Skip to main content

Bridging the Gulf with Nuclear Energy

attractions_image2Even if we were a little more, um, self-centered, we probably  wouldn't try out a sentence like this:

Nuclear power rather than renewable sources like the wind or sun are the best option for oil-rich Gulf Arab states to meet growing energy demands, especially if produced collectively, say regional experts.

Not that we don't agree, but it does seem counter-intuitive: we're not sure about wind, but one thing we do know, there's a lot of sunshine in those parts. So why the focus on nuclear?

[Saudi Electricity Company president Ali Saleh al-Barrack] said that while Saudi Arabia was conducting research into renewable energies, options such as wind and solar power were either limited or less attractive for technical reasons.

Given the high demand for power and the population growth in the Gulf region, "I think the only immediate solution is nuclear energy," which is the best option in economic and environmental terms, Barrack said.

And here's where we really started to like Mr. al-Barrack:

He dismissed fears of environmental damage from nuclear energy as "driven by Hollywood-style fiction."

There's been some concern over development of nuclear energy in the middle east because of the region's fractious history and a somewhat tendentious concern over proliferation, but the countries there (let's leave Iran to the side for now) have approached nuclear energy responsibly. Most have pacted with the United States and/or France to explore the technical options and several (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE) are working as a unit, initiating talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Raja Kiwan, an analyst with energy advisers PFC Energy, throws a wet blanket over the party - which is what analysts of any field are paid to do, right? - by noting that most of the partners are pursuing separate agendas, with UAE likely to get a plant first. (Well, if they can get Dubailand up and running, a nuclear energy plant should be a snap.) But even he does not deny or downplay the inevitability of nuclear energy:

"Nuclear is probably the most tested and the most applicable source of energy for the (level) of demand growth that this region is going to be seeing over the next 20-25 years," he said.

It's enough to make a nuclear energy advocate self-centered.

Note: The picture above is of Dubailand. Looks like fun in the sun.

Comments

gunter said…
Saudi Arabia wants to build nukes to increase export of oil is another connection between nuclear power and fossil fuel.
Daniel Work said…
Too true Gunter.....

Oil and now natural gas have become too valuable to burn for electricity and with many billions of dollars at stake who's going to waste their time with toys like wind and solar.

But I'm guessing that not what you meant...
gunter said…
Its more relevant to show that we now have an emerging nuclear powered petroleum industry in light of the efforts to use nuclear to also extract the tar sands in northern Alberta-a resource second only to the House of Saud.

So much for the "clean air" industry which was always a big "CON" job by Coal Oil and Nuclear ala Cheney's closed door meetings.

And to be more precise its not about the unquestionable availability and affordability of solar and wind in Saudia Arabia but about their nationalistic interests for the acquisition to home grown nuclear weapons materials.
Kirk Sorensen said…
Gunter's tying all his favorite strings together again...

Nuclear = Bush/Cheney/Hitler

Nuclear = weapons

Never gets old, eh Gunter?

Occam's Razor here--maybe they want to use nuclear power so they can.... stop burning oil in Saudi Arabia that they can sell to stupid Americans who can't build nuclear power for themselves because of brain-dead anti-nuclear zealots?

Boy those Saudis are clever, ain't they?
Anonymous said…
Gunter's policies and proposals fund, however indirectly, Islamic fascism in lands drenched in mineral slime. Keeping the US off of nuclear power keeps us dependent on fossil fuel and that is exactly what Gunter is being paid to do by the monetary support he receives from those in whose financial interests it is that nuclear NOT succeeed. Solar and wind are a joke. No sunlight - no solar. And if wind were so darn great, then why aren't cargo and passenger ships still powered by sails?

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …