Africa’s nuclear future is small (modular reactors)

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

Rwandan President Paul Kagame may well be Africa’s foremost nuclear energy champion. Speaking in Paris at Nuclear Energy Summit 2026, Kagame said Rwanda is determined to do what it takes to power its development with nuclear energy. This, he said, will require strong institutions, sound regulation, and an educated workforce – all of which Rwanda is building.

A recent Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review in Rwanda by the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed progress across key pillars of building a strong, secure nuclear energy program. IAEA team leader Mehmet Ceyhan cited strong government support and effective coordination of preparatory work that “reflected a deep commitment to the program.”

Kagame told the Paris audience that “nuclear technology is evolving in ways that benefit countries with small grids, allowing Africa to be among the early adopters” and that small modular reactors (SMRs) in particular are especially suited to Africa’s requirements.” Today, at least 10 African nations are actively exploring nuclear as the continent envisions generating 15 gigawatts (GW) of electricity from nuclear by the mid-2030s.

Back in October 2019, Rwanda and the Russian Federation jointly established a Centre for Nuclear Science and Technology (CNST). CNST’s focus is on production of isotopes for cancer diagnosis and treatment, utilizing radiation for crop improvement and material testing and non-destructive evaluation at industrial sites. This work is preparing Rwanda for more complex nuclear projects – like small modular reactors – and for public acceptance of nuclearization.

Rebounding from the COVID pandemic, Rwanda last September hosted the inaugural Nuclear Energy Innovation Summit for Africa (NEISA 2025), whose theme was “The Potential of Small Modular and Micro Reactors in Accelerating Africa’s Energy Transition.”

In his keynote address, Rwandan Prime Minister Dr. Edouard Ngirente revealed that his nation’s ambitious plan to increase electricity generation from 1 GW to 5 GW by 2050 would rely heavily on nuclear energy.

Ngirente said that the future of the African energy landscape will continue to be driven by increasing energy demand and increasing population growth.  With a projected population of 3 billion within a few decades, Africa has the potential to be the largest energy market in the globe – thanks to industrialization, artificial intelligence, and urbanization.

Today, however, more than 600 million Africans have no access to electricity, and millions more have only intermittent, often-interrupted access – at a price many cannot afford. Africa is looking to nuclear, he said, because “it is clean [and thus compatible with UN climate goals], reliable, and does not depend on the rain or sun. It provides consistent power, day and night.”

“In this regard,” he concluded, “we recognize the need for smaller and micro nuclear power plants as a pathway for smaller energy systems to afford nuclear energy in our national energy mix.” And, he added, “we welcome partners from around the world to collaborate, localize their solutions, and scale impact – not only in Rwanda, but across the African continent.”

To reemphasize his nation’s – and Africa’s – commitment to a nuclear future, Ngirente left his audience with three messages. First, nuclear energy holds the potential to accelerate African progress, strengthen essential services, and promote inclusive development across all communities during the energy transition.”

Second, Africa must lead this transition together – through regional partnerships, innovation, and global cooperation. Third, the time to act is now. “We must diversify our energy mix – and nuclear is part of that solution.”

Kagame’s words from Paris – that Africa will emerge as one of the most important global markets for SMRs – and his call for stronger international cooperation to support African nuclear energy deployment were the springboard for NEISA 2026, held in May again in Kigali.

As if to signify the urgency Africans have about bringing nuclear energy to the continent, the 2026 NEISA Summit was “Powering Africa’s Future, turning Nuclear Energy Ambition into Investable Reality.” Global leaders, shocked by the demands of new technologies for massive amounts of electricity, are warming up to nuclear.

Buoyed by the World Bank’s decision to lift its longstanding ban on financing nuclear energy projects, the discussions highlighted a broader shift across Africa as governments seek to expand electricity access, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and prepare for rapid population growth.

The heads of state of several African nations, including Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan (whose nation boasts major uranium reserves), Niger’s Prime Minister Ali Mahamane Zeine, and Faure Essozimma Gnassingbe, the President of Togo (who may host NEISA 2027), all supported an SMR-driven nuclear future. Then attendees, mainly representatives of governments and major research institutions, got down to business.

Overall, Africa has a lot of catching up to do. But with SMRs, African nations can be at the forefront, largely because in many places these powerplants would be providing the first reliable electricity to entire regions.

Just last year, Hassan signed a deal with Russia’s Rosatom to build a $400 million uranium processing plant as part of a $1.2 billion, 20-year plan to extract and process 300,000 metric tons of Tanzania’s massive reserves of uranium. Rosatom already supplies the uranium for Africa’s only active nuclear power plant, Eskom’s Koeberg Unit 2 in South Africa.

Eskom just obtained a 20-year license extension for its Koeberg plant. It also announced plans to resurrect its long-dormant nuclear energy industry by reversing a decision made in 2010 to stop investing in its pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR) project, begun in 1993 and based on German technology.

The PBMR is intended as a small-scale, high-temperature reactor that uses TRISO fuel, with helium as the coolant, making it capable of supplying process heat as well as generating electricity. Eskom in 2020 said it wanted to take the PBMR project out of “care and maintenance” and commercialize the business – and it took five more years to win approval.

Other African nations are following suit. Egypt, thanks to Russian help, expects its first nuclear powerplant to go online in 2028 – with four reactors and a total capacity of 4.8 GW. Ghana plans to commission its first nuclear plant by the early 2030s, while Uganda has announced intentions to build a nuclear facility with support from international partners.

Rwanda’s nuclear future includes having nuclear energy operational by the early 2030s by building a powerplant expected to cost $5 to $6 billion. Togo, Niger, Tanzania, and other African nations are not far behind.

Why are African leaders so enamored with SMRs (and microreactors)? Kagame says SMRs can are standalone units that can service an industry, a hospital, a small city – even where there is no functioning national grid.

Nuclear, said Kagame, can be a transformative force for expanding access by Africans to stable electricity, improved healthcare systems, and powering its technological advances. But to achieve these goals, “It is essential to have private investment, institutional collaboration, and long-term sustainable approaches that ensure efficiency and accountability.”

For the first time in modern history, African nations are calling their own shots. Rwanda, along with many of its neighbors, appears more than ready to quintuple its electricity output and power 21st century research, healthcare, education, and industry. All they need is a hand-up.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.9 8 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
53 Comments
June 13, 2026 6:30 am

With the solar and wind ressources they have they will go renewable. No amount of power point reactors and bribes from a dying industry will change that.

sherro01
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 6:38 am

My username,
You should not copy and paste Australian nuclear policy and history as support for Making Africa Great Again.
Many Australians consider Australia to be more backward than Africa and therefore not a reliable source to emulate.
Twenty years ago and more, the comparison put Australia well ahead. Then Australia went backwards rapidly, fastest under socialist Labor givernments federally and in many states.
Geoff S

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 6:49 am

African governments had renewables forced on them by the UN and moronic NGOs. The result was 600 million Africans without access to reliable electricity. The future looks bright for a nuclear powered Africa with thousands of mini-grids.

Reply to  isthatright
June 13, 2026 7:39 am

That was not the fault of renewables. Contrariwise, renewables enable Africa to develop without the chains neocolonialist mega-projects like nuclear or other centralized power plants bring.

MarkW
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 9:19 am

It’s not the fault of renewables that they don’t work?

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 10:23 am

MUR:
Please re-read the article.
“Today, however, more than 600 million Africans have no access to electricity, and millions more have only intermittent, often-interrupted access – at a price many cannot afford.”
It appears that Africa already has enough wind & solar [“intermittant, often interrupted access –at a price they can’t afford.”]. They need reliable sources now, which means NatGas & coal powered plants while they wait for nuclear.
Africans should not waste any more money on wind/solar. [It only benefits the Chinese who sell the stuff — the real “neocolonialists”. You have it backwards.]

KevinM
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 8:16 pm

“There are 54 fully recognized sovereign countries in Africa, according to the United Nations”

There might be more than one game plan on the continent of Africa.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 10:44 pm

neocolonialist

You mean “ecocolonialist” not neocolonialist

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 14, 2026 3:21 am

With all due respect but that reasoning is what one would expect from a first year social sciences undergraduate.

Scissor
Reply to  isthatright
June 13, 2026 8:37 am

The future is Electricity Blowing On Land in Africa (EBOLA).

Reply to  isthatright
June 13, 2026 1:49 pm

SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/small-modular-reactors
.
SMRs sounds good, but the electricity cost/kWh would be at least 2 times gas fired CCGT plants.
Such plants are up to 60% efficient, have very low CO2/kWh.

It would take at least 5 to 8 years to build SMRs at a rate of say 50 units per year, because the US no longer has the thousands of educated and trained nuclear engineering professionals capable of designing any nuclear plants. 
The US lost that capability after Three Mile Island in March 1979, more than 45 years ago.
.
Also, the US has not enough working-aged people who 1) know how to do more complicated stuff, 2) care enough to do it, 3) have the work ethic and mental discipline, or 4) are otherwise inspired to make themselves useful.
Factories have 400,000 unfilled jobs, but there are few skilled, ambitious people to take them. 
People have weird expectations; they want to make big bucks doing nothing.
.
The US has a total lack of Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics (STEM) professionals who are in high places to call the shots. 
The US has been filling the shortfall with Chinese, Indian, etc., STEM folks.
The vacuum at the top was filled by lawyer/liberal arts/enviro functionaries who know next to nothing, except obstruction; Hochul, Newsom, etc., are demagogue-style examples.
.
At present, no country is set up to produce, say 50 SMRs per year, at 200 MW each.
China, Russia, South Korea, and the US, with large command/control economies, would be the only countries able set up the required A-to-Z infrastructures.
.
A 500 MW (2 units at 250 MW each) CCGT power plant can be built in two years, at a turnkey cost of $2000/kW.
New York State has finally agreed to allow the building of the gas pipeline from Pennsylvania to New England.
.
If four countries were building 50 SMRs/y each, it would require:

Increased uranium mining,
Processing the uranium into fuel bundles,
Constructing factories to produce components and subassemblies,
Constructing factories for assembling the final units near harbors.
Shipping the assembled unis to the site, likely by ship or barge,
Selection and preparation of the site near harbors,
Adding the remaining balance of plant systems,
Plant test operation of each subsystem,
Connecting the plant to the grid, with switchyard,
Test operation of the entire plant,
Commissioning the plant to produce electricity at design output

AI systems require lots of steady electricity 
Each major AI system should be required to have its own power plant
.
Any SMRs shipped to Africa and other such areas, would be turnkey-built in Europe, the US, Russia, Korea, China, and then shipped by special barges to Africa, etc. The SMRs would stay on the barges and send power to shore. No fuss, no muss
.
Highly subsidized, very expensive, environment-uglifying, bird/bat/sea fauna/tourism/fishery/viewshed-destroying, weather-dependent, variable/intermittent, grid-disturbing, expensive-electricity-producing wind/solar/battery systems do not qualify.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1 

Reply to  wilpost
June 13, 2026 1:52 pm

Addition.

Russian SMR Projects under Construction
 
The RITM-200N is the land-based version of Rosatom’s RITM-200 small modular reactor (SMR) series.
It is designed as a modular solution for providing heat and electricity to remote industrial clusters, mining operations, and data centers. 
A single RITM-200N unit provides the following capacities:
Thermal Capacity: 190 MW
Electrical Capacity: Up to 55 MW
Multiple units can form a Small Nuclear Power Plant (SNPP) with a total electrical output of up to 330 MW
Performance: availability reaching up to 98%
Turnkey Capital Costs
As of early 2026, the turnkey capital costs for RITM-based land plants are as follows:
Current Target: Rosatom’s stated goal is to bring capital expenditures down to a competitive range of $3,500/ kW to $4,500 kW by 2030
.
Project Examples:
1) Ust-Kuyga (Yakutia, Russia): The plant is intended to provide power for mining and local usage. The first land-based RITM-200N unit is under construction and expected to start power generation in 2028.
2) Uzbekistan: Construction started on March 24, 2026, with ceremonial pouring of concrete. 
The plan features two 55 MW RITM-200N SMR units and two 1,000 MW VVER-1000 units. Total capacity will be 2,110 MW.
Concrete work is currently underway for the reactor building’s foundation. This stage involves pouring about 900 cubic meters of concrete and is expected to conclude in April 2026, followed by the installation of waterproofing and grounding systems.
The plant is in the Farish district of the Jizzakh region in central Uzbekistan.
Technology: The SMRs use RITM-200N pressurized water reactors, a land-based adaptation of technology already tested on Russian nuclear icebreakers.
Timeline:
Commissioning: Scheduled between 2029 and 2033.
First Unit Criticality: Targeted for late 2029.
Long-term Economics: Learning curve effects are expected to bring electricity production prices down to 5 to 6 c/kWh by mid 2030s, comparable to large-scale coal and large-scale nuclear power plants.
.
Comparison with Kazakhstan’s Nuclear Plans
Kazakhstan is pursuing its own nuclear energy program, but it follows a different timeline and configuration: 

First Plant: To be built near the village of Ulken on Lake Balkhash.
Technology: Expected to use two Russian VVER-1200 units with a total capacity of 2,400 MW.
Timeline: Foundation pouring (“first concrete”) is currently scheduled for 2029, with completion around 2035.

