Guinea and Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation this month signed a deal to deploy a floating nuclear power plant off the coast of West Africa. Is that crazy?

Anyone on the continent who rejects nuclear energy out of hand should recall two facts: 

• At least 80% of the world’s off-grid population lives in Africa.

• Only 24% of the continent’s total energy output currently comes from renewables.

The crux: Africa needs many more clean energy sources to serve growing demand while meeting its net-zero emissions target by 2050. 

• Solar and wind power are intermittent, depending on weather.

• Hydro is effective but limited to regions with large water sources.

• Nuclear produces stable and clean energy as a matter of course.

Clocking on: That explains why at least ten African nations are getting involved.

• South Africa has had nuclear energy for decades. It is now adding 2,500 MW to its existing 1,700 MW Koeberg plant.

• Egypt is building four reactors, each with 1,200 MW. 

• Nigeria is set to build a 4,000 MW plant. 

• Uganda and Rwanda have deals for construction.

• Kenya, Ghana, Tanzania and Morocco are holding talks with suppliers. 

Status quo: Globally, almost 500 reactors in over 30 countries generate about 10% of our electricity, trumping all sources except hydro in terms of clean power.

• Africa’s nuclear capacity will increase 58% by 2030 and tenfold by 2050.

• The question is – what will it cost?

Economics: To compare sources, the industry calculates the “Levelised Cost of Energy” (LCOE). It’s a measure of the average net present cost over a source’s lifetime.

• Nuclear energy is not cheap at around $0.1 / kWh.

• However, this is based on relatively few large reactors built in the past two decades.

• New smaller reactors could be up to 30% more affordable. 

Comparison: Costwise, nuclear sits in the middle of the spectrum (see chart above). 

• South Africa’s Koeberg nuclear plant generates 5% of the country’s electricity and has the lowest cost of energy in the country. 

Directional change: Solar and other renewable technologies have become cheaper over the past decade. And so has nuclear – operating costs are down 26.5% since 2012.

Step change: The nuclear energy sector is in the middle of a transformation, turning away from large and expensive but exceedingly powerful plants. 

• They output over 1,000 MW and can produce 24,000 MWh per day.

• They’re not only expensive but pose greater risks in case of an accident.

Modern take: Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are deemed the future of nuclear energy. They are more suitable for low-middle income countries with limited electric grids.

• SMRs can range from less than 10 MW up to 300 MW.

• They require smaller upfront investments but are less efficient. 

First mover: Rwanda is evaluating various SMR models and sites with a view to installing two SMRs.

• South Africa is conducting SMR research while building a large-scale plant.

• Other African contenders still mainly focus on large reactors.

The money: All nuclear energy requires big investments, which few countries can afford.

• Russia and China are offering funding for eight African nuclear projects.

• The US is providing some funding for a Ghanaian SMR project.

• Geopolitics is rarely far when it comes to the nuclear industry.

Stability concerns: Nuclear plants have long triggered popular pushback. Nigeria has been declared a “nation in conflict” by the World Bank, raising safety questions.

• In response, some suppliers have offered to remove nuclear waste. 

• That still leaves concerns over accidents and proliferation.

What’s needed: Worldwide, nuclear energy is one of the most regulated industries. African nations need to put fundamentals in place to progress safely. That means:

• Creating regulatory frameworks 

• Developing human resources 

• Creating more grid infrastructure

• Setting up regional cooperation 

Key question: How will nuclear fit into the energy mix? As shown by renewables, Africa does well with distributed power sources. That suggests small modular reactors. 

• SMRs don’t require enormous grids to deliver centralised baseloads.

• They are built using less capital and are less complex to run.

• They can be plugged in locally to support dense urban or industrial areas. 

Bottom line: Nuclear is an option but no panacea. Key is picking the right technology. Nobody is suggesting a move away from renewables. But nor should the perfect be the enemy of the good. If the climate is in crisis, innovation and pragmatism are needed.