Nuclear Power is not the Answer in the MED
May 6, 2008
During his visit to Tunis last week President Sarkozy signed another cooperation agreement on the use of civilian nuclear energy. Soon France will have completed a network of such agreements with all southern riparian countries of the MED.
For Sarkozy nuclear power is the energy of the future. He is wrong.
Nuclear power is no more a sustainable source of energy than oil or gas. Within far less than 100 years the available reserves of uranium will be depleted. Nuclear energy has only one advantage over oil, gas or coal: it does not emit C02 and is therefore climate-neutral. But is this a sufficient reason for MED countries to engage in nuclear power? Definitely not.
Nuclear power is a complex and highly toxic technology. As we have learned since Chernobyl, the slightest negligence in daily maintenance and control can unleash a catastrophe. It is true that the latest generation of nuclear reactors offers the highest possible guarantees against nuclear accidents. Still, no private insurance company is ready so far to ensure nuclear power plants! And no country has so far resolved the burning issue of long-term storage of nuclear waste!
Nuclear power is not a cheap form of energy. During the last 50 years, European governments have poured huge amounts of subsidies into the development of nuclear energy. Some are continuing to do so. Only the British government has shown the guts to ask utilities to operate new nuclear power plants without any public subsidies.
Nuclear energy is very capital-intensive. It takes easily 10 years or more from the day of deciding to build a new plant to its operation. Interest and amortisation constitute the main charges, while fuel costs are minimal despite a sharp increase of uranium prices during the last few years.
Cooling constitutes a major problem for nuclear power plants. That is why most of them are situated alongside or near big rivers. It is probably also one of the reasons why no nuclear power plant has so far been built on the shores of the MED.
For all these reasons, any country should carefully weigh the pros and cons of nuclear energy before taking a decision to engage in nuclear power generation. It should in particular be extremely critical about cost calculations, which tend to underestimate the total costs of running a nuclear power plant, including safety precautions, handling of nuclear waste and decommissioning.
All MED countries are blessed with solar energy. They can tap that power throughout the year, on average 12 hours per day. They can use solar power in various forms: solar water-heaters, photovoltaic electricity generation or solar-thermal electricity generation. They can use solar energy for both decentralised and large-scale electricity and heat supply. It can run the desalination plants which all coastal countries will have to build in view of satisfying their rising water demand and of course their rising needs for air-conditioning.
In addition, countries like Turkey, Morocco, Egypt and even Tunisia dispose of huge wind power potentials, more than sufficient to supply them with relatively cheap electricity, around 5 cents/kWh, for at least the next 10 years or so.
Morocco and Algeria have started investing in solar-thermal power stations. Combined with gas-fuelling these constitute a most promising avenue for covering the rising demand for electricity in countries like Algeria, Libya or Egypt endowed with substantial gas reserves. They should continue along that line and keep improving this technology, which is capable of supplying essentially all future power demand of the countries south and north of the MED at costs of around 5 cents/kWh, which should be acceptable for an almost clean energy without any safety hazards.
In conclusion, none of the MED countries should rush into nuclear power, whatever attractive offers the European nuclear industry might make.
Author : Eberhard Rhein