Second Plant: A second facility near the same site was approved in early 2026, with reports suggesting Chinese CNNC technology may be used.

SMR Interest: While Kazakhstan is conducting feasibility studies for US-designed SMRs, it has not yet reached the construction phase for these units.

Reply to  wilpost
June 14, 2026 3:42 am

Africa has very kittle gas, and the cost of transporting it makes it somewhat expensive

Uranium, by comparison, is so cheap that its costs barely figure in the overall cost of nuclear power.

The overwhelming cost of nuclear power is how long it takes to get approval and build it, and the interest rates on the money borrowed to do so.

The point of SMRs is to massively reduce that cost by supplying type approved installable units shipped to site already approved. That, together with a government that actually wants reliable stable power for its industry and citizens, makes all the difference.

Many nuclear power stations are producing power at or below gas prices already. And the cost is falling as gas prices are rising.,.

Renewables are a complete joke. My sister in S Africa has solar panels and huge batteries to allow them at least Internet, computers and TV through the ‘load shedding’ periods of planned outage, but she can’t cook with it or use any white goods.

And it cost a fortune. And is ineffective in winter. They have a wood burning fire for the night time cold.

South Africa is sitting on billions of tonnes of quality coal. And a shitload of uranium that is barely exploited. It’s found along with the gold.

It should be burning more coal than it does and popping in a SMR every year for a decade.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 7:31 am

Do you get time-and-a-half for working week ends?

Petey Bird
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 8:10 am

Solar and wind don’t produce useful energy. They cannot respond to load demand at all.
They are just toys for wealthy nations to waste money on.

Reply to  Petey Bird
June 13, 2026 8:13 am

Pakistan is now a wealthy nation buying lots of toys. You heard it here first guys!

Scissor
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 8:45 am

Indeed, Pakistan’s GDP/capita increased by about $150 in the past year to ~$1900.

One might compare this to ~$94k for U.S. and $61k for the United Kingdom.

KevinM
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 8:19 pm

“Pakistan’s nominal GDP per capita is approximately $1,696, while its GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP) is estimated to be $8,415 to $9,074 depending on the reporting”

Seems like a small number to an American. How about compared to world?

“Pakistan ranks generally between 121st (PPP) and 160th (nominal) out of the world’s studied economies.”

No, they are not doing well.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 10:51 pm

Pakistan Generation Share (Full Year 2025)

Fossil Fuels (Thermal: coal, gas/RLNG, oil)~46.2% (58,580 GWh)
Hydro~31.5% (39,973 GWh)
Renewables (mainly wind, solar, bagasse)~4.5% (5,700 GWh)
Nuclear~17.7% (22,452 GWh)

Total 126,705 GWh

Note: Generation, not installed

MarkW
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 9:17 am

Funny how wind and solar are always the future, when the only people who use either are those who are forced to.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 8:31 pm

Who will be maintaining all those “renewables”?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 14, 2026 5:13 am

You better believe that the copper in any “windmills” that are built won’t stay there long.

When a school closes down in South Africa, the locals steal the school. I don’t mean just the stuff (furniture, etc.) inside the school, they steal the entire building, bricks and all.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 15, 2026 9:24 am

Here kitty kitty.

I have more catnip for you.

June 13, 2026 7:13 am

Until governments on the continent can be made stable and security can be assured, I say no to nuclear power in Africa.

Right now you can’t even maintain security over the burial of Ebola infected bodies.

Reply to  Lil-Mike
June 14, 2026 3:45 am

The answer is to re-use plutonium in MOX style reactors, not stockpile it or purify it for bombs.

