|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7645119 - 11/16/07 05:31 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'll continue to assess their intentions by their statements wherein they continuously assert a right to nuclear weapons. I disbelieve their avowals that they need nuclear power for electricity, given that they are sitting on a huge pile of oil and it is cheaper. Thankfully, people like you are nowhere near positions of responsibility.
--------------------
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7645256 - 11/16/07 06:25 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Humorously, some people like you do hold positions of authority, and logically, are fucking up royally, proving themselves to be a real bunch of morons... just like the type who would respond to their own call for morons and idiots with a chirping that sets themselves up for a lovely pun on the word "birdbrain." That gave me real reason for a laugh, so thanks, and I'm sure there's more to come.
The argument that oil production is cheaper is a proven fallacy, in this very thread even. If you were more competent I wouldn't have to point this out. Iran also imports gas for economic reasons.
Quote:
First, gas is vitally needed for reinjection into existing oil reservoirs [repressurizing]. This is indispensable for maintaining oil output levels, as well as for increasing overall, long-term recovery of oil. Second, natural gas is needed for growing domestic use, such as in cooking fuel and domestic heating (Iranians typically use kerosene for both), where it can free up oil for more profitable export. New uses such as powering bus and taxi fleets in Iran's smoggy urban areas are also essential for development. Third, natural gas exports - via pipelines to Turkey or in liquefied form to the sub-continent - set an attractive minimum value for any available natural gas. With adequate nuclear power generation, Iran can profit more from selling its gas than using it to generate power. Fourth, the economics of gas production in Iran are almost backwards, certainly counter-intuitive. Much of Iran's gas is "rich" - it contains byproducts, such as liquid-petroleum gas [LPG, better known as propane], which are more valuable than the natural gas from which they are derived. Iran can profit by selling these derivatives, but not if it burns the natural gas to generate power. Furthermore, Iran adheres to OPEC production quotas, which combine oil and natural gas production. Therefore Iran cannot simply increase natural gas for export to make up for what it burns at home.
Quote:
Iran is the second-largest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC] and has the world's second-largest natural gas reserves. But its energy needs are rising faster than its ability to meet them. Driven by a young population and high oil revenues, Iran's power consumption is growing by around 7% annually, and its capacity must nearly triple over the next 15 years to meet projected demand. Where will the electricity come from? Not from the oil sector. It is retarded by US sanctions, as well as inefficiency, corruption and Iran's institutionalized distrust of Western investors. Since 1995, when the sector was opened to a handful of foreign companies, Iran has added 600,000 barrels per day to its crude production, enough to offset depletion in aging fields, but not enough to boost output, which has stagnated at around 3.7 million barrels per day since the late 1990s. Almost 40% of Iran's crude oil is consumed locally. If this figure were to rise, oil revenues would fall, spelling the end of the strong economic growth the country has enjoyed since 1999. Plugging the gap with natural gas is not possible - yet. Iran's gigantic gas reserves are only just being tapped, so Iran remains a net importer.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7645283 - 11/16/07 06:37 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Iran imports gas because they have built no refineries. Further, the cost of electric production for Iran is MUCH lower from oil than from nuclear. You are a willing dupe. I have asked this before and I will ask it again, "Why are you such an apologist for these totalitarian thugs?"
--------------------
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7662900 - 11/21/07 12:59 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Iran had been importing gas because it was cheaper than investing in new refineries, altho no doubt that's all changed sine the Iraq war. Your notion that it would be cheaper for Iran to stick with oil rather than have oil & nuclear energy is so absurd that I don't know if you should be laughed at or pitied. That concept that gas is cheaper is even more of a fool's delusion because, obviously (or at least it should be), along with not burning that gas for electricity comes selling it for profit. Any stat that says it's cheaper for Iran to use gas is not taking into account the massive profit they receive from selling it. These stats are also based on the concept that the $5 billion Iran has spent for the Bushehr reactor, which has a capacity of 1000 megawatts, could be saved, while conveniently/grossly idiotically ignoring the detail that it is costing Iran $8-10 billion for a new refinery from India, and is investing $14 billion overall between 2005-2010 in their refinery capacity.
