Rwanda has ambitious goals in modern medicine, workforce development and sustainable growth. Achieving those goals requires a stable energy system capable of supporting growing demand and meeting challenges across multiple economic sectors.
Around the world, countries facing similar challenges are turning to nuclear energy – many experts are calling this phenomenon the “second nuclear age”. African, European and Asian countries are investing in nuclear energy to ensure a reliable electricity supply, support growing AI usage and meet international obligations to reduce the carbon footprint. Governments are looking for energy sources that can provide a stable supply for decades ahead and nuclear power seems capable of doing exactly that.
In Rwanda, like in many other countries all over the world, the wider public remains guarded when it comes to nuclear power, with people’s perceptions often stuck in the time period when said perceptions were more grounded in reality. For many, the idea of living near a nuclear power plant raises concerns about radiation, accidents and environmental risks. But international experience tells a story of its own: communities located near modern nuclear facilities are often among the most economically stable and socially developed regions in their countries.
Studies from countries around the globe show a pattern which might appear counterintuitive at first: the closer people live to a nuclear power plant, the more supportive they tend to become of nuclear energy. South African’s Koeberg nuclear power plant can be called Western Cape’s economic hub as it injects tens of millions of rands into the country’s GDP. It also contributes thousands of jobs, both direct and indirect.
Meanwhile, social approval in other countries is quite high. 89% of Americans living within 10 miles of a reactor do not object. In Canada’s Bruce Power region, public approval stands at 96%, while in Sweden’s Forsmark area it reaches 86%.
This “proximity paradox” matters because it is based on everyday experience and not abstract fears. People living near nuclear power plants judge them through what they see around them: stable jobs, functioning infrastructure and access to healthcare. Studies of nuclear communities in several countries have shown that these regions often have higher average incomes, lower unemployment rates and longer life expectancy than surrounding areas.
Modern nuclear projects rarely exist in isolation. Large plants require roads, housing, hospitals, schools and long-term technical education programmes. They create thousands of skilled jobs during construction and support permanent employment for engineers, technicians, medical workers and service industries afterwards. For many local residents, the practical concerns are about whether their children can find stable work, whether clinics are properly equipped and whether younger generations will leave or stay. In many nuclear regions these questions are answered positively – compared to other areas.
Hungary’s Paks region is one such example: it has witnessed local development connected to nuclear energy infrastructure. People living in the region also have a higher life expectancy by 2-3 years, compared to other regions. Finland is another good example. The Finnish municipality of Eurajoki, home to the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant, has become one of the most financially stable communities in the region. Despite having a population of just around 9,000 people, the municipality remains debt-free, while the plant operator TVO contributed €20 million in property taxes in 2022 – more than a third of Eurajoki’s total tax revenue. Similar patterns can be observed in parts of France, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Rwanda’s long-term energy strategy could benefit from the same combination of stability and development seen in nuclear regions around the world. Hydropower will continue to play a big role in the country’s energy mix, but it comes with limitations linked to weather conditions and seasonal rainfall fluctuations. Nuclear energy offers a complementary source of dependable baseload electricity that can operate 24/7 regardless of climate conditions.
Modern nuclear energy is also fundamentally different from the past technologies. Today’s nuclear plants are designed with multiple layers of passive and active safety systems. Oversight by organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ensures that safety standards are adhered to. Modern reactors are built to withstand natural disasters – such as earthquakes – with automated passive safety systems greatly reducing the possibility of incidents.
Reliable electricity also creates opportunities beyond household consumption. Modern healthcare systems depend on stable energy supply. Advanced medical diagnostics and cancer treatment rely on medical isotopes. Data centres, telecommunications networks and AI-related industries all require uninterrupted power. A reliable energy supply is key for developing all of those.
Nuclear projects also create highly skilled jobs and encourage the development of technical education. Universities expand STEM programmes and young professionals gain access to advanced scientific careers without needing to leave their country.
Of course, no major infrastructure project is completely without risk. But the important question is whether those risks are manageable and what the alternatives are. The experience of nuclear regions around the world demonstrates that living near a nuclear power plant does not reduce quality of life. In many cases, it improves it – across the whole socioeconomic spectrum.
As such, the debate about nuclear energy should not be shaped by past fears where developing countries like Rwanda are concerned. Rather, it should be based on evidence, international experience and the country’s long-term goals. Around the world, communities living near nuclear plants are not fleeing these regions – they are building prosperous and stable lives there.
