safety risk given the ongoing conflicts in parts of the continent.

Nuclear power, in whatever form, has never been and will never be a viable solution to African energy woes, whereas renewables are.

However, if Africa is to realise a renewable energy future, the question of climate justice must be addressed. The rich countries of the world which have created the climate crisis (Africa has contributed less than 2% to global greenhouse gases) must take responsibility for their actions and pay for Africa’s transition.

Thus, the empty promises and “green” loans must cease and be replaced with grants in line with the United Nations principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”. DM