Middle East nuclear fuel cycles: an open rather than closed case?

By Jason Deign on Aug 15, 2012

As Middle East and North African nations seek to build nuclear fleets they could theoretically choose from open or closed fuel cycles. But note the emphasis on ‘theoretically’.

There was a time when if you wanted nuclear power then you essentially got an open fuel cycle. With plenty of uranium to go around, this was the non-proliferation-friendly route to atomic energy favoured by nuclear pioneers, such as the United States, Canada, Sweden or Spain.
Now, though, the case is not so clear-cut. Not all the countries that want to join the nuclear club have ready access to uranium reserves. And some that do, such as Jordan, see them as a valuable export commodity.
India, for one, has built its entire long-term nuclear strategy around a thorium-based closed fuel cycle as a way of overcoming a relative dearth in uranium reserves. Meanwhile, the business case for closed-cycle reactors is also beginning to look potentially more attractive.
Dr Charles Forsberg, executive director for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says: “Right now closed fuel cycles cost more than open fuel cycles; that is subject to change.
Our initial analysis is a fast reactor on a once-through fuel cycle would have about the same fuel-cycle economics as a light-water reactor. It looks like, because of new technical developments, that is possible. Right now it’s uneconomic, but that may change with time.”
If it looks like fast reactors could ultimately be as cost-effective as light-water (LWR) variants, then would it not make sense for emerging nuclear nations to opt for closed-cycle technologies?
Political forces
For the Middle East, North Africa and many other developing nuclear markets, the answer is that this is not just about what makes economic sense; there are very strong political forces at play, too.
In the Middle East and North Africa, in particular, there is an overwhelming need to defer to international non-proliferation concerns.
That is why the United Arab Emirates, the most advanced of the region’s nuclear hopefuls, has unequivocally plumped for open-fuel cycle technologies with LWRs supplied by the Korea Electric Power Corporation.
It has not stopped Jordan, however, from making a stand over its desire to enrich uranium.
While stressing that enrichment was not a near-term goal for its nuclear programme, Khaled Toukan, the chairman of the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission, was clear about keeping the option open for “10 or 15 years down the road” in comments reported earlier this year.
US diplomacy
The stance was a test for US diplomacy in the region, says Kevin Massy, assistant director of the Brookings Institution’s Energy Security Initiative, because it created a risk of American firms being shut out of bids and of contracts going to countries over which the USA had no sway.
“The US had gone very enthusiastically into the agreement with the United Arab Emirates, setting it up as a gold standard,” he says. “They’ve had pushback for that from many other nations in the region.”
In January, the US Deputy Energy Secretary, Daniel Poneman, and Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Ellen Tauscher, wrote to members of the American House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations committees to propose a different tack.
“There has been a realisation that this is going to imperil the ability of US companies to do business,” Massy says. “So there was an indication the US was going to take things on a case-by-case basis. Jordan and Vietnam were mentioned.”
However, a go-softly approach towards some requests to allow enrichment is hardly the same as a carte-blanche benediction of closed fuel cycles. Right now, says Massy: “The US position with regards to Jordan is unclear.”
And Hugh Chalmers, nuclear research analyst for the Royal United Services Institute in the UK, says that in Jordan: “I cannot imagine they would have any success in pursuing a closed nuclear fuel cycle.
Nuclear proliferation
“They will be getting most of their technology either from South Korea or from France.”
These or any other countries that could offer assistance are unlikely to espouse closed-fuel cycles because of concerns over nuclear proliferation, he adds; “if they want to get help from anyone who knows what they are doing, they will not be allowed reprocessing.”
There is an additional challenge for Jordan’s position, which is that its nuclear effort is beginning to look shaky as far as international observers are concerned.
Massy says: “They have narrowed the field to two vendors but it is difficult to overestimate the level of dissatisfaction and opposition to nuclear power. Large parts of the country are mobilised against it and the regulator has been starved of funding. I can’t see that they are going to be able to bring through their programme.”
Beyond Jordan, the next likely contender for nuclear power in the region is Turkey, which has already selected open-cycle reactors from Rosatom. So best not to hold your breath over a closed-cycle programme in the Middle East or North Africa in the near future.