It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Iran really needs nuclear power

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Iran says its energy exporter role threatened

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Iran will cease to be an energy exporter within two decades if it fails to resolve its energy problems, a senior Iranian official said on Friday.

"It is a reality that Iran's energy consumption is increasing. The first remedy is to use alternative fossil resource exploitation and to increase the efficiency of energy consumption," said Alireza Attar, Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Affairs.

"If we don't find a solution to these issues within 15 to 20 years, we cannot be an energy exporter anymore. Therefore we should be able to exploit our fossil energy resources to create financial resources," he said.

Attar was addressing a panel at the two-day World Economic Forum in Istanbul.

Scotsman




Iran's crude oil refining capacity is predicted to reach 3.2 million barrels per day (b/d) from its current 1.7 million barrels by 2012, an Iranian official said here Tuesday.

Deputy Oil Minister and Managing Director of the National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company (NIORDC) Mohammad-Reza Nematzadeh's said Iran needs USD 18 billion in investment if it is to make good on its prediction that it would be able to produce 3.2 million barrels of gasoline by 2012. With such investment, "it will then be able to produce 140 million liters of gasoline per day," he added.

He said that production of gasoline was among the serious challenges to the Iranian Oil Ministry, noting that domestic "gasoline consumption has been higher than production since the victory of the Islamic Revolution (in 1979)."
The official said that Iran has been importing gasoline over the past 20 years and that "gasoline consumption in Iran has risen considerably in the past six to seven years."


His statement sounds very plausible, especially in view of Iran's heavily subsidized domestic fuel consumption. The more they are able to sell to Europe and other customers, the higher the financial income will be.


Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appealed to the world yesterday to take seriously the threats posed by Iran's nuclear program and declarations by Iranian leaders that Israel must be wiped off the map.

Speaking to a convention of the Orthodox Union, an American Jewish group, Olmert said the physical threat posed by Iranian nuclear weapons was no less dangerous than what he called the "moral aspect," calls by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for Israel's destruction, which he compared to Nazi Germany.

"We heard the voices in the past of leaders of nations that were talking about the liquidation of the Jewish people," Olmert said. "We can't afford ... to listen and not to react."

"We can't allow anyone in any place in the world to continue their routine without responding," Olmert said.

Haaretz


Does Olmert think we're all retarded; that we believe the same fear mongering stories again? Of course Iran another strong military power could harm Israeli interest, but not on a global scale. I've said it before, Iran is not looking for total self-destruction, and thus won't be eager to use a nuclear weapon - should they possess or produce it.



[edit on 24-11-2006 by Mdv2]




posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
I believe that several countries have offered them assistance in achieving peaceful nuclear power. All they have to do to receive that power is to give up their quest to attain weaponized nuclear material.

So if this is simply about having a peaceful nuclear program, what is the hold up? Perhaps it’s because that is not their intended ultimate goal…
What was the intended purpose of the Plutonium that was found by the weapon inspectors last week?

You do realize that there is a difference in weaponized nuclear material and the stuff that is used for peaceful purposes, don’t you?



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I believe that several countries have offered them assistance in achieving peaceful nuclear power. All they have to do to receive that power is to give up their quest to attain weaponized nuclear material.


I agree and must admit that I don't entirely trust Iran's intentions, but on the other side, was Israel forced to accept UN assistance when developing a nuclear arsenal, is Saudi-Arabia currently forced to accept UN assistance while developing a nuclear arsenal, is South Korea forced, etc.? I can imagine that they do not want to be government by some cowboys in Washington.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
I am far from an expert on this topic, so correct me here if I am incorrect, but:

1) I believe that Israel has never openly admitted to having nuclear weapons.

2) Israel and Saudi are dependant on the US for military gear and replacement parts for that gear. If they ever used a WMD in an offensive way we would cut off the support and their weapon systems would degrade rapidly.

3) N Korea developed an arsenal against everyone’s wishes, personally I tend to think that China could stop them in a heartbeat, but I have a sneaking suspicion that China is using NK to try and goad the US into an armed confrontation in the Korean peninsula as an excuse to hit Taiwan, while not appearing to be the aggressor. (The Us is attacking our ally, so we are attacking theirs in retaliation)

4) Iran and NK have both shown that they are unwilling to work with the UN for resolutions on other topics, and nether have an issue with using such weapons in an aggressive manner.


Edn

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Where do people seam to some up with this idea that Iran want nuclear power to make and use nuclear weapons? they have never said such. Iran was the one to open up dialog with the US after 20 odd years, Iran is the one who want to resolve the current problem but the US will have nothing less that a completely nuclear free Iran.
The simple fact is you can not go around dictating what a country can and cannot do why do you think the US government is hated so much by most of the world.

As for your second point defcon5 don't just think the US would drop relations with Israel if they attacked Iran with nuclear weapons if they could find a way to make it appear necessary they would after all Iran is an enemy of the US and while Israel dislike them the US will always have Israels back.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I have said this many times before, Iran does not want nuclear for power- and I can prove it!!!

For a nuclear reactor to put its power into the Iran power grid, there must be infrastructure in place to take the power from the plant to the grid.

If you look at Iran's nuclear power plant-the one we know about above ground- it would need power wires to take the power.

I challenge all the Muslim apologists and Iranian supporters to show me/all of us, the necessary means to transmit any power created from their nuclear reactor.

Of course this cannot be done, since there is none.

Even some of our most jaded Muslim apologists have started to change their tune from Iran should be able to create power with nuclear plants to Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons-even they know this is strictly about Iran making nuclear weapons so they can use them.

How many times do we need the horse’s arse of a pres from Iran to say clearly to the world that they will wipe Israel off the map, supporters will be burned in holocaust fires (not exact quote, but the basic idea)



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Why Iran really needs nuclear power?

Very simple . . . so another country like the US doesn't do to their nation what it did to Iraq, in the name of democracy, freedom of religion and the well being of all.

Even I will be building nuclear weapon in my nation if I was called an axis of evil and terrorist nation.


And let no forget that Israel also have nuclear weapons and they also hate Iran.
and every arab country in the region.


I bet they have no problem with India and Pakistan.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon

I challenge all the Muslim apologists and Iranian supporters to show me/all of us, the necessary means to transmit any power created from their nuclear reactor.



a very good point monsoon. i hope your post isnt ignored, as i too would like an answer to this question. any electrical engineers out there who can look at the satellite pics and make an educated response to this?


Edn

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
For a nuclear reactor to put its power into the Iran power grid, there must be infrastructure in place to take the power from the plant to the grid.

If you look at Iran's nuclear power plant-the one we know about above ground- it would need power wires to take the power.

I challenge all the Muslim apologists and Iranian supporters to show me/all of us, the necessary means to transmit any power created from their nuclear reactor.

And I challenge you to show that it doesn't have the necessary means to transport power because I've been looking at nuclear plants for that last ten minutes and would you believe I couldn't find a single power line, gee that must mean that all nuclear plants are fakes.

Lets take a look at some other means of power. Hydro plants no power lines, wind plants no power lines, wave plants no power lines.

hmm that must mean all these power plants are fake. Just because you cant see you traditional power lines doesn't mean there not there.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
It is true, sometimes power lines are run underground, but lets see any proof that this is what Iran is/has done.

Until anyone can show me proof of power lines underground going from Iran's nuclear plant to it's power grid, I will continue my belief/reality that they do not exist!!!


I would think Iran would want that information open to the public and the world in general to support their lie, err, claim, that they want a nuke plant for peacefull
purposes.

Even our most jaded Muslim/Iranian apologists have changed their tune from they should have it for power to Iran should have nuclear weapons, come on-the entire world knows that is the ONLY reason Iran wants a nuclear reactor!


[edit on 11/24/2006 by mrmonsoon]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edn
As for your second point defcon5 don't just think the US would drop relations with Israel if they attacked Iran with nuclear weapons if they could find a way to make it appear necessary they would after all Iran is an enemy of the US and while Israel dislike them the US will always have Israels back.


I believe that if Israel ever did something like this it would drastically change the way the US treats them, and would bring about sanctions and other reprisals. I do not for one second believe that the US would stand behind Israel if the rest of the world was condemning them for an unprovoked act of aggression of this magnitude. The US would take too much heat and would at the least have to stay out of what the UN and the rest of the world would do over the incident.

Up until now some of their acts have been questionable, but since it’s arguable as to whether or not they have been acts of defense the US has not condemned them. If they did something on the scale of using a nuclear response though, that is an entirely different matter.

Now that the issue of Israel has been brought up, let’s not derail the subject as that is where this is going to head in a big hurry (but isreal did this and that... Yeah but the arab nations did this or that first). I don’t want to see lists or examples of things that Israel has done up to this point, as like I said it can be argued whether or not they were measured retaliations to acts of aggression. Israel is not the topic of this thread.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I believe that Israel has never openly admitted to having nuclear weapons.

You are right, but it's more or less generally known that Israel does possess nuclear weapons.


Originally posted by defcon5
2) Israel and Saudi are dependant on the US for military gear and replacement parts for that gear. If they ever used a WMD in an offensive way we would cut off the support and their weapon systems would degrade rapidly.


Not really. Saudi-Arabia funded the development of Pakistani nuclear weapons and now they are using their technology, Israel bought/developed the technology in cooperation with France if I remember correctly.


Originally posted by defcon5
N Korea developed an arsenal against everyone’s wishes, personally I tend to think that China could stop them in a heartbeat


Actually, I said South-Korea. Not North-Korea.


The Bush administration has decided against moving to report South Korea to the U.N. Security Council today for conducting secret nuclear experiments four years ago, U.S. officials said.

The decision, made during a phone call between Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his designated successor, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, curtailed a proposal by some in the administration who wanted to confront the Seoul government today when the International Atomic Energy Agency opens its meeting in Vienna. Those officials had argued that reporting South Korea to the Security Council would encourage allies to take the same path later with Iran, which the administration alleges is conducting a nuclear weapons program.

But Seoul had conducted a two-month diplomatic offensive, sending high-level officials to Washington and other capitals to plead its case. "It would be using South Korea as a scapegoat, and that is not acceptable," a South Korean government official said in an interview, on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive diplomacy involved.

After talking with South Korean officials during a visit to Chile last week, Powell was convinced it would be best for the United States to accept Seoul's explanations, officials close to the secretary said.

"Obviously, this will impact our goals on Iran but there is an acknowledgment now by our allies that South Korea's work wasn't government-authorized and is on a whole different scale than Iran's," a senior U.S. official involved in the negotiations said.

Washington Post



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
I challenge all the Muslim apologists and Iranian supporters to show me/all of us, the necessary means to transmit any power created from their nuclear reactor why there's not such a network to transmit the power yet.




Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Of course this cannot be done, since there is none.


Firstly, the Bushehr powerplant is not in service yet and is expected to be finished in 2007, which could have explained your assertion.

However, I'd do some proper research if I were you rather than drawing flawed conclusions like you do:



Source
Source




Sep. 25, 2006 13:25

"Iran will complete the establishment of its nuclear power station at Bushehr in half a year," chief of Iran's Atomic Organization, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, declared on Monday.

JPost



However, I would not be surprised if they are actually going to develop a nuclear weapon. Hopefully they will be able to force Israel -by diplomatic means - to stop terrorizing the Palestinian territories. Nuclear weapons is the greatest tool to strengthen your political position, which would in Iran's case not be beneficial for the US and Israel. That is, however, not a legitimate reason to use military intervention. Israel was allowed to illegally develop nuclear weapons, so is Iran. Don't come with your loose statement that they will nuke Israel off the map, as they are not looking for total self-destruction. I'd recommend to research their long-term goals.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
Not really. Saudi-Arabia funded the development of Pakistani nuclear weapons and now they are using their technology, Israel bought/developed the technology in cooperation with France if I remember correctly.


I meant conventional weapons, not nuclear. For instance Saudi and Israel, I believe both use F-16’s, we can withhold the parts and repair contractors on those to help force their hands on certain issues.


Originally posted by Mdv2
Actually, I said South-Korea. Not North-Korea.


Sorry I guess I misread it.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Let me ask this question. What country, that is a nuclear power has developed that power for peaceful reasons? Has nuclear technology been created without the intention of making nuclear weapons? And if so, are their nuclear sites still active? I dunno, it seems like a fair question to me.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   
There's a chance he's telling the truth,

but if he was fully supportive of peace, and a non confrontational world.. he wouldnt be spouting as much bs rhetroic as the states are..

He would of unconditionally opened it for un to see from the begining...

If he was for peaceful technology, and the dream of trade etc etc..
he'd be calling for peace in israel, he'd be helping the US in Iraq, he'd be trying to better humanity.

obviously, he's more concerned with nuclear material, than regional peace.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Styki
Let me ask this question. What country, that is a nuclear power has developed that power for peaceful reasons?

Yes. Mine.
Canada.


Has nuclear technology been created without the intention of making nuclear weapons?

We have NO nuclear weapons.
We hardly even field nuclear powered weapons (subs, ships, etc).


And if so, are their nuclear sites still active?

Yes.
Infact, we sell them.
www.candu.org...


I dunno, it seems like a fair question to me.

Yup, fair question. People seem to have this funny idea that having nuclear power is only a step towards nuclear weapons.

Infact, the comments made in the original post are very logical. We, as a global sociaty, need to be investing our current fossil fuel riches into the energy sources of tomorrow. Oil WILL eventually become a non-viable base for power needs. It's dirty, it's expensive, it's controlled by a cartel, and it might just run out.

Iran seems to have the right idea here. Take what we have now and invest it in our future. It's going to be a hella lot harder to find/build new sources of power after the lights go out.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser

Originally posted by Styki
Let me ask this question. What country, that is a nuclear power has developed that power for peaceful reasons?

Yes. Mine.
Canada.


Actually i believe that you guys helped the US develop the Bomb for WW2.


So much for peaceful development.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   
As far as I know, no... there was no direct Canadian involvment in the development of the A-bomb.
If you can find some information otherwise, please post it. I'd be interested in reading it.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Canada has been an important contributor of both expertise and raw materials to the American program in the past, and assisted in the Manhattan Project.


en.wikipedia.org...

It's nice of them to just lay on the side lines. Peaceful over there.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join