Kenya takes baby steps towards nuclear power

Kenyans have barely been excited by pronouncements by government officials, including Prime Minister Raila Odinga, that the country is venturing into nuclear power generation. But the government is pushing on with the idea and is already doing the groundwork for what is apparently one of its most ambitious projects outside Vision 2030.

The Ministry of Energy is currently working on a Cabinet paper, which is expected to be ready for discussion by end of January. “It is a government policy to diversify our energy sources. We have agreed that we go nuclear (in power generation) and we are totally committed to that,” Energy Permanent Secretary, Patrick Nyoike, told the Smart Company in an exclusive interview on Friday.

This is understandable given that, besides diversifying the sources, nuclear energy would boost the country’s installed power capacity that stands at 1,300MW, including temporary emergency power of 286 MW.

However, with a peak demand of 1,000MW and growing at an annual rate of 8 per cent, the system is currently supplying about 1,200MW, revealing the precarious situation of the country’s power supply, which is also heavily reliant on rain-fed hydropower.

The situation recently plunged the country into a two-month long, nationwide power-rationing programme, which was lifted only last month after diesel generators were brought in.

The nuclear programme is critical to the government’s ambition of doubling the number of Kenyans accessing electricity by connecting a million new electricity consumers in the next five years as part of the its move towards Vision 2030, which seeks to make Kenya a middle-income economy.

Harnessing for good use

Yet, by adopting the nuclear technology, the country could be sucked into the global geopolitical controversies where the US and other Western governments are currently embroiled in a war of words with the likes of Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programmes. “We want to harness nuclear power for civil and peaceful uses, which is now universally accepted globally,” Mr Nyoike said.

This follows an industry trend where new players, mainly fast growing economies, are leading the pack. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there are 436 nuclear power reactors in operation – supplying about 15 per cent of the world’s electricity – five are in long-term shutdown and 53 others are under construction.

While the US leads with 104 reactors, 28 of the 53 reactors under construction are in Asia. More specifically, 17 are in China, which not only plans to build 34 more, but is also proposing to build 90 extra reactors.

But Kenya is not China and that explains the scepticism that has greeted the government’s quest to go nuclear by questioning the country’s capacity, both technical and financial, to pull off out such a sensitive project. “It is a good move because it is a cheaper option in the long-term. But I don’t think the country is ready,” says Dr John Akoten of the Institute of Policy Analysis and Research, a Nairobi-based independent think-tank.

He singles out financial costs, the capacity of the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) to policy environmental resources utilisation and the government’s ability to man the country given its porous borders. “How are we going to fund it?” wonders Dr Akoten.

Commenting on the defeat of an industry-sought “Construction Work in Progress” repeal in the legislature of the US state of Missouri this year, Mark Haim, chair, Missourians for Safe Energy, said: “New nuclear plants are far too risky and expensive to attract investor funding. Utilities will only build them if they can transfer the risk to the taxpayers or their ratepayers.”

However, the Kenya Government remains upbeat. It believes that, under a public private partnership arrangement, it can attract potential investors with both technical and financial capabilities in the wake of the increasing global drive towards clean energy.

Its preliminary studies show that South Korea has the ideal and fairly cheaper nuclear technology, where a reactor with a capacity of 600MW could cost about Sh155 billion ($2.1 billion) compared to US and European versions that could go for Sh200 billion ($2.7 billion).

Still it could go for a reactor with a capacity of 1,000MW, which costs $3.5 billion. However, apart from the cost, there is a government rule that says no single installation should supply more than 20 per cent of the national power system’s capacity. This is aimed at preventing the system from totally collapsing in case of failure, which means the government must increase the country’s total capacity to at least 3,000MW even before putting up the one with a capacity of 600MW.

Understandably, the total cost of the smaller version is still over the top taking into account that the government is struggling with financing of social welfare – education, health, food etc – in the wake of poor rains and the economic slowdown. “The initial investment is high but in the long-term it is cheaper,” says Mr Nyoike.
On the continent, only South Africa operates a commercial programme while others like Ghana, Egypt and Morocco are said to be operating research projects.

The technology, it appears, has support beyond the government circles. “Taking nuclear power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the global community from achieving long-term gains in the control of carbon dioxide emissions,” says Dr John Deutch, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Besides its very low operational costs, nuclear energy is a viable option that can “assure us of a stable, sustainable and clean power supply in the long-term if we want to develop economically,” says Mr Michael Mangala, a lecturer at the University of Nairobi’s Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology.

Security of the reactor

Such an investment, according to Mr Mangala, could spur advancement in other disciplines such as medicine, industry and agriculture that can draw from increased research and development in nuclear technology.

Security of the reactor and its related components such as the raw material – Uranium – especially from terrorists, who have attacked the country twice and would use the waste material to make dirty bombs, is one of the key issues cited by opponents.

Safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste are significant challenges to even the advanced countries. “Authorising construction of new nuclear reactors without first constructing a radioactive waste disposal facility is like authorising construction of a new Sear’s Tower (current Willis Tower and fifth-tallest freestanding structure in the world) without bathrooms,” said Dave Kraft, director, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Chicago, “neither makes sense; both threaten public health and safety.”

Accidents, such as the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in the Soviet Union, are also a major source of concern for both local and international environmental lobbyists. “With the right policies and proper planning, such issues could be effectively dealt with,” says Mr Mangala, who adds that much of the fear is fuelled by the way the technology was introduced to the world through bombs.

“If can protect our key installations such as State House and military barracks, how can we not be able to protect a single reactor?” said a retired security expert on condition of anonymity because he still carries out consultancy services for government on security.

Then there is the issue of human capacity. Mr Nyoike says they aim to start by adequately training Kenyans to run the project with the help of little foreign technical assistance. “In our staff and graduates, we have a good reservoir from which we can tap skilled personnel for specialised training,” says Mr Mangala, “it can take between four and five years for adequate technology transfer.”

Talking of the time, various analysts say it may take between 15-20 years before the country is able to harness the technology but Mr Nyoike says it could take a shorter period. “Once we put everything in place, it will take about seven years to implement the project,” he says of a process that will entail wriggling through a labyrinth of international bureaucracy.

Relevant legislation

While the most obvious port of call is the UN’s IAEA, there are others such as the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group of countries that supply and regulate nuclear material and technology. It will also have to enact relevant laws, a situation that becomes daunting when this involves Parliament whose rate of passing legislation is painfully slow.

For instance, South Africa’s nuclear sector is governed by, among others, the Nuclear Energy Act 1999, Act 46 of 1999, the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) Act 1999, Act 47 of 1999, the Non-Proliferation of Weapons Mass Destruction Act, 1993 (Act 87 of 1993) and the Hazardous Substances Act, 1973 (Act 15 of 1973).

The process seems too tedious. “If what we need is a solution for our immediate power crisis, nuclear power is not an option,” warns Dr Gichuru Gatari, another lecturer at the University of Nairobi’s Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology.

jondari@nation.co.ke