Skip to main content

The Enemy of My Enemy

One of the odder bits of news involves "Europe's last dictator," Alexander Lukashenko of Balarus, is pursuing a pact with Iran to build a nuclear power plant - odd, because it seems unlikely to occur.

David Marples, a Belarus expert at the University of Alberta, doubts that Iran could afford to finance a project that is likely to run much higher than, perhaps even double the amount of, the officially projected $4-5 billion. “It would be an enormous commitment from Iran,” he said and pointed to Russia as the more likely nuclear partner.

Likely an announcement meant to spark a bit of amusement in diplomatic circles or perhaps stir up some mischief for Washington, the net effect is nil. Doubtful that a saber will even be unsheathed much less rattled.

Comments

gunter said…
... in part because of the tremendous ongoing remediation costs from Chernobyl fallout.

Dr. David Marples is an recognized expert on the economic fallout in Belarus and Ukraine from the 1986 catastrophe.
Anonymous said…
Gunter,

How many times do you have to be told that a Chernobyl event can never occur at any Western light water reactor?

Why do you keep bringing up the failure of a mad socialist design?
Anonymous said…
At current world oil prices, Iran's government has a daily income of a bit more that $250 million.

Building a 1000 MWe nuclear plant offers the potential of freeing up another 40,000 barrels of oil per day worth about $4 million per day on the open market. (Iran DOES burn oil for electrical power, unlike the US.)

Why would it be difficult for them to finance a new nuclear power plant? If they choose the right partner, the total cost for the plant might be far less than the same plant in the western world simply because protests and lawsuits against government decisions are not tolerated. (Not that I favor such dictatorial decision making, but it does have advantages.)

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…