-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Sacked Iran minister warns of energy catastrophe
- Thread starter lozina
- Start date
lozina
Lifer
Well that's an interesting analogy. Is this really a bank robber, as in someone brought to court, presented evidence against and successfully convicted? Or just someone your old senile neighbor thinks "looks like a bank robber"? Because as far as the history of Iran's actions is concerned, they are quite clean. There is no reason to try and prevent them from getting nuclear energy other than political nonsense.
Iran is an oil rich nation, but it is an extremely poorly run one. The infrastructure is crap and the leadership isn't exactly trying to rectify the situation. The massive neglect has led to decreased oil production and oil refinement. Why the population hasn't removed the leadership, I'll never know. They've done it in the past, so what's holding them up is anyone's guess.
Either way works for me.
BTW I think you need to look a little deeper if you believe they are "Quite clean". I'm sure there are a bunch of Embassy employees that would disagree with you. Not to mention bank robbers usually don't run around stating in public that Isreal needs to been removed from the face of the earth. We know they want the bomb, we know they are working on the bomb. What we don't know exactly is what they will do with the bomb. I have less trust of them sitting on one than any other country in the world, including North Korea.
I consider their present government thugs and terrorists at heart and in deeds.
BTW I think you need to look a little deeper if you believe they are "Quite clean". I'm sure there are a bunch of Embassy employees that would disagree with you. Not to mention bank robbers usually don't run around stating in public that Isreal needs to been removed from the face of the earth. We know they want the bomb, we know they are working on the bomb. What we don't know exactly is what they will do with the bomb. I have less trust of them sitting on one than any other country in the world, including North Korea.
I consider their present government thugs and terrorists at heart and in deeds.
palehorse
Lifer
Sounds like they should start entertaining the proposals by many outside nations to provide Iran with only those nuclear materials necessary to produce energy.
IMO, they can build all the nuclear power facilities they want as long as the actual enrichment of the materials is done by, and controlled by, other stable and trustworthy nations.
IMO, they can build all the nuclear power facilities they want as long as the actual enrichment of the materials is done by, and controlled by, other stable and trustworthy nations.
Lemon law
Lifer
Iran has oil and natural gas. Iran has very little refining capacity and refining capacity is needed to turn the oil pumped by oil well into gasoline to power cars. Iran has also increased the number of automobiles it has and now does not have enough gasoline to power them all. And to a certain extent, Iran has already too cheaply sold its oil reserves to oil hungry nations and is now running short. At the same time Iran is also at a crossroads in terms of electrical energy needs which has also greatly increased. But Iran is only starting an nuclear program and it somewhat depends on the nuclear reactor technology chosen. But bottom line, once its a nuclear program is started, spent nuclear fuel rods can yield reactor technology dependent varying amounts of plutonium that is almost only useful in nuclear bombs.
Iran can generate electricity using its own diminished oil reserves, or by tapping into its own natural gas reserves, or by using nuclear energy. With nuclear energy being only
peacetime useful for electrical power generation. And as of yet, the technology for electrical powering of personal transportation is not yet practical for Iran or anyone else either. To a certain extent Iran could use natural gas for powering of personnel transportation vehicles but that technology is not mature either.
Now given the above set of basic facts, imagine you are going to (a) Be appointed the Iranian energy czar with total dictatorial planning capacity. (b) You have only Iranian interests at heart and are not interested in making Iran into a military aggressor nation---and are only interested in delivering a Western type lifestyle to the Iranian people.
The first damn thing to realize is that Iran has been asleep at the switch in terms of planning. The second thing to realize is that the oil is running out and should not be sold cheap to other nations. Iran comes first. The third thing to realize is that Iran has huge natural gas reserves that can generate the export bucks for the future and its time to
make those reserves also domestically more useful. The fourth thing to realize is that nuclear energy should be massively developed for electrical energy generation which extend the export bucks that can come from the selling of oil or natural gas. In terms of personnel transportation---cars, trucks, and buses----since oil is running out, decide if you want to go natural gas powered or electrical.---and also question if you want to increase domestic Iranian oil refining capacity long or short term.
