The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power in the Middle East
INSS Insight No. 118, July 6, 2009
Asculai, Ephraim The Institute for National Security Studies
www.inss.org.il/research.php?cat=12&incat=&read=3068

Iran's progressing nuclear program and the fears it has aroused were likely
the trigger for some Middle East states to initiate ambitious nuclear power
programs. Last year Abu Dhabi concluded a multi-billion deal with France to
build nuclear power reactors. The United Arab Emirates signed a deal with
the US, Jordan signed an agreement with Britain, and Egypt announced that it
is resurrecting its decades-old plans to build nuclear power reactors along
its Mediterranean coast.

In the more than half a century that elapsed since the first nuclear power
reactor was connected to the electrical supply grid, these installations
have proven to be a reliable source of power, many with more years of
operation than originally anticipated. Some countries rely on "nuclear
electricity" for the supply of the major part of their needs. In France, the
most outstanding case in point, almost 80 percent of its electrical needs
are produced by 59 nuclear reactors. With the rise of fossil fuel costs,
nuclear power reactors became more competitive. The main economic
considerations lie in the fact that a nuclear reactor needs a large
financial outlay in comparison with the investment costs of fossil fuel
power stations, because of the price difference and the length of
construction time. On the other hand, the costs of fueling nuclear plants
are lower than the running costs of a "conventional" power station. In
general, the economics of nuclear power production vs. fossil fuel power
stations are country-dependent.

Also for economic reasons, the size of the nuclear power plants is
considerable, usually in the range of 1000 electric megawatts (MWe) output
and upwards. In this range, a lot depends on the needs of the consumers.
Because of the technical characteristics of a nuclear reactor, the
electricity production needs to be continuous for long periods of time - a
part of the "base load" of an electric grid. In large developed countries, a
single nuclear power plant will supply a small fraction of the electric
consumption. In this case, an interruption of the supply from a nuclear
plant would cause only a minor disruption and would be compensated by other
electricity suppliers. Interruptions can be planned, for refueling and
maintenance of the nuclear plant, or occur due to an unexpected outage
caused by unforeseen equipment failures. Thus a nuclear power plant should
supply a relatively small fraction of a country's needs. Another factor that
could determine the costs of electricity production is the distance from the
power plant to the consumer. The need to erect transmission lines and the
energy losses in the power transmission over long distances are factors in
the economic considerations for power production.

These considerations are modified if the energy produced by nuclear power
plants is to be used, in part or wholly, for water desalination. The costs
of the water and its transport to the consumers will determine the economics
of the power production. There are many additional factors that could
determine the advisability of constructing a nuclear power plant in
comparison with conventional plants, including local environmental
considerations, the availability of sites for nuclear reactors, and so on.
During regular operation, nuclear reactors are environmentally clean,
especially in comparison with coal-fired plants. In addition, the
decades-long experience in the safety of operating large reactors, mainly of
Western origins, has reduced the fear of large scale accidents, though not
eliminated it completely.

The activities outside the reactor hall pose the most difficulties: the need
for a fuel cycle, beginning with the "front end" - the production of the
nuclear fuel, and the "back-end" - the disposal of the spent fuel, when it
is removed from the reactor. Most of today's nuclear power reactors are
fueled by low enriched uranium. This requires an enrichment plant, which
also holds the potential for producing military-grade high enriched uranium.
Disposal of the irradiated nuclear fuel is another difficult issue. There
are two main methods of disposal: long term storage and reprocessing.
Reprocessing extracts plutonium, itself a weapons-capable material. Although
the common mode of operating a nuclear power reactor will produce an almost
militarily unusable grade of plutonium, the potential for producing military
grade plutonium is there. Therefore, the fear of proliferation - of
utilizing the nuclear fuel cycle for military purposes - is ever-present,
especially in regions of tension.

A possible solution to this problem is to have all fuel cycle activities,
with the exception of the reactor operation, outside the geographical
region. This would eliminate, albeit not completely, the fear of
proliferation from specific plants. On the other hand, the economics of
transporting spent fuel outside the region would influence the overall
economics of nuclear power production. Other considerations in the decisions
to initiate nuclear power projects include national prestige and a
determination to show the region that the nuclear arena has many
participants who are not to be ignored.

Two additional unrelated factors should be mentioned. The first is the issue
of the availability of trained personnel and technical infrastructure. Many
of the above-mentioned countries do not have sufficient local trained
personnel, and would have to rely not only on a turnkey project for the
construction of the nuclear power station, but on the operation of the
installation by foreign personnel for many years to come.

The second and no minor matter in this region of tension is the need to
secure the nuclear part of the installation from aggression, either through
overt or covert operations (including terrorist attacks). Unless the nuclear
plant is well protected, the consequences of a successful attack could be
severe, not only for the site itself but for a long distance away.

The question of erecting a nuclear power plant is thus multi-faceted.
Besides the straightforward issue of economic viability come the issues of
the many safety aspects, security, proliferation resistance, and the ability
of the country to erect and maintain a nuclear power capability. Given a
positive response to all these, there should be no reason to oppose nuclear
power. It could well be a blessing for the owner countries and for the
region as a whole.

INSS Insight is published through the generosity of

Sari and Israel Roizman, Philadelphia