Jordan Looks To Nuclear Power (VIDEO)

In the deserts of Jordan, the country is eyeing nuclear energy as a solution to the current energy dilemma. According to the BBC video below, the Jordanian government is pushing ahead with plans to begin construction on a nuclear power plant.

Jordan currently relies on fossil fuels, but imports 97 percent of its energy needs from neighboring countries. According to The National, rising energy demands in Jordan and increasing fuel costs have led the government to seek alternatives.

The BBC reports that this year has been particularly troublesome for Jordan. Unrest in the Middle East has caused an increase in oil prices of over 20 percent. Explosions on the gas pipeline from Egypt, which supplies 80 percent of Jordan's energy, have also caused disruptions that will cost the government over one billion dollars this year.

The vice chairman of Jordan's Atomic Energy Commission, Professor Kamal Araj, says in the video that his country has “limited options.” Alternative or renewable energy sources alone cannot provide the country with enough power. He explains that nuclear power is an attractive alternative to fossil fuels for Jordan's base load power supply.

The government's plans are not without opposition, however. The Jordan Times reports that several environmental groups have emerged in the past few months, attracting several thousand members. Residents of the town where the reactor is to be built, 40 kilometers from the capital, have also expressed their concerns.

Jordan's decision to pursue nuclear power comes at a time when many countries are moving in the opposite direction. After the tsunami and nuclear disaster in March, Japan's Prime Minister Naoto Kan announced that Japan will “scale back” its dependance on nuclear power in the coming decades. While the U.S. is questioning the future of its nuclear program, several European countries have already decided to “scrap nuclear power.” In Germany, the shutdown of the nuclear energy industry means losses and a number of layoffs for at least one company.

Despite newfound safety concerns, some still see nuclear power as a viable option. In some U.S. states, nuclear power will remain a significant energy source for at least the next couple decades. According to the Associated Press, federal regulators renewed the license on the Hope Creek nuclear plant in southern New Jersey for 20 years last month. The Hope Creek facility is reportedly similar in design to the disaster-striken Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan.

WATCH:

Comments

[Mike Conley]

01:54 AM on 08/05/2011

(Part 2, continued from previous post...)

A LFTR will burn its fuel so efficiently that about 85% of its yearly ton of waste will revert to background radiation levels in 10 years. The remaining 15% (about the size of a bowling ball) will stabilize in just 300 years. That’s a far cry from the 300,000-year life span of nuclear waste produced by solid-fuel Uranium reactors.

Valuable isotopes for medicine, science, and industry will be harvested from the LFTR while it’s operating, and fuel will be added “on the fly.” A one-gigawatt LFTR will produce just one teaspoon of Plutonium per year, consisting of a mix of isotopes that will make it useless for weapons. The material will simply be kept in the LFTR until it is consumed as fuel.

LFTRs will be able to consume the spent fuel rods from ordinary reactors as a secondary fuel. The cores of dismantled nuclear weapons could be consumed as well. This feature alone will make LFTRs in high demand as nuclear waste recyclers, greatly reducing the toxicity and longevity of the world’s most dangerous substances, while generating carbon-free energy and valuable isotopes in the process.

For all these reasons and more, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor will launch a new paradigm of clean, safe, and abundant nuclear power. The Kindgom of Jordan would profit handsomely by investing in this emerging technology.

Mike Conley
ORLY Energy Group
[e-mail]

[Silken17]

02:45 AM on 08/05/2011

Nice site. Keep up the good work. I too am convinced LFTR is THE technology that can safely power the entire world for the next several centuries or until something better comes along.

[Mike Conley]

01:51 AM on 08/05/2011

The Jordan Times recently reported: "In addition to environmental and health concerns, activists point to a lack of sufficient water - the Kingdom’s first nuclear reactor is to be cooled by the Khirbet Al Samra Wastewater Treatment Plant - and construction costs as grounds to freeze the programme."

