[ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia

Mon Aug 23 09:48:50 CDT 2010

While not the conventional opinion, I believe that countries that desire to develop a peaceful nuclear power program need not seek opinions from other countries. It is not for anyone to promulgate a policy whereby only "they" have the right to this technology and that "others" do not have that right. There should not be a "nuclear police state" that has veto power of who shall have what. It's not that different to ask is the Saudis have oil, why do they need nuclear power and not ask the same question of the USA, where there is abundant coal for generating power. What's the difference!

Regards,

Sandy

-----------------------------------
Sander C. Perle
President
Mirion Technologies
Dosimetry Services Division
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614

+1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
+1 (949) 296-1130 (Fax)

Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Ahmad Al-Ani
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 11:24 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia

Comments below:

At 05:44 PM 8/22/2010, ROY HERREN wrote:

" They (the Saudis) could no doubt meet their domestic energy needs for many decades to come just by utilizing their natural
gas "

You have to look at energy issue as an intergrated global balance of energy demand and supply, not on a country by country basis. The current published trends indicate that around the year 2035, the Saudi oil output will break eeven with the domestic consumption. That is a two fold problem, revenues for Saudi Arabia, and less oil for the ever oil addicted nations. Such trend is influenced by the domestic developments, population increase, and slow down of oil production from soon to dry out wells.

Accordingly, the use of the Nuclear Power Plants in Saudi Arabia, or many OPEC nations, is a good global energy policy. Sustainable development for the exporters of oil, revival of an under-utilized technology, and extending the oil life line for the oil consumer nations.

" So then the million dollar question is why are they currently interested in obtaining Nuclear Power?"

Partially answered above, but in the words of a Saudi advisor to the king
"It is a pity to use oil, which is a valuable source of revenue, to meet
domestic electricity demand. It makes more sense to use oil
as a means of obtaining foreign currency."

I would add that many oil exporters can "afford" such projects at this time, and, there is no local active anti-nuclear groups to challenge such developments. Both factors are in reverse in many developed, oil consuming nations.

"How does the International Community go about assisting countries in obtaining peaceful use of Nuclear Power while at
the same time preventing proliferation of weapons grade fissile materials?"

This has already been materialized in the model adopted by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), world's fourth oil reserve country. Their model was called the "golden model" by the GWB US administration. The basics of that model is that the country gives up its national right of uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing.

Many diplomatic battles are being fought as we speak concerning that issue. Worth mentioning, is the Israeli objection to the Jordanian Nuclear Power Plants project. Jordan is rich with Uranium ore and have already signed contracts with French Areva to mine the Uranium. Yet, the King of Jordan last month went public and disclosed the Israeli attempts to pressure Jordan to give up thier right to mine and enrich thier own domestic uranium supply.

For the commercial battle of all of this, see the Japanese prespective of it, in this recent 2 parts report

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201008200347.html

and

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201008200349.html

Ahmad Al-Ani
Radiation Physicist

On Mon Aug 23rd, 2010 2:44 AM AST ROY HERREN wrote:

