Talk:Iran's nuclear program
|
|
| Contents |
Various POV
What absolute sense does the sentence "The US argues that in production, each kilowatt of nuclear power costs $1000. A high figure when compared to the $600-800 of oil power." make? Is it one kilowatt production capability costs an initial $1000? There is no such thing as one "kilowatt" that has a value, maybe the author means kilowatt*hour, but that would totally out of scale. Or maybe one Megawatt*hour is meant? Can anyone clarify? --Nowozin
I think it would refer to cost over the lifetime of the facility. Absolutely, it makes sense as a kilowatt is a unit of power. $1000/kilowatt, ~a million kilowatts per reactor gives a per reactor lifetime cost of $1billion, which sounds about right. --BillyL
That's a good point. The way it's written, it's nonsense and it should be removed until someone has a source for this fact. MisterSheik 20:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I could clarify this. As a consultant in the power industry for several years now, I am familiar with the costs and applications of specific power generating technologies. Here is a good rule of thumb breakdown for construction costs:
- Nuclear: 2500-4000 $/KW of installed capacity
- Nuclear: 2500-4000 $/KW of installed capacity
- Coal: 1100-1300 $/KW of installed capacity
- Combined Cycle Natural Gas: 350-450 $/KW
- Simple Cycle Natural Gas: 225 $/KW of installed capacity
Fuel cost vary wildly but Iran can do very little with most of its natural gas. LNG is cost prohibitive (although Iran does export LNG and has plans to do more) and Iran has such large gas reserves that even if export of LNG increased ten fold, there would still be more than enough to power a domestic utility grid.
Generally speaking, without constant ongoing litigation during planning, engineering, design and construction, one could build a nuclear power plant in the United States for about 2000 $/KW of installed capacity. This price would tent to hold true almost anywhere in the world +/- less than 10%. Naturally this will vary with a number of issues such as geographic location, availability of water, distance to transmission grid etc…
As far as operational costs go, nuclear operational costs tend to be much higher than gas which is higher than coal. For fuel costs, gas is about 5-7 times higher than coal and nuclear is virtually free, less than one penny per Therm. It should be noted that fuel costs vary wildly by location. Gas is relatively expensive where there is no local supply (Japan and South Korea for example) and is very cheap where it is abundant (anywhere there are large quantities of oil to be found) Fuel is far and away the highest cost for any plant, outside of initial construction.
- You forgot about the costs of storing or hypothesising on how to isolate spent fuel and of closing down any nuclear power plant according to socio-politically acceptable levels of medical risks. Sorry i don't have any numbers or references on this (it's getting a bit off-topic anyway), but the French government recently (2003, 2004-ish?) decided to extend the lifetime of the massive number of nuclear power plants in France by another 5 (or 10?) years, beyond the lifetimes for which they were planned, as a way of shifting the massive costs to future governments. AFAIK the closing-down costs look like being so high as to make the whole nuclear power production program in France look possibly unsustainable (which is why Germany is, in principle, closing down its program). As for getting rid of the product isotopes, the government-funded research programs in France have so far not yielded any satisfactory solutions and more money is being pumped into the research to hope that somehow a solution will be found. (Sending off depleted uranium in tanks and anti-tank bullets is one "solution" more-or-less acceptable to French voters, but Yugoslavs and Iraqis are not terribly happy about this rather barbaric "solution", and it is unlikely to redistribute (into the environment) more than a small fraction of the radioactive byproducts.) Shut down a coal or gas power plant and i assume the worst you get is an ugly building with a bunch of rusty steel and electrical cables and capacitors and so on hanging around. Kids might hurt themselves, but not much worse. Shut down a nuclear power plant and you have a highly radioactive site likely to cause cancers (or death in a few days in case of direct contact) in anyone getting too close - and this will remain the case for longer than civilisation has existed on this planet, unless the site is physically removed and shifted... somewhere else... Boud 03:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, but the Iranians can worry about that in 25-50 years-- hopefully someone will have a cheaper solution! :) MisterSheik 03:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out that when people say Iran does not need nuclear because they have so much oil, what they mean is natural gas, not oil. No one is suggesting that Iran use oil to produce power. No one still builds oil fired utility boilers, and those that are still in use are being converted to natural gas. There probably will not be a single large (over 1,000 KLb) oil fired boiler left in operation after 2015. TDC 15:19, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Wow, that's great information! Thanks! It would be interesting to find out the cost per kW-hr of (operating cost + carbon diaxide emission cost under kyoto + fuel value). Although, Iran has a lot of oil, so oil might seem to be inexpensive for Iran, that perspective is misleading; the value of the oil is the sale price of that oil, not the cost to obtain it. For example, Canada also has a lot of natural gas, but we have at least a few nuclear reactors nevertheless. MisterSheik 03:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it's very important that "Iran has long been criticized for having a nuclear program" should be qualified immediately by saying who exactly has criticized it. If it is only the British and US governments, that should be noted. Maybe the hypocrosy of those who have "criticized" Iran on this subject should also be noted? :) --Sam Francis 10:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps the IAEA’s inability to discover a very active program in Iraq during the 1980’s, a time when they had literally hundreds of inspectors in Iraq and even in the facilities where Iraq’s illegal programs were going on, should be mentioned as well? TDC 15:19, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Prominent Iranian blogger [[1] (http://hoder.com/weblog/archives/012605.shtml|Hoder)] has a piece about popular support for nukes in Iran. It seems very well informed, and I think it should be incorporated some way, but I don't know how. This is a topic that is obviously politically difficult. --Kjetil Kjernsmo 15:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Citations please
Its not the content but rather the lack of backup for it. Can we have citations rather than bald assertions such as these, please. Lance6Wins 02:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC):
The US has maintained that for Iran to pursue nuclear technology for energy reasons alone would be pointless and unnecessary, given its vast oil and gas resources, and is therefore not a credible assertion, although the quote below by Kamal Kharazzi suggests some abandonment of this pretence anyway, putting Iran in direct violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
Although Israel has not stated this explicitly, it is widely expected by foreign affairs and military experts that Israel has a policy of not allowing Iran to become fully capable of actually deploying nuclear weapons as Israel believes that Iran would immediately attack it. Israel pre-emptively destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor to prevent Iraq becoming nuclear capable. Israel's air force is thought to be capable of flying over Iran and destroying any and all Iranian nuclear facilities, although this may lead to a declaration of war (by other means) on Israel by Iran.