Instead of the typical water-cooled, high-pressure, solid-fuel reactor, Jordan should consider installing a new Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR.) LFTRs will be coming online in just a few years’ time, and promise to re-write the book on nuclear power. As a desert kingdom, Jordan should be particularly interested in the fact that LFTRs will be radiator-cooled, making them entirely independent of any water source, even in the harshest desert.

Since their fuel will be liquid (a molten fluoride salt, with a 2% solution of nuclear fuel) LFTRs will be physically incapable of melting down. If a LFTR is damaged, it will passively shut down without intervention or supervision. If the liquid fuel leaks, it will quickly cool to an inert slag, preventing the material from spreading to the environment. The slag can be recovered, and re-used when the LFTR is repaired or replaced.

A one-gigawatt LFTR, sufficient for a population of 1 million people, will be fueled by one ton of Thorium per year for a cost of less than $200,000. Thorium is as abundant as tin, found all over the world, and is easily milled and refined.

(continued in a second posting...)

[DrStranglelov]

06:12 PM on 08/04/2011

I agree,
lets give them highly enriched uranium and plutonium and save them the trouble of building a reactor and extracting.Thanks for giving us an excuse atoms.How's that homo-emesis going for ya' found enough hot navy guys yet?Are you cured yet?Don't think its physical,BTW.Need to stop playing with your atomic rod,there are places it should not be stuck in.But as long as you and the boys are having fun,what can I say.Darwin award?

[Jtt]

06:09 PM on 08/03/2011

As to the "why not solar" - I suspect the bottom line comes into play:

The cost of constructing a new nuclear plant today is estimated to be between $3,000-$7,000/kw. If we assumed cost of $6,000/kw capacity, we'd find that Fukushima's Daiichi reactors cost $27 billion. This estimate is likely on the high end, since the cost of nuclear technologies has risen in the past two decades.

As we calculated in the post, it cost more than $86 billion for Germany to produce less than half as much generation as Daiichi from its total installed solar PV. So if we scaled to the equivalent amount of energy, we would find that it would cost at least $145 billion in solar technologies to produce the same amount of energy as Fukushima's Daiishi.

In sum, it costs $155 billion dollars to construct, operate and maintain solar technologies that will produce less than the equivalent amount of power as $53.5 billion in new nuclear technologies. ( http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/03/doing_the_math_comparing_germa.shtml )

Of course Germany's PV system was hardly installed in a optimal area.

[maslin]

08:08 PM on 08/04/2011

I'm pretty sure that this analysis underestimates the true difference in price, but it still makes the point, especially once you consider how much energy we need.

[Kenz300]

04:19 PM on 08/03/2011

Lethal radiation levels in Japan.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/02/japan-radiation-reaches-l_n_915679.html

[Jtt]

06:10 PM on 08/03/2011

Near the air filter between two reactors. I guess you forgot that part.

[DrStranglelov]

06:48 PM on 08/04/2011

Then the back pressure blows up plant and containmet,Where is you link to high pressure release going threw filters?Hint after TMI, No

[Jtt]

01:43 PM on 08/03/2011

BTW there is a recently reviewed previous very large study by the National Cancer institute on cancer rates near nuclear facilities - here are the results:

No Excess Mortality Risk Found in Counties with Nuclear Facilities

For childhood leukemia in children from birth through age 9 years, the overall RR comparing study and control counties before the startup of the nuclear facilities was 1.08; after startup the RR was 1.03. These data indicate that the risk of childhood leukemia in the study counties was slightly greater before startup of the nuclear facilities than after.

The NCI scientists studied more than 900,000 cancer deaths in the study counties using county mortality records collected from 1950 to 1984. The researchers evaluated changes in mortality rates for 16 types of cancer in these counties from 1950 until each facility began operation and from the start of operation until 1984. For four facilities in two states (Iowa and Connecticut), cancer incidence data were also available. ( http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities )

[DrStranglelov]

06:45 PM on 08/04/2011

try CDC

[lightningbolt]

08:23 AM on 08/03/2011

Jordan has enormous uninhabited deserts.  It has plenty of space for solar and wind power.

