Nuclear energy has triggered a highly contentious debate across the globe, and Africa is no exception. Japan’s triple disaster, with the meltdown of Fukushima’s Daiichi power plant in March 2011, thrust the ‘Nuclear Question’ back into ‘big politics’ and the public limelight. In the face of a global cacophony of opinions, however, the phenomenon is neither easily grasped nor easily reconciled, as it deals not just with the observable or measurable world, but also with hypothetical speculation, ethos, and tricky risk evaluations. As the nuclear energy politics of Asia, Europe and North America tend to capture much of the media spotlight, many remain unaware that nuclear energy is an option being extensively explored across the African region.

South Africa is presently the only African country that operates active reactors, namely the Koeberg 1 and Koeberg 2, started in 1984 and 1985 respectively.⁽²⁾ However, a growing string of countries, including Algeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Egypt, Ghana, Libya, Morocco and Nigeria, have already set up nuclear research reactors, while countries like Kenya, Tanzania, Namibia, Sudan, Senegal and Tunisia ⁽³⁾ are showing keen interest in developing national nuclear energy programmes. This ‘atomic optimism’, and evident drive to join the so-called ‘nuclear renaissance',⁽⁴⁾ is primarily attributed to the depiction of nuclear energy as the climate-mitigating quick-fix solution to a perceived energy crisis as the continent struggles to meet its growing consumption and demand.⁽⁵⁾ Yet the central question remains whether the continent is suited and ready to tap nuclear energy in the face of mounting safety, security and ethical concerns. This paper discusses whether the ‘nuclear option’ is viable for African countries. Taking a critical stance on the issue, the paper explores a number of costs and constraints that discredit the claim that nuclear energy presents a reliable source of energy and serves the best interest of the African people.

Africa’s energy crisis and nuclear optimism

African states rely on a several sources for their energy production, primarily coal, hydro and oil.⁽⁶⁾ Other sources include natural gas, nuclear and, to a limited extent, renewable energy options.⁽⁷⁾ Although figures indicate that African states consume less energy per capita compared to other developing regions, the lack of reliable energy is purported to seriously obstruct the continent’s prospects for growth and development. According to the World Bank, only about 24% of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa currently has access to electricity,⁽⁸⁾ leaving an estimated 550 million in the region without.⁽⁹⁾ Furthermore, the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) asserts that African countries confront considerable challenges in alleviating poverty and enhancing growth due to the lack of access to affordable and reliable energy.⁽¹⁰⁾ Consequently, in the midst of rising concerns over energy security, sustainable growth and climate change, many African countries, with the support of both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the African Union (AU), have recently expressed their interest in starting, reviving or expanding their national nuclear power programmes.⁽¹¹⁾

If one is to believe its avid advocates, nuclear power is “clean, plentiful and economic;”⁽¹²⁾ the proposed shift to nuclear power, they argue, will not only salvage the environment by diversifying energy sources and reducing the reliance on coal-based energy generation,⁽¹³⁾ but also provide a much-needed boost to the region’s economic development by lowering import dependency.⁽¹⁴⁾ While the nexus between the state of Africa’s energy production and development certainly comprises an important and valid source for concern, and one that merits constructive debate, the development of nuclear energy fails to provide a feasible means of ‘correcting’ Africa’s energy deficiencies and facilitating sustainable growth. The remainder of this paper discusses the reasons why this is the case.

A future at risk: The price of going nuclear

While nuclear enthusiasts assert that Africa is in dire need of nuclear energy to mitigate its debilitating energy deficit and facilitate economic growth, too many reasons exist as to why its nations ought to steer away from the nuclear path. This opposition stems from several factors, among others, the lacking infrastructural and financial capacities of African states, radioactivity concerns, waste management issues, the inherent risk of catastrophic accidents, links to proliferation and terrorism, as well as questions of democratic governance and intergenerational justice.⁽¹⁵⁾ Ultimately, nuclear energy - in Africa as elsewhere - is confronted by a three-pronged set of overlapping constraints: manifest burdens, perceived risks and moral considerations.

Contamination is perhaps the most obvious implication of nuclear undertakings, as toxic spills and radiation are inevitable consequences of uranium mining and nuclear power plant operation.⁽¹⁶⁾ In addition, the risk of latent complex disasters is far from negligible; nuclear meltdowns, radioactive spills and other rare ‘black swan’ events may be triggered due to a number of unforeseen - yet conceivable - events, such as natural disasters, human blunders, technical failures, terrorist attacks, warfare, proliferation and, as Fukushima demonstrated, even rats.⁽¹⁷⁾ Such “unaccounted-for risk” renders it impossible to guarantee that unexpected accidents will not occur despite experts and regulators’ best efforts at improving safety and reducing risk.⁽¹⁸⁾

Not only does radiation pose a grave threat to fragile ecosystems, but it also endangers overall health and socio-economic wellbeing of individuals and communities.⁽¹⁹⁾ Leakage of toxic materials may enter seawater, groundwater systems, the air, rainwater, agricultural lands and the food chain, causing widespread damages to flora and fauna. Human exposure to these invisible toxins can produce fatal outcomes. The impact is not limited to the areas and populations in proximal vicinity of nuclear facilities, but may even trigger a contagion of global nuclear radioactivity,⁽²⁰⁾ resulting in destruction of essential livelihoods, mass-displacement and public health disasters, which in turn carry considerable societal and economic implications.⁽²¹⁾ Add to the mix the cost of safeguarding reactors; extensive clean-up operations after potential catastrophes; medical expenditures; the lives lost; and trauma imprinted into public memory, and it becomes obvious that nuclear power is not safe, clean or cheap.

Waste management is another controversial issue related to contamination. More than six decades after the launch of nuclear technology, there is still no universally accepted mode of disposal and storage of nuclear waste.⁽²²⁾ It would appear irresponsible for African countries to make the nuclear leap before the waste problem is settled. In addition to the problem of spent fuel, storage of the thousands of decommissioned reactor vessels is problematic. Burial could, as aforementioned, result in radioactive leakage into groundwater due to unanticipated geological movement. Furthermore, waste management in the context of an ever-changing and unpredictable geopolitical spectrum also gives rise to high levels of uncertainty.⁽²³⁾

This, in turn, ties into the question of security. The presence of nuclear power in a globalised world creates an infrastructure where materials and expertise for weapons making can more easily proliferate.⁽²⁴⁾ All nuclear fuels and products can be utilised to produce harmful devices.⁽²⁵⁾ Dirty bombs and nuclear weapons can be built with relative ease by using only a very small amount of easily concealable fissile material.⁽²⁶⁾ Indeed, it has already proven challenging for today’s relatively small international nuclear industry to provide assurance that materials are not being diverted for non-civil use.⁽²⁷⁾ Not only do nuclear facilities provide the supplies needed to build weapons of mass destruction, but they also represent highly vulnerable targets of attack, something that further compounds the security concerns. Hence, the abandonment of nuclear plans and permanent closure of nuclear facilities provide the most effective ways to bolster efforts against illicit proliferation and nuclear terrorism, as it cuts off the means available to any faction intent on using fissile material for violent purposes.

Pelindaba nuclear facility in South Africa provides a frightening example. It stores hundreds of kilograms of weapons-grade uranium, sufficient to make an estimated 25 nuclear bombs. Regarded as one of South Africa’s most secure nuclear facilities, it is surrounded by electric fencing, a 24-hour security surveillance system, and armed guards. These measures, however, failed to prevent a break-in in November 2007 by a group of intruders who spent 45 minutes inside one of the nation’s most heavily guarded ‘national key points’.⁽²⁸⁾ The incident, like numerous others, serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerability of nuclear amenities to intrusion and attacks. The reality of this threat is only magnified by the increased interest in expanding nuclear industries in African countries in a globalised world where terrorist groups can more readily plan, coordinate and launch transnational assaults on a large scale. What solid guarantees can African states, infamously plagued with nuclear inexperience; political instability; lacking structural, technical and financial capacities; porous border security; inadequate legal standards; weak safety enforcement mechanisms; and questionable records of quality maintenance, good governance and corruption,⁽²⁹⁾ realistically provide?

In considering normative aspects of the nuclear energy debate, the term ‘risk society’, coined by German sociologist Ulrich Beck, is of particular relevance as it problematises the duty of states and societies to uphold social justice by protecting vulnerable populations from avoidable anthropogenic external and manufactured risk.⁽³⁰⁾ Societal risk-taking, unlike personal risk-taking, often involves imposed rather than freely-accepted risk and, as Beck aptly remarks, “wealth accumulates at the top, risk at the bottom.”⁽³¹⁾ The unfairness of nuclear energy is not captured by standard forms of risk analysis, which take no account of the distribution of risks across a population.⁽³²⁾ The assurance afforded by probabilistic calculations neglects the vast destructive potential of nuclear energy and that the environmental, political, and social impacts of an accident will likely be far greater than the mathematics of risk may have perceived. It is imperative to minimise and fairly distribute risk among persons, peoples, and generations. The concept of intergenerational justice calls for present-day societies to avoid “dumping” their energy problems on future generations when more benign methods of generating energy are available.⁽³³⁾

Governments act as trustees on behalf of citizens and where they fail to act equitably, democratically and in the best interest of the public, their legitimacy comes under scrutiny.⁽³⁴⁾ The nuclear legacy is riddled with a lack of transparency and with distrust.⁽³⁵⁾ Corporate and political vested interests and hidden agendas⁽³⁶⁾ have underpinned the release of confusing or misleading information and reported underestimates. There is no reason to believe that this tendency to deliberately conceal information or delay the disclosure of facts, coupled with misguiding public relations campaigns will not persist worldwide. Nuclear power politics epitomises the centralisation of power in the hands of an influential and wealthy minority heavily concentrated in what Koichi Hasegawa deems the “Atomic Circle,” characterised by the cosy relationships between politicians, government, academics, industry and the media.⁽³⁷⁾

It is important to note the uneven playing field, as government support for nuclear power is often rooted in the pleading by industry lobbies, while non-governmental organisations and citizens lack the funds and political leverage for this form of effective lobbying.⁽³⁸⁾ Furthermore, the increasingly vocal opposition by considerable segments of the public points to a significant lack of public consent, and demonstrates the highly undemocratic nature of nuclear programmes as the risks posed by nuclear projects are rarely accepted by its polities through democratic processes.⁽³⁹⁾ Kristin Schader-Frechette’s statement neatly sums up the issue: “All risk questions are ultimately philosophical questions. To attempt to reduce them to purely scientific issues…is to ignore the value dimension of policy analysis, and to disenfranchise the public, who, in a democracy, ought to control that policy.”⁽⁴⁰⁾

Africa needs a renewable, not nuclear, renaissance

Africa is indisputably in need of an energy revolution, but “expensive, dangerous, polluting and un-democratic” nuclear power does not present a feasible or sensible solution.⁽⁴¹⁾ If there is something that society ought to have learnt from the past events of Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, it is that accidents happen whether we are prepared or not. African governments, as elected trustees of their people, carry a responsibility not to place local and global communities at unacceptable nuclear risk that generates a set of manufactured risks and potentially fatal implications for current and future generations.⁽⁴²⁾ As is the case for the rest of the world, it is imperative that Africa’s leadership and industries dedicate more time and effort into exploring renewable energy technologies. This also entails greater involvement of an increasingly vocal civil society in the policy-making processes.

In the currently uneven playing field, the fixation on nuclear power plants draws funds away from the development of sustainable energy schemes.⁽⁴³⁾ If government subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy programmes are removed and a comparable level of political will and resources are poured into other low-risk renewable energy options, African countries will surely be better able to secure more cost-effective, sustainable, reliable, energy efficient, and indeed greener, solutions to the energy supply crisis.⁽⁴⁴⁾ And, Africa is well situated from a renewable resources position to do so. Hydropower is a particularly promising renewable energy source, with an estimated potential of around 1,750 terawatt hours (TWh).⁽⁴⁵⁾ Geothermal power, with an estimated potential of and 9,000 megawatts (MW) and solar power also show great promise. In fact, according to the African Development Bank, “a solar generating facility covering just 0.3% of North Africa could supply all the energy requirements of the European Union.”⁽⁴⁶⁾ Increased investment in the research and development of renewable energy projects is, hence, an investment in the long-term wellbeing of African peoples and societies, and may increase economic productivity as well as raise the standards and quality of life.