The cost of uranium has also increased by over 800% since 2001, and is expected to continue soaring. Iran has enough uranium reserves that it would be a waste to not have a domestic uranium facility.
Your model that an oil rich country doesn't need nuclear energy of course has no merit, and I'm sure you know this. Yet even so, I'll point out that Russia, who has the largest natural gas reserves in the world, 2nd largest coal reserves, and plenty of oil, is doubling it's national dependancy on nuclear energy for electricity by 2030, which should bring it to 32%, and is building an additional 30 reactors to the 30 it already has. Nuclear cost efficiency is growing, and the cleanliness it provides is something Iran's polluted environment can use drastically.
When I said earlier in this thread you should shut up and stop dragging down the IQ of this forum with your BS some people obviously thought I meant it as just a taunt and an attack, but I was 100% serious. Some of your concepts can be so unbelievably stupid that to listen to them is to poison one's own intellect, and I have no doubts that on this forum, where people chew down on baseline news to produce all-encompassing opinions, some have been foolish enough to take your words as having value.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7663390 - 11/21/07 02:57 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
> These stats are also based on the concept that the $5 billion Iran has spent for the Bushehr reactor
While you are being high and mighty, please answer, what is the lifetime of the $5 billion investment.
> it would be a waste to not have a domestic uranium facility.
Spoken by somebody that has never studied the environmental impact that uranium enrichment creates. Uranium enrichment is the true issue and you are missing a very important point. Iran has every reason in the world to want to export uranium and let somebody else deal with the mess while making tons of profit and getting enriched uranium in return. There is one reason and one reason only that any country would care to enrich their own uranium and that is so they can use their uranium for military purposes (which is more than bomb building). Iran's insistence upon having enrichment technology means they have military ambitions in mind. The same holds true for every country that enriches uranium, the US included. Once you can create your own nuclear fuel, the UN no longer has the ability to monitor what you do with it.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7663400 - 11/21/07 02:58 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Cost per kilowatt
Gas......3.9 to 4.4 cents Coal.....4.8 to 5.5 Nuclear.11.1 to 14.5
SOURCE:(something you are no doubt unfamiliar with) http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour#Traditional_Power_Generation
They also have shit for uranium reserves.
Quote:
The report notes that the basis for a self-sufficient nuclear program is indigenous uranium ore that can be mined and converted into fuel. It says, however, that Iran’s 1,427 metric tons of known uranium reserves would be enough to support the country’s proposed nuclear reactor development program only through 2010. Even taking into account estimated undiscovered reserves of 13,850 metric tons, the program would run out of fuel by 2023, shortly after the completion of the seventh proposed plant.
Source: (Yep, one of those again) http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2006/Apr/24-797508.html
From the same source:
Quote:
Conversely, the report states, Iran could make profitable investments aimed at utilizing its abundant fossil fuel resources. Iran has some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world. At current production rates, it has 90 years worth of oil and 220 years worth of natural gas.
The researchers observe that Iran flares off nearly 7 percent of its gross production of natural gas as an uncaptured byproduct of its oil drilling activities. This gives Iran the highest percentage of natural gas wasted among all major petroleum-producing countries. The report says that if Iran were to use available technology to reduce its level of waste to the world average, it could use the gas to generate nearly as much electricity as three nuclear power plants.
The report also notes that Iran is ignoring other pressing concerns in the energy sector. The country’s limited refinery capacity means that it has become an importer of gasoline. The report says that boosting the refinery capacity would be an effective way of improving the country’s energy independence.
The researchers maintain that Iran’s investment in its nuclear program starves more profitable projects in fossil fuel development of capital resources. They also suggest that Iran’s pursuit of the nuclear fuel cycle likely will undermine foreign investment in its entire energy sector and dampen Iran’s international trade prospects.
