Japan offers nuclear help to Saudi Arabia to free up oil

Me thinks this is an indicator of the futire decline in oil supply, certainly at prices seen in the last 10yrs say.............

As to buying J-tech Saudi, I'd looks elsewhere regarding safety for sure

Yes, it would behoove them to look elsewhere for anything to do with nuclear power plants/ safety.

I hope they have the sense to politely decline.

if you are not safe with nuclear plant then why you are building it in other countries, it does not make any sense to free yourself from nuclear plants and build it on another land, they are also human being and they can suffer too.

Thanks but no thanks.....

Japanese nuclear technology isn't the safest in the world and not even built to international standards.

Sure, Saudi should really think about safety first. Look at Fukushima nuclear reactor....built by General Electric...

Look at Fukushima nuclear reactor....built by General Electric...

tokyobokayaro -- foolishness. The plant was over 40 years old and numerous safety updates that TEPCO knew needed to be made had been neglected. If you were driving a 40 year-old Toyota, and had not done the recommended maintenance, would you blame them if it broke? Please. Besides, GE was NOT responsible for anything to do with the wall built to stop the tsunami, which even the government report admits was too low. If I were the Saudi's I would run, not walk, from any discussion about nuclear power with the Japanese "experts". Unless they are talkng about Westinghouse, which they acguired several years back.

@GW

As to buying J-tech Saudi, I'd looks elsewhere regarding safety for sure.

Yeah, how can you trust a country with 50+ nuclear reactors that safely navigated one of the worst earthquakes in human history, and only had a single disaster which was caused by after the fact by a 50 wall of water which exceeded even the standard 100 year safety margin?

@ Zichi A major problem with a nuclear power plant in a country like Saudi would be the lack of water which would be needed in vast quantities.

Now that is a valid concern, particularly with the average temperature of the water that is available in that region. I also tend to worry about the political factor. Even if the actual probability of misuse or abuse is miniscule, the perception caused by using the words Middle-East, and Nuclear in the same sentence tends to ratchet tensions up a notch.

Is this a joke?? Would anyone want anything to do with Japan and nuclear power-plants after the colossal fail of Fukushima? Cripes, does Japan get that the world knows all about their cover ups and dirty little secrets with regards to lax safety standards and ignoring the ones they have in place?

Nice idea, but say no to General Electric power plants.

Pssst... sheikh, how about a nice nuclear reactor for your wives?

Why did Japan have to lend Abu Dhabi 3 billion, when they are sitting on piles of wealth there? Could be they're getting better interest than from selling bonds at home.

I wouldn't be looking to Japan for building NPPs given the shortcuts they take on safety in favor of profit, the lies, and the cover-ups. Of course, if that's what the Saudis want, then Japan is perfect.

This is a joke right? Who in the hell would want help building a nuclear reactor from people responsible for the most recent, and arguably worst, nuclear catastrophe??????????????

This headline made me chuckle. You have to be kidding me right? What an absolute joke.

@smithinjapan

I wouldn't be looking to Japan for building NPPs given the shortcuts they take on safety in favor of profit, the lies, and the cover-ups.

What shortcuts did they take in the building of the plants? They built them precisely to to the specs provided by GE.

Indeed, when some of the Japanese engineers pointed out that having back-up systems in the basement left them vulnerable to flooding, the company decided to follow the plans anyway instead of putting the back-up systems higher, where their engineers said it would be safer.

@lesenfant

This is a joke right? Who in the hell would want help building a nuclear reactor from people responsible for the most recent, and arguably worst, nuclear catastrophe??????????????

In what way would this be considered the worst of the three major nuclear disasters? I imagine you have quite the explanation, given how many question marks you used to emphasize your opinion.

Everyone needs to heavily invest in alternatives to fossil fuels, also engineer extensive recycling programs. Big countries need to dedicate their federal land to preservation, and plant large sums of trees to reduce carbon. Introduce carbon taxes. There are many methods that can be taken to ease the prices on oil. Why Japan is not revitalizing its nuclear program is beyond me.

At least the Saudis won't have to worry about building any Seawalls!

What shortcuts did they take in the building of the plants? They built them precisely to to the specs provided by GE.