As outlined in a 2011 report by Greenpeace, the core of the needed energy revolution is embedded in a fundamental transformation of the way that energy is produced, distributed and consumed.⁽⁴⁷⁾ A nuclear-free future requires a mix of conservation policy efforts designed, on the one hand, to reduce the demand for energy and, on the other, to spur the expansion of alternative energy sources in order to replace carbon-intensive fossil fuels.⁽⁴⁸⁾ Enhanced efforts aimed at educating the public about the importance of responsible energy use, coupled with more widespread deployment of renewable energy technologies, such as wind, solar, photovoltaics, ocean, hydro-electric and geothermal power,⁽⁴⁹⁾ are vital stepping stones in the pursuit of greater energy conservation, safety and efficiency.⁽⁵⁰⁾ These proposed options are particularly appealing in that they evade the ‘dilemma of apparently incommensurable risks’, which plague nuclear power. Renewable energy schemes offer a far less risky approach that can go a long way towards decarbonising the energy economy and may one day together replace fossil fuels entirely.⁽⁵¹⁾ This would ensure that overall negative social and economic impacts are kept to a minimum, and will foster opportunities for the creation of green jobs, investment and innovation.⁽⁵²⁾ In the meantime, the focus should be on phasing out existing nuclear power activities and expand research and development of more viable options that avoid the uncertainties and hazards of unmanageable radioactive waste, the peril of reactor meltdowns, nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

Conclusions

The appeal of nuclear energy appears to have caught on in Africa. However, the debate over whether a “nuclear energy revolution”⁽⁵³⁾ is feasible for the continent continues to produce sharp divisions among various factions of African societies,⁽⁵⁴⁾ and understandingly so. The shrug given by many to potential accidents implies a widespread complacency towards the risks of nuclear power in modern society. Nevertheless, a critical discussion of the future of nuclear energy in Africa brings to light a complex set of practical, financial and moral questions. It points to the proven dangers of engaging in nuclear-related activities and unveils the concerning relationships between nuclear energy and global insecurity; corporate and political interests; perceived risks, democracy and intergenerational justice.

Risk generated by human activities constitutes the core imperative for regulatory responsibility and public accountability. When the profound social, political, economic and ecological costs of nuclear power are accounted for, it becomes clear that history has presented us with a frightening legacy that marginally benefits some at the cost of increasing nuclear-related risks for many others. Nuclear energy, thus, represents an incommensurably poor energy option for Africa. The risk inherent in the production of nuclear power is ubiquitous, inescapable and potentially irreversible; taking measures to reduce this risk will not, and cannot, eliminate it. The only way to do so is for governments to reconsider the direction in which they are currently headed and make the conscious choice to shut down existing plants and shift away from any plans to build or expand nuclear industries. In the current context of nuclear ambiguity, renewable energy alternatives emerge as the most viable long-term option for Africa. Unless the necessary steps are taken towards building a more sustainable society based on clean technologies, the risks highlighted in this paper will continue to pose preeminent threats not just to Africa, but also to global security and wellbeing in the foreseeable future.

