
Oil-Rich Saudi Arabia Is Turning to Nuclear Power - rbanffy
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/why-oil-rich-saudi-arabia-is-turning-to-nuclear-power-quicktake?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
======
beloch
"In an interview with the U.S. television network CBS aired in mid-March,
Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince who effectively runs the country
for his father King Salman, said, “Saudi Arabia doesn’t want to own a nuclear
bomb. But without a doubt, if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, we will follow
suit as soon as possible.”

So, this is basically India and Pakistan all over again, only with countries
that are a lot more likely to back terrorists.

"The Trump administration, eager to revive the torpid American nuclear
industry, is pushing Saudi Arabia to consider U.S. companies -- such as
Westinghouse Electric Co. and Exelon Corp. -- for its nuclear contracts
instead of competitors from Russia, China and other countries. "

Perhaps this is about money, or perhaps its about stirring the middle eastern
pot. Threaten to give the Saudi's all the nuclear tech they want while
deliberately ignoring what they do with it and you might just get Iran to end
its own nuclear program if only the U.S. will put a stop to this. Or you might
get a nuclear conflict.

This is probably going to go down in history as amazingly dumb. Canada is
still a little embarrassed about India, but this will be much worse.

~~~
sandworm101
Iran is part of the problem, but the less-discussed issue remains Isreal's
nukes. The race for nukes in the middle east started long ago. The saudis have
just decided to start trying.

~~~
erric
Aren’t Israeli nukes an open secret? As in they never acknowledge they have
them, but pretty much everyone believes they do?

~~~
sandworm101
I don't think Israel considers them an open secret. Their existence is
commonly assumed and Israel does little to dissuade the rumors, but we do not
have specifics. No doubt they have the devices but we are not sure of their
delivery methods or warhead sophistication.

~~~
raverbashing
> Their existence is commonly assumed and Israel does little to dissuade the
> rumors, but we do not have specifics. No doubt they have the devices

Just so you know, that's the definition of an open secret

------
soniman
Basically they're going nuclear because Iran is. Saudi Arabia burns about $5B
of oil in the summer to fuel air conditioners and it would be easy enough to
run a natgas pipeline into the country (most Saudi natgas is used in the
petrochemical industry) but Saudi doesn't want to be a fossil fuel importer,
too humiliating. None of it makes much sense, to be honest. The entire region
is sitting on massive amounts of natgas or solar potential so there is no
reason other than prestige or bombs to go nuclear.

~~~
realusername
> solar potential

If I recall there's too much dust in Saudi Arabia for the solar panels to be
any useful (and not enough rain to remove it). Here is some article on the
subject:
[http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph240/alshakhs2/](http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph240/alshakhs2/).
Nuclear would make more sense there.

~~~
Retric
Dust is a killer for consitrating solar power, but much less so for PV. You
can also clean them with minimal water useage. It's just a tradeoff of how
much desalination is worth it for efficiency gains.

~~~
emiliobumachar
Interesting. How about "cleaning" them with salt water? Sure the salt on the
panels is not ideal, but it's better than dust.

~~~
raverbashing
Salt water + electricity = not good

Study mentions up to 50% of efficiency decrease after 6mo

Seems like the best solution would be mechanical cleaning (either automatic or
manual)

~~~
pjc50
The panels are sealed against ingress in any case.

------
sunstone
The sooner the world moves to renewables and stops pouring money into the
volatile Middle East the sooner we can all sleep better.

~~~
lostmsu
The sooner we get fusion you meant.

~~~
r00fus
Only 20-50 years away.

------
IAmEveryone
Saudis turning to nuclear tells you just as much about the country and
technology as Venezuela going for Cryptocurrencies.

Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian dictatorship, is waging a brutal war against
one of the world’s poorest countries (and not even winning) and is committing
all sorts of crimes against architecture and urban planning with its
brutalistic dystopia in the desert. They run air conditioners not just in
their cardboard McMansions, but even outside, in the garden FFS.

Iran happens to find itself on the wrong side politically compared to the US.
But in almost any category, from education to innovation to even democracy
they run circles around those spoiled brats of heredity literally killing
themselves on the highways out of sheer boredom.

Proponents of nuclear power should be quite scared to see this compass that
reliably points south adopting their pet technology.

~~~
Cyph0n
I can easily tell which side you're on, but you missed some pertinent
information.

Iran is also fighting in Yemen (by proxy) and has been directly supporting the
Assad regime, one of the most brutal dictatorships the Middle East has ever
seen.

~~~
baursak
Saudis have been directly supporting Al Qaeda and its off-shoots like Nusra,
the guys who cut off people's heads on camera. Oh wait, Saudis actually chop
off people's heads regularly themselves. What's your point?

~~~
Cyph0n
You think I'm a fan on Saudi?

My point is that OP noted that Saudi is waging war in Yemen but failed to do
the same with Iran. It was an uneven comparison.

------
fnord123
Saudi Arabia should absolutely not have access to nuclear technologies.

~~~
cooper12
You hear this train of thought a lot: "X country shouldn't have nukes". So why
do people say a specific country "deserves" nukes while others don't? Why does
the U.S. get nukes while it got to invade Iraq under the pretense of it having
nukes? You might say everyone who is ideologically aligned with the policeman
of the world (the West) deserves it. But in actuality not every country that
has gained that capability fits the definition. The simple answer is that it's
all about power balance. If you're an ally of the West, you can have all the
nukes you want, but if you're not, you _must_ put yourself at their mercy.
Note I'm not commenting on SA here, but the whole "we should be able to decide
who gets nukes or not". It's very interesting when you consider how U.S.
foreign policy has affected the world and the fact that SA is considered an
ally.

~~~
fnord123
Ideally, no one should have nuclear weapons but they exist so we're left with
asking how to deal with proliferation.

In my opinion, a state run by a Wahhabi theocracy should prevented from
getting its hands on nuclear technology. They are an ally only in the sense
that they have the deepest oil reserves and use their economic clout to get
their way. They are also an ally to the US because they bring some semblance
of stability to the ME region.

But KSA funds insurgents intent on destabilising Europe and it's not behaviour
of an ally imo.

------
jlebrech
Isn't the same as "don't get high off your own supply".

also (fuel) Diversity is good.

------
known
I think every nation should become well "regulated" nuclear power

------
soVeryTired
Weird headline. Oil is mostly used for transport, not power generation.

~~~
adventured
That's incorrect as it pertains to Saudi Arabia.

[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18111](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18111)

~~~
soVeryTired
Wow, TIL. 65% of electricity production is from oil. How incredibly wasteful.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Saudi_Arabia#Electri...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Saudi_Arabia#Electricity_consumption)

------
dbcooper
Looking forward to the apocalypse, sparked by the most responsible Islamic
country in the world!

The American Empire is so full of political science geniuses.

~~~
adventured
You mean of course as opposed to the Chinese or Russians that are
alternatively guaranteed to build those nuclear power plants.

Tell me more about this political science genius and how the US controls the
entire world and all actions by all nations and at all times, including a
superpower like China.

------
swarnie_
I'm seeing lots of negative sentiment in this comments section. Just a
question, why do you think you have the right to say who gets nuclear power
and who doesn't?

Why can America get Npower and nukes but SA can't?

~~~
harshreality
The Middle Eastern countries have long-simmering tensions, both
internationally and internally, and those conflicts do not make possession of
nuclear weapons a good idea. Allowing more countries in the Middle East to
acquire nuclear weapons is probably strategically bad for the entire world.
Therefore, the rest of the world, including the evil hegemonic United States,
will use considerable political and economic means to try to prevent that. And
military force, if it can be done with reasonable safety, given that it's not
just the U.S. that doesn't want new members in the nuclear club, but the
entire world, including NATO and the UN.

It's not a matter of "we're better than you, therefore we get nuclear weapons
and you don't, ha ha." It's that our political system and domestic behavior,
however dysfunctional, is still more stable, and we have some experience
holding onto nukes without using them, having muddled our way (luckily)
through the Cold War.

~~~
friedButter
> It's that our political system and domestic behavior, however dysfunctional,
> is still more stable, and we have some experience holding onto nukes without
> using them, having muddled our way (luckily) through the Cold War

Isnt US the only country to have used multiple nuclear bombs in a real war,
but still allowed to keep them?

~~~
code_duck
‘Allowed’ by whom? Themselves?

~~~
friedButter
> given that it's not just the U.S. that doesn't want new members in the
> nuclear club, but the entire world, including NATO and the UN

Everyone, as per the comment I replied to

