Research

Running head: NUCLEAR ENERGY 1

NUCLEAR ENERGY 2

Nuclear Energy in the United Arab Emirates

Nuclear Energy in the United Arab Emirates

To make up a country and sustain it, many factors come into consideration, but most importantly is the aspect to provide enough energy to supply a nation’s need. As such, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as an oil exporter country secures most of its energy by burning crude oil to generate electricity. However, burning oil has a major downside to it which is the emission of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Since 1990, the yearly emission of CO2 in the UAE has increased twice as much as the initial values (AlFarra & Abu-Hijleh, 2012). This critical issue has alarmed the leaders of the UAE to look for alternative ways to provide electricity through a source that is environmentally friendly. As a result, the president of the UAE made a royal decree to establish the first corporation in the UAE that will be responsible in producing a clean energy. This corporation is known as Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC). This corporation will be the first producer of a unique type of energy called nuclear energy. The energy that is produced from a nuclear reaction, by means of a process called nuclear fission, is called nuclear energy (“What is Nuclear Energy,” n.d., para. 1). This research will focus on answering the following question: What impact will nuclear energy have on the UAE and its citizens?

Nuclear Energy and Pollution

One of the main drivers that lead the UAE to look for energy alternatives such as nuclear energy is the issue of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The resulting climate change affects the UAE’s environment. Qader’s (2009) study claims that the UAE is the second highest CO2 emitter between all GCC countries. This increase in emission is clearly linked to the increase in energy demand. In addition, Dirioz & Reimold (2014) report that the population of the UAE has increased from 4.1 million to 8.2 million in the last five years. This data supports the idea that the energy demand is linked to the increase in the growth of population and the growth of the economy of the UAE. Pollution is directly related to nuclear energy in two contrary ways. Firstly, is that nuclear energy is a positive contributor to the environment since it does not emit GHGs. Secondly, nuclear energy can be a negative contributor to the environment if the issue of the disposal of nuclear waste is not planned before the implementation of nuclear energy in the UAE. Nuclear energy’s main fuel is Uranium which is an abundant metal in the Earth’s crust (“What is Nuclear Energy,” n.d., para. 1). This type of fuel is clean since it does not release GHGs compared to the burning of coal or oil. However, the extraction of energy from this fuel results in radioactive waste which can be of great danger to the environment and people by causing deadly radiation and radioactive pollution. There are many categories of radioactive waste; each have their own radioactivity level. Those are called, very low level waste (VLLW), low-level waste (LLW), intermediate-level waste (ILW), and high-level waste (HLW) (“Radioactive Waste Management,” 2015). HLW is the result of uranium fueled nuclear reactions and dealing with this highly radioactive waste is still a common issue that challenges many developed countries such as the USA. To protect the lives of people and the environment of the UAE, there are different methods to handle nuclear waste with unique risks and advantages, and this research will suggest one optimal method for the UAE to follow after exploring each method. Those methods that are used worldwide in developed countries are: storing radioactive waste in dry casks after cooling them in water pools for 3-5 years, geological disposal of nuclear waste, and waste reprocessing (Ahearne, 2011). The last option is not applicable since the UAE signed a certain policy that prevents the UAE from reprocessing the remains of waste materials. This policy will be discussed thoroughly in the safety section of this research later on. Permanent storage concepts are yet to be implemented since researchers are still developing solutions to this issue. Meanwhile, the other two temporary storing options are still viable and safe. To start off, dry casks are containers protected by a strong concrete configuration that are cooled in a certain circulation which makes them safe (Ahearne, 2011). Nine dry casks containing nuclear wastes that were stored on-site during the Fukushima accident in Japan have survived the tsunami and were not damaged at all (Rosner & Goldberg, 2013). This aids in suggesting that dry casks offer great protection from natural disasters and are a safe storage method. The other scenario which is burying the spent fuel deep underground is still a doable option for the UAE. However, it has many downsides to it including a closure of the area where the burial is located, and the risk of allowing the radioactive waste to escape in the event of a natural disaster such as an earthquake. As a result, the UAE will temporarily store nuclear wastes in spent fuel pools and later shift them to a dry storage system safely (Al Saadi & Yi, 2015). This further indicates that the dry cask method is the optimal way for the UAE to store nuclear waste in order to help prevent radioactive pollution in the nation and to provide a safer nuclear program.

