One of the central discussions at the Nuclear in Africa side event focused on perhaps the greatest challenge facing new nuclear programmes across the continent: financing.
While nuclear energy is increasingly recognised as a long-term solution for energy security and industrial development, speakers agreed that securing investment requires far more than simply raising capital.
It demands credible institutions, predictable policy, effective risk sharing and financing models that align with the unique characteristics of nuclear projects.
Moderated by Zukile Zibi, Director of Policy at South Africa’s Department of Electricity and Energy, the session brought together experts from Ghana, Kenya, Türkiye and France to examine how African countries can create investment environments capable of supporting nuclear programmes.
Rather than presenting a single financing solution, the discussion highlighted the different approaches countries are exploring while acknowledging the realities of long project timelines and significant upfront investment requirements.
A recurring theme throughout the discussion was that investors evaluate far more than financial returns.
Onur Koray Yenigürbüz, the Vice President of the Nuclear Industry Association of Türkiye, argued that governments must establish credible regulatory institutions before expecting investment.
Drawing on Türkiye’s experience, he explained that independent regulators need proven licensing capability, inspection experience and recognised oversight before investors gain confidence.
Equally important are clearly defined nuclear legislation, radioactive waste frameworks, liability arrangements and transparent licensing procedures.
According to Yenigürbüz, international assessments such as the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) provide independent evidence of a country’s readiness and can significantly reduce investor uncertainty.
Representatives from Kenya and Ghana emphasised that financing cannot be approached with a single continental model.
Francis Agar, Board Member of Kenya’s Nuclear Power and Energy Agency, explained that newcomer countries cannot demonstrate decades of nuclear operating experience in the same way as established nuclear nations.
Instead, financing discussions must consider each country’s specific economic context and future electricity demand.
In Kenya’s case, projected growth in electricity demand from expanding data centres, together with opportunities such as desalination and industrial heat applications, forms part of the broader case for demonstrating long-term project viability.
Agar stressed that financing approaches should therefore be tailored to individual national circumstances rather than applying identical expectations across all African programmes.
ALSO READ: Africa’s nuclear ambitions – why the foundations matter more than the reactors
Dr Robert Sogbadjiee, Coordinator of Ghana’s Nuclear Power Programme, highlighted the importance of balancing financing structures with affordable electricity prices.
Ghana is evaluating several delivery models, including Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT), Build-Own (BO) and Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) arrangements with flexible financing.
He noted that extending repayment periods beyond 20 years, and potentially towards 30 years or longer, could reduce end-user tariffs while supporting industrial development objectives.
Dr Sogbadjie also suggested that regional cooperation could strengthen financing capacity. By considering regional approaches through ECOWAS, countries may be able to share financial burdens while supporting larger industrial ambitions across West Africa.
Fabienne Peheut, nuclear finance adviser and former executive with Areva, explained that financing nuclear projects requires a combination of government support, commercial debt, equity investment and multiple financing partners.
She noted that local banks alone are generally unable to finance projects of this scale, particularly in smaller economies.
Instead, financing packages typically combine international commercial banks, local financial institutions, sovereign funds, government participation and state-owned enterprises.
Peheut also described financing as one of the major constraints facing global nuclear expansion, particularly given international ambitions to significantly increase nuclear generating capacity by 2050.
She argued that expanding the pool of available capital will require more diversified financing mechanisms capable of attracting a broader range of investors.
The discussion also examined the potential contribution of multilateral development banks.
While speakers acknowledged recent signals that organisations such as the World Bank are becoming more open to supporting nuclear-related activities, there was broad recognition that this involvement remains at an early stage.
Current interest appears to focus primarily on areas such as life extension projects and project preparation rather than large-scale reactor construction.
Rather than viewing development banks solely as lenders, Yenigürbüz suggested they could provide greater value through political risk guarantees, currency risk protection and support for early programme development.
According to him, these mechanisms may have a greater impact on attracting private investment than direct project loans alone.
The panel also explored how long-term revenue certainty influences project bankability.
Peheut explained that mechanisms such as Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), Contracts for Difference (CfDs) and Regulated Asset Base (RAB) models provide investors with greater confidence by improving visibility of future revenue and helping manage construction risks.
Dr Sogbadjie noted that Ghana is considering longer-duration PPAs to reduce electricity tariffs over the lifetime of nuclear projects.
While the initial cost of electricity may be higher during early years, extended agreement periods could contribute to more competitive long-term pricing and support industrialisation objectives.
Several speakers acknowledged that nuclear projects introduce risks extending well beyond construction. Political change, evolving policy, regulatory continuity and long operational lifetimes all influence financing decisions.
Agar questioned whether private finance alone could accommodate these uncertainties, particularly in countries with shorter political cycles.
He suggested that government-to-government arrangements may provide greater long-term certainty than relying exclusively on commercial investment, although Peheut encouraged countries to pursue diversified financing structures supported by strong national commitment rather than depending on a single funding source.
The session concluded that financing Africa’s nuclear future will depend as much on preparation as on capital.
Strong institutions, transparent regulation, credible long-term strategies, balanced risk allocation and diversified financing structures were consistently identified as essential building blocks for successful programmes.
While access to finance remains a significant challenge, the discussion demonstrated that African countries are actively examining practical financing models suited to their individual circumstances.
As nuclear programmes continue to develop across the continent, strengthening institutional readiness and building investor confidence will remain central to turning long-term nuclear ambitions into bankable projects.
READ NEXT: In the hot seat at Enlit Africa – financing, grids and regional cooperation dominate nuclear debate
Contact Us
VUKA is the trusted media partner to key professionals, policy makers, suppliers and
manufacturers. We provide unparalleled opportunities for industry-wide connection.
