Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jan 16, 2018 10:45 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mar 29, 2014 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Alabama
The emirate of Abu Dhabi (largest in the UAE) is building four large light-water reactors of Korean origin at a site called Barakah on the far western end of the emirate. The much smaller but more famous emirate of Dubai does not have plans to build nuclear reactors at this time. Dubai operates a large power generation complex at a site called Jebel Ali on the western border of the emirate, where gas-fired power plants generate electricity and use their waste heat for seawater desalination.

Dubai to secure nuclear power from Abu Dhabi

Quote:
“We have an understanding with Abu Dhabi on receiving power from the nuclear reactors coming up in Abu Dhabi. There is no decision to build a nuclear power plant,” said Ahmed Butti Al Muhairi, Secretary General of the Dubai Supreme Council of Energy.

In its efforts to secure sustainable energy and improve demand efficiency Dubai is targeting to generate 5 per cent of its electricity from renewable energy, 12 per cent from clean coal, 71 per cent from natural gas and 12 per cent nuclear energy by 2030.

Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (Enec), the federal authority responsible for building and operating the first UAE nuclear power plant, officially commenced the construction of the UAE’s first nuclear energy plant in Barakah in 2012.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 29, 2014 11:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 03, 2011 7:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rhinebeck, NY
The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is the largest holder of IBM stock and virtually the sole owner of Global Foundries. You will not see them listed in the top five owners of IBM, that the SEC requires be reported, because they have a letter of intent on file with the SEC that they will never acquire more than 49% ownership and their holding are managed in six separate investment funds each of which does not qualify in the top five by itself.

Abu Dhabi is tech savvy, finance savvy and long term planning savvy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 03, 2014 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Alabama
Emirates Nuclear Energy corporation to join electric power research institute

Quote:
The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation ( ENEC ) has announced that it has joined the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) nuclear research program. The membership will enable ENEC to access a wide array of EPRI research results and technical guidance that can inform the development and operation of the United Arab Emirates' commercial nuclear energy program. The collaboration also will enable EPRI and its global membership to collect data and draw lessons from ENEC 's plants under construction that can be shared with the broader nuclear industry.


I met some folks from ENEC when I went to Dubai last fall. They're taking on a very ambitious project with their new build.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 02, 2014 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Alabama
Minister says more Mideast reactors planned


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 24, 2014 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Alabama
UAE looks to other nations for nuclear waste disposal options


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 25, 2014 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Alabama
Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation Workforce Grows To Over 1,200 Employees

Quote:
In just five years, ENEC has grown from just having 64 employees in 2009, to more than 1,200 men and women today, all working to deliver safe, clean and reliable nuclear energy to the U.A.E. by 2017.


A year ago today, I was in the UAE giving a presentation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 26, 2014 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Alabama
Eerie Video Shows Masdar City--The Sustainable City Of The Future--Has No One In It


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 01, 2014 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Oct 01, 2007 9:07 pm
Posts: 291
The whole renewable project in the UAE/AD is about international placation of the UN. It has not much to do with real power generation and everyone knows it, especially among the Arab participants in the IAEA. It's a "Potemkin Village" designed to please the growing legions of NGOs. That's all. The motivation for UAE energy has to do with the fact that they have a growing economy where they have to now import gas. They were an exporter until about 10 years ago. Now they need nuclear. I actually predict that they will likely double the amount of nuclear generation before the last of the 4 APR1400s go online (depending on cost overruns and schedules). I believe the developing world generally, especially those with foreign reserves of US dollars and Euros, along with generous financing from countries like China, Russia and S. Korea, along with the BRICs nations generally, will really be kicking off the nuclear Renaissance. *Growing* economies will go nuclear. Those that that are not interested in growing (like most of the Western democracies) will remain un interested with a few exceptions. See Sweden: the anti-nuclear coalition just came to power and will try to phase out nuclear.

_________________
David


Dr. Isaac Asimov:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 18, 2015 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Alabama
UAE official tells US lawmaker his country has same right as Iran to enrich uranium

Quote:
the UAE's ambassador in Washington, Yousef al-Otaiba, had informed him in a telephone call that the country no longer felt bound by its previous nuclear agreement with the United States.


Can anyone really be surprised that the US State Department's clumsy nuclear diplomacy has brought them to this point?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 25, 2015 3:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
UAE official tells US lawmaker his country has same right as Iran to enrich uranium


I'd say that giving Iran the right to enrich uranium would also give state governments within the United States the right to enrich uranium.

