Nuclear Dilemmas

Nuclear power has always inspired a curious combination of fascination and horror. The closing months of World War II demonstrated its awful destructive potential, something that instilled a sense of fear that underpinned the delicate global balance of power during the Cold War. Yet the postwar era also provided numerous examples of the positive potential of nuclear energy.

For many countries, it became a source of cost-effective electricity and its credibility as an alternative to hydrocarbons was further underscored by oil crisis in the 1970s. But the emotional power of nuclear energy has always left public opinion swinging between two extremes. The promise of the early 1970s was quickly called into question by the Three Mile Island accident near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1979. As soon as the wave of scepticism that followed began to abate, another major disaster followed in Chernobyl in northern Ukraine in 1986. This was a far more serious incident that Three Mile Island and the potential of nuclear contamination in densely populated parts of Europe, while largely avoided, produced a major and enduring backlash against nuclear energy. Thankfully, the long period of low oil prices in the 1980s and 1990s did little to call that strategy in question.

But now, history is once again repeating itself. The steady – and remarkably consistent – climb of oil prices since 2003 triggered many of the same debates as the 1970s’ oil crisis. With nuclear energy still constituting the only established, cost-effective alternative to hydrocarbons, a shift in the popular mood began to give rise to talk of a ‘nuclear spring.’ Due to a dramatic structural increase in energy demand – and hydrocarbons consumption – by the rapidly growing emerging markets, the search for alternatives led to a natural refocusing on nuclear energy… until the Japanese earthquake of this month, and the damage it caused to the Fukushima nuclear power plant, produced another backlash. Echoes of 1986 were immediate and obvious. Just as many countries suspended their nuclear power strategies back then, China and Germany – among many others – have called for a comprehensive reassessment of their programs. Many governments which had gradually warmed up to nuclear energy – in some cases overcoming decades of scepticism – retreated again.

Problematically, nuclear energy is a more emotional and political sensitive issue than most other types of energy could ever be. As much as Fukushima is in many ways a challenge peculiar to Japan, given its seismic geography, it has stirred emotions even in countries where the conditions are significantly different. This is of particular relevance to the Middle East at a time when a number of regional economies have been taking their first steps towards nuclear energy. The UAE has actually commissioned nuclear reactors while Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and planning to follow suit.

A vocal discussion has erupted also in Turkey where Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan publicly defended the country’s nuclear plans while the opposition has demanded stricter safety standards. The mounting criticism of the project is partly due to the risk of earthquakes in Turkey. Turkey has begun construction of a nuclear power station in Akkuyu in the Mersin district on the Mediterranean with Russian technology provided by Rusatom. Turkey is also in negotiations with Japan to construct a nuclear plant in the Black Sea province of Sinop. The two stations would cover some 5 per cent of Turkey’s power needs. By contrast, the four plants proposed in Abu Dhabi are projected to produce up to a quarter of the UAE’s electricity needs by 2020. The first one should be actived by 2017. The UAE plants are third-generation facilities developed by Korea Electric Power Corporation. While the probability of seismic activity in the UAE is very low, the designs of the plants must provide for earthquakes and tsunamis.

While there is little to suggest at the moment that either the Turkish or the UAE plans will be revised, more exacting safety standards look certain to push up costs. Nonetheless, the basic calculus that inspired these steps towards energy diversification remains in place. The Middle East is one of the most dynamic regions in the world when it comes to the growth of energy demand. Supported in many countries by generous subsidies, recent trends in energy consumption have resulted in clearly unsustainable trends. The average consumption of oil and gas in Saudi Arabia grew by 5.9 per cent over the past years, far ahead of the annual GDP growth. Domestic use is claiming a steadily growing proportion of the Kingdom’s hydrocarbons output: 13.6 per cent in 1990, 14.5 per cent in 2000, and 18.8 per cent in 2008. The situation elsewhere in the region is little different and the tightening constraints have become particularly acute in the case of natural gas which is a key input of the region’s growing petrochemicals industry.

A great deal of effort must be undertaken to ensure that the risks associated with nuclear power are properly identified and managed. Nor should nuclear power be seen as the ‘magic bullet,’ an excuse for delaying the development of other types of alternative energy. But the economies realities being what they are, the debate should be guided not just by emotion but by fact. In the end, the risks of shunning nuclear power may well be greater than the risks of using it.

Email the writer: