SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Saudi Arabia to extract uranium for 'self-sufficient' nuclear program
Saudi Arabia plans to extract uranium domestically as part of its nuclear power program and sees this as a step towards "self-sufficiency" in producing atomic fuel, a senior official said on Monday.
Extracting its own uranium also makes sense from an economic point of view, said Hashim bin Abdullah Yamani, head of the Saudi government agency tasked with the nuclear plans, the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KACARE).
In a speech at an international nuclear power conference in Abu Dhabi, he did not specify whether Saudi Arabia seeks to also enrich and reprocess uranium – steps in the fuel cycle which are especially sensitive as they can open up the possibility of military uses of the material.
The world's top oil exporter says it wants to tap atomic power for peaceful purposes only in order to diversify its energy supply and will award a construction contract for its first two nuclear reactors by the end of 2018.
Meanwhile, women will be allowed to attend sporting events at stadiums. And here's a message for the skeptics (editorial).
Also at Newsweek.
Previously: Saudi Arabia Will Lift Ban on Women Drivers Next Year
Saudi Arabia Planning $500 Billion Megacity and Business Zone
Robot Granted "Citizenship" in Saudi Arabia, Sparking Backlash
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2017, @08:09PM (19 children)
Extracting reactor-grade uranium, much less weapons-grade, is expensive, dirty, and time-consuming.
Can't they just donate to the Clinton foundation and get a sweet deal on some American stuff?
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2017, @08:28PM (1 child)
> Can't they just donate to the Clinton foundation and get a sweet deal on some American stuff?
Or since Clinton is currently not the one in power -- shocking, I know -- they could also ask the Kush-boy to twiddle daddy a bit. [cnn.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2017, @11:38PM
Or since Clinton is currently not the one in power
HA! That's what they want you to think! Trump calls her every day, asking what to do next. She'll have more power than the next five presidents, just like Kissinger held sway over the last nine...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by turgid on Tuesday October 31 2017, @09:17PM (4 children)
Thorium is useless for making nuclear weapons, apparently. The only excuse for using Uranium is to make the isotopes of Plutonium needed for nuclear weapons, so it goes. If Saudi gets nuclear power, using Uranium fuel, then there really is something wrong with the world.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 01 2017, @04:51AM
Scaling up Thorium reactors hasn't been really done yet despite India's investment. Not exactly a straightforward replacement option.
(Score: 3, Informative) by driverless on Wednesday November 01 2017, @08:48AM
Well, in theory you can bread U233 from it, but India hasn't been going too well with that option.
Mind you, this is India we're talking about here...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 01 2017, @11:47AM
1. No, it's not useless.
2. Nations like India would prefer Thorium over Uranium because they have lots of Thorium but no Uranium
3. Almost everyone else prefers Uranium over Thorium because we already have supply chain for Uranium
Everything else is pretty much similar in the two fuels. Already there are reactors that burn either of the fuels or combination thereof. And safety has nothing to do with either fuel - both are equally safe and unsafe.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday November 01 2017, @05:42PM
To make Th work you need U or Pu (unless you go with accelerators).
Also U is dirt cheap today and has established supply and distribution (Th lacks this), also U-reactors are easier to make than Th reactors.
And talking about weapons the critical mass of U-233 (which is what creates the energy in Th-reactors) has a critical mass of about 15kg while that of Pu-239 is 10kg (U-235 is about 50kg).
Then we shouldn't neglect to mention that Th-reactors needs reprocessing (or enriched U) while U-reactors doesn't (heck, the CANDU doesn't even need enrichment) so you will basically have to solve all basic problems to get the materials for a bomb just to be able to run it (not hard to begin with)
And why would it matter if they get U-reactors*? If your eally are that freaked about it then lobby for having them send all spent fuel to russia (or get australia to start accepting spent fuel).
Oh, and most countries doesn't do their own reprocessing but pays for the service..
(* = The Pu will get too much Pu-240 in it after some 3GWD/t burnup while power reactors run at about 40-65GWD/t burnup [grossly oversimplified] so you'd notice darn quick if they tried to get weaponsgrade Pu [mainly due to having to refuel every secind ween compared to normal 12-24 months])
(Score: 5, Informative) by Nobuddy on Tuesday October 31 2017, @09:42PM (11 children)
I knew I could count on one of these ignorant posts. you did not disappoint.
