Obama: Iran has a "right" to nuclear energy

[MaggieMae]

Sigh... WE ARE DRILLING!!!! For both oil AND natural gas. The reason refineries aren't being built is because it's too expensive to build these monstrosities when investment in green energy is becoming more popular. Of course there's always the nimby factor, too. Want one in your backyard?

I have many in my backyard. And the nimby factor is alive and well when it comes to locating "green energy."

The complete denial is very apparent. What is also apparent is the complete lack of education in how oil is used in our society, and that there is NOTHING that we currently have that will replace it and result in the same quality of life that we now appreciate. Again, reality takes a back seat.

Nobody is disputing that, either. Oil will always be a necessary commodity. We just don't NEED to depend ENTIRELY on oil for our E.N.E.R.G.Y supplies. It's not my fault that Big Oil doesn't want to spend anymore money on new refineries when the day will come in the not too distant future that OIL is NOT the main source.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

So what. Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy? OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US. silly me.

Um, Obama is doing just that here.

 

[Shogun]

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

Last I recall the denial of the holocaust doesn't indicate that anyone wants to wipe jews off the map...

Indeed, I agree that we should correct the giant fuck up created post ww2 since we see what ZIONISM produces - racist segregation. If this is the big scary bone iran hs with israel then perhaps you should ask yourself why israel, a supposed western style democracy, won't allow the same equality to palis as jews enjoy in the US in order to deflate this tension...


but, you don't want to speculate that far when demonizing and, ironically, pouncing on a muslim nation just feels better to you, eh?

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

Indeed, again, we made similar statements trying to pressure South Africa away from Aparthied too. Kinda makes one wonder why israel would rather sink on a JEWISH ONLY ship than deflate criticism by becoming a pluralistic nation like the very US theyhide behind, eh?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

I have many in my backyard. And the nimby factor is alive and well when it comes to locating "green energy."

The complete denial is very apparent. What is also apparent is the complete lack of education in how oil is used in our society, and that there is NOTHING that we currently have that will replace it and result in the same quality of life that we now appreciate. Again, reality takes a back seat.

Nobody is disputing that, either. Oil will always be a necessary commodity. We just don't NEED to depend ENTIRELY on oil for our E.N.E.R.G.Y supplies. It's not my fault that Big Oil doesn't want to spend anymore money on new refineries when the day will come in the not too distant future that OIL is NOT the main source.

The only way alternative sources of energy will be cost effective is if government fucks with the oil market and makes it cost prohibitive. Government decides the winners and losers

 

[Newby]

Seems like any nation has as much a 'right' to anything any other nation has... unless we have two sets of rules for nations to abide by?

So all nations are equal when it comes to national security and stability in regards to government infrastructure and control of nuclear facilities so that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands? Not to mention the financial status to provide the type of security and stability that's needed?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Last I recall the denial of the holocaust doesn't indicate that anyone wants to wipe jews off the map...

Indeed, I agree that we should correct the giant fuck up created post ww2 since we see what ZIONISM produces - racist segregation. If this is the big scary bone iran hs with israel then perhaps you should ask yourself why israel, a supposed western style democracy, won't allow the same equality to palis as jews enjoy in the US in order to deflate this tension...


but, you don't want to speculate that far when demonizing and, ironically, pouncing on a muslim nation just feels better to you, eh?

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

Indeed, again, we made similar statements trying to pressure South Africa away from Aparthied too. Kinda makes one wonder why israel would rather sink on a JEWISH ONLY ship than deflate criticism by becoming a pluralistic nation like the very US theyhide behind, eh?

The US is a pluralistic nation? How?

 

[Gurdari]

Iran is sitting on more untapped oil than Iowa has ears of corn. Oil is cheap, it's efficient, everything they have runs on it, they export it, they import it, they refine it - the oil business in Iran is like the corn business in Iowa. The best part is - gas in Iran is CHEAP. It needs to be. Why? Up to 70% of Iran is below the poverty line. (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/conference/papers/3_Iran.pdf)

Let me repeat that. 70% of Iran is BELOW the poverty line.

In 2006 Iran, a population of 66 million people consumed 145 billion kWh of electricity.

