IRAN: No Nukes

I think it's worth pointing out that this NIE has been in the works for many months, and was reportedly prevented from being published by the Bushies.

See Harper's Scott Horton: harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001837

Well i guess that this means that there will be a vote at the UNSC to drop the sanctions against Iran as it obviously poses no threat what-so-ever.

This would obviously be followed by Sanctions against Israel for actually HAVING WMD's !

(Then i woke up and realised that i was in the real world where facts are not important when you are in th process of demonising a country)

"They're always wrong" err no, not in this case. The same report goes on to say "Iran would be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb in the 2010-2015 time frame.", some cynical people might say that the only reason for operating a uranium based reactor is to make bombs period (check this). That this lie (uranium equals cheap power) was perpetrated on an unsuspecting public for so long is the reason that this fact cannot now be made absolutely clear. Has it not occurred to anyone that a country that is so rich in hydrocarbons would choose to do this now is a bit wiffy. Of course Iran wants nukes if you were in the same situation you would too. We ourselves cannot take any sort of moral high ground as we haven't had the most stellar reputation in this respect (as we fail to meet our obligations to the NNPT) disarmament anyone?

Cheney couldn't give a toss about this report or anything else that happens to get in his way. You seem to be under the illusion that he is in some way concerned about anything other than completing his masters wishes (and yes I left that one hanging). How about this little dusy, the 1981 Algiers Accords, backed by Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, prohibit a military attack on Iran, think he cares? come on get with the programme.

grr.

In response to "bit wiffy" and "of course Iran wants nukes".....

1957 The United States and Iran sign a civil nuclear co-operation agreement as part of the US Atoms for Peace program.

The rest of the history can be found here.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/work/middle_east/iranchronology.php

Your statement should read "Of course every country wants nuclear power"...

"Has it not occurred to anyone that a country that is so rich in hydrocarbons would choose to do this now is a bit wiffy"
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600361.html
www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/08/opinion/edstern.php
John Hopkins University academic, publishing a peer-reviewed paper, concludes that nuclear power may be needed by Iran.

"Has it not occurred to anyone that a country that is so rich in hydrocarbons would choose to do this now is a bit wiffy."

That has probably occurred to everyone, yes.

It may have taken some of us up to ten seconds to realize that, in a world threatened by global warming as a result of burning those same hydrocarbons, we should be pleased when someone does something about it. (Moreover, something that actually works, in contrast to our insane lust for windmills in this country). If France can generate 90% of its power from nuclear energy, why on earth shouldn't Iran do the same?

Iran is being responsible with this policy - in direct contrast to the USA, which (unlike all other industrial nations) does not heavily tax the use of petroleum products, and thus strongly encourages their excessive use and waste.

The price of gasoline in the USA is currently $3.06 per gallon at the pumps, about 42 cents (14 percent) of which is tax (according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax). The corresponding price in England is about 103p per litre, about 70 percent of which is tax. So we pay five times as much tax!

The UK price is equivalent to about $8 per gallon. Try making Americans pay that, and you'll quickly see the Second American Revolution.

Looks like I've rattled a few cages then eh? I was surprised when my post got put up, most of the time my rants are deleted by the mods! So permit me to address some of the issues.

(1) "Of course every country wants nuclear power"
Probably every executive wants to be able to rattle a sabre this big, but according to GreenPeace when you factor in Referenda and Nuclear Power Plants (i.e. the public) this becomes less clear.

(2) "...concludes that nuclear power may be needed by Iran."
"According to Oil and Gas Journal, Iran has an estimated 974 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in proven natural gas reserves. Iran holds the world's second largest reserves after Russia.". That is a hell of a lot of gas. Also they have coal and perhaps even more astonishing seemingly endless amounts of geothermal energy.

(3) "If France can generate 90% of its power from nuclear energy, why on earth shouldn't Iran do the same?"
Because even if additional energy were required there are alternatives like thorium (as I suggested in my first post). The reason why the current (bomb making) reactors are such a bad idea is that they cost the earth to decommission. True price of UK's nuclear legacy £160bn. Factor in the decommissioning and uranium reactors produce the most expensive energy there is (less well covered in the press). Sort of like mortgaging your kids future.

So when you have natural gas reserves like this:

which according to fuelingthefuture.org "When natural gas is burned, it produces virtually no emissions of sulfur dioxide or particulate matter and far lower levels of "greenhouse" gases and nitrogen oxides than such competing sources of energy as oil and coal. In addition, unlike the oil, coal and nuclear processes, the natural gas process produces virtually no solid waste and has much less impact on water quality."

bit wiffy.

ttfn

78% in France, isn't it?  Given that their fuel comes from ex-colonial parts it keeps them out of having to set up a new empire to keep the oil flowing.  Not bad for cheese-eating surrender monkeys, eh, George?

The problem with nuclear is that it isn't endlessly renewable, and, particularly if everyone dashes for it, there's less uranium out there than you think (why do you think Saddam was smeared as 'interested' in Niger?) although still a lot.  None of it's in the UK, though, but fortunately our old friends the Canadians and Australians have quite a lot of the stuff.  What we do have is a large coastline, of course, and it would be pretty foolish not to exploit it.  You could do a lot for the total cost (including clean up) of a new nuclear power station.

Given that they'd have to rely on imports for the power, the Iranian nuclear position is a bit odd unless their sums suggest that flogging as much oil as possible while the price is high will more than pay for the nuclear stations to take up the domestic power demand.  I don't have their spreadsheets on me, unfortunately, but it's possible.  Someone still has to sell them the uranium, though, but there's enough in central Asia to go round, and obviously the Russians or Kazakhs or someone will presumably be happy to supply some for a quid pro quo of some sort.

Misinformation...

Over the years this is what I have read, heard.

Scotland has enough renewable energy for the whole of the UK and has an excess to export to Europe...Some say that is not true?.

For any given amount of oil you get one part petrol two parts diesel...Some say that is not true?.

Tom Scotland does have some uranium that could be mined but  very limited amounts.

What is the truth? it is what the big oil companies , big corporations and crooked politicians and the paid for corrupt academics and scientists and media say is the truth.

Last night I heard Kirsty Wark (friend of many New Labour MPs, goes on holidays with them) on Newsnight say that it`s all a matter of incompetence with New Labour. No mention of corruption or planning application etc etc. So the truth is it`s all about incompetence according to Newsnights Kirsty Wark and thats all she could say about what has happened so that is what she wants us all to believe. Problem is many will.

"Gates calls Iran threat to region"...

"the real story is fraud"

http://tinyurl.com/343tc2

amk , 4th dec , thanks for those links on the Iranian petro-industry etc.

frog

Wed, 26 Dec 2007

"Pakistan gambit, new US strategy"

"US will expand its military presence in Pakistan in the New Year, under a new agreement negotiated last month, Pentagon sources say"...

http://tinyurl.com/2lcvo3

Wed, 26 Dec 2007

"Russia to equip Iran with S-300"

"A senior Iranian official says Russia will deliver the sophisticated S-300 air missile defense system to Iran, despite US opposition"...

http://tinyurl.com/2thv95

Wed, 26 Dec 2007

"Iran's tactical vehicle in mass production"

"The Iranian Defense Ministry has begun the mass production of the Safir tactical vehicle which can carry various missile launchers"...

http://tinyurl.com/3yknrj