Jordon complete geological studies for nuclear reactors.

[Statistical]

Geological and site studies in southern Jordan have shown the proposed locations to be suitable to house the country's first nuclear reactor.

The studies, carried out by Tractebel Engineering of Belgium, proved that a "number of locations" in southern Jordan are suitable for a nuclear reactor, Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) chairman Khaled Toukan told a workshop on nuclear plant financing. The meeting was attended by the country's prime minister, Samir Rifai, and reported by state news agency PETRA. The first studies would be followed by studies assessing environmental and safety impacts, Toukan said.

...

According to JAEC's web site the location to be the focus of the environmental impact studies is about 20 kilometres from Aqaba, several kilometres inland and around 450 metres above sea level.

...

Jordan is set to get its first research reactor by 2014 under a contract signed by JAEC and a consortium headed by the Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (Kaeri) with Daewoo in December 2009. The country plans to start building a nuclear power plant by 2013, and has been evaluating the design offerings of various international reactor vendors. Earlier this year, JAEC granted Areva exclusive mining rights for uranium in central Jordan.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Jordan_proposed_nuclear_sites_suitable-2704108.html

Yet another country (UAE site selected last week) which didn't get the memo that "nuclear energy is dead". Maybe our local nuclear denialists can persued them to abandon safe, reliable, emission free nuclear power in favor of more fossil fuels.

Pretty smart of them going with a low powered research reactor first.

[Arctic Dave]

1. We will have to put sanctions on them immediately, just like Iran.

[Statistical]

2. Well I don't think Jordon is building enrichment facilities.

Likely a fuel-exchange deal.
Jordon would buy fuel (already enriched and fabricated) from a country like France, fission it and give it back to France in exchange for more fuel. The IAEA would monitor the deal round trip progress of each fuel assembly. Jordon wouldn't build any enrichment, fabrication, or reprocessing centers. It would simply buy uranium for a "round trip" price including disposal.

Iran could do that also but they want to enrich uranium. You can't make bombs if another country is providing the fuel. If Iran was really just interested in nuclear energy they would end their enrichment program, and participate in a fuel exchange.

[Arctic Dave]

3. "Iran was really just interested in nuclear energy they would end their enrichment program"

Or maybe they are smart enough to enrich it themselves and not be beholden to foreign powers who are more then happy to invade and occupy countries.

[Statistical]

4. It still makes little sense. Iran is still beholden unless the goal is weapons.

Economics:
Economically running an enrichment plant for so few reactors would be like every homeowner refining their own gasoline so they don't need to be beholden to refineries. When you consider the fact that other countries have 50+ years experience doing enrichment it is unlikely Iran enrichment centers can ever cover their cost of capital. So it is going to be vastly more expensive for Iran to enrich and fabricate their own fuel.

Iran Supply:
The even sillier aspect is Iran has no meaningful uranium reserves. There entire weapons program is based on 500 tons of yellowcake purchased from South Africa decades ago. That would produce about 80 tons of LEU reactor fuel. That wouldn't even power a single 1 GW reactor for more than 5 years. Iran natural uranium reserves are negigible and of such low yield that it is unlikely they would ever even break even in terms of energy for exploration & extraction vs. energy produced (EROEI).

98% of worlds supply of Uranium are found in these countries:
Canada
Australia
Kazakhstan
Russia
Niger
Namibia
Uzbekistan
USA
Ukraine
China
South Africa

Iran has close ties with Russia (and former Soviet states) so it is unlikely Iran supply of uranium will ever be cut off unilaterally and that applies equally to raw uranium or enriched uranium. So if they really do intend to build nuclear energy they will need to purchase uranium from one of the above countries anyways. Why would purchasing enriched uranium vs purchasing raw uranium and enriching make them more "beholden"?

International Supply:
The IAEA and NPT work hard to ensure that countries that comply with guidelines are not cutoff from fuel. If Iran has access to international uranium then it has access to international fuel (enriched & fabricated uranium). I can't think of a single instance where a compliant country faced nuclear fuel restrictions.

Russia I believe is planning to setup a nuclear fuel stockpile to be placed in hands of IAEA as a safeguard to ensure no NPT compliant nation is ever cut off from uranium supply however the move is really sumbolic as no NPT compliant nation ever has been cutoff from uranium supply.

The only reason for Iran to insist on having its own enrichment despite the lack of economic security it provides and the consequences is to build nuclear weapons. Period.

