Saudi Arabia Plans for Nuclear Future

An article on CNBC reports that Saudi Arabia has plans to build 16 nuclear reactors in a effort to reduce its consumption of its own oil. According to the World Nuclear Association, one fourth of Saudi Arabia’s oil production is consumed domestically, and 65 per cent of its electricity is generated by oil-burning power stations.

Saudi Arabia is committed to investing more than $80 billion over the next quarter century to building nuclear power plants, and it is calling on the US to give it the right to produce its own nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes.

I would take this as a sign that Saudi Arabia is either not very informed about the potential for LENR playing an important energy generation role in the future, or if they do know about it, not confident that LENR can be a competitive energy source over the next few decades. It is going to take a lot for decision makers to take LENR seriously as an energy source of the future.

Full article is here: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/18/munich-security-conference-saudi-arabia-sees-nuclear-energy-as-a-way-to-save-oil.html

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Save the oil for organic synthesis.

  • Vinney

    This is more a strategic decision, similar to the UK’s Hinckley Nuclear power station.
    It’s to assure the UK’s plutonium supplies for its nuclear submarines, carriers and warheads.
    The Kingdom is alarmed at the pursuit of nuclear weapons in its region, Iran, Isreal and likely proliferation originating from Pakistan and China.
    Just how strategic is the UK move when a French/Chinese consortia is building this plant, and China representing 75% of the venture ( mostly financing one would hope). Has no one told the British that the Soviets sold China its decommissioned Aircraft carriers to refit and reuse themselves for at least another decade. What I am trying to say is, won’t China from being intimite with the project sell vital secrets to its political ally, like the easiest way to disable the facility.
    Not to mention using UK taxpayers money to build a £18 billion (likely to cost closer to £25 billion when finished, it was costed £12 billion only in 2012) to improve another plutonium facility of their own in the future.
    I feel sorry for Theresa May, and would like to see the look on her face (and the Energy Secretary) when the Ecat 1MW plant comes out in a few months.
    The public backlash is going to be overwhelming to stop Hinckley, but the French/Consortia will require at least a £10 billion settlement.
    The necessary plutonium gained from dismantled US nuclear weapons, and the deal is done with an ally.

    • roseland67

      Vinney,

      You had me right up until
      “the Ecat comes out in a few months”

      There is simply no way that is going to happen in the time frame you indicated.

    • спаситель русских

      the Ecat 1MW plant comes out in a few months ???.I’d be glad to believe this

    • Alan DeAngelis

      You’re assuming that Theresa May is not aware of the E-Cat.

      • Omega Z

        Society will continue as is until there is an actual LENR product in the market. It all comes back to don’t count your chickens until they hatch.

      • Vinney

        Once Ecat MW based plants are on the market, opposition to the Hinckley Plant will double every week.
        Within months there be hundred’s of thousands of people clammering for the construction to cease.
        They can engage the armed forces to stop activists on the boundary of the plant, but that will not save her at the next election, as the opposition will be voted in to negotiate an amicable and mutually beneficial termination of the contract.
        Unfortunately, the Brits will have to pay the French Euro 10 billion compensation, but that could also include the supply of plutonium for their missiles (the submarines and carriers will be converted to Ecat based propulsion before 2025 ).

  • Oystein Lande

    Strange that Saudi will want to build the most expensive power in the world, especially when they have so much solar and solar + storage will be much cheaper than nuclear and much much safer. And just to construct and build a 1GW reactor takes ten years, while same amount of solar would be finished within two years from start. I suspect Saudi wants nuclear power to get their hands on nuclear weapons grade material at some future point om time…..

    • Gerard McEk

      I agree with you, Øystein. If there is one country that has sufficient space and sun for generating all its needed power by PV electricity, it is Saudi Arabia. This initiative is ackward and truely suspicious. Maybe they think they have Trump on their side? Besides, enriching uranium can easily be misused for nuclear bombs, if it is not constantly monitored.

      • Omega Z

        Japan, Korea, and Saudi Arabia could all have nukes within 2 years. Japan and Korea have all the technology and resources to build them. The Saudi’s can merely buy them from Pakistan.

        Solar panels have a much reduced life cycle in the deserts. The same sunlight that makes them efficient also destroys them(heat). Sandstorms are also devastating.

        The Saudi’s are looking to diversify their energy. My understanding is they also want to tap into their natural gas for power plants as well.

