Nuclear vs. Gas Power in Saudi Arabia

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a relatively long-standing, albeit limited interest in nuclear energy. It has participated in the Nuclear Energy Planning project with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since 1978, although with few practical steps to acquire nuclear power capabilities (Ahmad and Ramana 682). However, 2006 signified the beginning of the new approach, as the Gulf Cooperation Council announce that the Persian Gulf states intended to “start a joint nuclear energy development program” (Ahmad and Ramana 683). In 2010, Saudi Arabia confirmed its commitment to the program by founding King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KA-CARE) (Ahmad and Ramana 683). These practical steps toward acquiring nuclear energy necessitate the selection of particular technological solutions that suit the kingdom’s needs in energy generation, thermal heating, and water desalination. Two solutions selected for implementations are Westinghouse ALWR-AP1000 and SMART Reactor.

The background of Westinghouse ALWR-AP1000 is American, as this light-water nuclear reactor was designed in the USA. Essentially, it is an improved version of the older AP600 reactor developed in 1999 (Cummins et al. 1). The main features of AP1000 are simplicity, reliability, and low projected costs of energy due to using the economics of scale (Cummins et al. 1). Thus, AP1000 is a simple and reliable but large-scale and, therefore, costly solution.

The background of SMART Reactor is Korean, as this modular light-water nuclear reactor was developed by Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. The work on the project started in 1997, and it received certification and approval by 2012 (Kane and Pomper 72). Due to being smaller, SMART Reactor is both cheaper and more comfortable to operate (Kane and Pomper 73). In essence, it is a relatively inexpensive solution to acquire and run, but its smaller scale would make the produced energy costlier.

Westinghouse AP1000 and SMART Reactor differ in their specifications considerably. The former is specifically designed to reduce the costs of energy by applying the economics of scale, while the latter fills the niche for small and medium-scale power plants. AP1000 has a thermal capacity of 3,400 MWth and an output of 1.200 MWe with a design life of 60 years (“Status Report 81” 29). SMART Reactor is approximately ten times smaller, with a thermal capacity of 330 MWth and an output of 100 MWe, and has the same design life of 60 years (“Status Report 77” 33). However, unlike AP1000, the design of the SMART Reactor also supports such uses as district heating and water desalination, with the latter being especially relevant for Saudi Arabia (“Status Report 77” 33). Thus, technical specifications make AP1000 only suitable for large-scale generation of cheap energy, and SMART Reactor, while smaller and offering more expensive energy, demonstrates greater flexibility in exploitation.

However, technical features are not the only notable factor influencing the adoption of nuclear energy in Saudi Arabia, as economic and political considerations also play a major role. On the one hand, there is evident political support for the diversification of the Saudi power supply. It manifests in the creation of KA-CARE and the ambitious plans to generate up to 18 GWh of electricity using nuclear power by 2032 (Ahmad and Ramana 683). On the other hand, however, nuclear energy would still be more costly than the one generated by burning natural gas, even if its domestic price in Saudi Arabia would rise substantially (Ahmad and Ramana 672). Thus, the overall future of nuclear energy in Saudi Arabia still seems uncertain. The primary question is whether political concerns of sustainability combined with the potential for water desalination and diversification would outweigh the economic downsides of nuclear energy.

Works Cited

Ahmad, Ali, and M.V. Ramana. “Too costly to matter: Economics of nuclear power for Saudi Arabia.” Energy, vol. 69, 2014, pp. 682-694.

Cummins W.E., et al. “Westinghouse AP1000 Advanced Passive Plant.” Proceedings of ICAPP ’03, Cordoba, Spain, May 4-7, 2003, International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants, 2003.

Kane, Chen, and Miles A. Pomper. “Reactor Race: South Korea’s Nuclear Export Successes and Challenges.” On Korea 2014: Academic Papers, vol. 7, edited by Nicholas Hamisevicz, Korea Economic Institute of America, 2014, pp. 61-78.

“Status report 77 – System-Integrated Modular Advanced Reactor (SMART).” International Atomic Energy Agency, Web.

“Status report 81 – Advanced Passive PWR (AP 1000).”International Atomic Energy Agency, Web.

Click Here To Order Now!