Nuclear energy vs. renewable energy and energy efficiency in the MENA region – A brief exchange of arguments
by Nikolaus Supersberger and Dennis Kumetat
In recent years, nuclear energy plans have been put forward by most of the countries of the MENA region. To name but a few: Jordan is planning on starting its first nuclear power plant by 2015, with the long term target to supply 30 percent of total electricity from nuclear by 2030/2040. Egypt extended its original plans in March 2010 to now four nuclear power plants by 2025, with the first plant in operation by 2019. Libya is cooperating with the IAEA and some western countries to establish the legal framework for future nuclear energy use, and Syria is also considering nuclear power as a future source of energy, having already a long “nuclear history”.
The reasons for the mentioned preference of nuclear energy for MENA power systems have been presented as:
- ensuring a secure energy supply for the rapidly increasing power demand
- reduction of energy imports dependence in the non-OPEC countries
- achieving technological leadership in the region and beyond
- reducing domestic fossil fuel consumption and keeping export levels high
- acquiring prestige for internal and external political agendas
- supplying environmentally friendly energy with containable risks
- creating high-level jobs for economic growth
Contribution of secure and stable electricity supply. It is doubtful that nuclear energy will be able to contribute to a stable and secure electricity supply in all MENA countries as nuclear power is not the appropriate answer to the current level of average growth in electricity demand. Lead times of nuclear power plants usually take about 8-12 years and, by experience, stretch out even farther. Thus nuclear power cannot fill the demand gap in a timely manner. Contrary to this, renewable electricity projects – even large-scale – have considerable shorter lead times and can thus contribute to the supply of national power demands significantly faster. Evidently, the fastest way to tackle pressing supply issues is the utilization of energy efficiency potentials that are significant in all states of the region. The rapid utilization of renewable energies partly depends on the development of efficient and low-cost storage technologies, and it also depends on a re-thinking of traditional electricity systems (taking into consideration that in a system based on renewables the traditional base load structure will no longer play a significant role).
Dependence on imports of fuels and technology. Another argument commonly employed by proponents of a nuclear future is the enhanced independence from energy imports. This argument has put into a different perspective: no MENA country has enough uranium ore reserves to sustain a domestic nuclear fuel supply. Consequently, nuclear fuels will have to be imported during the full lifetime of a power plant. At the same time, it is improbable that MENA states will be able to establish a strong domestic nuclear engineering industry that will be able to supply all essential technological components of a nuclear power plant in the foreseeable future. Therefore, import dependencies will not be avoidable for MENA countries on these two levels (fuels and technologies). With regards to renewable electricity, these problems will not arise in this dimension. Although import dependence on technologies will be an issue for the first years of a large-scale deployment of renewable energy capacities, it is much easier to establish domestic renewable energy industry structures.
Loss of energy autonomy. For oil and gas exporting countries of the region, hydrocarbons currently used for domestic electricity production could be saved and thus exported to the world market (which does not have positive effects for tackling climate change, just to mention this dimension). However, hydrocarbon exporters would give up parts of their energy autonomy by relying on imports of nuclear fuels. This would not be the case if renewable electricity production was to be extended: here, countries would retain their independence of energy supply while being able to save hydrocarbon resources for international exports at the same time.
Political prestige. Indeed, the non-technological aspects of possessing nuclear power have to be taken into consideration. In terms of power politics, renewable energies are arguably somewhat useless. Some critics, however, have argued that this very aspect is one of the major advantages of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. The aspect of prestige plays a major role in the discussion about nuclear energy. Being a member of the exclusive “club of nuclear power countries” and being able to “master” the nuclear fuel chain are indeed driving forces for nuclear energy. National prestige, however, has never been linked to renewable energies (yet). But indeed, some countries are already trying to establish themselves as kind of a “renewable energy brand”.
Environmental aspects. Since its very beginning, supports of nuclear energies have advertised the supposedly clean and environmentally friendly aspects of this technology, specifically in comparison to conventional power plants. This rhetoric has recently been revived through the climate change discourse and the admittedly low carbon emissions of a nuclear power plant. But other burdens are heavy and should not be readily discounted in the assessment of this technology. Next to the problem of nuclear power plant failure, the entire life cycle of nuclear power generation is highly wasteful and environmentally costly: uranium mining leaves behind a contaminated soil, and the issue of the disposal of nuclear waste is still far from being solved on a global level. In contrast to that, the life cycle analysis of all modes of renewable electricity production looks far better in all respects. The water issue is not solved for nuclear power in arid regions: the cooling cycle needs large quantities of water, and water is indeed a scarce good in the MENA region. It remains to be discussed how the introduction of nuclear power could foster water conflicts.
Labor market effects. It has been argued that the construction of nuclear power plants in the region would have benefits for the local job market. This, however, also deserves a further scrutiny. As stated before, it is highly unlikely that a full-fledged nuclear industry will be established in the MENA region in due course. If this is true, the job potential for domestic jobs will be limited to a few nuclear engineers, traders and power plant construction and maintenance workers. In the case of a strong renewable energy commitment, they could easily be outnumbered by the large job creation such a program would trigger, not only in the high-skilled labor market, but also in the application, installation and maintenance sector, where a high number of low-skills jobs could be created as well. In all likelihood, this would have a lasting effect on the strained domestic labor market. Also energy efficiency measures could create numerous jobs in the retrofitting and maintenance sector
In conclusion, it has been shown how limited the benefits of nuclear energy programs in the MENA region would be – and how much riskier on various levels. With regards to both aspects, renewable energy and energy efficiency measures offer a safer, more sustainable and more desirable energy future for the region.