[Jtt]

01:02 PM on 08/03/2011

About two thirds of advertised solar capacity becomes natural gas as a result of the intermittent nature of those resources. Wind is a bout the same together they are better but not so dependable.

[lightningbolt]

01:43 PM on 08/03/2011

You have no idea what you're talking about.  Natural gas is not needed.  Excess energy can be stored during the day in batteries or by pumping water to a higher elevation.  The stored energy can be released when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow.

[davyj0nes]

01:57 AM on 08/03/2011

the kingdom of Jordan sits in the middle of a desert. How you pass solar and wind, and go right on to nuclear power is beyond me. I would kindly request the government reconsider.

[genofear]

03:58 AM on 08/03/2011

...and already has a severe water shortage (four times last summer, we went for days without water). We are really hoping that the government reconsiders.

[Atoms4Peace1]

12:13 PM on 08/03/2011

They are going to use nuclear for desalination as well to purify water.

[Atoms4Peace1]

04:07 AM on 08/03/2011

Jordan is also keen on a Medical Isotope Reactor for Tc99m supply.

[Roadrun]

08:05 AM on 08/03/2011

I hadn't heard that. They could do much worse than to start producing molybdenum. Especially in a new reactor, less downtime.

[DrStranglelov]

09:26 AM on 08/03/2011

OH,yes baby,can only be made in a reactor with Highly Enriched uranium. Then they don't care about the reactor anymore,they would have bomb material already.How stupid is that?

[Kenz300]

12:54 AM on 08/03/2011

Japan does not have enough radiation safety equipment.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/ukraine-gives-japan-dosimeters-masks-as-radiation-fears-persist.html

[Malcolm Hensley]

10:19 PM on 08/02/2011

The author says that other nations are moving away from nuclear power pointing at Germany.
I was reading where nuclear generated electricity is the 4th largest export of France with plans for it to increase. Does importing nuclear energy with many of these nuclear power plants on the German border count as abandoning nuclear energy or is it just political posturing?
The same question could be asked of Italy also.
Just asking?

[Joffan]

12:59 AM on 08/03/2011

Germany has decided - for now - that it will close its nuclear power stations. They closed, what seven?, immediately, but they're were already talking about bringing one or two back on line.
Italy was talking about bringing back nuclear power, but they don't actually have any. Meanwhile Enel, the largest Italian power company, is backing nuclear projects in Spain, Slovakia and, I think, France.
Switzerland's leaders have suggested they move away from nuclear power but it probably will not get through agreement with the cantons.

I don't think Germany was posturing; except in the sense of yielding to popular opinion. But The government I think has a duty to know whether or not popular opinion is realistic, and in this case I'm fairly sure it isn't.

[Jtt]

02:46 AM on 08/03/2011

As for Germany:

German nuclear cull to add 40 million tonnes CO2 per year ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/01/us-german-nuclear-carbon-idUSTRE74U2Y220110601 )

Still working on my projections for the costs of the anti nuclear movement:
Will Greenpeace and the Anti Nuclear Movement Be Partially Responsible for the Largest Extinctions in Human History? ( http://diseaseclimate.blogspot.com/ )

Ive got a guesstimate down to about 50,000 species extinctions form the anti nuclear NPO industry sabotaging new reactor projects. By guessing we'd have about double the capacity, which worldwide would be about the same as cutting all US emissions. I cut that in half to factor for set up time and such and cut it again because we do have what we do. Even though they are trying to shut everything down.

More or less depending on the actual number of species. It needs a lost more work and will undoubtedly be lesser and range. But by the numbers I wouldn't want to be in that group.

Its difficult but still I think its worthwhile to document what the real costs of this have been and will be.

