Will Mideast power equation prompt Arab states to go nuclear?
Jordan recently signed $10B deal with Russia to build first plants, desperate to extract itself from volatility of oilDemand for electricity, rather than regional strategic rivalries, may be spurring a number of Arab countries to turn to nuclear power. While much of the world’s attention is locked on Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions, Jordan for one is quietly inching its domestic energy program toward the nuclear option.
Increasingly insecure about its energy dependence on turbulent neighbors such as Iraq and Egypt, Amman last week signed a $10 billion deal with Russian state nuclear agency Rosatom to build its first nuclear power plant in the northern hinterlands of Amra. The 2,000-megawatt plant, Jordan’s nuclear chief says, will be “a showcase for the region” that could provide up to 50 percent of the kingdom’s rapidly growing energy demand – for household electricity, desalination and industry – by 2022. Currently, nearly 98 percent of Jordan’s energy is met from abroad.
The proposal remains highly controversial in Jordan, where all recognize an imminent energy crisis but few are convinced the proposed nuclear plan is a workable solution. After over eight years of inconclusive public debate, however, the country’s nuclear commission appears intent on forging ahead. “As you know, we lost the oil from Iraq, natural gas from Egypt, and the country has been bleeding and losing an average $3 billion every year,” Khalid Toukan, the head of the Jordanian Atomic Energy Commission, told The Associated Press last week. “Nuclear power is definitely one of the solutions to graduate from total dependency on oil and gas.”
At a time when several nuclear pioneers, including Germany and France, are currently rolling back their programs and public confidence is still subdued by the memory of the Japan’s Fukushima disaster of 2011, atomic energy has seen something of a resurgence across the oil-rich Middle East — and in the developing world. Though largely overshadowed by the arm-wrestling with Iran (which is mainly about Tehran’s right to enrich fuel, not generate nuclear power), a handful of other countries in the region have either begun construction on their first plants or, like Jordan, signaled their intent to do so. Furthest along is the United Arab Emirates, which expects to have two Korean-built plants up and running by 2017.
The motives for going nuclear are varied. For oil-rich states like the UAE, nuclear is seen as a high baseload, clean power source that can help meet its growing domestic demand, freeing up oil to be exported and sold at a premium. “There’s also the prestige element,” added Ali Ahmad, a lecturer on nuclear policy at Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security. “Having a nuclear power plant is a sign of a strong, established and advanced state. The UAE wants to join this club.”
Net energy importers such as Jordan, Turkey or Egypt, on the other hand – all of which have recently inked preliminary nuclear supply deals with Russia – see the need to diversify energy sources as a security imperative. In the case of Jordan, oil supply routes from Iraq have periodically been cut off since 2003 due to war and, more recently, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant insurgency. Meanwhile, the gas pipeline from Egypt’s Sinai peninsula, which used to pump 80 percent of Jordan’s natural gas, is currently shut due to another insurgency stirring trouble in the region.
The Jordanian government has already spent nearly $2 billion in subsidies in order to insulate the public from the fluctuating fuel prices that have resulted from this turmoil. It has little other recourse. When it temporarily eased these subsidies in late 2012, hundreds of thousands of Jordanians took to the streets in the largest public rallies the normally tranquil country has ever seen. And when it began talks with Israel to hammer out a $15 billion natural gas supply deal, many were similarly outraged.
But while the need to diversify is clear, few are convinced that Jordan’s nuclear program is a viable answer. In a 2013 internal report on Jordan’s nuclear program provided to Al Jazeera, five of Jordan’s leading nuclear policy analysts expressed concerns that the decision to embrace nuclear energy might be driven by “preconceived notions” rather than sound scientific study.
Above all else, it hasn’t been made clear how cash-strapped Jordan, which is buckling under the added weight of 700,000 Syrian refugees at the moment, could possibly foot its agreed-upon 51 percent of the bill, let alone manage upgrades to the power grid or cost overruns that nuclear energy is infamous for.
“Almost every existent [nuclear] plant has ended up more expensive than expected in some dimension,” whether operation, maintenance or build cost, said Richard Mallinson, a geopolitical analyst with Energy Aspects in London. “It’s appealing to go for these big, flagship power plants that can supply half the country’s energy, but even ‘turn-key’ contracts can end up more costly and slower than expected.”
Back when its nuclear program was first presented in 2007, Jordan was hoping that its untapped uranium stores might be mined and sold to cover some of the plant’s steep costs. In 2012, however, French nuclear company Areva determined that the uranium was low in quality and therefore not commercially viable. According to the report, Jordan may even consider tapping into its social security fund to cover some of the program’s costs – an idea it has not yet presented to an already skeptical public.
The last time Jordanian lawmakers voted on the proposal, back in 2012, they decisively shot it down. MPs such as Hind al-Fayez, who represents the Beni Sakher tribe that lives around the proposed Amra site, have noted that Jordan is yet to complete a thorough environmental assessment of the area or to identify a suitable location for depositing spent fuel rods. “They’ll build that plant over my dead body,” she has said.
Ali Ahmad, the Princeton expert who has closely studied Jordan’s nuclear program and met with lawmakers, threw cold water on the proposal. “Jordan is far away from constructing a plant,” he said. “They don’t have an advanced electric grid, they don’t have appropriate legislation or the technical skill base, and one of the biggest problems is that they don’t have an independent regulatory body or safety authority.”
As for nuclear’s future in the wider Middle East, analysts are divided. Industry advocates may pin their hopes on suppliers, such as Russia and South Korea, continuing to subsidize plants in exchange for exclusive supply deals in the long term. That in itself could be cause for concern, critics have noted, especially as Russia seems intent on leveraging energy contracts to extend its political reach. In the case of Jordan, it might also make the United States, which counts the Hashemite kingdom among its closest allies in the region, uneasy.
Many, Ahmad among them, believe that solar may be a better long term bet for the sun-drenched Middle East. In a recent analysis on the potential viability of nuclear power in Saudi Arabia, he and co-author M. V. Ramana argued that solar power, while comparatively more expensive today, “has the potential to be cheaper than nuclear power within the next decade if the rapid decline in solar energy costs in the last decade continue.” That, they noted, could happen in the time it takes to build a nuclear plant – about eight years, under ideal conditions.
Given all the hurdles facing nuclear energy in the region, Mallinson said it was important to take announcements like Jordan’s with a grain of salt. “There will always be [a greater number of] countries ‘exploring’ it or even announcing plans to build than plants that are actually up and running and delivering,” he said. “Nuclear still has that incredible power to divide.”
No comments:
Post a Comment