  • Vinney

    Look at Fukishima, a very advanced reactor that is foiling all attempts to disable it.
    The Japanese are the masters at robotics but have devised no working plan to dismantle it.
    The radioactivity destroys the robots in little more than a day.
    The cost is definitely going to be in the billions.

    • Jaja6984

      “Look at Fukishima, a very advanced reactor that is foiling all attempts to disable it.”

      Very advanced? Fukishima reactors were finished between 1971 and 1979. It’s 1960s design and technology. Advanced in what way?

      • Monty

        So which design do you think the Saudis should use?

  • Oystein Lande

    Jaja6984, do not trust so easy numbers presented by the Nuclear industry or its “prophets”, like IAEA.

    Cost data for Nuclear do not include many impportant factors, like decommissioning, handling and storage of Nuclear spent fuel etc. or possibly the most important: Historic and future costs related to past accidents, like Chernobyl or Fukushima.

    For the most recent accident, Fukushima, it’s not only the huge clean up costs of the Nuclear reactors we talk about, but also the cost for the society in the surrounding areas. The precise value of the abandoned cities, towns, agricultural lands, businesses, homes and property located within the roughly 310 sq miles (800 sq km) of the Fukushima exclusion zones has not been established. Estimates of the total economic loss range from $250-$500 billion USD. As for the human costs, in September 2012, Fukushima officials stated that 159,128 people had been evicted from the exclusion zones, losing their homes and virtually all their possessions. They have not been told that their homes will never again be habitable.”
    Also “ridiculous Security demands” and “red tape costs” may be looked upon as unnessesary expenses if accidents don’t happen. But Nuclear Power is a WILD BEAST that can not be controlled if let loose (i.e. accidents will happen again)
    In 2004 there was a major Tsunami in Indonesia killing some 50 000 People or more. Some recommendation was made for the Nuclear power plants along asian coasts aftewards. The Japanese Power plants did not implement these recommendations. Why? Because of the high costs related “there will not be another similar tsunami for decades – no hurry to implement safety measures) So from 2004 to 2011 NOTHING where done to secure Japanese Nuclear plant against tsunamies.
    Same goes probably for Corean and Chinese Nuclear plants. SO we may wish them good Luck With that Choice.
    If all factors are included Nuclear Power is the most expensive energy Source ever.

    • Jaja6984

      “Jaja6984, do not trust so easy numbers presented by the Nuclear industry or its “prophets”, like IAEA.”

      I would say do not trust the anti-nuclear nutjobs. All you write is easily debunked.

      • Oystein Lande

        Jaja6984, don’t misunderstand. I’m not anti nuclear, far from it. But I like to check facts, especially “facts” presented from proponents and insiders.

        And what I found was a litle surprising.

        And If we include nuclear accidents ( which I believe will happen again, it’s just statistics), then Nuclear power is actually the most expensive power source.

        And the Fukushima costs I presented above may actually be too low. Recent estimates are even higher.

        https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/01/national/real-cost-fukushima-disaster-will-reach-¥70-trillion-triple-governments-estimate-think-tank/#.WpQ0S9GUmhA

      • Monty

        What is the exact cost of the radioactive waste you produce while running the plant?
        Where and how do you get rid of these used rods? How big do you think is the probability of these strong radioactive substances being in the hands of people who should better not have them?

  • Vinney

    Just saw the following via Seeker network:
    https://www.facebook.com/SeekerMedia/videos/1328259180611902/

    I am so grateful that we have Andrea Rossi’s E-cat to cover our future nuclear energy needs ( and nuclear is the only compact means of meeting our massive and growing energy demands).
    This Euro1.6 billion structure made of multiple layers of marine grade stainless steel, which 40 countries donated funds to help build.
    This is merely to cover the 32 year old sarcophagus of the Cherobyl’s Nuclear plant disaster that has already cost billions and hundreds of lives.
    The environmental damage and costs are beyond measure as the area forms a 2600 sq. km exclusion zone.
    I think we should also start thinking of environmental accolades for Andrea Rossi from combined acknowledgement of the United Nations, the European Commission and the World Bank, devising a special combined award as the following do not acknowledge the magnitude and importance of Andrea Rossi’s invention.
    Goldman Environmental Prize from Goldman Environmental Foundation (considered the Nobel prize on environmentalism)
    The Champions of the Earth from the United Nations
    Energy Global Award
    Environmental Awards from the European Environment Foundation
    The ENI award in Italy
    Global Environmental Citizen Award
    Green Star Awards
    IAIA Global Environmental Award (bestowed Harvard University)

    Thank you again, Andrea Rossi.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.