4 ms·

Why isn't there more support for nuclear-powered desalination? http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/industry/nuclear

Why isn't there more support for nuclear-powered desalination? http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/industry/nuclear-desalination.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-n...

Ericson2314 10y ago
I've always thought it really cool how we can collapse the water problem into the energy problem. (And, to be clear, I agree with your solution to the energy problem.)
- debacle 10y ago
  Every problem is at its core an energy problem.
  - kmicklas 10y ago
    This is the one fact that keeps me relatively optimistic about the future of civilization.
philipkglass 10y ago
Only South Korea, Russia, and China appear to be able to build nuclear plants on a reasonable budget and timescale. And I'd put an asterisk next to project costs in Russia and China because they don't have great domestic transparency and the projects they offer to build abroad are pretty expensive. In addition to high costs, nuclear power projects often face opposition from the public in developed democratic nations. The region with highest current demand for desalination, Middle East/North Africa, is "blessed" with a lack of democracy. If the Saudi monarchy wants nuclear power they don't have to get voters on board -- no voting! But the costs are still high. And although Saudi Arabia would like to decrease its domestic fossil fuel consumption to free up more for exports, it doesn't want to accelerate a shift away from fossils elsewhere. IMO it's kind of a tightrope walk between advancing their own non-fossil energy sources, to grow/preserve export revenue, and avoiding a global shift away from fossils that could diminish their export revenue.
anubisresources 10y ago
Nuclear is more costly than vast majority of other energy sources. Solar makes more sense if you want to stay green, and if you don't care about the green aspect traditional energy generation is probably better.
CN7R 10y ago
Because it's expensive, has public stigma, and some places like California are located near faults.

Ericson2314 10y ago

I've always thought it really cool how we can collapse the water problem into the energy problem. (And, to be clear, I agree with your solution to the energy problem.)

debacle 10y ago
Every problem is at its core an energy problem.
- kmicklas 10y ago
  This is the one fact that keeps me relatively optimistic about the future of civilization.

philipkglass 10y ago

Only South Korea, Russia, and China appear to be able to build nuclear plants on a reasonable budget and timescale. And I'd put an asterisk next to project costs in Russia and China because they don't have great domestic transparency and the projects they offer to build abroad are pretty expensive. In addition to high costs, nuclear power projects often face opposition from the public in developed democratic nations. The region with highest current demand for desalination, Middle East/North Africa, is "blessed" with a lack of democracy. If the Saudi monarchy wants nuclear power they don't have to get voters on board -- no voting! But the costs are still high. And although Saudi Arabia would like to decrease its domestic fossil fuel consumption to free up more for exports, it doesn't want to accelerate a shift away from fossils elsewhere. IMO it's kind of a tightrope walk between advancing their own non-fossil energy sources, to grow/preserve export revenue, and avoiding a global shift away from fossils that could diminish their export revenue.

anubisresources 10y ago

Nuclear is more costly than vast majority of other energy sources. Solar makes more sense if you want to stay green, and if you don't care about the green aspect traditional energy generation is probably better.

CN7R 10y ago

Because it's expensive, has public stigma, and some places like California are located near faults.