“Despite obvious needs and simple solutions which would promote and probably achieve real energy independence, Iran's energy investments remain skewed in favor of a nuclear program which does not accord with its resource endowments or its near-term energy sector needs,” the report states. “In summary, the stated economic rationale for the nuclear program is inconsistent with both the facts of the program and the behavior of Iran in the broader energy investment sphere.”
And YOU accuse ME of being stupid? Go back to your cave and paint on the walls. Nobody buys your easily debunked bullshit.
--------------------
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7667022 - 11/22/07 01:21 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It seems I don't have to accuse you of much because you incriminate yourself in this regard. Now if these were easily debunked claims, then I imagine you'd have provided relevant data that debunked them. I also imagine you wouldn't have used a manipulative line that suggested you even knew what other people believe, because your data could have spoken for itself. Rather, the use of such a line reinforces the belief that you actually have nothing to fall back on and are trying to save face.
The nuclear energy costs you posted are idiosyncratically preposterous, and I imagine you ignored much real data in favor of what you posted. The costs you reported are from a company who is advertising its own patented theoretical energy supply method by contrasting all the above energy sources to its own theoretical cost - with no sources for their claims, and not even a region listed. I'm sure if there was an actual report that backed what you wanted to claim, and if you didn't rely on scamming/manipulating people to make your points, you wouldn't have resorted to this. Here are some real prices. As you can see, nuclear energy is cheaper almost completely across the board:
 The source is a 2007 report called The Economics of Nuclear Power, from the Uranium Information Center, which references many different energy reports.
Now have a look at this:

Again, look at this:

You said Iran's uranium would last until... 2023? I read that their uranium would last only 15 years, until 2022. So by arguing that Iran's uranium reserves are more than I already knew you thought you would be proving that it isn't worthwhile for Iran to have a domestic uranium program? Remeber I said this?: "That gave me real reason for a laugh, so thanks, and I'm sure there's more to come." Well you've proven me right quicker than I'd expected.
As for your not so unbiased US gov link (which only cited 2 other US gov sanctioned research groups): If Iran harnessed any wasted gas, that gas would still be more profitable to Iran if sold, while using nuclear energy for domestic electricity. No matter how much more gas they could have, it will always be more profitable to sell any extra drops than to burn them for their own electricity. The conclusion of your US government link - that it suggests Iran's claimed need for nuclear energy is undercut by their wasted gas resources - is, unsurprisingly, false. It is more than clear that Iran does not have sufficient domestic energy production, and to claim that wasted gas contradicts that is a non sequitur. Does the US government also think that Iran's claimed need for nuclear energy is undercut by the fact that Iran imports large amounts of electricity?
On every subject I've debated you since I began posting in this forum you've been uneducated, and I've watched you commonly rely on trying to intimidate/manipulate others into not challenging your assertions, and you'll even use false data as we've just been shown. So if you actually have some integrity to defend, and aren't just a scammer, then step up to the plate and start proving some data wrong. Be sure to leave the bullshit links alone, as I will debunk them.
Edited by Disco Cat (11/22/07 01:44 PM)
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Seuss]
#7667041 - 11/22/07 01:25 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > These stats are also based on the concept that the $5 billion Iran has spent for the Bushehr reactor
While you are being high and mighty, please answer, what is the lifetime of the $5 billion investment.
If you mean how long will the Bushehr reactor last, I can only guess that it would have a lifetime comparable to other reactors - maybe more due to it being a more modern construct - but say 40-60 years. Or do you mean something to do with Bushehr initially being supposed to be completed in 1981, in which case, you need to clarify your point.
Quote:
> it would be a waste to not have a domestic uranium facility.