Economy and Costs

Having nuclear power plants (NPP), just like other plants such as oil and coal fired plants, have its costs. Compared to coal powered plants, NPP require a substantial initial cost in the building stage, but a very low cost to run (“The Economics of Nuclear Power,” 2016, para. 2). In addition to this, this section will explore electricity cost for running NPPs. Nuclear accidents are directly related to the costs of production of NPPs and affect the economy indirectly. This is shown by a study conducted by Lovering, Yip, and Nordhaus (2016) which indicates that nuclear accidents such as Three Mile Island (TMI) that occurred in 1979 affected other NPPs’ costs negatively in the USA. Similarly, Ahearne (2011) concurs with Lovering et.al (2016) by stating that the nuclear plants that were under construction after TMI’s incident have faced an increase in costs due to the rise in interest rates for funds. Likewise, Koomey and Hultman (2007) agree that the TMI accident was the reason that the capital cost of NPPs increased. Therefore, nuclear accidents play a major role in manipulating costs of nuclear plants which then affects the funding and public acceptance of nuclear energy. This distrust of nuclear power prohibits the economy from functioning at an optimal level by reducing the electricity supply in the country. The nuclear market is at a stable scale right now without any major accidents going on while the first NPP is being built in the UAE. Even so, the initial cost of building a NPP is still huge. According to Carlisle (2010), Abu Dhabi will finance its nuclear projects through a capital cost amounting to US$20 billion. Furthermore, operating costs must be taken into consideration since powering and maintaining the plant and providing it with the necessary fuel has its costs. However, in this case, nuclear energy has an upper hand compared to coal or oil plants regarding operation costs. The operating cost for uranium is 14% compared to gas-fired and coal-fired plant, that have 89% and 78% of operating costs respectively (“The Economics of Nuclear Power,” 2016, para. 19). This shows that uranium is a cost efficient fuel compared to other types of fuel.

· This is the most undeveloped part of my paper for few reasons that I’ll name:

· I need to read many articles, since the ones that I read so far cut out interest rates, and some of them did not in their studies so I had to be careful on what to include since.

· I’ll include the operation cost of uranium enrichment process which I did not include since I did not know about this process only after I read many articles and learned new information.

· Refining this body will be my main focus/priority in the first full draft.

Safety

Some people would argue that nuclear energy is not safe since it has many risks associated with it. In addition, events that have occurred in the past including TMI, Chernobyl, and most recently, the Fukushima accident show that nuclear energy can be a double edged sword. People’s mentality toward nuclear energy is related to their acceptance towards it since nuclear power depends heavily on the level of acceptance that people have towards it (Hayashi & Hughes, 2013). Also, nuclear accidents have a direct effect on the public acceptance of nuclear energy. This is shown by a study conducted before and after the Fukushima disaster on people living in different countries by Kim, Kim, and Kim (2013) by stating that “[o]f the 24,556 respondents, 52.7 percent favored the use of nuclear energy before the accident, and only 45.4 percent favored it after the accident” (p. 825). Similarly, Siegrist and Visschers (2013) conducted a study that showed that the Fukushima accident made an impact towards countries that have nuclear energy programs and are dependent on them such as Switzerland. The accident’s result was that the Swiss government pulled its nuclear program out of their energy sector (Siegrist & Visschers, 2013). On the other hand, Hayashi and Hughes (2013) disagree on the idea that every country had a negative attitude towards nuclear energy by showing that China, South Korea, and Russia had an increase in public acceptance after the accident. Furthermore, Srinivasan and Rethinaraj (2013) agree with Hayashi and Hughes (2013) by explaining that the public response towards the Fukushima accident varies a lot between developed countries. Before the accident, Switzerland had five NPPs that were producing forty percent of the country’s electricity need (Siegrist & Visschers, 2013). With this, a good point would be that a heavily nuclear dependent country such as Switzerland received negative image due to the Fukushima accident. However, the UAE would not depend completely on the nuclear energy since it has many other energy sources such as crude oil and natural gases. A study conducted by the UAE government showed that the future NPPs will produce nine percent of the country’s electricity per year by 2020 (“Nuclear Energy in the UAE,” n.d., para. 3). Compared to Switzerland, the UAE would not rely heavily on nuclear energy since the UAE is still new in this field. Thus, in order to ensure the safety and optimum utilization of its future NPPs, the UAE have conducted many necessary phases to achieve an ideal protection. The initial step was to propose a peaceful policy that was created by the UAE Council of Ministers on the year 2008 (Kaabi, 2011). This policy includes six main points which are the assurance towards safety and security, complete operational transparency, non-proliferation, working directly with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to match its ethics, partnerships with professional experts and developed nations, and the approach to any peaceful manner to secure long-term sustainability (“UAE Nuclear Energy Policy,” n.d., para. 3). Complete transparency means that the UAE will be open with its nuclear program by inviting peer reviews and engineering community. The UAE has chosen Korean Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) as the major contractor of its nuclear program since it is one of the pioneers in safety, reliability, and efficiency in the nuclear sector (Dirioz & Reimold, 2014). One of the main reasons that made the UAE choose KEPCO is because of their safety standards is of their utmost priority. This is ensured by choosing a NPP that was built by having safety as the core of its design. This NPP is called APR-1400 which is of the generation III+ that has improved safety, released less nuclear wastes, and produced more energy with less fuel compared to its predecessors (Kaabi, 2011). In addition, the policy includes non-proliferation which literally means that the country would not support or develop nuclear weapons at all. The non-proliferation system was signed in 1995 by the UAE, and the treaty was called Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) (Dirioz & Reimold, 2014). The location of the NPPs is located in Barakah, which is fifty kilometers southwest of the UAE’s capital. The UAE chose Barakah as its preferred site because it is distant from other cities, has a low seismicity, and the availability of sea water due its location (AlFarra & Abu-Hijleh, 2012). Low seismicity means that the area has a low frequency to earthquakes. This is important when we consider safety improvements since the Fukushima accident that occurred was caused by an earthquake and a tsunami. The Persian Gulf that lies in the area of the NPP will not cause a tsunami due to its geographical characteristics since it is not an ocean. With this, the UAE can take the earthquake and tsunami concerns out of the equation regarding safety risks. Since the UAE do not have experienced professionals in its new nuclear sector, it addressed this issue by a certain human resource strategy. This approach is to hire experts in this field in its initial phases, and to train its staff which consists mostly of Emiratis by professionals (Kaabi, 2011). This is to ensure that all safety sides to a peaceful nuclear program are covered thoroughly with great care.