GE wasn't responsible for laying out the site: Tepco was. Tepco failed to place backup cooling equipment on high ground a proper way away from the coast. Media reports said some of the electrical equipment was right near the beach. They failed to construct a seawall that was high enough to deal with the kind of tsunami that hit a coastline that gave the world the world "tsunami."

They clustered six reactors in close proximity to each other, heightening the risk of contagion, to save space, and thus money.

Bartholomew HarteFeb. 11, 2013 - 12:30PM JST

cabadajeFeb. 11, 2013 - 09:20AM JST

A major problem with a nuclear power plant in a country like Saudi would be the lack of water which would be needed in vast quantities.

I think you forget that they have the red sea!

At least the Saudis won't have to worry about building any Seawalls!

Yup, the region is geologically stable and all stable seas, and since 75%+ of their population is on the red sea, they can just build in the northern part of the red sea and have one of the best locations for nuclear.

In what way would this be considered the worst of the three major nuclear disasters? in reply to this comment.

Who in the hell would want help building a nuclear reactor from people responsible for the most recent, and arguably worst, nuclear catastrophe??????????????

Do you not understand the meaning of recent?? It seems not based on your reply. Even better, who would want the help of anyone with a track record of issues with their nuclear power plants, lax safety and a history of cover ups?

Agree with the other poster who mentioned that you need massive amounts of water supply nearby when you have a nuclear reactor. The main reason would be for the event of an emergency, you would have a steady supply to "dump" on the reactor. That's why they are normally built near coastlines (like Fukashima) or like 3 Mile Island (on a river).

The best thing for a place like Saudi Arabia would be massive solar farms. Plenty of open desert to have the panels and run the power lines.

@JeffLee

GE wasn't responsible for laying out the site: Tepco was. Tepco failed to place backup cooling equipment on high ground a proper way away from the coast.

This isn't a site layout issue. It's a reactor design issue, where the GE specs specified where the back-up systems where supposed to go. While the engineers pointed out a possible danger, the final decision was, quite reasonably, to not modify the plans for the nuclear reactor.

As to the actual physical site, it was selected over the slightly higher one because it allowed the reactor to be built on solid bedrock, which was a major safety plus in the land of earthquakes. And as for tsunamis, they did their due diligence and built a seawall that would protect them from the most probable danger, based on the hundred year margin.

None of that is taking shortcuts.

@Basroil

cabadajeFeb. 11, 2013 - 09:20AM JST A major problem with a nuclear power plant in a country like Saudi would be the lack of water which would be needed in vast quantities. I think you forget that they have the red sea!

Yeah, that's not me you're quoting there.

tmarie

Do you not understand the meaning of recent??

Yeah, it isn't a word commonly used when you only have three catastrophes in the entire history of the field.

It seems not based on your reply. Even better, who would want the help of anyone with a track record of issues with their nuclear power plants, lax safety and a history of cover ups?

So, you really don't have anything to offer in terms of why this would be considered the worse of the three nuclear disasters, then? As opposed to actually being the best of the three disasters in terms of response time, containment, economic loss, and recovery?

Developing a wind farm(solar energy farm) is much better since the temperture difference should be large in the desert region. I also do not think developing a nuclear plant in the middle east is a good idea with various security issue needed to be considered.

The Saudi Arabians are responsible for funding most of the islamic extremist groups in the world. They should not be given access to nuclear technology. Solar power is ideal for them.

The Japanese actions seem quite cynical here: why don't you have one of our dodgy nuclear power stations so we can have your oil. That way we don't have to worry about our reactors ruining our country.

how can you trust a country... (that) only had a single disaster

So you've never heard about Tokaimura, eh. I'll enlighten you: Two Japanese workers melted to death by radiation, another melted but surviving in 1997. Please do your research before posting. The cause was appallingly lax workplace practices. I hope Japan doesn't intend to export those as well.

This isn't a site layout issue. It's a reactor design issue,

It was a cooling system issue. The reactors overheated and thus failed because the cooling and backup cooling equipment failed. Much of that equipment had been submersed in salt water from the tsunami because it wasn't properly safeguarded.

@JeffLee

So you've never heard about Tokaimura, eh. I'll enlighten you: Two Japanese workers melted to death by radiation, another melted but surviving in 1997.

If by 1997, you mean 1999, and if by "melted", you mean "heavily exposed to radiation and died several months later", and if "disaster", you expand it to include anything that has the word "nuclear" in it, as opposed to actual nuclear reactors, as I specifically referred to, then, yes, I have heard of it.

And no, I will not refer to 3 deaths due to human error at a uranium re-processing plant as equivalent to a nuclear reactor disaster. It is more along the lines of people who accidentally blow themselves up at gas stations or chemical plants.

It was a cooling system issue. The reactors overheated and thus failed because the cooling and backup cooling equipment failed. Much of that equipment had been submersed in salt water from the tsunami because it wasn't properly safeguarded.

Yes, that is common knowledge. The actual comment being responded to, however, was regarding whether the Japanese engineers had taken any shortcuts in the construction of the reactors. That the initial design from GE could have been better does not reflect on the capabilities of the people who followed the design.

Particularly in regards to defense against an unforeseeable disaster.

Back on topic please.

Do any of them reflect on the ability of Japanese engineers to build a nuclear reactor?

Japanese engineers might be good with paper but forseeing possible calamity? Not so much.

Japan's nuclear industry has long been rife with serious and systemic problems. There's no way it should be exporting anything to anybody.

So, no, none of them reflect on the ability of Japanese engineers to build nuclear reactors.

The last thing I want is Japan's help with anything nuclear. The French or US maybe.

Its really irresponsible for Japan to even offer nuclear help to other when you are struggling with its safety controls on your own country.

What are you thing?

thinking*

The temperatures of the red sea have nothing to do with the viability of Japanese reactors in Saudi Arabia despite what old men may say. The efficiency and safe operation of the reactors is unaffected, and as Saudi Arabia doesn't have pointless "environmental" laws pertaining to exhaust temperature, they can be run regardless of what temperature the water is.

Saudi Arabia might actually be a better choice for nuclear than most countries actually, thanks to many excellent locations for reactors and the fact most of the land is "owned" by Saudi Arabia itself and they can give it to the plant operator.

know its clear japan is not anti-atomic country . it just speak only in for money .... very bad.

@Smithinjapan your attitude is sickening. Every comment you post is offensive and negative to Japan. Clean your mouth out! Japan can build nuclear reactors well! Obviously you know nothing about that.

News Flash: Abu Dhabi builds a Fukushima Replica!

Hey - why not get the old Chernobyl power company involved too? A joint-collaboration with the Japanese would be fantastic!

One man's garbage is another man's treasure. What is no longer good for Japan is still good for Saudi Arabia. As for the water shortage, the Japanese should include the price of a plant to desalinate the water. Japan has the know-how to do both.

zichiFeb. 12, 2013 - 04:10AM JST The release of billions of gallons of hot water into the Red Sea would damage ...

I highly doubt that Saudi kings care about damage to the Eco system around the Red Sea. The Japanese industry probably either.

@cabadaje

So, no, none of them reflect on the ability of Japanese engineers to build nuclear reactors.

Like "Monju" a product of Japanese design and engineering...and an utter disaster?

In 20 years, it generated ONE HOUR of electricity. The rest of the time, it was shut down due to fires and explosions. Yeah, let's import some of those, huh?

If there's one place uniquely positioned for great sunshine but horrible solar generation, it's a freaking desert like Saudi Arabia. Not to mention that they would either have to deal with high level toxic waste themselves or keep in in Japan and other solar producers (http://news.yahoo.com/solar-industry-grapples-hazardous-wastes-184714679.html)

So far the effective solar capacity is a pathetic 15-30GW globally, and two to four Kashiwazaki-Kariwa sized plants would produce more (and create less CO2 and hazardous chemicals)

Why not fund a solar plant in Saudi Arabia? A nuclear power plant would be open to attack from outside militants and internal Saudi groups! We should not forget that the 9/11 attacks were cariied out by ......Saudi Arabians.....

So it is ok for a hugely doctrinnaire monarchy with massive influence of conservative Islamic elite to have nukes but not N Korea or Iran or any of the other states that the US and its stooges continually pick on? does anyone really believe that there is a greater chance ofIran or N Korea attacking the US than Saudi Arabia if their allegiance changed or a religious nut took over? Typical UN hypocrisy if this is allowed.