As Ghana strives for energy sufficiency and industrialization, the government’s recent decision in March 2025 to sign framework agreements with companies from the United States and China for the construction of the country’s first nuclear power plants marks a critical turning point. This move revisits the ambitious vision initially laid out by Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, and follows an earlier step taken during President Akufo-Addo’s administration in August 2022, when nuclear technology was formally added to Ghana’s national energy strategy. Under President Akufo-Addo’s, the Ghana Geological Survey Authority (GGSA) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with a private company, Deep Geo Ghana Limited, to construct a deep geological repository for nuclear waste, an important infrastructure component intended as a prelude to producing nuclear energy by 2030. However, given Ghana’s persistent challenges, including frequent power outages, high electricity costs, poor maintenance culture, inadequate supervision, and systemic corruption, a thorough and cautious re-evaluation is urgently needed. Although proponents highlight nuclear energy’s reliability and carbon-free generation, a careful analysis of the financial burden, operational complexity, environmental risks, and long-term waste management issues strongly suggests that pursuing nuclear power is neither economically prudent nor strategically safe for Ghana.

We at CCCFS have taken the pain to highlight and bring to bear some critical issue that needs to consider as the discussion of Ghana going nuclear takes effect. We feel, posterity will judge us if we fail to speak now and turn to complain latter.

This piece seeks to call the attention of national leaders, Members of Parliament, policymakers, the media, civil society organisations, and the Ghanaian public to the full range of issues at stake. IT IS A PASSIONATE PLEA FOR INTROSPECTION AND REVERSAL. Ghana must halt this agreement and abolish its nuclear ambitions before we are locked into a future of radioactive burden, debt, and systemic risks we are ill-prepared to handle.

We wish to state that this is not a rejection of energy development but a redirection toward sustainable, decentralized, and truly safe energy pathways. The risks of nuclear far outweigh its touted benefits, especially in a country still grappling with basic emergency and environmental management capacity. For instance, Germany is frantically trying to dismantle its nuclear energy, citing safety, cost, and political concerns. So, if Germany, a technological powerhouse and the most advanced economy in Europe is abandoning nuclear energy, why is Ghana now seeking to embrace it?

Below is an evidence-based review of why this deal should be abandoned and what viable alternatives Ghana should be investing in.

1. The High Financial Stakes

Nuclear energy carries immense financial burdens. Constructing a 1,000 MW nuclear plant costs between US$6 billion to US$9 billion, significantly exceeding Ghana’s annual infrastructure budget. Long-term operational and waste management costs would further exacerbate these financial burdens, placing Ghana at risk of prolonged foreign dependency and substantial debt.

2. Practical Energy Needs vs. Nuclear Capacity

Ghana’s peak energy demand currently hovers around 3,000 MW, already managed effectively through existing hydro, gas, and renewable resources. (Although there has been and there are energy issues “Dum so, or Dum sei sei”, it’s all about money issues and not about generational capacity). While nuclear power plants offer stable base load electricity, the rigid and inflexible nature of nuclear energy makes it less adaptable to Ghana’s actual needs.

 

3. Unmanageable Risks for Ghana

Ghana currently lacks the institutional capacity to manage the multifaceted risks of nuclear energy:

1. Radioactive Waste Management: Nuclear waste remains hazardous for thousands of years. The recent unclear dealings with Deep Geo Ghana Limited, a company lacking verified experience in nuclear waste management, underscore significant transparency and competence concerns.
2. Security and Terrorism Threats: Security and terrorism threats significantly compound the risks associated with nuclear power, as nuclear installations globally have been frequent targets for terrorist and cyber-attacks. A US database recorded 80 military or terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities from 1961 to 2014, and more recently, unidentified drones have flown over nuclear plants in France and the US, underscoring ongoing vulnerabilities. Notably, in 2014, insider sabotage at a Belgian nuclear plant resulted in the destruction of a turbine; despite intensive investigations narrowing down to 30 internal suspects, no arrests were made, and the case was closed unresolved in early 2022. Given Ghana’s persistent inability to halt illegal mining activities (galamsey) despite repeated governmental pledges from Presidents Atta Mills and Mahama to Akufo-Addo, and now back to President Mahama again, there are legitimate concerns about the country’s capacity to effectively safeguard nuclear installations against sophisticated security and terrorism threats.
3. Nuclear Power Plants: Pre-deployed Weapons for the Enemy: Nuclear power plants, if targeted by adversaries or terrorists, can effectively become devastating pre-deployed weapons capable of inflicting widespread radioactive contamination. Unlike the need to develop nuclear weapons, attackers can directly exploit existing nuclear facilities, transforming them into instruments of terror and environmental catastrophe. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster, though not a result of military action, illustrates the potential magnitude of such an event: its fallout released 200 times more radiation across Europe than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, rendering extensive areas uninhabitable and leaving lasting contamination. More recently, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the military occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant have heightened fears about the vulnerability of nuclear facilities. With extensive fighting and multiple direct hits reported near the plant, the potential for deliberate or accidental nuclear disaster remains an alarming threat.