And if you are someone with only USA or Western interests at heart, you somewhat hope Iranian planning is always poor so you can keep Iran dependent. You also have to realize that GWB has made a giant mistake in losing an opportunity to funnel Iranian nuclear electrical generation into reactor technologies that don't create massive amounts of plutonium as a reactor by product.
And as a US citizen who looks to the future with somewhat unbiased eyes, I really have to wonder about the wisdom of pursuing an Iranian hostile foreign policy. Yet we keep up a policy of jabbing Iran with sharp sticks and then wonder why they react with some hostility.
Iran can generate electricity using its own diminished oil reserves, or by tapping into its own natural gas reserves, or by using nuclear energy. With nuclear energy being only
peacetime useful for electrical power generation. And as of yet, the technology for electrical powering of personal transportation is not yet practical for Iran or anyone else either. To a certain extent Iran could use natural gas for powering of personnel transportation vehicles but that technology is not mature either.
Now given the above set of basic facts, imagine you are going to (a) Be appointed the Iranian energy czar with total dictatorial planning capacity. (b) You have only Iranian interests at heart and are not interested in making Iran into a military aggressor nation---and are only interested in delivering a Western type lifestyle to the Iranian people.
The first damn thing to realize is that Iran has been asleep at the switch in terms of planning. The second thing to realize is that the oil is running out and should not be sold cheap to other nations. Iran comes first. The third thing to realize is that Iran has huge natural gas reserves that can generate the export bucks for the future and its time to
make those reserves also domestically more useful. The fourth thing to realize is that nuclear energy should be massively developed for electrical energy generation which extend the export bucks that can come from the selling of oil or natural gas. In terms of personnel transportation---cars, trucks, and buses----since oil is running out, decide if you want to go natural gas powered or electrical.---and also question if you want to increase domestic Iranian oil refining capacity long or short term.
And if you are someone with only USA or Western interests at heart, you somewhat hope Iranian planning is always poor so you can keep Iran dependent. You also have to realize that GWB has made a giant mistake in losing an opportunity to funnel Iranian nuclear electrical generation into reactor technologies that don't create massive amounts of plutonium as a reactor by product.
And as a US citizen who looks to the future with somewhat unbiased eyes, I really have to wonder about the wisdom of pursuing an Iranian hostile foreign policy. Yet we keep up a policy of jabbing Iran with sharp sticks and then wonder why they react with some hostility.
K1052
Elite Member
Pretty much any reactor is going to create substantial amounts of plutonium as a byproduct. The primary concern isn't with their reactors (if it ever happens to go online), it is with the uranium enrichment infrastructure they are building. Given the size of this effort and the lack of an operational reactor or any ones planned in the future you have to ask the question of where they are going with this.
So who is the bigger threat to have them:
Nation A who has in recent times invaded another nation for no good reason resulting in a couple million of their people killed' who pushed the invasion of nation B by an ally resulting in a million casualty war; who has a government with a doctrine signed on to by most senior members of world dominance; who has a large, corrupt arms industry supplying the most arms to conflicts and repressive governments around the world.
Or, Nation B, the one who was invaded above, who has not had a history of overthrowing other nations' governments, and who is directly threatened by nation A above.
Funny how the ideologues can throw around terms to justify their own wrongs, by being very warped in how they look at the facts.
They are pursuing the agenda of 'world domination' without even realizing it, in most cases.
(If any help is needed for the references above, nation A is the US, referring to Viet Nam and the 1980's Iraqi invasion of Iran, and nation B is Iran).
Nation A.
Come on, They never do anything to us, we always do everything to them.....Blah blah blah. They've been a waring nation centuries before the USA existed. The measure a countries worth by it's might. They attack the west to prove to their neighbours how tough they are. Arab terrorists have killed far more arabs than the US has. (For one thing, they been at it for centuries.) Even now, who do you think is blowing up all the civilians? We don't plant IEDs. We don't send suicide bombers into crowded markets and police stations. We don't fire on people then run into a church and scream in outrage when the church is attacked.