Compare that with the United Kingdom, which has the same population and consumes 348.5 billion kWh of electricity.

Iran's GDP is $842 billion.

Compare that to the UK with a similar population - their GDP is $2.2 trillion.

Additionally, the UK is 244,820 sq km.

Iran? 1.648 million sq km.

That's 5x the size of the United Kingdom in land mass and 1/4 their GDP. They have an abundant natural resource that is extremely cheap that everyone uses.

In essence, Iran has absolutely NO NEED for nuclear energy.

Finally, the type of nuclear energy they are processing is weapons grade Uranium hexafluoride (uf6) - not civilian grade.

If it takes you a few minutes to figure out an excuse as to why they need nuclear energy, then it takes too long. America's power plants are at or above capacity and more need to be built. There is ample reason for nuclear energy in the US.

There is NO reason for nuclear energy in Iran. NONE whatsoever.... except to make bombs.

Well, they don't need a reason - neither does any other nation. If they want to, they can.
As for using Oil, well I agree it CAN be cheap, but really that would be a pretty backwards energy policy choosing Oil as the energy source for your future.

Sounds like the US needs more nuclear energy too? I'm sure there are quite a few places that could use more energy, nuclear or other non-fossil fuel based.

 

[MaggieMae]

What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?

Well, what is the actual position of Iran's supreme THEOCRATIC leadership?

And who says Iran wants to wipe anyone off the map? I hope you're not referring to the quote 'Zionist occupation should be wiped from the pages of history' (that was actually mis-translated by the Iranians but that was clarified soon after) Ahmadinejad quoted from an earlier leader (Khomeini maybe).

The Mullahs have the authority over the military, but a-jad has said he wants to bring about Armageddon. not Hagee's words, his.

Achmedinejad has no authority to do anything except stand at a podium and shout. It's also a very real possibility he won't be reelected next month. Anyone seriously interested in Iran should try to find copy of last week's Newsweek, which devoted its top stories on everything you ever wanted to know about Iran, past, present and future. You can still find most of it online by Goggling NEWSWEEK - IRAN.

 

[DavidS]

What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?

The responses of so many clueless morons on this board is amazing. You have all of these "america firsters", who demand that the US not fight iran since they believe it would be a war on behalf of israel - BUT - don't care to mention that it has been iran who has been killing large numbers of US troops in iraq for 5 years now.

Why does iran get a pass for murdering americans in iraq?

Regardless of whether one believes the iraq war was justified, it does NOT give iran the right to attack US troops there trying to midwife the new iraqi government.

That thought doesn't even include the 241 murdered US marines in beirut by iran in april 1983, the 83 diplomats murdered in beirut in october 1983, or the dozens, if not hundreds, of american citizens murdered in israel through iranian-proxy suicide bombings.

Oh my God. THANK YOU! Finally someone on this board says something about WHO is directly responsible for several thousands of our troops' deaths! IRAN! Not fucking Al Queda! Not Bush! Not Cheney! Not Obama! IRAN!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.

Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.

Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?

 

[Gurdari]

Seems like any nation has as much a 'right' to anything any other nation has... unless we have two sets of rules for nations to abide by?

So all nations are equal when it comes to national security and stability in regards to government infrastructure and control of nuclear facilities so that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands? Not to mention the financial status to provide the type of security and stability that's needed?

I think under law - all actors should be equal. As for the rest of your question, I was not eactly sure what you were asking. But, yeah - one standard is ideal, instead of 'our rules' and 'their rules'.

 

[rhodescholar]

So what. Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy? OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US. silly me.

Your jewish racism is showing, dave. Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.

Asshole, do you ever actually address someone's points in their post, or do you think racist bluster will win you brownie points? You should be banned just for being an idiot who has yet to provide the slightest crumb of intelligence in any post, in any thread.

 

[DavidS]

Maybe *GASP* Iran does have as much energy aspirations as any other nation... holy SHIT! It's almost as if someone required the US to use up all of it's oil as an excuse not to allow us nuclear power... oh wait.. that didn't happen.

That this story conveys more than the typical blind zionist hardline "I wanna kill some iranians" slant makes my day.