1. Accident and Emergency Response: Ghana’s emergency systems are already strained. Nuclear accidents, even minor ones, could overwhelm national resources, leading to catastrophic health and environmental impacts. We all know the state of our NADMO services in this country.
2. Human Resource and Maintenance: Managing nuclear facilities requires specialized, highly trained personnel. Ghana currently lacks sufficient expertise, increasing reliance on external entities and raising operational risks.
3. Company Profiles and Selection Concerns

Three companies have been identified in Ghana’s nuclear agenda, each presenting distinct concerns from which we have presented in brief below:

1. NuScale Power (USA)

NuScale, a U.S.-based company specializing in Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology, has achieved U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission certification for its design. However, NuScale has not yet completed or operationalized any commercial nuclear plant in the U.S. A high-profile project (Carbon Free Power Project) intended for Utah was cancelled in 2023 due to escalating costs, making Ghana effectively a testing ground for unproven technology. Given these factors, CCCFS questions the prudence of selecting NuScale, particularly considering that a similar project was deemed financially unsustainable in the United States.

1. China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC)

CNNC is a Chinese state-owned enterprise with extensive experience in the nuclear sector, covering plant construction, uranium mining, fuel supply, and nuclear waste management. While its technical capabilities are significant, Ghana must critically assess whether the associated long-term strategic dependencies align with national sovereignty and economic independence. The country already as of the end of 2022, owned China about $2 billion of which $619 million of the debt to China was collateralized with assets such as cocoa, bauxite, and oil. With the debt exchange program under the previous government, the country’s debt portfolio will increase, and adding such investment from nuclear plant will only just add more debt which could cripple the country in future.

1. Deep Geo Ghana Limited

Deep Geo Ghana Limited specializes in geophysical, geological, and environmental services, mainly serving mining and oil industries. Despite an MOU signed to construct Ghana’s nuclear waste storage facility, CCCFS’s research found no verifiable experience in nuclear projects or radioactive waste management by this company. This raises profound concerns about the transparency, procurement processes, and due diligence conducted by Ghanaian authorities.

5. Environmental and Health Implications

Nuclear power plants generate radioactive waste requiring secure, long-term storage to prevent severe human health consequences, including cancer and genetic mutations. The environmental risks from uranium mining, water pollution, and land degradation further compound these challenges. Ghana currently lacks the infrastructure and regulatory robustness to guarantee safe, long-term waste management.

6. Better Alternatives: Renewable Energy

Investing in decentralized renewable energy solutions provides clear benefits:

• Lower upfront and operational costs.
• Significant job creation and energy independence.
• Enhanced rural electrification, reducing transmission losses.
• Alignment with global climate goals.

Renewable energy sources offer much more affordable and sustainable alternatives. A 1,000 MW solar photovoltaic plant costs between US$700 million to US$1.1 billion, while an equivalent wind project ranges from US$1.3 billion to US$1.8 billion. Renewable energy also has a significantly lower leveled cost of electricity (LCOE), averaging US$40 – US$60 per MWh, compared to nuclear energy’s US$131 per MWh. Renewable energy leverages Ghana’s natural assets: abundant sunlight, ample wind resources along coastal regions, and opportunities for sustainable biomass and hydropower development.

Conclusion and Call to Action

Ghana faces a crucial energy decision. Nuclear energy presents immense financial, environmental, and operational risks that far outweigh its touted benefits, especially considering viable renewable alternatives. CCCFS strongly recommends:

• Halting current nuclear project plans and conducting transparent public reviews.
• Redirecting investments toward renewable energy infrastructure development.
• Strengthening local capacity for renewable energy deployment and grid management.

We call upon Ghana’s Parliament, civil society, media, and the public to demand transparency and rigorous scrutiny of nuclear proposals. Ghana must prioritize energy solutions that safeguard public health, protect our environment, and promote sustainable economic growth. Renewable energy is not merely an option it is the necessary path forward.

We are of the opinion that choosing nuclear over renewables is not visionary, it is risky and regressive. Ghana must invest in energy that is clean, cost-effective, and secure. Renewable energy is not a compromise, it is the smart choice for our economy, environment, and future.

We therefore end by saying that Nuclear may sound powerful, but it’s the wrong power for Ghana at the moment.

 

Thank you

Dr Alexander Nti Kani

Deputy Director – Environmental and Climate Economics

Centre for Climate Change and Food Security (CCCFS)

+233246514051