Skip to main content

The Saudis, Poyry, and The Think Tank Principle

riyadh-4-large We’re not entirely sure how to feel about this:

Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia may mine and enrich uranium to fuel power plants if it embarks on a civilian nuclear energy program, a consultant preparing a draft nuclear strategy for the kingdom said on Wednesday.

Of course, that “may mine and enrich” sounds a lot like a trial balloon to see how others react. And, as writer Amena Bakr points out, neighbor UAE avoided the issue altogether:

Saudi neighbor the United Arab Emirates became the first country in the Gulf Arab region to embark upon a nuclear power generation program last year. But the UAE decided from an early stage to import fuel for the plants, as it sought to reassure the international community it had no military intentions with its program.

So we expect the Saudis may want to evade similar issues. However:

"Nuclear energy in Saudi is really a long term strategy that can span 10-20 years from now, while renewable energy can be deployed much faster," Elkuch told Reuters.

So there’s that.

---

Elkuch is Philipp Elkuch, president of the nuclear energy business group at Poyry. We have to admit ignorance as to what Poyry is but a quick trip over to its Web site shows it to be an engineering consultant, largely Europe based. The nuclear page says that it will do just about anything from helping you find a site for your shiny new nuclear plant to decommissioning it when the time comes.

We’ve nothing at all to say about Poyry except There it is.

---

Adding to David’s account below of the EPA analysis of the American Power Act, the International Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development decide to use their own crystal ball on the year 2050:

Roughly a quarter of global electricity could be generated by nuclear power by 2050, requiring a tripling in nuclear generating capacity but making a major contribution to reduced CO2 emissions, a report said Wednesday.

Boy, is that true or what? If you make that a half of global electricity generation, nuclear will really make a major contribution to reduced CO2 emissions.

We’ll take a closer look at the report – these aren’t fly-by-night operations - but nothing in the AFP story about it suggests it would be very edifying. After all, anyone can say anything and as long as it’s vaguely on point, voila, a report. Call it the Think Tank Principle. But we think the vapidity here is down to AFP, not the report.

Riyadh at night. In case you wonder why they might want to up their electric capacity.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…