I did a quick look at which nations currently operate even a single nuclear power plant. I see that a nation of only two million people, Slovenia, has somehow been able to find the resources to operate a nuclear power plant, and do so safely. That tells me that any political entity that has a similar population and economy could also be able to find the resources to license, inspect, construct, and manage a nuclear power plant, and do so safely within their borders.

I think that the state in which I live, Iowa, with its population of about three million has just as much right to license a nuclear power plant as Slovenia. Granted Iowa, like Slovenia, would likely need to bring in outside help to get started. Us Iowans do already have nuclear power within our borders, so we do already have some expertise on operating a nuclear power plant. There was a nuclear engineering program at Iowa State University, perhaps we should restore it.

A lot of people forget that the US federal government is a construct of the states, it only has the authority that the states grant it. I believe it is about time the states tell the federal government that they have been handling nuclear power poorly for too long and it's time that the states remove their monopoly on licensing nuclear power.

I've heard people argue that only the US federal government has the resources to fund such a large project as building a nuclear power plant, which is why all loans on building a nuclear power plant are federally backed. That is not true. The reason that all loans on nuclear power plants are federally backed is because the federal government has a habit of pulling licenses to build a plant in the middle of construction, no bank is willing to loan the money unless the government itself also has a stake in it's completion. If the government has nothing to lose or gain from the completion of a nuclear power plant then they have nothing to lose or gain if the license is revoked. A federally backed loan means that if the federal government revokes the license then they have to pay the bills.

I believe that if we remove the federal government monopoly on the regulation of nuclear power and nuclear material we can see safe, inexpensive, and reliable nuclear power in the USA. In fact it may not happen at all until the federal monopoly on nuclear regulation is pried from the fingers of the federal government.

Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Can anyone really be surprised that the US State Department's clumsy nuclear diplomacy has brought them to this point?


Given the major screw ups that I've seen from the federal government nothing should surprise me any more. Yet I still find myself astonished on occasion.

It was pointed out to me that any sanctions on Iran from violating the terms of their "civilian" nuclear power program is a paper tiger. Once the sanctions are lifted they cannot go back. After foreign investors pour in to take advantage of the market that Iran promises for all kinds of foreign goods there is going to be all kinds of economic and political pressure to keep that money flowing.

I believe that the UAE knows this, once that bottle is opened you cannot put the genie back in. I believe that they will leverage this as far as it can take them. Once UAE has it's own centrifuges then they can point at all the other nations that have them to justify their own. Once built they are going to be very difficult, politically speaking, to have them taken or destroyed.

Iran building it's "civilian nuclear power" program is likely to cause another cold war, with every participant racing to build the infrastructure for nuclear weapons. The good that will come from this is a lot of people trained in nuclear technologies. While building a nuclear bomb is very different than building a nuclear reactor there is a lot of shared expertise. Also, any nation that wishes to hide a nuclear weapon program under the thin veil that is civilian nuclear power like Iran is doing must build actual operating nuclear power plants to keep the ruse going.

What do I think of Iran potentially having a nuclear weapons program? I think that if Iran gets out of line we, as a nation, have 10 aircraft carriers, with up to as many as 90 F-18 Hornet fighters on board, each able to carry 6 tons of hurt to its target, and do so over and over again. That's one hornet's nest that they should be wise enough not to poke.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 26, 2015 4:12 am 
Offline

Joined: May 05, 2010 1:14 am
Posts: 130
Kurt, when the reactor in Slovenia was built that country was just one part of the much larger nation of Yugoslavia. The ownership of the reactor is still shared between Slovenia and neighbouring Croatia, which was the second largest republic in Yugoslavia. ( Croatia ranks 79th in world GDP, at 49 billion US dollars, Slovenia 85th, at 43 billion - International Monetary Fund.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... P_(nominal)#Lists
Similarly Armenia, which ranks 130th, at 10 billion GDP, was part of the Soviet Union when its two reactors were built, and has had a few problems keeping even one going.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 27, 2015 12:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1326
Location: NoOPWA
I would kind of like to see a United Nations Commonwealth Corporation established to build and operate with ex-pat staff, nuclear power plants for any country in the world that wants and can economically use the power.

The country should be required to arrange for sufficient educated people to staff a reactor but those people would be assigned to staff reactors in other, non-belligerent countries.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 27, 2015 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
jon wrote:
Kurt, when the reactor in Slovenia was built that country was just one part of the much larger nation of Yugoslavia. The ownership of the reactor is still shared between Slovenia and neighbouring Croatia, which was the second largest republic in Yugoslavia. ( Croatia ranks 79th in world GDP, at 49 billion US dollars, Slovenia 85th, at 43 billion - International Monetary Fund.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... P_(nominal)#Lists
Similarly Armenia, which ranks 130th, at 10 billion GDP, was part of the Soviet Union when its two reactors were built, and has had a few problems keeping even one going.


