5 ms·

If they were serious about this I would think they make an effort to start building such a project in a country where the chance of regulatory approval is bette

by wahern 7y ago

If they were serious about this I would think they make an effort to start building such a project in a country where the chance of regulatory approval is better than a snowball's chance in hell. Like maybe somewhere in the Middle East, near several mega airport hubs, existing shipping routes for fossil fuel shipments (e.g. natural gas), and a political environment eager to establish an industry on the upswing that complements existing competitive advantages.[1] [1] I know the Middle East isn't very strong in the high-end, value-add part of the energy supply chain--refining, etc. But this would be a perfect way to rectify that.

eric-hu 7y ago
Wouldn't they'd face regulatory approval issues from the UK when they try to export nuclear reactors to the middle east?
- godelski 7y ago
  Yes
godelski 7y ago
Middle east doesn't work, there is a connection to nuclear weapons. I honestly can't think of a country that fits your criteria. China? Maybe? But that's iffy and comes with other issues. NK? But working with NK or any country that is going to violate nuclear arms treaties (cough Middle East cough) you're going to have a hard time doing business with the first world. Which means that if you're a business trying to do this that you have to be completely funded by said country that will violate those treaties because you are giving up your other revenue streams. I don't imagine Rolls-Royce wants to give up their current revenue streams and work with dictators for this high risk endeavor.
- buzzkillington 7y ago
  Singapore probably. They already have a hugely cancerous, in the traditional sense, chemical industry within a stones throw away from major population zones. Throwing some nuclear into the mix will be a step up in terms of environmental damage.
  - Ballu 7y ago
    Best line on Internet I read today. :) BTW, could you provide any ref re Chemical industry in Singapore.
  - tim333 7y ago
    The 'hugely cancerous' industry doesn't seem to be cancering it up very hugely given this recent headline: "Singaporeans have world's longest life expectancy at 84.8 years"
    - buzzkillington 7y ago
      Yes, they are smart enough to have the Malays and Indians working with the truly heinous chemicals. Maybe Mainlanders now - haven't been there since the 00s. So much better on your statistics when the people dying do it back home, after you have worked them 8/9ths to the grave.
      - gdy 7y ago
        So the 'environmental damage' you were talking about affects people selectively based on their citizenship?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- wahern 7y ago
  That issue crossed by mind, but I think there's a fighting chance it could work out. I had in mind Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, or Kuwait. Those countries already have a long and comfortable relationship with the West and the UK in particular, stemming from colonial times. (At least a good relationship with the corporate and political elite.) Especially with the UK I think that relationship is strong enough to resist the boogeyman of terrorism and the optics of working with those regimes, which don't have particularly poor reputations in the UK or US, anyhow. The "special relationship" between the US and UK means the UK has more license to exploit those ties, even though I'd assume any outcry would be loudest from the US. It would need to be made clear that Saudi Arabia would be kept at arms length, to mitigate (at least superficially) the threat of nuclear escalation between SA and Iran. But from a technical perspective I'd assume any proliferation risk would be minimal to nonexistent given the technology. Plus there's always the option of Rolls-Royce keeping the core know-how in-house, perhaps building most or all of the module in the UK, only fueling it in the host country. With Brexit there will be tremendous pressure for the UK to find and develop such cooperative, bilateral projects. In any event, we all know nuclear is dying (and mostly dead) in the West. So it's either something like the above, or nothing at all.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    If a nuclear expert is working in the middle east they will seriously have "get assassinated by Mossad" on their list of concerns. And that isn't hyperbole, it is just reasonably unlikely. Planning a politically fraught project literally sandwiched between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a level of risk that needs very cautious consideration. It wouldn't be at all surprising if a major power just quietly says "No, you can't encourage that sort of expertise in this region". There are a whole bunch of "they wouldn't do that it is illegal" style possibilities that would not happen in the UK that could reasonably eventuate in the Middle East. Including invasions related to oil shipping. Finding an oasis in the desert does not mean one is safe from dust storms.
    - wahern 7y ago
      So I did some digging. Many countries in the Middle East already have plans in the works, often in cooperation with Western companies. But plans don't count for squat. The UAE, however, has already finished a reactor unit--supposedly to be started soon--with 3 more units nearing completion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant Times have changed, particularly with the Saudi-Iran contest and Turkeys hard turn to the right, which have aligned Israel with the Arabs. Plus, as a nuclear power itself Israel should be a good judge of proliferation risk, and with strong HUMINT and SIGINT capabilities able to detect actual and even intended proliferation. As an side, interestingly Taiwan has nuclear reactors. I figured Taiwan would be a nuclear free zone. They're probably too democratic to support Rolls-Royce's project; it seems public pressure has already killed construction of a new plant, there. I initially excluded South Korea for that reason--AFAIU public sentiment has soured on nuclear even though South Korea has the best track record in the world at on-time, on-budget construction. If nuclear is gonna grow any time soon it's gonna have to be at the hands of non-democratic nations.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Iran, india,south africa.
luckydata 7y ago
Do you want Seal Team 6 to break into your bedroom in the middle of the night? Because that's exactly how you get a bunch of seals to come and kidnap you at gunpoint.