[DrStranglelov]

09:28 AM on 08/03/2011

They just spent a billion on off-shore wind turbines too.Once they are up (months)they will close more plants.Go Germany!

[Genders]

09:59 PM on 08/02/2011

They want weapons.

Solar is far cheaper.

[dezakin]

09:59 PM on 08/03/2011

If they want weapons, they would get a materials test reactor for 1/20th the price.

[Joffan]

10:22 PM on 08/03/2011

Solar is not cheap. I really don't know why people keep saying this; it's simply not true. There are plenty of other reasons to advocate for solar, but cheapness is not one of them.

[WonderingNThinking]

09:27 PM on 08/02/2011

Instead of eyeing nuclear energy, they should look at what's happening in Japan. Doh!

Reports today of the highest levels of radiation recorded at Fukushima - deadly levels of 10 Sieverts/hr in spots around the plant.

[WonderingNThinking]

10:28 PM on 08/02/2011

Some specific details:

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201108020249.html

[markkocaldo]

12:34 AM on 08/03/2011

Levels outside of the plant are well below background levels in Ramsar, Iran which has a very low cancer rate.

[DrStranglelov]

09:29 AM on 08/03/2011

HaHaHaHa yeah,sure.

[Roadrun]

08:14 PM on 08/02/2011

Jordan has an increasing need for energy due to the warming their part of the world is experiencing. They need to explore solar also and they could look into battery banks but I just don't think they can manage with current renewables only. Not yet anyway.

I just think it's very good they are working to cut CO2 emission.

[altohone]

07:05 PM on 08/02/2011

Nuclear is expensive and dangerous.
The proradiation crowd uses false numbers that hide both the true costs and true risks.
Taxpayer dollars would not be necessary if it was safe and profitable.

Ask why the industry has spent over 100 million on PR and lobbying in order to get taxpayer billions.

[nirek]

07:40 PM on 08/02/2011

Fanned for knowing the nuclear industry is WRONG!

http://vtdigger.org/2011/08/02/vermont-yankee-4/

Entergy the corporation that owns VY has mismanaged their tritium and strontium 90 leaks.

[Joffan]

08:25 PM on 08/02/2011

Nuclear power plants cost a lot to build - that's true. But they deliver a lot of power for that money. A 20MW solar power system that costs $200 million is more expensive than a nuclear power plant that delivers 1200MW and costs $6 billion. But either would be better than coal or gas.

No-one (except, perhaps, radiologists) is pro-radiation. A strong electricity system that doesn't rely on a continuous flow of hydrocarbon from the ends of the earth is something worth supporting, and nuclear power is part of the way to achieve that.

Taxpayer dollars flow to oil, gas, wind, solar. Nuclear doesn't get any.

The nuclear power industry is terrible at PR. That $100 million - over what time period? I'm guessing at least 10 years.

[markkocaldo]

12:40 AM on 08/03/2011

Actually first of a kind nuke plants in the US are running at less than $4B/Gw and levelized nuke costs are less than coal or gas.

Google "SCANA 2011 Analyst Day Presentation"

Mass production in China has costs dropping below $1B a Gw for the SCANA reactors.

[nirek]

06:44 AM on 08/03/2011

What are you going to do with the waste? Cool it forever? What does that add to the cost?
Be honest.

[wom122]

07:01 PM on 08/02/2011

The less nuclear reactors on planet earth the safer our kids and grandkids would be.

[markkocaldo]

12:41 AM on 08/03/2011

Actually not they would be in deadly danger from more coal and gas plants like the Germans are putting in.

[nirek]

06:45 AM on 08/03/2011

My solar array has NOT leaked anything.
Neither do the solar arrays in Germany.

[DrStranglelov]

09:32 AM on 08/03/2011

Tell it to Japan.But if you want your kids to have cancer,this is the way to go!!!

[PoloniumMan]

03:44 PM on 08/03/2011

How would fewer nuclear reactors improve safety for our children and grandkids?