Iran is sitting on more untapped oil than Iowa has ears of corn. Oil is cheap, it's efficient, everything they have runs on it, they export it, they import it, they refine it - the oil business in Iran is like the corn business in Iowa. The best part is - gas in Iran is CHEAP. It needs to be. Why? Up to 70% of Iran is below the poverty line. (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/conference/papers/3_Iran.pdf)

Let me repeat that. 70% of Iran is BELOW the poverty line.

In 2006 Iran, a population of 66 million people consumed 145 billion kWh of electricity.

Compare that with the United Kingdom, which has the same population and consumes 348.5 billion kWh of electricity.

Iran's GDP is $842 billion.

Compare that to the UK with a similar population - their GDP is $2.2 trillion.

Additionally, the UK is 244,820 sq km.

Iran? 1.648 million sq km.

That's 5x the size of the United Kingdom in land mass and 1/4 their GDP. They have an abundant natural resource that is extremely cheap that everyone uses.

In essence, Iran has absolutely NO NEED for nuclear energy.

Finally, the type of nuclear energy they are processing is weapons grade Uranium hexafluoride (uf6) - not civilian grade.

If it takes you a few minutes to figure out an excuse as to why they need nuclear energy, then it takes too long. America's power plants are at or above capacity and more need to be built. There is ample reason for nuclear energy in the US.

There is NO reason for nuclear energy in Iran. NONE whatsoever.... except to make bombs.

So what. Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy? OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US. silly me.

Your jewish racism is showing, dave. Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.

Who said anything about using up resources? Why would a poor country that doesn't have a great deal of money develop nuclear fuel when it already has an extremely cheap fuel that is exceeding the needs of its local population?

I know Iran is not a capitalistic democracy, but there is always a supply and demand thing. If there is ample supply that is very cheap and abundant why would they create the availability of a new product for which there is no demand for with very limited supply and costs a hell of a lot of money?

 

[Avatar4321]

So what. Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy? OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US. silly me.

Your jewish racism is showing, dave. Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.

Who said they must use it up? I think what's been pointed out is their so called legitimate concern is a smoke screen because they have an insane amount of oil. They arent in an energy crisis. We are.

Yet we cant drill. We cant use nuclear energy. Heck, the environmentalists are starting to oppose solar energy because it "causes global warming" and wind and water power because the fish and birds could be hurt. We are supposed to go back into the dark ages while giving a homicidal regime the keys to killing millions of people.

How is this possibly a good policy?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.

Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.

Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?

The only thing more insane is that we are sitting on large oil reserves, as well, and won't use them, OR expand nuclear energy.

 

[elvis]

I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.

Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.

Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?

We aren't allowed to have nuclear energy because of the Environuts in this country like Al Whore. i really hope everyone knows that Iran isn't going to use the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes alone.

 

[Gurdari]

What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?

The responses of so many clueless morons on this board is amazing. You have all of these "america firsters", who demand that the US not fight iran since they believe it would be a war on behalf of israel - BUT - don't care to mention that it has been iran who has been killing large numbers of US troops in iraq for 5 years now.

Why does iran get a pass for murdering americans in iraq?

Regardless of whether one believes the iraq war was justified, it does NOT give iran the right to attack US troops there trying to midwife the new iraqi government.

That thought doesn't even include the 241 murdered US marines in beirut by iran in april 1983, the 83 diplomats murdered in beirut in october 1983, or the dozens, if not hundreds, of american citizens murdered in israel through iranian-proxy suicide bombings.

Some nations get a pass when they break international law - some nations get a pass when they kill people in other countries. I think that is undesirable, do you?


Also, it sounds like you think a nation has no right to interfere militarily within another nation's borders?

And as for terror bombings in the 1980s... 1985 had a bad one too.
Does it matter who is responsible - or is it wrong no matter who does it?

 

[del]

What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?

The responses of so many clueless morons on this board is amazing. You have all of these "america firsters", who demand that the US not fight iran since they believe it would be a war on behalf of israel - BUT - don't care to mention that it has been iran who has been killing large numbers of US troops in iraq for 5 years now.

Why does iran get a pass for murdering americans in iraq?

Regardless of whether one believes the iraq war was justified, it does NOT give iran the right to attack US troops there trying to midwife the new iraqi government.