There is some evidence of increasing American and particularly "hawk" or neocon impatience with the multilateral efforts of Germany, France and UK, but it is thought that no US military action against Iran, or a coup attempt, would be considered until after the US presidential election. Also the general impression given is that John Kerry, if President, would not countenance such drastic measures.
Response
Taking these "assertions" off the page doesn't actually prevent America or Israel attacking Iran by the way. NPOV is Democrat policy. MPOV is Bush Whitehouse policy formulation methodology. I'm not gonna argue about this any more. Someone will end this nuclear program, and then the page will HAVE to say: Iran's nuclear ambitions were ended in 2005. QED - end of discussion. At the moment - this article gives the reader little information about the strategic realities of the situation. Having it this way simpy devalues wikipedia. I have always thought that questioning every established fact is an inherenty left-wing way to run wikipedia. Evenhandedness is inherently not evenhanded. I'll think a lot before contributing in future.
The left in the 1980's: Nuclear weapons terrify me. The left in the 2000's: Nuclear weapons? Who cares?!
Despite the fact that everything was referenced, the previous version of the article only had right wing US/UK sources (the only exception being Payvand - an Iranian paper which was used to source some trivial info).
If anything, I would like to see a more balanced approach to the issue. The previous version effectivly painted Iran as a violator of the NPT. However like it or not the IAEA still hasn't done that, and according to recent news the IAEA is actually supporting more of Iran's case vs the US.
Lets have some balanced and un-biased writing please... from both sides.
This is obviously politically problematic, but since I do identify with the "left" to some extent, let me respond to the point on "who cares about nukes": It is still terrifying, but one has to look beyond fear to form a sensible policy. If we can agree that the urgent and primary topic is to support a reform to a democratic Iran, then it is also wise to note Hoder's opinion, linked above, that the Iranian people somehow has a strange wish to acquire nukes, and that they may well rally behind leaders they normally despice if that kind of pressure is applied. Therefore, it may be better to have the IAEA use highly intrusive inspections and rather support the moderate and reformists (which is possible in Iran), to encourage a rapid transition to democracy, and then make Iranians understand that nukes is something you should avoid like the plague for your own sake, afterwards. So, there, then is the issue of writing the facts in a proper style... --Kjetil Kjernsmo 15:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article is written in a childish way, without much useful information, in the style of Reuters or Associated Press, which we read almost every day, with a coordinated and well-orchestrated plan to hype up Iran's nuclear programme. There is zero impartiality or even a pretense of that in this article. After three years of almost daily controversy about Iran's supposed "weapons programme", how come there is not a shred of evidence to support the accusations? How come the article doesn't mention that so far, 14 times US/Israeli claims have turned out to be lies and big eggs in their faces? The long list of daily media reports in this article is truly pahetic, given the fact that the media (in particular, Reuters, Associated Press and AFP) have been hyping up this topic on almost daily basis for more than three years -- so far, without any credible evidence. Why don't we just make this article a daily log of Reuters "Iran nukes reports" then? --Amir 06:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you wholehearted, Amir1. What this article needs is someone who knows more about this than me (or has time to find references) to incorporate more of the reality and less american hegemony... how about you? :)
We dont really know the truth.
I made some slight editing touches to the article to address the claim of partiality raised by Amir. Hope it helps.
However I must add myself that nobody here can really claim to know the truth. What is known is that Iran to date has not been proven to have a weapons programme.
Yet Iran hasnt been acting so transparent either. Even the locals joke about how suspiciously they came and overnight bulldozed the Lavizan site claiming that "nobody has the right to tell us not to build a park here".