On edit:
Kinda funny this is in TIME magazine today.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1984657,00.html

[kristopher]

5. That doesn't track

The problem with that argument is well known and accepted - energy security concerns are a function of renegade regimes. They WANT to go renegade in response to some political or economic conflict and they DON'T WANT to have to wear a leash tethered to their energy supply.

[Statistical]

6. That doesn't track.

IRAN HAS NEGLIGIBLE URANIUM.

A reactor with no uranium produces NO electricity.
Thus if the goal is energy security enriching your own uranium does not good UNLESS YOU HAVE 50 YEAR STOCKPILE OF URANIUM.
Yellow cake is subject to the same restrictions (leash) that enriched urnaium does.

If enriched uranium fuel hinders Iran ambitions then a requirement for foreign uranium oxide is equally hindering.

Powering a Single 1 GW reactor requires about 100 tons of uranium oxide (yellowcake).
On the other hand a bomb requires only about 8 tons of uranium oxide uranium to produce 64kg of 90% enriched HEU, enough for a Hiroshima sized bomb.

Simply put Iran doesn't have sufficient domestic uranium to run an energy program. Any future nuclear power in Iran will require foreign uranium (either yellow cake or already enriched fuel).
Their enrichment program has resulted in sanctions that prohibit international trade of uranium (yellowcake or enriched). Thus it is illogical to think this enrichment is being done for "energy security".

Iran is enriching uranium to build weapons. Pure and simple. Iran claims otherwise don't fool anyone informed.

There is no more security in:
Foreign uranium -> Iran Enrich -> Nuclear Reactor
than
Foreign fuel -> Nuclear Reactor -> Foreign entity takes ownership of spent fuel

They are now in talks to trade enrichment for a fuel-swap deal (aka UAE and Jordon) however who knows what Iran will do.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iizxcN_omcotwb7WqnNtw6VH0rvQ

Iran can have nuclear energy or a nuclear bomb. It is impossible for the world community to stop them however their limited uranium resources means they can never have both.

[kristopher]

7. Yes it does.

If you have the technology for processing uranium, then you have the technology for reprocessing.

You continue to make the same mistake of arrogance - the claim that we can foolproof against failure of this system by making it more complex. The way to make nuclear power the safest on all fronts is to simplify - and the only way to simplify is to phase it all out and lock it down.

[Statistical]

8. Which has NOTHING to do with economic/energy security.

Where will Iran get the uranium from?

Do you even read the threads before you jump in with a bunch of anti-nuclear BS.

As far as "phase it out" and "lock it down" I don't know if you noticed but:
a) that had nothing to do with what you responded to. The topic was the energy security (or lack thereof) provided by Iran attempt to enrich uranium
b) there is no world government which has the authority of power to "lock it down"
b) even if US destroyed every nuclear plant, enrichment facilities, and all designs tomorrow there are a significant number of countries (China, Japan, Korea, France, Russia) who will continue to use the technology and aid other countries.

My point was Iran is enriching uranium to BUILD A BOMB!

If they were worried about energy security as the post I responded to indicated they wouldn't be violating the NPT because an enrichment facilities without uranium doesn't provide energy security.
Iran doesn't have sufficient uranium reserves to run a nuclear energy program without foreign sources of uranium thus they can never have energy security with nuclear power acting unilaterally.

They can however build a bomb unilaterally.
Iran is attempting to build a bomb not use fission for peaceful purposes.

It would be nice if you could at least keep your anti-nuclear rantings on topic.

[NNadir]

9. I see you managed to get a rise out of an anti-Arab racist with this one.

Good work.

:)

We've had, over the years, lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of racist "Moslems with uranium!!!!!!!" scare stories here.

Note that the same cretins couldn't give a rat's ass about doing something about oil terrorism, even though every single person killed in the World Trade Center died because of oil politics and dangerous oil diversion.

Come to think of it, every single person who died in Oklahoma City died from dangerous oil products (in this case diesel fuel) diverted for purposes of terrorism.

I mean when was the last time you heard an empty headed anti-nuke come to this site and yell and scream (White Libertarians TRYING TO BUY DIESEL FUEL! BAN PETROLEUM!!!)

Over the years I heard so many anti-muslim racists carry on here on this subject, I wish I'd made a collection.

By the way, I'm not a Muslim myself - I'm an atheist - but I don't find Muslims to be particularly worse than any other group. I mean do we characterize all Irish Catholic nuclear engineers as evil because of the IRA terrorism in Belfast, or do we characterize all British Protestant nuclear engineers as terrorists on the same criteria?

[Arctic Dave]

10. Well said. Why can't Iran have a nuclear program for the purpose of

energy AND education.