[ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia

Sun Aug 22 14:50:02 CDT 2010

Stewart,

    Is your statement, "Solar costs can not really compete with nuclear power 
plant costs over the long haul", a fact or "just your opinion"?  I too am an 
advocate for Nuclear Power, however I don't seem to recall a government subsidy 
for the fuel and waste cycle costs for Solar, and to the best of my knowledge 
the decommissioning costs for Solar aren't even close to being comparable to the 
decommissioning costs of Nuclear Power.  If we are going to have a discussion of 
the merits of a particular energy source I think that we should include the 
entire life-cycle costs.  For instance, I can't believe that protesters are 
regularly complaining about the disposal of nuclear wastes while mountains of 
coal fly ash accumulate around the country.  It is also baffling that using coal 
emits more radioactivity in the form of radon and other isotopes in a typical 
year than Nuclear power emits, but there doen't appear to be a group protesting 
this fact.  Then there is my pet peeve of mercury emissions from coal.  Clearly 
we put up with a lot of otherwise unacceptable conditions because coal is a 
legacy energy source.  I don't think that we should fall into the lagacy trap 
when comparing Nuclear Power to Solar Power.  Solar thermal holds much promise, 
and Solar electric has the potential to be a real game changer.  

 Roy Herren 

________________________________
From: Stewart Farber <radproject at sbcglobal.net>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Sun, August 22, 2010 8:36:21 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia

Quick thoughts on the question. I should really just be reading the NYTimes. 
Regarding building a nuke for Saudi domestic electricity. It is 

worth much more for the Saudis to meet their own electric needs with the
atom, and keep their oil in the ground for long-term revenue from their good 
friends in the West. The Saudis must get a good laugh when they hear the term 
"energy independence" by the US, which is a lovely phrase since 'Carter, but 
which 

has failed to be started because of political 
infighting and lack of will. 

The US has reacted to the terrible Gulf spill by shutting down much of the oil 
production and drilling in the Gulf, leading to greater oil imports, and putting 
tens of thousands of US workers into joblessness. I'm not for endless oil 
drilling in the Gulf and other areas like Alaska, but it can be done with less 
overall environmental impact vs. the true impact of the security threats to the 
US posed by our oil dependence on foreign nations who exploit this dependence. 
Also our oil dependence has forced the US to get involved in wars like Kuwait 
and the Iraq war which have isolated the US and hurt us in so many ways  --I 
don't want to open a tangential debate on oil demand driven wars. However,  it 
is clear energy/oil imports by the US has vast security implications.

The US is importing far more oil now than at the time of the first oil embargo 
in 1974. Oil supply and Western demand gives the Saudis power to influence world 
actions.

The Saudis also will gain some regard with environmental interests 
outside their country by being able to show they are meeting their 
energy needs without CO-2 emissions.

Regarding solar. The Saudi government would not be getting "tax credits" from 
the State to build a solar electric plant that could put out 1100 MW[e], like 
private developers get throughout the world from their host nations, paid for by 
the taxpayers.  Solar development cost & benefits is largely a shell game and 
the Saudis know it. If they built a large solar electric power plant, the 
facility would actually have to pay for itself. Solar costs can not really 
compete with nuclear power plant costs over the long haul.

During the 1970s, it has been well documented that the Saudis funded antinuclear 
groups in the West because they saw nuclear power plant development to be a 
threat to their sale of oil to the US and other major buyers. Nuclear plants 
could have had a real impact on long-term oil [and LNG] use in the West. In 
1972, the plans were to have one-thousand [1,000]  1,000 MW[e] plants in the US 
by the year 2000 and perhaps another 200 by 2010. . Do the math. If the US had 
1,000 more 1,000 MW[e] plants maybe we could actually supply electricity to run 
electric cars and make a dent in our oil imports for use in transportation. We 
could also be saving our own oil for use as petrochemical feedstocks rather than 
just BTUs.

Stewart Farber, MS Public Health

Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
Linac & Imaging Equipment Brokerage

Bridgeport, CT 06604

[203] 441-8433 [office]

website: http://www.farber-medical.com

--- On Sun, 8/22/10, blreider at aol.com <blreider at aol.com> wrote:

From: blreider at aol.com <blreider at aol.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Date: Sunday, August 22, 2010, 10:08 AM

http://ir.shawgrp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=61066&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=1446255&highlight=

The Shaw Group, Inc., Toshiba & Execelon are planning to work with the Saudis on 
building nuke electric generating plants in Sudi Arabia.  Note that Shaw & 
Toshiba own Westinghouse Nuclear, the designer of the AP1000 series nuclear
plants.

Question:  With all that sun and all that oil why does Saudi Arabia need 
electric energy from nuclear fuel?  

Barbara Reider, CHP
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu