Nokkrir lýsandi punktar um kjarnorkumál Írana

David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, speaking in November 2004 at a forum sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies said:

The first thing - of what we do know, and it's amazing how many Americans seem to skate over this - the first nuclear reactor given to Iran was given by the United States in 1967 - a five-megawatt trigger reactor, research reactor, under the Eisenhower Atoms for Peace Program. Still operated ... The other thing that Americans forget is that in 1974, the shah announced a policy of 23,000 megawatts of nuclear energy in Iraq. The US reaction? [Former US national security adviser and secretary of state] Henry Kissinger beat down the door to be sure that two US constructors, General Electric and Westinghouse, had a preferred position in selling those reactors. We did not say, "it's a stupid idea, why would you want to do that when you are flaring gas and you have immense oil reserves?" We said, "That is very interesting; it's an example of how the Iranian economy is moving and becoming modern." Imagine in Iranian ears how it sounds now when we denigrate that capacity. They remember. We were sellers of nuclear reactors and wanted to be sellers of nuclear reactors to the shah.

 

A recent article in Foreign Policy journal noted:

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.

 

With regard to its gas reserves, it bears noting that there are needs for gas in Iran that are much higher priorities than the construction of gas power plants. As academics William Beeman and Thomas Stauffer noted:

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.

Allt frá:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH24Ak02.html

 

Athugasemdir

[Baldur Fjölnisson, 29.10.2007 kl. 21:55]

Nennti ekki að þýða þetta en kjarninn er sá að orkunotkun og fólksfjöldi Írana vex afar hröðum skrefum og hefur gert. Þetta er ung þjóð að rífa sig upp og orkunotkun hennar vex um 7% árlega. Fólksfjölgun þarna er talin verða um 40% til 2025. Eina raunhæfa leiðin til að mæta gríðarlegri orkuþörf er með kjarnorku og keisarinn sálugi skildi það þegar fyrir 30 árum. Um 40% af olíuframleiðslunni fer til innanlandsnota og framleiði þeir rafmagn með olíu þurfa þeir brátt að flytja inn olíu. Þannig að það gengur ekki. Gasið er of dýrmætt til að sóa því í raforkuframleiðslu og gáfulegra að nota það til eldunar og húshitunar og útflutnings. Þetta ber allt að sama brunni.

[Baldur Fjölnisson, 30.10.2007 kl. 08:17]

LF, það er ótrúlegur barnaskapur að koma hingað með áróður frá aðilum sem ekkert mark er á takandi og hafa sýnt það með einstaklega siðlausum lyga-, falsana-, og blekkingaferli.

[Baldur Fjölnisson, 30.10.2007 kl. 09:37]

Egypt launches nuclear power program

[Baldur Fjölnisson, 30.10.2007 kl. 09:39]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/29/1193618803345.html

Þarf þá ekki að sprengja þá í tætlur líka?

[Baldur Fjölnisson, 30.10.2007 kl. 11:47]

CFR President: $200 Oil If War With Iran
 

10-28-2007
www.roguegovernment.com
Lee Rogers

Richard Haass the President of the Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderberg luminary was recently interviewed by Katie Couric on the situation with Iran. During the interview, Haass predicted that the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program could come to a head within the next few months and that war with Iran would result in oil prices rising to $200 a barrel. Haass also made it clear that sanctions would not be effective in changing Iran’s stance on their nuclear program and that there was a real possibility of a U.S. military strike on Iran using aircraft and cruise missiles.

When Couric specifically asked Haass if he thought we would see a war with Iran, he responded.

“I don’t think we are talking about invasion, the U.S. doesn’t have ground troops. There could be a military strike using aircraft and cruise missiles, but if you ask me over the next year or two years can I imagine the U.S. and Iran moving to conflict? The short answer is yes. Is it definite? Obviously not, but is it a real possibility; for sure.” ...

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4723

[Baldur Fjölnisson, 30.10.2007 kl. 18:21]

LF, allt er breytingum háð og kaninn býr til vini og óvini eftir behag og einkavinur í dag getur verið orðinn að óvini eftir 5-10 ár. Þú virðist hugsa þessi mál á einhvers konar konstant nótum og það er nú ekki varlegt. Auk þess er þessi áróður sem þú hefur gleypt við frá lygamaskínu sem svífst einskis og hefur þegar svikið tvö stríð af stað á upplognum forsendum sl. sex ár og er orðin á eftir áætlun með fleiri stríð ekki síst vegna þess að fáir taka mark á henni eftir allan lygavaðalinn.

[Baldur Fjölnisson, 30.10.2007 kl. 18:24]

Svo verð ég að biðja þig að hætta þessum barnalegu ad hominem trixum, þau virka ekki vegna þess að fólk sér í gegnum þau. Og þetta haturskjaftæði ristir ekki djúpt heldur.