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

Anonymous 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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...