The deal was for a stake in the company. It is illegal to sell uranium outside the US without a license that has NEVER been issued, and none has been exported. They bought shares of profits, not uranium.
The only reason it needed a 9 agency sign-off (yes, 9 agencies, Clinton did not sell Russia anything) is because if they took the company belly up it would reduce US uranium production and impact our power grid. Russia gained no uranium, and no control over our strategic uranium production.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2017, @10:42PM
Gotta spin some fake news to take the heat off Cheeto the *wall lover.
* you may think I'm only referring to the Mexico/US border, but I'm pretty sure Melania has wall like properties at such times...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2017, @11:43PM (8 children)
Why are we letting foreign nationals gain control over American corporations?
This hurts us. We shouldn't allow it, even if the product is only as important as the Pet Rock.
Selling out our nation is harmful to our nation.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday November 01 2017, @12:26AM
Because everyone else did it and now it's your turn to submit to corporate rule.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday November 01 2017, @02:54AM (6 children)
go to silicon valley and check out the home prices and who is buying/owning.
more so, check out who the landlords are.
rich chinese come here, buy houses that cost $1M and more IN CASH and locals can't even compete.
china is buying up the US. and we are stupidly letting them.
other countries don't sell their own country out so fast. I wonder what's wrong with us, that we keep doing things against our own best (long term) interests.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 01 2017, @03:04AM (3 children)
> other countries don't sell their own country out so fast. I wonder what's wrong with us, that we keep doing things against our own best (long term) interests.
You were on the "buying" side for so long, you don't know what it means to "be bought". Just like "interfering with" and " be interfered with" :)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 01 2017, @07:13AM (2 children)
When we do it, it's "investment" and good for them. When they do it, it's blah whatever that guy said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 01 2017, @10:01AM (1 child)
I am not aware of Americans massively buying homesteads in other countries. America is global battleground for power. Whichever group of humans (ethnicity, language, religion, race, ...) dominates it, dominates the world. Chinese people, even they already are the single most numerous group of the world, can't exert their proportional influence upon the rest of the planet without first taking over America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 01 2017, @10:27AM
Why buy a homestead in a shittier country when you can just buy up their entire economy and improve your homestead at home?
In a ~100 meter radius around my apartment there are two McDonald's', at least one Starbucks, one each of Dunkin' Donuts, Pizza Hut, and Domino's Pizza, several 7-11s, and a Walmart. As you can see from me using the word "meter", I don't live anywhere close to the US :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 01 2017, @10:55AM
If a country requires 51 percent domestic land ownership, we require the same of their nationals in our country.
If a country requires 51 percent domestic corporate ownership, we require the same of corporations in our country with corporate creation or majority stakeholders being of their legal jurisdiction.
This may be a complicated idea to audit and enforce, but it is the only way to get countries like China to either play ball with competitive rules, or stop buying us up part and parcel until they defacto control the country, and our traitor barons have sold us out on their way to a foreign vacation homes in countries with even less domestically favorable laws than the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 01 2017, @06:10PM
substitute 1980s for now, and Japanese for Chinese, and you have the same situation. So yes, 1980s called and they want their anti-Japanese phobia back.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 01 2017, @06:19PM
It was for Uranium One, a Canadian company. A Canadian company *I* had a small state in and that *I* was one of the shareholders that voted to sell to Russians.
Except it didn't because Uranium One never had any major assets. They had some smaller assets *in the US*, but US doesn't have uranium resources like in northern Saskatchewan (in Canada for those foreigners). If you want major Uranium play company, look no further than Cameco. And they have enough resources to take care of any demand by any US power company going forward.
But this entire thing is bullshit. Russians wasted a lot of money because they were betting on nuclear renaissance. And that most likely now will not happen, especially since CO2 limits are simply going to be ignored anyway. This was a strategic investment in uranium resources by a Russian state company. It was not a political decision by Putin or Clinton. Remember people, assets like mines are fixed. And it is always possible to nationalize such things later, so WTF is the hoopla about?? Certainly not a rational problem.