Written by Akari O. Izumi Kvamme ⁽¹⁾

NOTES:

(1) Akari O. Izumi Kvamme is a Research Associate with CAI and has a particular interest in global politics, peace and conflict, human security, gender equity and social justice. Contact Akari through Consultancy Africa Intelligence's Africa Watch Unit ( africa.watch@consultancyafrica.com). Edited by Nicky Berg
(2) Sokolov, Y.A. and McDonald, A., 2005. The nuclear power option for Africa. African Technology Development Forum Journal, 2(2), pp. 12-18.
(3) Chao, S., ‘Nuclear energy: Is Africa ready for a revolution?’, Africa Review, 12 February 2013, http://www.africareview.com; Chacha, M., 2012. Regional integration and nuclear energy in Africa. African Security Review, 21(4), pp. 38-50.
(4) Parenti, C., ‘What nuclear renaissance?’, The Nation, 12 May 2008, http://www.thenation.com.
(5) Chacha, M., 2012. Regional integration and nuclear energy in Africa. African Security Review, 21(4), pp. 38-50; Ramana, M.V., 2011. Nuclear power and the public. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 67(4), pp. 43-51.
(6) Chacha, M., 2012. Regional integration and nuclear energy in Africa. African Security Review, 21(4), pp. 38-50.
(7) Ibid.
(8) ‘Can Africa go nuclear? Energy demands battle with safety concerns across the continent’, International Business Times, 24 July 2013, http://www.ibtimes.com.
(9) Chao, S., ‘Nuclear energy: Is Africa ready for a revolution?’, Africa Review, 12 February 2013, http://www.africareview.com.
(10) Chacha, M., 2012. Regional integration and nuclear energy in Africa. African Security Review, 21(4), pp. 38-50.
(11) ‘The true cost of nuclear power in South Africa’, Greenpeace Report 2011, http://www.greenpeace.org; Jewell, J., 2011. Ready for nuclear energy?: An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs. Energy Policy, 39, pp. 1041-1055.
(12) ‘What energy is best for Africa: Hydro, fossil and/or nuclear?’, Good Governance Africa, http://gga.org; ‘The true cost of nuclear power in South Africa’, Greenpeace Report 2011, http://www.greenpeace.org.
(13) ‘IPPs given go ahead in South Africa’s push for cleaner energy’, Ventures Africa, 30 October 2012, http://www.ventures-africa.com.
(14) ‘Tanzania turns to nuclear power’, SciDev.net, http://www.scidev.net; ‘Energy policy scenarios to 2050: Africa’, World Energy Council, 16 January 2011, http://www.worldenergy.org; Jewell, J., 2011. Ready for nuclear energy?: An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs. Energy Policy, 39, pp. 1041-1055.
(15) Rabi, A. and Rabi, V.A., 2013. External costs of nuclear: Greater or less than the alternatives? Energy Policy, 57, pp. 575-584; Vanderheiden, S., 2011. Confronting risks: regulatory responsibility and nuclear energy. Environmental Politics, 20(5), pp. 650-667.
(16) Mweetwa, S., ‘Africa: Seek alternative to nuclear plants- activists’, All Africa, 11 August 2012, http://allafrica.com.
(17) Duffey, R., 2012. A future at risk. Mechanical Engineering, 134(7), pp. 34-38; Mian, Z. and Glaser, A., 2008. A frightening nuclear legacy. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 64(4), pp. 42-47; ‘Fukushima: Rat linked to outage at Japan nuclear plant’, BBC News, 20 March 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk.
(18) Duffey, R., 2012. A future at risk. Mechanical Engineering, 134(7), pp. 34-38.
(19) ‘The true cost of nuclear power in South Africa’, Greenpeace Report 2011, http://www.greenpeace.org.
(20) Hasegawa, K., 2012. Facing nuclear risks: Lessons from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 21, pp. 84-91.
(21) Chossudovsky, M., ‘Fukushima: A nuclear war without a war: The unspoken crisis of worldwide nuclear radiation’, Global Research, 25 January 2012, http://www.globalresearch.ca.; Rabi, A. and Rabi, V.A., 2013. External costs of nuclear: Greater or less than the alternatives? Energy Policy, 57, pp. 575-584.
(22) Abbott, D., 2012. Limits to growth: Can nuclear power supply the world’s needs? Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 68(5), pp. 23-32.