Spoken by somebody that has never studied the environmental impact that uranium enrichment creates. Uranium enrichment is the true issue and you are missing a very important point. Iran has every reason in the world to want to export uranium and let somebody else deal with the mess while making tons of profit and getting enriched uranium in return. There is one reason and one reason only that any country would care to enrich their own uranium and that is so they can use their uranium for military purposes (which is more than bomb building). Iran's insistence upon having enrichment technology means they have military ambitions in mind. The same holds true for every country that enriches uranium, the US included. Once you can create your own nuclear fuel, the UN no longer has the ability to monitor what you do with it.
There is also the motive of desiring to no longer be on someone else's leash. Then there is the added incentive of being able to supply nuclear fuel to other Arab countries in the future.
Speech Delivered by Iran's Envoy to IAEA o US was obliged under the contract made prior to 1979 to supply new fuel for Tehran 5 MW Research Reactor, being under the Agency Comprehensive Safeguards, producing radioisotopes for application in medicine, agriculture and industry. After the Revolution, it prevented to deliver the fuel in contradiction to its obligations
o Iran has 60 tons of UF6 in Europe which has not yet been delivered to it. The initial fuel for Bushehr Power Plant which had been bought from Siemens, was blocked for 25 years and finally the export license to Iran was waived.
o It has to be recalled that in1975, Iran purchased a 10% share in Eurodif uranium enrichment plant, being built at Tricastin in France, but Iran has not received even a gram of uranium from the plant where it desperately needed for its reactor producing radioisotopes for mainly medical purposes.
o The IAEA, established a Committee on Assurances of Supply, expected to codify internationally recognized principles and legally binding instruments to assure sustainable nuclear supply. It failed in 1987, after 7 years of intensive deliberations.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7667083 - 11/22/07 01:45 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
> There is also the motive of desiring to no longer be on someone else's leash.
No there isn't. One reason, and one reason only. To avoid anybody knowing what you are using the uranium for which means military applications. Period. No debate. This is what it is. There is plenty of competition from countries that do no like each other such that the "not on someone else's leash" is completely irrelevant. Not being on a leash when there is no leash is no reason to spend the massive amount of money needed to build the infrastructure not to mention the environmental damage.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Seuss]
#7667147 - 11/22/07 02:10 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Wrong. The fact that Brazil, Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands all have uranium enrichment facilities used to fuel their nuclear plants, yet no nuclear weapons, makes it very clear that a nuclear weapons program is not the prerequisit to having an enrichment facility.
To depend on countries that have already proven unreliable with nuclear fuel is to be on a leash. It has nothing to do with simply disliking each other and everything to do with sources having already proven that their contracts and promises are not guarrantees.
Also, Argentina is resuming its nuclear program, enriching its own urnaium, and Australia and South Africa are also both looking into commencing uranium enrichment.
Edited by Disco Cat (11/22/07 04:08 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7667868 - 11/22/07 06:57 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Disco Cat said: It seems I don't have to accuse you of much because you incriminate yourself in this regard. Now if these were easily debunked claims, then I imagine you'd have provided relevant data that debunked them. I also imagine you wouldn't have used a manipulative line that suggested you even knew what other people believe, because your data could have spoken for itself. Rather, the use of such a line reinforces the belief that you actually have nothing to fall back on and are trying to save face.
The nuclear energy costs you posted are idiosyncratically preposterous, and I imagine you ignored much real data in favor of what you posted. The costs you reported are from a company who is advertising its own patented theoretical energy supply method by contrasting all the above energy sources to its own theoretical cost - with no sources for their claims, and not even a region listed. I'm sure if there was an actual report that backed what you wanted to claim, and if you didn't rely on scamming/manipulating people to make your points, you wouldn't have resorted to this.
I googled "cost per kilowatt hour for electricity" That was the first hit. It takes into account all of the costs. It doesn't come from THE URANIUM INFORMATION CENTER. My source is PESWIKI who describe themselves thusly:
Quote:
The community-built resource that focuses on alternative, clean, practical, renewable energy solutions.