>In addition to having vast oil reserves it is highly likely that Saudi Arabia
>also has equally vast natural gas reserves.  They could no doubt meet their
>domestic energy needs for many decades to come just by utilizing their natural
>gas.  The short of it is that they won't need Nuclear Power to supply their
>domestic energy needs for many decades.  So then the million dollar question is
>why are they currently interested in obtaining Nuclear Power?  Will there be a
>time in the near term future when all of the countries in the region will have
>attempting to build Nuclear Power plants?  If one were to look at it from the
>Saudi perspective, if Israel and Iran both have Nuclear Power plants, then why
>shouldn't Saudi Arabia also have one?  How does the International Community go
>about assisting countries in obtaining peaceful use of Nuclear Power while at
>the same time preventing proliferation of weapons grade fissile materials?
> Roy Herren
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: "blreider at aol.com" <blreider at aol.com>
>To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
>Sent: Sun, August 22, 2010 4:04:11 PM
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia
>
>
>Thank you for adding to this discussion.  Being pro-nuclear does not necessarily
>mean one is anti-other forms of energy production or not environmentally
>friendly.  When the issue of Saudi Arabia (SA) nukes came up I thought - why? SA
>has lots of land and sun plus oil.  The population density is not huge
>http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm.  Solar seems ideal
>for that environment, and I have read that SA is using solar for all sorts of
>things.
>
>
>Dose from Coal Fire:  I performed the dose calculations in the environmental
>impact statement (EIS) for the 1978 fuel use act so perhaps I can add to the
>point regarding radionuclide emissions. The EIS concluded that increased coal
>use (rather than using oil based fuels) would increase dose to the public.  It
>was my personal observation at the time that the doses to the population due to
>coal fire plants (fly ash) were higher than those I had seen and calculated for
>normally operating nuclear power plants.  I believe the reason was that the coal
>fie plants were located closer to population centers and fly ash contained a
>number of alpha emitters.  Of course back then there were not as many
>environmental controls on the emissions as there are today.  We were using older
>models and data than are used today including ICRP 2 & USNRC RG 1.109
>incorporated in the beta version of RESRAD developed at Argonne by Dr. Yuchien
>Yuan and others.  I cannot find a link to that EIS or I would
>  post it.  Please don't ask me what "higher" means in terms of numbers, I don't
>recall.
>
>Life Cycle Cost:  I don't know if the numbers provided by DOE in my lined
>references include total life cycle of any of the electric generation methods.
>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
>
>For a few years I have tried to figure out whether solar panels or a small wind
>generator would be cost effective for my house.  I think these methods of
>generation in my area lend themselves to small production rather commercial
>power production.  This is just a guess.  We don't get much sun and the area is
>medium to high population density (suburban and cities).  When I tried to find
>out cost-effectiveness I was barraged with more sales pitches and a little
>information. Solar was quite costly even without the vendors including some of
>the upkeep costs I can anticipate like tree branches occasionally breaking
>panels. I found zoning laws might prohibit private wind generation although many
>towns are using wind generators to provide energy for local projects.  It would
>be easy to require new medium and low density housing and commercial buildings
>to be built using passive solar technology which has been around for centuries
>(well at least 40 years).  Local governments don't s
>eem to be doing that.  So although renewable energy methods hold promise thus
>far they do not provide a local solution in the northeast.
>
>
>Thanks.
>
>Barbara Reider, CHP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ROY HERREN <royherren2005 at yahoo.com>
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
><radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>Sent: Sun, Aug 22, 2010 3:50 pm
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia
>
>
>Stewart,
>    Is your statement, "Solar costs can not really compete with nuclear power
>lant costs over the long haul", a fact or "just your opinion"?  I too am an
>dvocate for Nuclear Power, however I don't seem to recall a government subsidy
>or the fuel and waste cycle costs for Solar, and to the best of my knowledge
>he 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
>ntire life-cycle costs.  For instance, I can't believe that protesters are
>egularly complaining about the disposal of nuclear wastes while mountains of
>oal 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
>ear than Nuclear power emits, but there doen't appear to be a group protesting
>his fact.  Then there is my pet peeve of mercury emissions from coal.  Clearly
>e put up with a lot of otherwise unacceptable conditions because coal is a
>egacy energy source.  I don't think that we should fall into the lagacy trap
>hen comparing Nuclear Power to Solar Power.  Solar thermal holds much promise,
>nd Solar electric has the potential to be a real game changer.
>Roy Herren
>
>
>_______________________________
>rom: Stewart Farber <radproject at sbcglobal.net>
>o: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>ent: Sun, August 22, 2010 8:36:21 AM
>ubject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia
>Quick thoughts on the question. I should really just be reading the NYTimes.
>egarding building a nuke for Saudi domestic electricity. It is
>worth much more for the Saudis to meet their own electric needs with the
>tom, and keep their oil in the ground for long-term revenue from their good
>riends 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
>hich
>has failed to be started because of political
>nfighting and lack of will.
>The US has reacted to the terrible Gulf spill by shutting down much of the oil
>roduction 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
>rilling in the Gulf and other areas like Alaska, but it can be done with less
>verall environmental impact vs. the true impact of the security threats to the
>S posed by our oil dependence on foreign nations who exploit this dependence.
>lso our oil dependence has forced the US to get involved in wars like Kuwait
>nd the Iraq war which have isolated the US and hurt us in so many ways  --I
>on't want to open a tangential debate on oil demand driven wars. However,  it
>s 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
>n 1974. Oil supply and Western demand gives the Saudis power to influence world
>actions.
>
>The Saudis also will gain some regard with environmental interests
>utside their country by being able to show they are meeting their
>nergy needs without CO-2 emissions.
>Regarding solar. The Saudi government would not be getting "tax credits" from
>he State to build a solar electric plant that could put out 1100 MW[e], like
>rivate developers get throughout the world from their host nations, paid for by
>the taxpayers.  Solar development cost & benefits is largely a shell game and
>he Saudis know it. If they built a large solar electric power plant, the
>acility would actually have to pay for itself. Solar costs can not really
>ompete 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
>hreat to their sale of oil to the US and other major buyers. Nuclear plants
>ould have had a real impact on long-term oil [and LNG] use in the West. In
>972, the plans were to have one-thousand [1,000]  1,000 MW[e] plants in the US
>y the year 2000 and perhaps another 200 by 2010. . Do the math. If the US had
>,000 more 1,000 MW[e] plants maybe we could actually supply electricity to run
>lectric cars and make a dent in our oil imports for use in transportation. We
>ould also be saving our own oil for use as petrochemical feedstocks rather than
>just BTUs.
>
>Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
>Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
>inac & 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>
>ubject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia
>o: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
>ate: Sunday, August 22, 2010, 10:08 AM
>
>http://ir.shawgrp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=61066&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=1446255&highlight=
>
>
>he Shaw Group, Inc., Toshiba & Execelon are planning to work with the Saudis on
>building nuke electric generating plants in Sudi Arabia.  Note that Shaw &
>oshiba own Westinghouse Nuclear, the designer of the AP1000 series nuclear
>lants.
>Question:  With all that sun and all that oil why does Saudi Arabia need
>lectric energy from nuclear fuel?
>
>arbara Reider, CHP
>______________________________________________
>ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
>adSafe rules. These can be found at:
>ttp://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
>ttp://health.phys.iit.edu
>______________________________________________
>ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
>adSafe rules. These can be found at:
>ttp://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
>ttp://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
>______________________________________________
>ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
>adSafe 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:
>ttp://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
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE:   This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made.  Thank you.