Nuclear weapons are in any case obsolete. Mad Bad Vlad is losing a war and dare not use them

John Hultquist
June 13, 2026 7:16 am

During the 1930s, electrification began in rural America. By the 1950s, almost all homes and farms had service. My family bought a refrigerator with a small freezer compartment in 1949. It is stunning to read of 600 million Africans having a need for micro nuclear and partners from around the world.
Egypt, thanks to Russian help, expects its first nuclear powerplant to go online in 2028 …” and ” Ghana plans to commission its first nuclear plant by the early 2030s, …”
Excuse me for not being impressed. 

0perator
Reply to  John Hultquist
June 13, 2026 8:04 am

Mostly due to the Rural Electrification Act. Probably one of a handful of good government programs in our 250 year history as a nation.

MarkW
Reply to  0perator
June 13, 2026 7:48 pm

It had a specific goal that was easy to define and technically feasible. It also had a well defined end point.

Features that are not normally found in government programs.

June 13, 2026 7:19 am

From the above article:

“Second, Africa must lead this transition together – through regional partnerships, innovation, and global cooperation. Third, the time to act is now.”

Translation for that “global cooperation”: send us your free money right now.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
June 13, 2026 7:47 am

Sounds good but will their history of corruption, terrorism, tribal fighting, and anarchy allow it? You can drag a society into the 21st century but you can’t make them prosper from it.

Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
June 14, 2026 3:48 am

You would be surprised at how sophisticated Africans are. Do not judge them by the dross they sold to the USA as slaves…

And we have ceased being surprised at how much corruption, terrorism, tribal fighting, and anarchy there is in te USA, albeit being covered up or called something else.

Jimmie Dollard
June 13, 2026 7:53 am

I wrote a book addressing how the SMR could be used to bring Africa from a developing continent to a developed continent. I chose a novel format in order to highlight the magnitude of the problem and to reach a broader market.
In my novel “Switched” I describe how SMR’s can be used to bring cheap reliable electrical power to Africa. It can be paired with an industry escaping the Western worlds net zero nightmare to bring electricity and jobs to impoverished region to build a comunity and eliminate local poverty.
The article above tells how many in Africa need electricity but the numbers don’t communicate the magnitude of the challenge. In my novel I chose a transportable 20mw TSMR optimized for mass production. Our heros manufacture and install 20 TSMRs per day, 200 days per year, and it still will take 20 years to serve all needing power in the developing world.
Access to elctricity could not only eliminate poverty but could also eleminate the worst tragic loss of life in our world today. More women and children die every year from lung disease caused by cooking over open fires than have died in all the world’s natural disasters in this century. In paralel the novel describes the tragedy of grid failures in developed countries contuing to prusue net zero.
Everyone will enjoy the novel but especially anyone interested in eliminating poverty in the developing world and those concerned about the impact of net zero on the developed world. The novel can be purchased in any format from Amazon or from large book sellers by using my name Jimmie Dollard.

Reply to  Jimmie Dollard
June 13, 2026 8:02 am

So you wrote a fantasy novel? Does it have magic too? Because from what you describe it could as well be.

Meanwhile in the real world SMRs tend to be power point reactors scamming naive investors. In an Industry that only exists because countries want nuclear weapons and that coulnd’t build a single normal reactor without massive state help and rule bending (*cough* insurance *cough* waste-storage *cough*).
And that gets now massive lobbying help from fossil fuels because they know it will never be build in a quantity that will threaten their business.

MarkW
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 9:34 am

Imagine that, a renewable energy fanatic referring to anything else as a scam.
The irony, it burns.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 9:37 am

According to the World Nuclear Association there are 440 nuclear power stations operating in 31 countries around the world.

9 countries have nuclear weapons so the vast majority of those nuclear countries have shown no interest in developing nuclear weapons

As usual you have no clue about reality.

Reply to  Dave Andrews
June 13, 2026 9:53 am

Most of them are in the uS, France, China, Russia. South Korea comes next and persueded a weapon program and is able to build them. The few build in other countries were a try to get the costs of their own weapon programs back – although not a lot of countries cared really to build a lot of them.

Nuclear died in the west in the 70s and no amount of screaming about the “nuclear renaisance” in the past two decades changes that. Even China changed their plans to mostly rely on nuclear to renewables.

MarkW
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 7:52 pm

I believe you meant N. Korea. Not that you know the difference.
Nuclear was strangled by unnecessary regulations by people who’s only goal was to hurt the US.

Nuclear is making a comeback around the world as the dead shackles of government regulation are being discarded.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 11:02 pm

Nuclear died in the west in the 70s

Nuclear power didn’t just ‘die’ naturally in the West in the 1970s.

