A new breed of reactors is bringing nuclear power within reach of more African countries. The rapid multiplication of small modular reactor (SMR) designs could reshape nuclear power development across Africa, a continent that desperately needs more electricity. The African Development Bank reports that more than 640 million of Africa’s 1.4 billion people lack access to power, and Jakkie Cilliers, Head of African Futures and Innovation at the Institute for Security Studies, forecasts this figure will rise to 657 million by 2030 if current trends continue.
Many African nations have considered nuclear energy as a way to close the electricity gap, but cost and other complexities have limited progress. Apart from South Africa’s 40‑year‑old Koeberg plant, only Egypt has moved forward, with Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom beginning construction of its first nuclear power plant there last year. Globally, only five countries— the United States, Russia, China, France and South Korea—have recent experience building and exporting conventional large nuclear plants. In the past year, however, SMR technology has blossomed, with at least 80 new designs emerging, according to Ingrid Kirsten and Tony Stott, senior research associates at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non‑Proliferation. These SMRs range from units that could fit on a pickup truck to reactors of about 300 megawatts, roughly a third of the size of a traditional plant. While many designs remain highly conceptual and untested, the United States certified its first SMR design at the end of 2022, suggesting that a plant could begin generating electricity within five years.
SMRs could alter the global and African market prospects for nuclear power manufacturers. A few years ago Rosatom led the field internationally and in Africa; by the October 2019 Russia‑Africa Sochi summit, around 18 African countries had signed cooperation agreements with Rosatom on peaceful nuclear use. In contrast, the United States and France have not actively participated in the African market, while Rosatom has pursued aggressive sales and financing deals, recently offering 100 % financing to African nations, according to President Vladimir Putin. Nevertheless, Kirsten and Stott believe the United States, France, China, Canada and the United Kingdom are now taking the lead in SMR technology.
For Africa, SMRs offer three main advantages: lower cost, faster construction, and enhanced inherent and passive safety features. Some reactors could be prefabricated abroad, reducing the need to develop extensive nuclear engineering skills required for conventional plants. Whereas a traditional nuclear station typically takes 10–15 years to build, an SMR could be deployed in about five years in a country that already has nuclear experience; in a developing nation with little or no nuclear background, construction might take five to twelve years. The relative lack of nuclear expertise and the need to establish elaborate legal and regulatory frameworks—essential for safety, radiation protection, material security and non‑proliferation—remain significant hurdles.
Kirsten and Stott suggest Ghana is likely to be the next African country to generate nuclear power after Egypt. Ghana has operated a nuclear research reactor for several years, gaining experience in technology and regulation. With support from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Ghana has completed the first phase and moved into Phase 2 of the IAEA’s three‑stage Milestones Approach, which guides nations in building the infrastructure needed for nuclear power. This preparation includes establishing a bureaucracy that enables informed governmental decisions on whether to commit to a nuclear programme. Although Ghana has a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia, it has not yet chosen between a conventional large plant and an SMR; the authors think an SMR, with the option to add modules later, is a plausible choice. Kenya or Uganda could be the next African nations to go nuclear, and many others are likely to wait and see how SMRs perform in their countries of origin.
Not everyone is convinced. Critics raise concerns about radiation, proliferation, and toxic waste disposal, and question the claim that SMRs are cheaper. Peter Becker, an energy activist with the Koeberg Alert Alliance, told ISS Today that the trend toward larger reactors stems from economies of scale, and that SMRs have historically been more expensive. He noted that cost estimates for models such as NuScale have risen by over 50 % since 2021, and argued that while SMRs aim to reduce capital costs, the cost per kilowatt‑hour remains too high to be competitive without massive government subsidies. Some also wonder whether renewables will soon render SMRs—or any nuclear technology—obsolete.
Kirsten disagrees, believing that the benefits of renewables and the disadvantages of nuclear have been exaggerated in the current political climate. While solar power appears an obvious choice for Africa, she points out that matching nuclear output would require vast solar installations, creating significant environmental challenges. Moreover, renewables do not provide baseload power because of their intermittency. Cilliers concurs, noting that industrialisation and initiatives such as the African Continental Free Trade Area demand reliable baseload energy. Stott adds, “I’m in favour of renewable energy, but I’m not in favour of saying it can do everything. Each country has to choose its own mix, and in our opinion nuclear should be part of that.” Kirsten argues that the global energy crisis has created an opportunity to accelerate SMR development and deployment.
Peter Fabricius, Consultant, ISS Pretoria.
Comments are closed for this story.