(23) Ibid.
(24) Mian, Z. and Glaser, A., 2008. A frightening nuclear legacy. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 64(4), pp. 42-47; Abbott, D., 2012. Limits to growth: Can nuclear power supply the world’s needs? Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 68(5), pp. 23-32.
(25) Ibid.; Joyner, C.C. and Parkhouse, A.I., 2009. Nuclear terrorism in a globalized world: Assessing the threat and the emerging management regime. Stanford Journal of International Law, 45(203), pp. 203-241.
(26) Ibid.
(27) Abbott, D., 2012. Limits to growth: Can nuclear power supply the world’s needs? Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 68(5), pp. 23-32.
(28) Joyner, C.C. and Parkhouse, A.I., 2009. Nuclear terrorism in a globalized world: Assessing the threat and the emerging management regime. Stanford Journal of International Law, 45(203), pp. 203-241.
(29) Ibid.; McCluskey, J., ‘Reject nuclear power – here’s why’, Global Research, 1 February 2013, http://www.globalresearch.ca; Jewell, J., 2011. Ready for nuclear energy?: An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs. Energy Policy, 39, pp. 1041-1055.
(30) Vanderheiden, S., 2011. Confronting risks: Regulatory responsibility and nuclear energy. Environmental Politics, 20(5), pp. 650-667.
(31) Ibid.
(32) Ibid.
(33) McCluskey, J., ‘Reject nuclear power – here’s why’, Global Research, 1 February 2013, http://www.globalresearch.ca.
(34) Vanderheiden, S., 2011. Confronting risks: Regulatory responsibility and nuclear energy. Environmental Politics, 20(5), pp. 650-667.
(35) Donnelly, L., ‘SA still in the dark over nuke money’, Mail & Guardian, 2 August 2013, http://mg.co.za.
(36) Dickson, D., ‘Should developing nations embrace nuclear energy?’, SciDevnet, http://www.scidev.net.
(37) Hasegawa, K., 2012. Facing nuclear risks: Lessons from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 21, pp. 84-91.
(38) McCluskey, J., ‘Reject nuclear power – here’s why’, Global Research, 1 February 2013, http://www.globalresearch.ca.
(39) Taylor, T., ‘South Africa: Nuclear power’s threat to democracy’, All Africa, 30 April 2013, http://allafrica.com.
(40) Vanderheiden, S., 2011. Confronting risks: Regulatory responsibility and nuclear energy. Environmental Politics, 20(5), pp. 650-667.
(41) ‘The true cost of nuclear power in South Africa’, Greenpeace Report 2011, http://www.greenpeace.org.
(42) Vanderheiden, S., 2011. Confronting risks: Regulatory responsibility and nuclear energy. Environmental Politics, 20(5), pp. 650-667.
(43) McCluskey, J., ‘Reject nuclear power – here’s why’, Global Research, 1 February 2013, http://www.globalresearch.ca.
(44) ‘The true cost of nuclear power in South Africa’, Greenpeace Report 2011, http://www.greenpeace.org.
(45) ‘Renewable energy in Africa’, African Development Bank, 13 February 2012, http://www.afdb.org.
(46) Ibid.
(47) ibid.
(48) Vanderheiden, S., 2011. Confronting risks: Regulatory responsibility and nuclear energy. Environmental Politics, 20(5), pp. 650-667.
(49) ‘The true cost of nuclear power in South Africa’, Greenpeace Report 2011, http://www.greenpeace.org; Vanderheiden, S., 2011. Confronting risks: Regulatory responsibility and nuclear energy. Environmental Politics, 20(5), pp. 650-667.
(50) Vanderheiden, S., 2011. Confronting risks: Regulatory responsibility and nuclear energy. Environmental Politics, 20(5), pp. 650-667; Rabi, A. and Rabi, V.A., 2013. External costs of nuclear: Greater or less than the alternatives? Energy Policy, 57, pp. 575-584.
(51) Vanderheiden, S., 2011. Confronting risks: Regulatory responsibility and nuclear energy. Environmental Politics, 20(5), pp. 650-667.
(52) ‘The true cost of nuclear power in South Africa’, Greenpeace Report 2011, http://www.greenpeace.org.
(53) Ibid.
(54) Chao, S., ‘Nuclear energy: Is Africa ready for a revolution?’, Africa Review, 12 February 2013, http://www.africareview.com.