Croatia and Slovenia have a GDP that is less than half of that of Iowa. Iowa has an economy of over 100 billion US Dollars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa#Economy

My point is that there are states within the United States that have as much people, as much land area, as large economies, or whatever measure you'd like to use that is comparable to or larger than nations in the world that are currently operating nuclear power plants. I've had people tell me that a US state could never license a nuclear power plant because only the federal government would ever be able to have enough resources to safely manage a nuclear power plant. I say that is false, as evidence I give all the other nations in this world that are operating a nuclear power plant on their own.

If you want to claim that the Iowa to Slovenia comparison fails because Slovenia has had trouble operating it's single nuclear reactor on its own. I will concede that point for the moment if we can compare any of a number of other nations that currently operate a nuclear power plant, or have intentions to do so, to the states within the US.

Since we are talking about UAE getting a nuclear power plant then let's compare that nation to states within the USA. The UAE has a population of over 9 million people, and a GDP of over $400 billion. In the USA we have 10 to 15 states that meet that same criteria, depending on which estimates you use. If we can say that the UAE has the right to operate their own nuclear power plant then I believe we can also say that there are a dozen or so states in the USA that also have that right. I say that, legally speaking, every state has that right but if we are going to hold nations to a standard that they must have a certain level of infrastructure in place before we, as an international community, can allow them to obtain reactor designs and materials from other nations, then these states within the USA can claim a similar right from the federal government.

If we are going to assume that it takes a certain minimum of population, GDP, land mass, or whatever for a political entity to be allowed by the international community to license and operate their own nuclear power plant then I believe that we should place that same criteria on political entities within the United States. If the GDP dividing line is placed where Slovenia is now then we have 49 states that meet that criteria. (Sorry Vermont, maybe next year.) If we raise that bar so that a US state must compare with the likes of Canada, Iran, Iraq, Israel, France, UK, then we'd still have the top five or six states in the USA meeting that criteria.

I believe that the development of nuclear power should not reside solely in the hands of the federal government. The US Department of Energy is moving too slowly and seemingly with no real intention of living up to its mandate of reducing the nation's reliance on foreign energy sources. It's not a question of the federal government allowing the states to license their own reactors, they don't have that authority. The states grant powers to the federal government and they can take those powers away if they wish, that's how the US Constitution works. I believe it has become time for the states to assert their right to license their own nuclear reactors since the DOE does not appear to have any intention to do so on their own.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 01, 2015 7:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
KitemanSA wrote:
I would kind of like to see a United Nations Commonwealth Corporation established to build and operate with ex-pat staff, nuclear power plants for any country in the world that wants and can economically use the power.


Would the USA also be required to have foreign nationals as part of the staff of all civilian power plants in the USA? If not then why not?

KitemanSA wrote:
The country should be required to arrange for sufficient educated people to staff a reactor but those people would be assigned to staff reactors in other, non-belligerent countries.


How would you enforce this requirement? Take Iran for example, they have no intention of stopping their civilian <cough> nuclear power program and they have no intention of allowing any foreign observers. Requiring them, or any nation, to have foreign nationals to operate (not merely observe) their nuclear reactors is a severe infringement on a nation's autonomy.

Let's put this another way, how do you think that the people of the USA would like to have nuclear power experts from even friendly nations like UK, France, or Germany as operators of nuclear power plants in the USA?

Every nation has the right to pursue nuclear power if they wish. Telling them otherwise is not going to make any friends.

Who would make up this oversight corporation? Would it be people like those that make up the US DOE? If so then that is a problem. A large part of the problem in developing nuclear power in the USA is that the regulators don't know how to deal with new types of reactors. We need to have as much freedom to develop nuclear technology as possible. If we get an international corporation that must approve any nuclear power plant built in the world then we are going to see a stagnation in technology like we've seen in the USA. Nuclear power is already hampered with too much politics, we don't need to weigh it down with more.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 02, 2015 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1326
Location: NoOPWA
Kurt Sellner wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
I would kind of like to see a United Nations Commonwealth Corporation established to build and operate with ex-pat staff, nuclear power plants for any country in the world that wants and can economically use the power.


Would the USA also be required to have foreign nationals as part of the staff of all civilian power plants in the USA? If not then why not?
This concept would make it palatable for any country to have nuclear power. It need not be exclusive. But let us face it, any country "trying" to have nuclear power that insists on doing it on their own will be seen in a dim light.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group