Comments on: Greenpeace Assesses Jordan’s Energy Future Without Nuclear Option

By: kKn Bown

kKn Bown — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:16:49 +0000

Please, i am very concerned about the nuclear issue. I strongly recommend if you make a petition through Avaaz, or onine, even by a facebook page or link-directed small website, or all three, you will gat a LOT more petitions. Because if the Jordanian population were asked for a refwerendum on this it would be overturned in a day. Please consider what I am saying. It is vital to the health of the country and future generations. Please take the time to do this before aubmitting the petition. 9000 people is a very small number. If it went out online it would be 100 times more if done properly. Bless and thanks for what you are doing.

By: Hussein Saleh Al Ottum

Hussein Saleh Al Ottum — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 16:57:02 +0000

Bahjat,

I see the view of Professor Steven Thomas (Professor of Energy Policy at Greenwich University) regarding nuclear energy, as one of someone who does not see Jordan as having neither the capability nor the technology to build a project such as this.
I agree with your statement “…you can clearly see between the lines; suffice to say, his views are neither mainstream nor universally accepted globally…”
Jordan’s energy needs can be met through a combination of both Solar & Nuclear power. The Jordanian government should allow the private sectors to undertake a sizeable project such as this! As you suggested, the Government of Jordan can have a small stake in it, but the private sectors “enterprise companies” can build and operate it for, let’s say, 50 years until they have recouped all of their investment. After such time it can be returned back to Jordan Nuclear Power Plant (JNPP).
Who knows, maybe they can even sell the electricity to other countries in the region.

By: Bahjat Tabbara

Bahjat Tabbara — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:41:28 +0000

The report is riddled with its own flaws. The work of Steven Thomas (professor of energy policy at Greenwich University) can clearly be seen between the lines: suffice to say, his views are neither mainstream nor universally accepted globally.

The fundamental flaw however is in suggesting that PV, CSP and Wind along with more efficient energy practices can satisfy Jordan’s electricity needs by 2050. It is wishful thinking at best. The problem is, CSP is not even ready for deployment and still costs more per kWh than petroleum-derivatives such as heavy-fuel-oil or diesel.

On the other hand PV/CPV is very ‘day-limited’ and although one could in theory use a day-night mix (PV/CPV during the day) while relying on burning fossil fuels at night (i.e. where thermal efficiency is higher and losses reduced) until CSP is ready for 24/7 deployment. Finally while wind power can in theory reduce the need for fossil fuels (a CPV-Wind-Fossil fuel; the latter being phase-out when CSP is fully ready for commercial deployment) is interesting conceptually: but not likely to work.

Another issue is the nature of the nuclear project itself.

The government is UNWILLING to invest in the nuclear project (or really renewables) because the market itself has been set for Independent Power Producers (IPPs). Thus, while the government may own a small stake, the private-sector would drive the Jordan Nuclear Power Plant(JNPP) and would sell electricity to the main grid providers.

As such, it’s not like we’re discussing ‘government money’ (if anything the nuclear utility has to pay back government bonds).