Italian, German energy experts urge Kenya to drop nuclear bid

Kenya should drop plans to build nuclear power plants and instead harness its vast renewable energy resources for power generation, global experts have advised, citing a logistical nightmare for nuke reactors.

Energy experts from Italy and Germany, which are increasingly shifting towards green electricity, reckon that Kenya is better off developing more geothermal wells, solar parks and wind farms.

They cited massive costs for a nuke plant, long construction periods of about 10 years and expensive decommissioning of plants at the end of their lifespan, especially disposing radioactive waste which is a health and environmental hazard.

Kenya plans to build a series of nuclear power plants, each with a capacity of 1,000 megawatts, from 2023 to support its drive to industrialise by 2030.

A nuke plant with a similar capacity is being constructed in Slovakia at a cost of Sh572 billion (€5.2 billion), meaning this is likely to become Kenya’s most expensive single project.

Decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi reactor in Japan which had a meltdown five years ago is estimated to cost about $20 billion (Sh2 trillion) in a 30-year process.

“Kenya is well endowed with vast geothermal, wind and solar power. I wouldn’t recommend a nuclear reactor,” said Francesco Venturini, chief executive of Enel Green Power — an arm of Italy’s multinational utility Enel.

He was among the participants at the just concluded energy conference at Strathmore University in Nairobi organised by Italy-based Renewable Energy Solutions for Africa.

Italy shut down its last nuke plant in 1990 and the people voted against the atomic technology in a 2011 referendum.

Germany plans to pull nuclear plants off its power grid by 2022 in favour of green energy.

Germany is the world leader in solar production with a capacity in excess of 40,000 megawatts from solar alone.

“Kenya has a higher potential solar yield than Germany. It can do well with a mix of geothermal, wind and solar, thus pushing nuclear out of the equation,” Roman Brinzanik Of Germany-based Kraftwerk Renewable Power Solutions said.

Kenya has identified possible sites for nukes such as towns bordering Lake Turkana, Indian Ocean and Lake Victoria whose waters will cool the reactors.

READ: Kenya to go ahead with nuclear power plan

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which promotes peaceful use of nuclear, in April said in its assessment that Kenya was “making notable progress in the journey to nuclear development.”

Mr Venturini said geothermal, solar and wind power are preferable to a nuclear plant when measured against cost, safety and construction period.

For instance, the company is developing a 1,000 MW solar-powered power station in Mexico in a period of 12 months compared to the nuclear plant in Slovakia with a similar capacity which will take 10 years from 2008.

The nuclear plant sits on a 494-acre piece of land (two- square kilometres), excluding a ‘security zone’ of a diameter of 1km around the plant where the land cannot be used for safety reasons.

Electricity from Kenya’s nuclear plant is expected to cost between Sh8 and Sh10 per unit ($0.08 and $0.10) – in the same range as geothermal energy.

Unlike wind and solar power which are weather-dependent, geothermal is reliable and operate efficiently in power generation just like nuclear or coal plants.

Critics reckon that the country should focus on developing its untapped 10,000 MW of geothermal in its Rift Valley basin.

The country is also endowed with high sun radiation levels, making solar energy its low hanging fruit. Only South Africa has nuclear power plants in Africa.