I'm a bit sick of people blaming the US for the problems over there. Their problems are their own doing and older than dirt.
What they can do well is play on US citizen's emotions. They do this well. They use the age old tactic of running up and kicking the big guy, then running off to mother crying when they get smacked down. They cry to the world that WE are being mean to them, that we are the ones at fault for their sorry state of affairs.
If the USA dissappeared tomorrow, some other country would be the "Great Satan". It's the easiest way for them to control their people and one of the oldest in the world. Blame your troubles on an outside source.
So, based on your two choices, I choose nation A
And I agree it's funny how ideolougues can throw around terms to justifiy their own wrongs. Just like you said. I think you have a warped view of the facts.
Come on, They never do anything to us, we always do everything to them.....Blah blah blah. They've been a waring nation centuries before the USA existed. The measure a countries worth by it's might. They attack the west to prove to their neighbours how tough they are. Arab terrorists have killed far more arabs than the US has. (For one thing, they been at it for centuries.) Even now, who do you think is blowing up all the civilians? We don't plant IEDs. We don't send suicide bombers into crowded markets and police stations. We don't fire on people then run into a church and scream in outrage when the church is attacked.
I'm a bit sick of people blaming the US for the problems over there. Their problems are their own doing and older than dirt.
What they can do well is play on US citizen's emotions. They do this well. They use the age old tactic of running up and kicking the big guy, then running off to mother crying when they get smacked down. They cry to the world that WE are being mean to them, that we are the ones at fault for their sorry state of affairs.
If the USA dissappeared tomorrow, some other country would be the "Great Satan". It's the easiest way for them to control their people and one of the oldest in the world. Blame your troubles on an outside source.
So, based on your two choices, I choose nation A
And I agree it's funny how ideolougues can throw around terms to justifiy their own wrongs. Just like you said. I think you have a warped view of the facts.
Just to refresh your memory, the U.S made it possible for Iraq to get chemical weapons so they could murder tens of thousands of Iranians.
Iraq was on the list of nations supporting terrorism. No matter what the two nations have done to each other, that is the single worst thing the United States has ever done. That is the biggest act of terrorism ever.
What did that lead to? The deaths of millions of people
A) Tens of thousands of Iranians murdered B) Iraq using those weapons on the Kurds C) U.S invading Iraq because of those weapons
Regan's fault, yet Regan is a hero President. BS
Also the U.S supports groups against the Iranian regime. Groups that blow people up inside Iran
United States is not innocent in any of this at all. If you want to know why the U.S and Iran are at it read up on the history of Iran in the 1900s.
Iraq was on the list of nations supporting terrorism. No matter what the two nations have done to each other, that is the single worst thing the United States has ever done. That is the biggest act of terrorism ever.
What did that lead to? The deaths of millions of people
A) Tens of thousands of Iranians murdered B) Iraq using those weapons on the Kurds C) U.S invading Iraq because of those weapons
Regan's fault, yet Regan is a hero President. BS
Also the U.S supports groups against the Iranian regime. Groups that blow people up inside Iran
United States is not innocent in any of this at all. If you want to know why the U.S and Iran are at it read up on the history of Iran in the 1900s.
Having refineries doesn't change the fact that they are only exporting around 2.5mbpd of oil.
That is a very small number compared to the two giants:
Saudi Arabia: 9
Russia: 7
If Iran did not have United States sanctions then they would be pumping out 6-7mbpd of oil like they were during the regime of Shah. That would just give the Iranian government power. The U.S does not want them to get any power.
That is a very small number compared to the two giants:
Saudi Arabia: 9
Russia: 7
If Iran did not have United States sanctions then they would be pumping out 6-7mbpd of oil like they were during the regime of Shah. That would just give the Iranian government power. The U.S does not want them to get any power.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
