Iran parliament votes to reduce ties with Britain

[lucy]

What if, and i mean if. Iran "was" only intending to use nuclear power to generate electricity?

If that was the case they shouldn't have a problem letting inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into their facilities to have a good look at what they're doing there. Also, it would be much cheaper and faster to build a couple of power plants burning oil or gaz or coal to generate electricity.

[IAN 2411]

it would be much cheaper and faster to build a couple of power plants burning oil or gaz or coal to generate electricity.

That is a very good point lucy and one that is being overlooked, it would not just be cheaper but as they own their own oil, it would be free. By the way what country has sold them the uranium for this project, because i am almost sure that they have none of their own?

Be well IAN 2411

[js207]

If that was the case they shouldn't have a problem letting inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into their facilities to have a good look at what they're doing there. Also, it would be much cheaper and faster to build a couple of power plants burning oil or gaz or coal to generate electricity.

To be fair, nuclear power does make a little sense there even with a plentiful supply of oil/gas: every bit of fuel they burn to generate electricity is a bit they aren't exporting to generate money instead. Similarly, oil wells in the West are starting to experiment with other fuel sources to drive the oil extraction process: solar water heating to generate some of the steam needed for some older wells in California, for example, and I think nuclear power for some of the tar sand processing in Canada. None of it involves weapons-grade uranium of course...

As for the source of Iran's uranium ore, uranium is actually one of the most common elements in the earth's crust; there are large deposits in Kazakhstan, and might even be some in Iran itself: it's the enrichment process which is the real barrier to weapons programs, rather than obtaining the ore itself.

[lucy]

To be fair, nuclear power does make a little sense there even with a plentiful supply of oil/gas: every bit of fuel they burn to generate electricity is a bit they aren't exporting to generate money instead.

That makes hardly sense. I don't know what nuclear power plants cost and am too lazy to research it, but I guess they don't come cheap and they'd have to save a lot of barrels of oil to make that deal a good one. Also, to my knowledge, Iran actually has to import refined oil products such as gasoline, so if they needed the money it'd better be invested in building a couple refineries.
Finally, I heavily doubt that they want to substitute oil or coal generated power with fission generated power because they care a lot about the release of greenhouse gases.
Nope, really, the only reason for Iran to go after nuclear power (and make such a fuss about it) is because they want the bomb.

And yeah, I fully agree with everybody in this thread that Iran is probably the last country on this planet who should have nuclear weapons. I just happen to think that it's too late to stop them.

[Thorne]

I don't know what nuclear power plants cost ... but I guess they don't come cheap and they'd have to save a lot of barrels of oil to make that deal a good one.

I was told many years ago that the cost to generate a kilowatt hour of electricity from coal was about 20 times the cost using nuclear. Oil was even worse, about 50 times the cost of nuclear. I doubt that it would cost 20 times as much to build a nuclear plant as a coal or oil plant, so nuclear makes more economic sense. Especially if your primary source of money is from the export of oil.

[thir]

If that was the case they shouldn't have a problem letting inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into their facilities to have a good look at what they're doing there. Also, it would be much cheaper and faster to build a couple of power plants burning oil or gaz or coal to generate electricity.

Then again, I sometimes wonder if other countries find the present nuclear state's self-appoited role of stopping others from having it ok?

[js207]

Then again, I sometimes wonder if other countries find the present nuclear state's self-appoited role of stopping others from having it ok?

Most do - that's exactly what they agree to including in international law by signing the non-proliferation treaty, that the five existing nuclear powers stay that way and everyone agrees to work to stop any more countries getting them (in exchange for access to uranium for fuel, information, equipment etc). A few countries aren't signatories (notably India, Israel and Pakistan) and North Korea withdrew from it in 2003; Iran, however, signed it and remains bound today. It's not just the existing nuclear powers, it's almost everyone who agreed that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing.

[thir]

Most do - that's exactly what they agree to including in international law by signing the non-proliferation treaty, that the five existing nuclear powers stay that way and everyone agrees to work to stop any more countries getting them (in exchange for access to uranium for fuel, information, equipment etc). A few countries aren't signatories (notably India, Israel and Pakistan) and North Korea withdrew from it in 2003; Iran, however, signed it and remains bound today.

Thanks for updating me.

It's not just the existing nuclear powers, it's almost everyone who agreed that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing.

The whole thing would be more believable if said 5 powers renounced their own nuclear powers. As it is, it is just 'we are the good guys and should have it, noone else should.'