That thought doesn't even include the 241 murdered US marines in beirut by iran in april 1983, the 83 diplomats murdered in beirut in october 1983, or the dozens, if not hundreds, of american citizens murdered in israel through iranian-proxy suicide bombings.

Oh my God. THANK YOU! Finally someone on this board says something about WHO is directly responsible for several thousands of our troops' deaths! IRAN! Not fucking Al Queda! Not Bush! Not Cheney! Not Obama! IRAN!!!

of course it was, but that's only because you know the idea of trying to hang it on the palistinians is laughable on its face.

sail on, oh proud zionist chickenhawk, sail on.

 

[Sinatra]

This is an absurd concession by Obama.

These Chicago kids are clueless.

If Iran is given the ok to pursue nuclear energy - they will have nuclear weapons. Period.

And once that happens, there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

Imagine if you are Israel and you hear the American president come out and state nuclear power is ok for Iran - a nation who to this day does not recognize Israel as a nation...that has got to just stun those people.

And yet, does the media take Obama to task for such stupidity? No.

 

[Newby]

google is your friend. I realize that reality may play tricks on your standard issue bullshit but... I guess it's a good thing I posted evidence.

Nuclear power

New Nuclear Construction

Nuclear power’s future share in electricity generation will decline if there are no new orders. The nuclear power industry presently has no commitments to build new reactors. The TVA has announced that by 2007 it hopes to bring Browns Ferry-1 back into operation. That reactor has been closed since 1985. The TVA also has three partially completed reactors for which construction licenses are either active or for which extended licenses are being sought. Three firms also plan to apply for early site permits, though such permits are not commitments to build. Nonetheless the business environment has not encouraged power plant construction of any type by any firm during 2002-03. Nuclear plants are no exception.

There are several reasons why there are no firm plans to build new nuclear power reactors. First among these in the short term is that many if not most regions of the Nation presently have surplus baseload generating capacity. There are exceptions to this conclusion. California imports much of its base load electricity needs but also effectively discourages new production from the typical base load power sources, coal and nuclear. This short term base load surplus must be worked off before any new nuclear construction can be seriously considered.

A longer-term reason why no nuclear power has been built is that the capital costs of building a new nuclear power plant have historically been high. There are also considerable financial costs and risks related to the long construction periods in the industry. The last completed nuclear reactor, Watts Bar-1, took 24 years to complete. There has been a history of regulatory uncertainty. The extreme case is the Shoreham plant on Long Island that was essentially completed before it was decided that it would not be allowed to operate. Policy issues such as spent fuel disposal methods, liability insurance questions, and overall safety concerns on the part of the public have also adversely affected nuclear construction.

The nuclear power industry and its promoters are addressing each of these issues. Prospective builders now promise lower costs. Regulatory processes are now better specified and, when possible, implemented early and consistently in the decision process. Financial risk, construction periods, waste disposal, and safety are now being handled in more direct and organized manners. Difficulties with public acceptance remain but are hard to gauge.

The Energy Information Administration in its Annual Energy Outlook 2003 projects in its reference case that no nuclear units will become operable between 2001 and 2025. This projection is a reference scenario that functions as a mid-term forecast under current laws and regulations. The EIA also examined a scenario where the costs of nuclear construction were lowered to a level that some vendors say they will achieve after first of a kind engineering and financing difficulties are worked out. The Annual Energy Outlook’s conclusion under this “advanced nuclear cost case” is that additional nuclear power capacity would come on line if cost targets are reached.

Are the changes in the nuclear power industry enough to make a difference in its future? There are still no new orders. Thus in the short term recent achievements are not enough. Getting new orders is the challenge that the nuclear industry must still meet if it wishes to expand. Most of the risks in building nuclear power plants must be faced early in the plant’s life cycle. A fossil fuel plant faces its greatest risks, uncertain demand and fuel prices, after the plant begins operation. This will discourage nuclear power investment when other anticipated costs are comparable. Nuclear power’s task remains controlling its risks better than competing fuels control their risks.

I posted my evidence. If you think The Tribune is lying about what you found in wiki then go ahead and shoot Ameren UE and email.

That wasn't from Wiki, it was from the Energy Information Administration.

Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government