Aggressive opposition from environmental groups, combined with protests, lawsuits, and increasingly stringent regulations, dramatically drove up costs and construction timelines.

What used to take 5-6 years ballooned to 10-12+ years, with massive cost overruns. As a result, many planned plants were cancelled. Instead of scaling up low-carbon nuclear, countries leaned more on coal and gas for reliable power – leading to higher CO₂ emissions than if nuclear expansion had continued.

This regulatory and activist environment also made large clean, dispatchable projects much harder overall.

France took a different path and got ~70-80% of its electricity from nuclear with much lower emissions.

Jimmie Dollard
Reply to  Dave Andrews
June 13, 2026 10:31 am

My novel uses a TSMR (transportaable) because, as the article said it is the best alternative when compared to other ways to get electricity to the developing world. I show what it would take, not what and when it will be done. Of course, 20mw at 20 per day for 20 years is fiction, but that is what it takes.

KevinM
Reply to  Dave Andrews
June 13, 2026 8:27 pm

“nuclear power stations operating in 31 countries”
+
“9 countries have nuclear weapons”
does not equal
“those nuclear countries have shown no interest”.

Jimmie Dollard
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 10:13 am

As I said, I choose to write a novel so I could postulate a scenerio to show the magnitude of the problem.

Jimmie Dollard
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
June 13, 2026 10:20 am

Do you have any clue about the magnitude of the problem of bring electricity to all in the developing world? The novel addresses the difficulties.

Reply to  Jimmie Dollard
June 13, 2026 8:23 am

Upon reading this:
“Our heros (sic) manufacture and install 20 TSMRs per day, 200 days per year, and it still will take 20 years to serve all needing power in the developing world.”

I had the thought that your novel “Switched” would certainly by filed under the category Sci-Fi. But then I read MyUsernameReloaded’s comment and agree . . . filing under Fantasy is a much better fit.

Also, since plagues and pandemics are widely classified as natural disasters, I don’t think your assertion that:
“More women and children die every year from lung disease caused by cooking over open fires than have died in all the world’s natural disasters in this century.”
is correct . . . and this also supports you favoring fantasy over reality.

From Google’s AI bot:
“Between the year 2000 and 2026, an estimated 70 to 85 million people worldwide have died from major plagues, infectious disease pandemics, and hyper-endemic outbreaks.” 

Jimmie Dollard
Reply to  ToldYouSo
June 13, 2026 10:08 am

I agree. I meant by natural disaster all earth’s weather related, sumomies, floods, earthquakes, etc. I did not include health related disasters.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jimmie Dollard
June 13, 2026 8:39 pm

sumomies”

Uhh, what?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 13, 2026 9:59 pm

I think he ment tsunamies

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  varg
June 14, 2026 12:52 pm

I’m skeptical

Reply to  Jimmie Dollard
June 14, 2026 6:23 am

You state:
“I meant by natural disaster all earth’s weather related, sumomies, floods, earthquakes, etc. I did not include health related disasters.”

But it was YOU that prefaced your previous statement with this health-related claim:
“More women and children die every year from lung disease caused by . . .”

Not to worry, I’ll figure it out . . . someday.

Malcolm Chapman
Reply to  Jimmie Dollard
June 14, 2026 11:38 am

I have often thought that perhaps I should try to write a novel as some sort of counterweight to all the facile dystopian stuff that the thinking classes usually write about environmental-climate-change. But I never got round to it. So well done Jimmie. And pay no attention to our trolls. I look forward to reading your book.

Jeff Alberts
June 13, 2026 8:30 pm

Rwandan President Paul Kagame seems like a dictator to me. Wins elections with 98%+ of the votes, with 98%+ turnout. Not credible.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 14, 2026 3:50 am

So what?

Reply to  Leo Smith
June 14, 2026 6:35 am

The “what” is the known propensity for corrupt dictators to rob their nation’s coffers for their own betterment. Do I really need to cite a few examples where dictators in foreign nations have “appropriated” US government-supplied food aid and direct emergency cash funding, as well as “nationalized” US private industry investment such as developed crop farms and ore mines and production oil wells and related refining facilities?

Good grief!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Leo Smith
June 14, 2026 12:54 pm

Dictators typically don’t pursue the best interests of their people. Only their own interests.