5

According to Wikipedia there are no Arab countries that have a functioning nuclear energy program. (Indeed, Pakistan and Iran are the only Muslim countries to do so, and neither of these are Arab.) In contrast, many other countries have nuclear power plants. Why would Arab countries eschew nuclear power? Is there a particular policy or motivation that would tend to keep Arab countries from doing this? Or is it merely a sociological, economic, or geographical consideration?

My point of view: those countries have large populations and they need energy, especially in some countries they are struggling with electricity.

  • 1
    You appear to have multiple questions here, you might want to clarify. Why don't "Arab countries" (other than Iran?) have nuclear reactors? Why aren't (Who?, the 9 with nuclear weapons?) afraid of the 24 developing nuclear weapons? Why is it taking until 2020 for the 24 other countries to get (nuclear weapons?)? You might want to narrow this to a single country (otherwise you will have 24 equally correct answers to why 2020 will be the year they get the bomb) . Or limit it to one of your other questions. – user1873 Aug 26 '13 at 14:23
  • 4
    Just a guess, but I assume cheap oil in the region is part of the equation. – user1530 Aug 26 '13 at 14:35
  • 1
    @DA. why then iran posesses such technology ?. The nuclear energy is different then oil energy which it creates alot of power which helps the country heavy industries such developing cars or electronics .. which arab countries deosnt have which this is a question itself why arab countrie doesnt have heavy industries such car industrie or computers.. anyway I will ask it later – Moudiz Aug 26 '13 at 14:44
  • 2
    @Moudiz for the most part, they have oil. Their money comes from oil. No need to create heavy industries when you have the oil wealth. As for Iran, they've traditionally been an advanced nation in terms of science and technology. But it's also not an Arab country. Are you specifically asking about Iran, or are you specifically asking about Arab nations? – user1530 Aug 26 '13 at 16:32
  • 3
    Because Israel bombs the suspected plants to smithereens when they learn of them? – Stian Yttervik Feb 1 at 8:27
15

I would argue that the reason is less political and more about geography and economics.

As this study shows, access to low-cost fossil fuels is in fact cheaper than nuclear. This page shows the cost of fossil fuels to be reasonable, whereas nuclear has a high capitalization that must be amortized in some fashion.

Saudi Arabia, for example, has the world's largest oil reserves, and thus can extract oil far more cheaply than they could invest in such a large scale infrastructure project like a nuclear power plant. Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Libya, and others likewise lack an economic incentive to do this.

Iran's nuclear program is more contentious. While Iran claims it is simply diversifying its energy portfolio, many in the West view it strictly as a ploy to cover a nuclear weapons program - not as an energy source.

Israel, in contrast (a non-Arab state), has no oil reserves of its own, and a precarious geopolitical situation that makes it prudent not to rely on its neighbors, and sufficient wealth - but even in these circumstances, has found it cheaper to emphasize solar power and conservation.

And finally, some countries, like Germany and Japan, in light of the externalities imposed by the cleanup of spent nuclear waste, have seen fit to actually dismantle their programs. While the price may have been affordable, the total cost, both environmental and political, was deemed otherwise.

  • Note: I should say that personal, I like nuclear, and lived within a few miles of a nuclear reactor for nearly 8 years. That said, there are politics around it which bring its own costs, some of which are non-monetary. – Affable Geek Aug 26 '13 at 16:04
  • Interestingly, Israel recently discovered a very large natural gas deposit off its coast: upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2013/08/22/… – Avi Aug 26 '13 at 18:50
  • its politcal thing @AffableGeek , there are many indicator for that, saudi arabia in particular is ruled by a cult or political group that exists arround 60 years and never changed, because if one day for a political reason saudi arabia and the arabian gulf countries decided to stop the fuel to the europ countries it will disastreous. thats why in my point view USA try to keep arabian countries so weak to take advantage of the fuel the same in africa, those coutnrie are so poor and weak however foreign countries are taking advatanges ot it is resources. African countries remain strugeling – Moudiz Aug 27 '13 at 6:56
4

They tend to either be poor, in which case they can't afford nuclear power; or are rich in fossil fuels, so they get their power that way. Another consideration is that the U.S. and the West are determined to keep nuclear technology as exclusive as possible. A peaceful program in a less developed country is assumed to mean "dirty bombs" and easy transition to having nuclear weapons, which MUST be kept to the countries that are already the most powerful because it is much more acceptable to invade weaker ones (and the West is particularly fond of invading Arab nations, guess why).

