With Egypt and the Gulf leading the way, the Arab world has joined a tidal wave rushing to embrace the atom. Although the region is about a decade away from cutting the ribbon on its first nuclear plant, the growing volume of official statements and studies over the past year suggests the drive is serious. Algeria, Egypt, the Gulf states, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, and Yemen have all made official statements expressing an intention to pursue peaceful nuclear power in the past two years. But why, one might ask, the sudden rush?
International analysts tend to spy political motives behind avowedly peaceful nuclear power plans, in this region at least. One often touted theory is that the Sunni-ruled Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf, are racing to develop nuclear power to face down Shia Iran. Energy supply is a national security issue in any country, so given the sensitive nature of nuclear power, its political aspect is hard to avoid, analysts agree. Nonetheless, Don MacInnes, UK-based chief operating officer of technical consultants ESR Technology, said the regional drive to go nuclear was based on economic, practical concerns. “Any political decision has much more to do with a securing a robust source of energy for your economy and whether you want a diversity of supply,” says MacInnes, whose company was formed from the commercial arm of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and has offices in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Diversity is the issue. Gulf countries at least may be swimming in oil and natural gas for now, but flow is expected to peak anywhere between 2010 and 2040. Energy needs are growing by an estimated six per cent a year, more in booming Gulf countries. And with oil prices hovering at about 98 USD a barrel, why burn it when you can sell it?
Egypt’s oil reserves, for example, have dwindled, and it still sells much of its fuel domestically at subsidised prices. Cairo officially announced in September 2006 its resurrection of old plans for a plant in Al-Dabaa, on the Mediterranean, shelved in the 1980s in the fall-out from the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine. The estimated 1.5 billion USD plan for three stations will generate 1800 Megawatts of electricity, Electricity Minister Hassan Younis announced at the time. They are expected to grind into action between 2016 and 2020. As in most Arab states aiming to harness nuclear power, water desalination is the aim of at least one station.
Vocal US approval of Egypt’s programme led to speculation in the country’s press that Washington’s motives were political, even if Egypt’s were not. Certainly, analysts say Arab states will have an easier ride from the West, so opposed to Iran’s nuclear programme, if they buy nuclear fuel from abroad and bring in expertise. Egypt has signed a cooperation agreement with China and has not expressed a desire to enrich uranium, a potential first step (though at more advanced levels) to a nuclear bomb.
Arab columnists have pointed out that Western nuclear powers stand to gain through the sale of nuclear reactors, hence their acquiescence. French President Nicolas Sarkozy – whose country happens to be a major exporter of nuclear technology – rather magnanimously told Al-Jazeera in January that Arabs had every right to acquire nuclear power, while calling on Iran to abandon the programme it insists is peaceful.
At first, analysts say much nuclear expertise will have to come from abroad, which may ruffle local sensitivities, given that job creation sweetens the pill of any new nuclear plant for the community that has to host it. “This field is not developed in the region yet,” says Nesreen Ghaddar, energy specialist at the American University of Beirut. “We need resources, investment in infrastructure and trained locals – few people here study nuclear engineering programmes.”
Along with Egypt, the other credible push for nuclear power comes from member-states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which in February 2007 agreed with the International Atomic Energy Agency on a feasibility study for a regional power programme. The GCC General Secretariat has set aside 10 billion USD for the design, build and operation of a nuclear plant for power generation and water desalination in a still undecided country. “The expectation is that the GCC countries will in the not too distant future build a pilot nuclear plant somewhere in the GCC region and the basic idea behind that is to basically try things out and work out how much it costs to build a nuclear plant and find out how best to manage the political issues related to it,” MacInnes said. “If that’s successful I think you can expect to see a significant expansion across the region.”
Turkey is the other major regional contender, apart from Iran and Israel. In August 2006, Ankara said it planned to have three nuclear power plants capable of producing 4500 MW by between 2012 and 2015, at a cost of 10.5 billion USD. Turkey’s volatile position on an earthquake fault-line has raised questions about this plan.
Most plans remain at the drawing board stage, but as the prospect of a nuclear-powered Middle East draws closer, the safety debate is likely to grow louder. The horror of Chernobyl, which killed 56 people over time and put thousands more at risk of cancer, according the United Nations, cast a pall over nuclear energy. Only with global realisation that our warming planet might have even greater catastrophes in store were old plans dusted off. “People are looking for non-CO2 producing sources of power and there’s no doubt that in terms of proven technology, nuclear is the most reliable,” MacInnes says. Supporters say nuclear power is safer 20 years after Chernobyl. Even the co-founder of Greenpeace recently spoke out in favour of going nuclear.
Nuclear supporters say solar and wind power have their place, but both need space and are weather dependent and less efficient, since they cannot generate the heat of the atom. “Solar power at best provides heat at 50 degrees centigrade, whereas nuclear is 300 plus,” MacInnes says. Although building costs are higher for nuclear than conventional power plants, the running costs are cheaper, with refuelling rarely required, he adds.
Many environmentalists, however, including Greenpeace itself, still say nuclear generation poses unacceptable risks and produces waste to the tune of 10,500 tonnes of heavy metal a year. Greenpeace cites the transport of radioactive waste, danger of a catastrophic nuclear accident and fears of nuclear weapons proliferation as reasons the Middle East should look to “nature’s bounty” of sun and wind to kick its oil and gas habit.
Critics also warn that uranium is also a finite resource, which is so far only proven until “beyond 2030”, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. With Middle Easterners, the biggest polluters per head of population on the planet, according to MacInnes, gas-guzzling Gulf states especially are coming under growing pressure to move alternative energy sources such as solar and wind higher up the agenda. Dubai is studying the possibility of a one billion USD wind farm to power 10 per cent of its exhausting energy needs, while Saudi Arabia is reportedly considering a string of waste to energy plants that turn toxic and organic waste into electricity.
Renewables are the most attractive prospect for future power generation, but exploring nuclear makes sense, according to the AUB’s Ghaddar. “Nuclear may not be the most desirable source, but it is the cheapest and conversion (of energy to electricity) is the most efficient. If there’s more investment, renewables are an option, but they’re more expensive.”
