The proposal to build a nuclear power plant in Uyombo, Kilifi County, has sparked widespread resistance, and rightfully so.

As residents of the coastal region, we find ourselves at the intersection of a national energy debate and the preservation of our local economy, environment, and cultural heritage.

The idea of introducing nuclear energy in Kenya is neither new nor inherently negative, but the chosen site, Uyombo, near the Watamu Marine Protected Area, raises significant concerns that we cannot afford to ignore.

First and foremost, Kilifi County’s economy heavily depends on tourism and fishing, industries that thrive on our pristine environment.

Also Read: The untold journey of the Taita people: Tracing their roots and clans

The allure of Watamu’s beaches, marine life, and natural beauty has for decades attracted tourists from around the world, providing employment and income to thousands of locals.

The establishment of a nuclear plant nearby would place these livelihoods in jeopardy. The mere perception of nuclear risk, whether real or imagined, could deter tourists and undermine our economy.

In addition, fishing communities that depend on clean waters to sustain their livelihoods fear the potential contamination and disruption that such a plant could bring to the marine ecosystem.

Environmental impact is another critical issue. Kilifi is blessed with diverse marine and terrestrial ecosystems, including mangroves, coral reefs, and endangered species that call the area home.

The introduction of a nuclear facility threatens these delicate ecosystems, as the potential for accidents, waste mismanagement, or pollution is ever-present. Our environmental resources are already strained due to climate change, and adding the risk of nuclear contamination would be an irreversible mistake.

The risks associated with nuclear energy are not just environmental but also socio-political. Kenya is still grappling with basic infrastructure challenges, from healthcare to emergency preparedness. The ability to handle a nuclear accident, however small, is questionable.

Our track record in disaster management is far from ideal, as demonstrated by previous national crises. Can we honestly claim readiness to manage a potential nuclear incident?

Moreover, nuclear waste disposal remains one of the most contentious and unresolved issues in the global energy debate. The long-term storage of radioactive waste poses a threat not just to our generation but to many generations to come. Who will take responsibility for safeguarding future Kilifi residents from such hazards?

While proponents of nuclear energy argue that it will help bridge Kenya’s energy gap and fuel future industrialization, we must ask ourselves: At what cost? There are alternative, renewable sources of energy that align with the global transition toward sustainability.

Kilifi is naturally blessed with abundant sunlight, wind, and geothermal potential. Shouldn’t we invest more in these cleaner and safer energy sources rather than rush into nuclear power?

Resistance to the Uyombo nuclear plant is not a rejection of progress but a call for more thoughtful, sustainable development. We must resist any short-term fixes that could have devastating long-term consequences for our people, our environment, and our future. Kilifi deserves better — a future powered by safe, clean, and renewable energy, not one shadowed by the risks of nuclear power.

It is time for our leaders to listen to the voices of the people, protect our heritage, and choose an energy path that does not compromise our identity, economy, or environment.

About The Author