  • A peaceful program in a less developed country is assumed to mean "dirty bombs" - [citation needed]. "Another consideration is that the U.S. and the West are determined to keep nuclear technology as exclusive as possible" - [citation needed]. – user4012 Jan 6 '14 at 22:24
  • @user4012 Witness the economic sanctions levied against Iran for their nuclear power program. – nick012000 Jun 21 at 10:57
  • There is a difference between energy technology and weapon's technology. While the West (and the other signatories to the nonproliferation treaty) try to indeed prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology, they often work with countries establishing nuclear energy capabilities. Even in the "evil" arab regions, see for instance,world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/… – Frank Hopkins Jun 21 at 17:44
  • "In December 2006 the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Oman – announced that the Council was commissioning a study on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. France agreed to work with them on this, and Iran pledged assistance with nuclear technology." – Frank Hopkins Jun 21 at 17:44
  • And this article rather cites economic reasons and political reasons with respect to energy choice after the Japanese tsunami for why Russia and China lead the nuclear reactor export: economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/08/07/… – Frank Hopkins Jun 21 at 17:49
2

Option one; you sell oil for a price you cannot predict and use the income to build a nuclear power station for a cost you cannot predict. You then have to buy in nuclear fuel etc using income from the oil you are selling for a price you cannot predict.

Option two; you use the oil (and gas) in a power station that is cheap to build at a known cost. (It is also likely that the any gas you are able to use, would have been expensive to liquidly to allow it to be exported.)

Solar power can then be considered at a low risk to reduce the amount of oil used in the oil powered power station so allowing more oil to be exported.

  • 1
    Not every Arab country has important oil prodcution. – Evargalo Jan 31 at 16:16
2

Ian Ringrose's answer explains that it is cheaper and less-risky for an oil-rich Arab state to build oil- or natural gas-fueled power plants than nuclear power plants.

In addition to the two non-Arab muslim countries (Iran and Pakistan) mentioned in the original post, two others (Turkey and Bangladesh) are currently building Russian-designed nuclear power plants. The Russian deals involve borrowing money to pay high capital costs. For example, the Bangladesh deal includes borrowing eleven billion dollars with a variable interest rate that is 1.75 percentage points higher than LIBOR, and a 28-38 year repayment period.

The Koran condemns usury, as opposed to trade. Arab countries therefore avoid interest-bearing loans. This makes it very difficult for oil-poor Arab countries to finance nuclear power plants.

0

There are 3 kinds of Arabic countries:

  1. The Arabic countries that are linked directly with the USA, and have a lot of petrol so all their power is in that field. They have lot of money and have no nuclear energy because their worries are related to their "own economy" and they just buy everything from the USA (example : Gulf countries) .

  2. Those countries that are led by very corrupt people who are helped directly by the USA or France. Those who control secrets of those countries and never let any person inform the population of those countries of what is really happening. They work with corrupt leaders (president, army) who worry only about their own businesses and use of public money for their own benefit. (example : Algeria)

  3. Those countries that tried to have nuclear power, but someone else stopped them, (for example corrupt president). (example : Algeria)

You need to know how Arab countries work. They have a very complicated system and people are not informed about it. Lot of presidents, some try to do good but then, they are killed, others just are very corruption.

  • 1
    So, If I am understanding you right, You're saying that Arab countries don't use nuclear energy because they're corrupt? – Sam I am Jan 3 '14 at 19:45
  • 2
    Why might corrupt leaders be against Nuclear energy? – Sam I am Jan 3 '14 at 19:45
  • 1
    @SamIam - (assuming that's true in the first place) possibly, because nuclear is a big investment . That tends to interfere with lining one's own pockets. If I was a corrupt ruler I'd avoid big longterm investments that don't start paying off soon. – user4012 Jan 6 '14 at 22:26
  • 2
    @user4012 Oh I'd find such a program perfect. You can steal lots of money that is supposedly intended for the power plant that is supposedly being completed in 25 years. And after 20 years you leave the country or have it being blown up by some bad opposition rebels, so it doesn't get known that it was only half done for lack of those funds you did your birthday celebrations with. – Frank Hopkins Oct 25 '18 at 11:22

protected by JJJ Jun 21 at 8:36

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.