Slashdot Mirror
First Nuclear Power Plant Planned In Jordan
jones_supa writes Jordan has signed an agreement with Russia's state-owned nuclear power giant Rosatom, that sets the legal basis for building the kingdom's first nuclear power plant with a total capacity of 2,000 MW. The agreement is worth $10 billion and it envisages the construction of a two-unit power plant at Amra in the north of the kingdom by 2022. The deal provides for a feasibility study, site evaluation process and an environmental impact assessment. Currently Jordan imports nearly 98% of its energy from oil products and crude and is struggling to meet electricity demand, which is growing by more than 7% annually due to a rising population and industrial expansion. The kingdom hopes that eventually nuclear power could provide almost 40% of its total electricity generating capacity.
Are they afraid of having more than one set of reactors?
SERIOUSLY?
Why the fuck dont they just put up a load of solar panels... $10 Billion will buy you a LOT of them.
Could someone fill me in on the economics of nuclear power generation? I'd like to know what the usual payback period for a plant is, and how much it costs to operate a plant over that period.
Just doing some napkin figuring here, if the plant ran 24/7 at full capacity for a 20 year payback period, and assuming that operational costs are about the same as initial construction costs (i.e. using the $10 billion number from the summary, so $20 billion for construction and operation), that gives me a figure of about 5.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. Obviously the plant wouldn't run at full capacity for 20 years straight, but that does put something of a lower bound on the price of power generation, and it seems like a reasonable number given US electricity prices.
I'd also like to know how this compares to hydro, gas, coal, solar, wind, tidal, and any other generation method currently in use.
Cyrano de Maniac
I guess with the same money you could build around 10000 MW in windturbines. With a conservative capacity factor of 20% they would achieve more or less the same output power and create more jobs for the country in mainteinance and construction. Only if there are some windy areas in Jordan of course
Seems to me cooling might be an issue in an already water poor area of the world.
will probably be higher than the cost to build and run it, with how things are in that neighborhood.
It would be a prime target for ISIS/DASH or your flavor of retard islamic extremists of the week.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Al Jazeera added an interesting piece of information, "According to the state's Petra news agency, Jordan plans to finish construction of the plant in Amra by 2022. There are hope it will be fueled with uranium mined in Jordan." That means that there is a plan to enrich the uranium in Jordan, thus providing the opportunity to produce a weapon as well as energy.
"First tactical strike on Jordan planned by Israel".
Am I the only one who thinks seven years to build a nuclear power plant from scratch sounds too optimistic a timetable?
Not to to mention that the 'glowing lump' in Ukraine was the result of stupid testing combined with poor design, not lack of maintenance.
Arguably the glowing lump in Japan would be a better example, in that they didn't install recommended upgrades - a system to handle hydrogen generation in an overheat event and at least a few generators in a waterproof location.
I don't read AC A human right
Most countries allow nuclear power operation with insurance caps. That means in case of an accident the taxpayer foots most of the bill (as in Fukushima).
If you were to include the full cost of insurance nuclear power would be completely unviable.
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_...
Terrorists take over it, make it go critical and we have another nuclear fallout on our hands.
Why is it okay for Jordan to build a Nuclear Power Plant but not okay for Iran?
Be seeing you...
I hope they'll invest a decent amount of $$$ in solar PV while they're at it.
Nowadays the Western powers are afraid of having the Iranian going nuke
Imagine ISIS going nuke?
Sooner or later Jordan will fall into the hands of the Islamists
Israel is the only member of the nuke club in the region, and the only nation likely to use them.
No matter how good your energy source is you don't want to rely on it 100% is case something it depends on has problems. I've run into that with inland coal fired power due to a lack of rain - plenty of coal, but not much cooling water. The answer was a long pipeline to a dam near the coast that was hijacked by farmers with strong political connections before it was even finished.
So without going into the viability of whatever the Russians are selling or that generation of nuclear in general it's a bad idea to "put all eggs in one basket".
With existing stuff, never, but with new stuff that's never been tried everything is going to work perfectly and payback time will be swift.
The banks don't believe that either which is why the only entities that put up the cash are governments. So nuclear is built due to a perceived National need for GigaWatts that don't have to come from coal or oil (eg. Japan worried about a blockade and maybe Jordan for the same reason) and not for economic reasons at all.
So good economic performance is gravy if it happens but it's not the reason to build one of these things.
Yep, a fact not lost on its neighbors who periodically have a go at getting the U.N. to pressure on Israel to give up its nukes. That way the neighbors can conduct a full jihad against Israel without worrying about losing their capital cities.
And you base this likelihood on what, exactly?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
> That way the neighbors can conduct a full jihad against Israel without worrying about losing their capital cities.
Considering that three of its neighbours lost parts of their capital cities, and two others were under serious threat, Israel doesn't need nukes to do that.
And now that we're 50 years in the future, the neighbors have a lot more to worry between each other than Israel. There will be no repeat of '67.
I already knew about this, but glad to see it posted here. I am sad that it has to be a Russian one instead of a US/Japan or French one, and wish it could be Thorium instead of Uranium, but those aren't available yet. They originally were going to build it at Aqaba, their only sea access, to make use of the seawater for cooling and also desalinate it with waste plant heat. I wonder why they moved it.
FFS - They all use air as the heat sink via fucking huge cooling towers filled with a lot of water. While they don't actually lose much water you still need a fair bit to start with.
There is a comma which is meant to inform the reader that the first thing may not be the same as the second thing, but yes I could have put it in a different sentence.
Try reading it as:
The AP1000 reactors in China seem to be taking a while.
That reactor in Sweden (Forsmark upgrade) is taking a while (since 2004).
Sorry kids - no magic to see here. Just a LOT of water from wherever you can get it, even sewage. You can reuse the water but you do need a LOT of water to start with.
Instead of taking the word of a fanboy being ridiculous because someone suggested nuclear is not perfect in some way that nobody gives a shit about I suggest taking a look for yourself:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
That's from the article about the station he's writing about which is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Note the line "20 billion US gallons (76,000,000 m) of treated water are evaporated each year.
So yes, the Jordan plant is going to need a LOT of water but nobody said it has to be drinkable or even fresh water. It just means it has to be sited near the sea, a river or a lake (even a very salty lake) or have some other access to a lot of water.
It's not a disadvantage, just a constraint, and it's pathetic that somebody is enough of clueless fanboy to see it as an attack instead of just a statement about a choice of site.