In recent years, Russia and China have been facing off to spread their nuclear power dominion to a new, huge, and vastly untapped market: Africa. The two nuclear power giants have been in competition to corner the market, with Russia aiming to grow its position in a sector that China has historically dominated. Earlier this summer, German media company DW News reported on a new Russian-funded and -controlled nuclear center being developed in Kigali: “The Center of Nuclear Science and Technologies, planned for completion by 2024, will include nuclear research labs as well as a small research reactor with up to 10 MW capacity.” And the Rwandan plant is just the beginning. “Ethiopia, Nigeria and Zambia have signed similar deals with Rosatom, while countries such as Ghana, Uganda, Sudan, and DRC have less expansive cooperation agreements.”
Now, there is a new forum for nuclear takeover in Africa: Egypt. As reported by AllAfrica this week, “Egypt's venture into nuclear power has been planned from the top-down, with environmental groups and rights organizations expressing reservations, energy analysts questioning the need for the country's first nuclear plant, and many details of agreements with Russia remaining murky.”
While COVID-19 has, not surprisingly, caused delays to the development of nuclear projects in Egypt, local officials recently announced that the construction of the nation’s first nuclear power plant is still set to proceed as planned. The plant will be built at Dabaa. “The professed objective of the power plant is to achieve self-sufficiency in energy amid increasing demand from a growing population (estimated at 100 million people),” reports AllAfrica. “Egypt's nuclear project has been awarded strategic importance by the government, resulting in it being conceptualized and implemented in a top-down manner. This approach largely excludes the people of Egypt from being stakeholders in their country's nuclear dream.”
Related: The Tipping Point For Mass EV Adoption
This project, as is the case of so many others on the continent, is being spearheaded by Russia in conjunction with local Egyptian officials. The deal to develop the inaugural Dabaa nuclear power plant was signed back in 2015, but is finally becoming a reality, and will be the first of many more. “In addition to building four reactors at Dabaa, the Russian state atomic energy corporation (ROSATOM) will supply nuclear fuel for the plant throughout its entire lifetime.”
Russian ROSATOM will be intimately involved in the project long-term, giving Russia the ability to maintain soft power in the area for years to come. “ROSATOM will also be involved in the operation and maintenance of the plant, as well as training of Egyptian personnel during the first 10 years of operation.
The corporation will also assist Egypt to dispose of spent nuclear fuel,” writes Heba Taha for AllAfrica. “Around 85 percent of the cost of the Dabaa power plant will be financed by a U.S. $25 billion Russian loan. Egypt will begin repaying the loan in October 2029 on a biannual basis over 22 years, with 3 percent interest. The remaining 15 percent of the cost of the power plant will be raised by the Egyptian government, but it is not clear whether this will come from the public or private sector.”
While the construction of the plant is scheduled to proceed as planned, the project has been and remains highly divisive in Egypt. While the country lacks an organized, large-scale anti-nuclear lobby, there is no shortage of smaller groups, such as environmentalist organizations and rights groups, that have expressed reservations if not outright condemnation of the project.
These reservations, however, are not the typical complaints about nuclear energy production. These local groups are not primarily complaining about radioactive waste or the potential of a nuclear meltdown. The main issue at play here is water. In Egypt, most areas receive less than eighty millimeters of precipitation per year. Water, therefore, is an especially precious commodity. The top complaint, therefore, is about the massive quantities of water needed to keep nuclear reactors cool to avoid meltdown. Any concerns about public health due to radiation and high costs of construction are secondary to the issue of water usage.
Another common complaint is that nuclear is not really needed in Egypt, where considerable deposits of natural gas have been discovered off the coast - enough to account for an energy surplus. This raises questions about the purpose of the project - is it really to create more and greener energy, or is it ultimately about power relations and geopolitical attachments between the infamously opaque Egyptian Nuclear and Radiological Regulatory Authority and the infamously power-hungry Russian government?
By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com
More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:
- The World's Most Expensive Crudes Get Expensive Again
- The Debt Crisis Is Mounting For Oil Economies
- Shell May Cut Upstream Oil Operations By 40%
The El Dabaa nuclear power plant (NPP) will comprise four pressurised water reactors (PWRs) with a total capacity of 4.8GW, which is expected to account for up to 50% of Egypt’s electricity generation capacity. Moreover, the project is expected to boost Egypt’s economy and industrial development by creating up to 50,000 jobs.
The El Dabaa plant, which will be Egypt’s first nuclear power plant, will be built in Matrouh Governorate on the Mediterranean coast, 250km west of Alexandria. Construction on the plant is expected to start in 2020, with commissioning expected to begin in 2026. It will use sea water to cool the reactors. So the reservation about scarcity of water doesn’t arise.
And while Egypt has considerable reserves of natural gas, generating nuclear electricity enables it to earn money from its gas export revenue to help balance its budget.
Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
International Oil Economist
Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London
It's opposed by "environmental" groups? That calls into question what the definition of an "environmentalist" is. Opposing non-polluting nuclear and essentially advocating the use of fossil fuels instead is not pro-environmental by any reasonable definition.
This article is at least a bit more honest because there are no mantras about how they should build solar and wind instead. Nope, it extols the use of fossil fuels instead of non-emitting nuclear.
Finally, the water use argument is dishonest, given that the plant is on the Mediterranean coast and will use (ample) sea water as coolant.