· I didn’t mention reprocessing which was the promise of the first argument (pollution), this will be done before the first full draft.

· However, reprocessing is related to non-proliferation which will be discussed thoroughly in the full draft.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a peaceful nuclear energy program will benefit the UAE in many ways such as mitigating pollution, boosting the economy, and creating a sense of peacefulness since the UAE is prioritizing safety in its nuclear program over energy production. Reducing pollution help in improving environmental health and since NPP produces no GHG emissions. In the economical aspect of this research, it was showed that the nuclear program will help in creating more jobs in the energy sector and it was explained that operating NPP is cheap on the run but its initial cost is huge. Furthermore, the paper discussed safety concerns toward nuclear energy and it showed that the UAE approached the nuclear program in a peaceful and professional manner. All in all, the UAE should not rely completely on nuclear program since it is a new field for the UAE to explore.

References

AlFarra, H. J., & Abu-Hijleh, B. (2012). The potential role of nuclear energy in mitigating CO2 emissions in the united arab emirates. Energy Policy, 42(1), 272-285. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.084

Ahearne, J. F. (2011). Prospects for nuclear energy. Energy Economics, 33(4), 572-580. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2010.11.014

Al Saadi, S., & Yi, Y. (2015). Dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in UAE – economic aspect. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 75, 527-535. doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2014.09.00

Carlisle, T. (2010). Retrieved March 10, 2016, from The National website: http://www.thenational.ae/

Dirioz, A. O., & Reimold, B. A. (2014). The strategic context of the UAE's nuclear project: A model for the region? Middle East Policy, 21(3), 71-83. doi:10.1111/mepo.12083

Hayashi, M., & Hughes, L. (2013). The fukushima nuclear accident and its effect on global energy security. Energy Policy, 59, 102-111. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.046

Kaabi, H. A. (2011). United arab emirates and the experience of a nuclear newcomer. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 67(4), 52-59. doi:10.1177/0096340211413551

Kim, Y., Kim, M., & Kim, W. (2013). Effect of the fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 61, 822-828. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.107

Koomey, J., & Hultman, N. E. (2007). A reactor-level analysis of busbar costs for US nuclear plants, 1970–2005. Energy Policy, 35(11), 5630-5642. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.06.005

Lovering, J. R., Yip, A., & Nordhaus, T. (2016). Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors. Energy Policy, 91, 371.

Nuclear Energy in the UAE. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.enec.gov.ae/

Qader, M. R. (2009). Electricity consumption and GHG emissions in GCC countries. Energies, 2(4), 1201-1213. doi:10.3390/en20401201

Radioactive Waste Management. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.world-nuclear.org/

Rosner, R., & Goldberg, S. M. (2013). A practical, regional approach to nuclear waste storage. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 69(6), 58-66. doi:10.1177/0096340213508677

Srinivasan, T. N., & Gopi Rethinaraj, T. S. (2013). Fukushima and thereafter: Reassessment of risks of nuclear power. Energy Policy, 52(1), 726-736. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.036

Siegrist, M., & Visschers, V. H. M. (2013). Acceptance of nuclear power: The fukushima effect. Energy Policy, 59, 112-119. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.051

The Economics of Nuclear Power. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.world-nuclear.org/

UAE Nuclear Energy Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.enec.gov.ae/

What is Nuclear Energy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.enec.gov.ae/