Your source? Not so clean. Who's scamming who?Quote:
You said Iran's uranium would last until... 2023? I read that their uranium would last only 15 years, until 2022. So by arguing that Iran's uranium reserves are more than I already knew you thought you would be proving that it isn't worthwhile for Iran to have a domestic uranium program? Remeber I said this?: "That gave me real reason for a laugh, so thanks, and I'm sure there's more to come." Well you've proven me right quicker than I'd expected.
My zappa, you are such a tool. They have oil and gas to last a hundred years and uranium good for 15 (or 16, there's a real difference ) at a tremendous infrastructure expense. While they can't afford, for "economic reasons" (heh heh) to build gasoline refineries.Quote:
As for your not so unbiased US gov link (which only cited 2 other US gov sanctioned research groups)
As for your not so unbiased US gov link (which only cited 2 other US gov sanctioned research groups): If Iran harnessed any wasted gas, that gas would still be more profitable to Iran if sold, while using nuclear energy for domestic electricity. No matter how much more gas they could have, it will always be more profitable to sell any extra drops than to burn them for their own electricity. The conclusion of your US government link - that it suggests Iran's claimed need for nuclear energy is undercut by their wasted gas resources - is, unsurprisingly, false. It is more than clear that Iran does not have sufficient domestic energy production, and to claim that wasted gas contradicts that is a non sequitur. Does the US government also think that Iran's claimed need for nuclear energy is undercut by the fact that Iran imports large amounts of electricity?
The issue is not that Iran needs electricity or gasoline for it's cars. The issue is what would best help them get it. In their situation, nuclear is obviously not the answer, since they DON'T HAVE ANY TO SPEAK OF, as you have pointed out. Thanks. The question is why are they pursuing nuclear? Only stone cold retards believe it is for anything other than weapons. A decades long research and development project costing billions of dollars for, by your own admission, 15 years worth of value. Makes perfect sense to...... a dupe.Quote:
On every subject I've debated you since I began posting in this forum you've been uneducated, and I've watched you commonly rely on trying to intimidate/manipulate others into not challenging your assertions, and you'll even use false data as we've just been shown. So if you actually have some integrity to defend, and aren't just a scammer, then step up to the plate and start proving some data wrong. Be sure to leave the bullshit links alone, as I will debunk them.
Blah blah blah. Your own info indicts you. I have asked this repeatedly and I will ask again. Why are you such an apologist for these totalitarian thugs?
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7669108 - 11/23/07 02:50 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Using Brazil as an example:
Quote:
In April 2004 the Brazilian government denied access for the IAEA inspectors to the Resende facility and refused to let IAEA inspectors see equipment in the plant. Citing a need to protect proprietary information the government had built walls around parts of the facility and draped covers over equipment.
As I said... the only reason a country wants to enrich their own uranium is so that they can run a weapons program without the UN being able to monitor them.
Japan is unique because of their constitution and the laws they must follow regarding their military; my blanket statement doesn't apply. They are also 100% transparent allowing UN inspectors complete access to their facilities. However, Japan's enrichment R&D started during WWII, well before any UN oversight.
Germany's enrichment R&D also started during WWII. However, Germany is different as they are part of Eurodif, a joint venture between Belgium, France, Italy and Spain, with one diffusion plant in France, which already has nuclear weapons. The Netherlands are also different, as they are part of Urenco, a joint venture between companies in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, with centrifuge plants in each of the three countries. Again, the UK already has nuclear weapons.
In every case you mentioned, at least one of the players has nuclear weapons or is refusing to cooperate with the UN regarding inspections to ensure that they do not have nuclear weapons. The importance here is countries with the technology save billions of dollars in R&D by being part of the group. Without the countries that already have the technology being involved, then the cost would be too great to justify for civilian use.
There simply is nothing to debate here. If a country spends the money to develop uranium enrichment technology and is willing to accept the environmental impact and risk associated with the technology, then they have military applications in mind. And again, there are military applications beyond building bombs.
|
|