Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Nuclear Power Plant Planned In Jordan

Posted by samzenpus on from the power-up dept.

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.

9 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Economics by Cyrano+de+Maniac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Economics by Hussman32 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Very nice back of the envelope estimates.

      If well operated, the capacity factors are about 90% or higher, and current designs are expected to last up to 60 years, so there is long term payback. Uranium enrichment and fuel costs are generally stable, but can vary given various external factors but it is still fairly competitive.

      The issue is that so much capital investment is required up front over several years, many companies are hesitant to invest what would be their market capitalization in a single asset. State-owned utilities have greater capacity to take on that risk, so it's a smart move (long-term) on their part.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    2. Re:Economics by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you run it for 60 years, all you do is charge something like 1/10th of a center per kwh for 'decommissioning costs'.
      2GW should produce about 15.8B kWh a year. Even excluding interest, that's $15.8M/year, $946M over 60.

      If you figure that it earns 5%, that's $3.7B in 60 years, or $185M they can spend each year indefinitely doing whatever it takes to decommission it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Economics by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can push for the design output, but only at the expense of maintenance, and there's a glowing lump in the Ukraine that demonstrates what happens then.

      Chernobyl had nothing whatsoever to do with maintenance. It happened as the direct consequence of an ill conceived experiment, which deliberately bypassed safety protocols, with the added bonus that the experiment was moved at the last minute from the day-shift to the less experienced night-shift crew.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  2. Re:SOLAR by harryjohnston · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to Wikipedia, they are. Target of 500MW renewable energy, about 14% of total capacity, by the end of 2015.

  3. Re:What is the over/under on Israel's attack by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not all plant designs require enriched Uranium. No idea if they're using it.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  4. Re:2022? by nojayuk · · Score: 3, Informative

    It depends if there's a production line for large components and a guaranteed market for future orders. The Chinese are rolling out 1GW reactors from breaking ground to grid connection over a period of about five years or so but they've got predictable orders of the large components needed for a reactor and teams of engineers who move from one site to the next as their particular tasks (pouring the basemat, building the containment, installing the reactor vessel etc.) on a given construction site are completed, they don't have to learn how to do it again from scratch every time. Rosatom is in the same position, building a number of reactors of similar design in Russia and around the world but also leveraging a turnkey operation capability, supplying fuel and taking away spent fuel for reprocessing and waste disposal which is very attractive to countries like Vietnam, Jordan and other Arab nations.

    Ningde 3, a 1GW reactor on the central coast of China started construction with first concrete in January 2010 and achieved grid connection a couple of days ago, about 63 months later. Two more Chinese reactors of similar capacity are expected to come on line this year.

  5. Re:Cooling by the+monolith · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It is my home town! Aqaba is a good, western-oriented town, but with occasional camels!

    There is not a lot of water available anywhere in Jordan, and precious little in Zarqa Governate (where Amra is located,) and it is far, far away from Aqaba. We do need power, we need water too (the aquifers are running out rapidly.) We could also do with more coastline (in 1965, Jordan traded some desert for more coast from the Saudis.)

    Personally, I need tourists who want to go diving (some excellent dives right here 15km south of town, and I happen to be an instructor) and talk tech/programming/music/movies etc. Oh, yes, there are 'problems' in the neighbouring states, but they don't impact here, except that the tourism trade has slowed down.

  6. Re:Not viable without subsidies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's an infitnite liability problem, not a nuclear power problem. In a world where anyone can sue anyone for anything, real, imaginary, legal or illegal, nuclear power is the ultimate source of income for lawyers. Roughly a quarter of the cost of nuclear power in the US stems directly or indirectly from paying lawyers to go away. Think about that, they've made billions extorting everyone involved in nuclear power, and you're paying for it in every power bill, and your children are paying for It in every degree of climate change and cm of sea level rise.

    Jordan, being a benevolent dictatorship, is in a much more viable position to use nuclear power than any country in a lawyer-controlled oligarchy. Note how many MPs and American senators are lawyers.