[ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia

[Maury Siskel]

Please forgive my intrusion, but wanted to mention need to consider 
backup power generating needs for solar and wind electricity sources. I 
agree that life cycle cost comparisons should be the basis for comparing 
different production sources. Another major problem for me is how to 
cost the extensive anti-nuc zealot legal and other actions to 
deliberately artificially increase nuclear costs.
Best,
Maury&Dog.
======================

ROY HERREN wrote:

>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
>  
>