by wahern 7y ago

eric-hu 7y ago

Wouldn't they'd face regulatory approval issues from the UK when they try to export nuclear reactors to the middle east?

godelski 7y ago
Yes

godelski 7y ago

Middle east doesn't work, there is a connection to nuclear weapons. I honestly can't think of a country that fits your criteria. China? Maybe? But that's iffy and comes with other issues. NK? But working with NK or any country that is going to violate nuclear arms treaties (cough Middle East cough) you're going to have a hard time doing business with the first world. Which means that if you're a business trying to do this that you have to be completely funded by said country that will violate those treaties because you are giving up your other revenue streams. I don't imagine Rolls-Royce wants to give up their current revenue streams and work with dictators for this high risk endeavor.

buzzkillington 7y ago
Singapore probably. They already have a hugely cancerous, in the traditional sense, chemical industry within a stones throw away from major population zones. Throwing some nuclear into the mix will be a step up in terms of environmental damage.
- Ballu 7y ago
  Best line on Internet I read today. :) BTW, could you provide any ref re Chemical industry in Singapore.
- tim333 7y ago
  The 'hugely cancerous' industry doesn't seem to be cancering it up very hugely given this recent headline: "Singaporeans have world's longest life expectancy at 84.8 years"
  - buzzkillington 7y ago
    Yes, they are smart enough to have the Malays and Indians working with the truly heinous chemicals. Maybe Mainlanders now - haven't been there since the 00s. So much better on your statistics when the people dying do it back home, after you have worked them 8/9ths to the grave.
    - gdy 7y ago
      So the 'environmental damage' you were talking about affects people selectively based on their citizenship?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
wahern 7y ago
That issue crossed by mind, but I think there's a fighting chance it could work out. I had in mind Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, or Kuwait. Those countries already have a long and comfortable relationship with the West and the UK in particular, stemming from colonial times. (At least a good relationship with the corporate and political elite.) Especially with the UK I think that relationship is strong enough to resist the boogeyman of terrorism and the optics of working with those regimes, which don't have particularly poor reputations in the UK or US, anyhow. The "special relationship" between the US and UK means the UK has more license to exploit those ties, even though I'd assume any outcry would be loudest from the US. It would need to be made clear that Saudi Arabia would be kept at arms length, to mitigate (at least superficially) the threat of nuclear escalation between SA and Iran. But from a technical perspective I'd assume any proliferation risk would be minimal to nonexistent given the technology. Plus there's always the option of Rolls-Royce keeping the core know-how in-house, perhaps building most or all of the module in the UK, only fueling it in the host country. With Brexit there will be tremendous pressure for the UK to find and develop such cooperative, bilateral projects. In any event, we all know nuclear is dying (and mostly dead) in the West. So it's either something like the above, or nothing at all.
- roenxi 7y ago
  If a nuclear expert is working in the middle east they will seriously have "get assassinated by Mossad" on their list of concerns. And that isn't hyperbole, it is just reasonably unlikely. Planning a politically fraught project literally sandwiched between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a level of risk that needs very cautious consideration. It wouldn't be at all surprising if a major power just quietly says "No, you can't encourage that sort of expertise in this region". There are a whole bunch of "they wouldn't do that it is illegal" style possibilities that would not happen in the UK that could reasonably eventuate in the Middle East. Including invasions related to oil shipping. Finding an oasis in the desert does not mean one is safe from dust storms.
  - wahern 7y ago
    So I did some digging. Many countries in the Middle East already have plans in the works, often in cooperation with Western companies. But plans don't count for squat. The UAE, however, has already finished a reactor unit--supposedly to be started soon--with 3 more units nearing completion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant Times have changed, particularly with the Saudi-Iran contest and Turkeys hard turn to the right, which have aligned Israel with the Arabs. Plus, as a nuclear power itself Israel should be a good judge of proliferation risk, and with strong HUMINT and SIGINT capabilities able to detect actual and even intended proliferation. As an side, interestingly Taiwan has nuclear reactors. I figured Taiwan would be a nuclear free zone. They're probably too democratic to support Rolls-Royce's project; it seems public pressure has already killed construction of a new plant, there. I initially excluded South Korea for that reason--AFAIU public sentiment has soured on nuclear even though South Korea has the best track record in the world at on-time, on-budget construction. If nuclear is gonna grow any time soon it's gonna have to be at the hands of non-democratic nations.
badrabbit 7y ago
Iran, india,south africa.

luckydata 7y ago

Do you want Seal Team 6 to break into your bedroom in the middle of the night? Because that's exactly how you get a bunch of seals to come and kidnap you at gunpoint.