I also added two photos I took myself from a public display in Tehran.
--Zereshk 08:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The WMD template
I took out the WMD template. It shouldnt be there. The article is about Iran's nuclear program, not about Iran's WMD program. There's a big difference.
My suggestion is that there be made a page separately that addresses the WMD question.
If youre going to put the WMD template here, then you should also put it on the United States Department of Energy National Laboratories page or any and all DOE pages, which supervise US nuclear weapons projects.--Zereshk 19:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You would also want to put it on the pages devoted to several other military and civilian agencies in the USA, France, China, Russia etc. Not all WMD are nuclear, and in the USA non-nuclear WMD are handled by different agnencies (primarily the US Army). The Army has hired a civilian contractor in my state to turn old Cold War poison gas artillery shells into inert chemicals, so there would be civilian companies involved as well. The civilian CDC has some stocks of frozen smallpox samples in its vaults, which are not WMD, but could be weaponized if the political will existed. The whole thing gets rather complicated.
I think there should be a separate template for nuclear weapons. Poison gas, germs etc. are horrible things, but nothing really compares to nukes for destructiveness. Millions have suffered and died at the hands of the former, but it's unlikely that they could ever wipe out the entire human race, which puts nuclear weapons in a class by themselves.--Jpbrenna 16:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Erroneous argument
Regarding this sentence: "Since 2002, the US has countered that Iran does not need nuclear power due to its abundant oil reserves since, the US argues, nuclear power is cheaper to generate than oil power."
This sentence does not make sense. The argument is that US claims that Iran does not need nuclear power due to abundant oil reserves and
one would expect "oil power is cheaper to generate than nuclear power".
AQ Khan
I do not understand how we can even have this article without mentioning AQ Khan. The apologists are out in full force today. 68.254.64.3 15:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Because the article is about Iran's nuclear program, not Iran 's nuclear weapons. Totally two different things. I suggest you post AQ Khan on a page specifically about Iran's nuclear weapons program.--Zereshk 15:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are not the two one in the same when it comes to this article? This article is a branch of the WMD program. The only reason that Iran’s nuclear program is of any relevance is because they are using it as a cover to produce nuclear weapons. Khan provided, allegedly I suppose, not just bomb design info, but centrifuge info as well. 68.254.64.3 16:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The two are not the same. Iran's WMD program would be related to the military. The "nuclear program" operates under the Ministry of Energy.
- That Iran's nuclear program is being used as a "cover-up" is an allegation, not a proven fact.
- If youre going to talk about WMDs here, then you should also talk about WMDs on the United States Department of Energy National Laboratories page or any and all DOE pages, and even power generating facilities like Tennessee Valley Authority.--Zereshk 03:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Zereshk has a point. Even if there weren't any allegations that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, a civilian nuclear power program there would still warrant a Wikipedia article. The WMD allegations (and I am not an "apologist" for the mullah's regime or their desire to go nuclear) while relevant, are not the whole story, and they are not the sole reason that this article "...is of any relevance..." For a lot of people in Iran, having a nuclear program is a sign of national accomplishment and a source of pride, which it is not in the US, or France, because we in the West have had nuclear power for so long that we either take it for granted, or -- unimpressed by its novelty since it isn't new anymore -- have become wary of some of its drawbacks. There really should be a separate article about the alleged weapons program. It should be mentioned here, but it shouldnt' be sole focus of this article. Ditto for AQ Khan. --Jpbrenna 19:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The people who put up the NPOV sign have not made any attempts to fix what they think is wrong with the article. It's been sitting up there for months. Im taking it down.--Zereshk 00:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons
The name of each country on the sidebar on the right-hand side of the above article links to "___ and weapons of mass destruction" -- except Iran, which links to this article. Maybe we should bring it in line with the US, China, Russia, Israel, Britain et al. and move this article to "Iran and weapons of mass destruction?" And again, we should try to distinguish between a nuclear energy program and a nuclear weapons program in theory, even if the line is blurred, as it usually is, in practice. Which would mean creating two separate articles, entitled "Iran Nuclear Weapons Program" and "Iran Nuclear Energy Program" or something to that effect. It is possible to crosslink in Wikipedia. Some people may not realize this.
If you're reading this and feeling a sense of deja vu here, it's because I have already made a similar suggestion, not because you were a Wikipedian in a past life. --Jpbrenna 01:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Im all 4 it. Lets separate them.--Zereshk 01:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Move
I finally did it. And there's something for everyone here. Wanted a separate weapons article, to distinguish from atomic energy programs? You've got it. Fan of the WMD template? It's back! That's right, folks, it's Iran and weapons of mass destruction --- hopefully not coming to a city near you!
Now everything conforms to Wiki WMD standards and Iran won't be the odd man out on the template. But the article will obviously need some modifications. Does Iran have any chemical weapons? I'd venture to guess they do, a legacy of the Iran-Iraq War. They are robably sitting around leaching out of their containers posing more of a hazard to their owners than to foreigners, like most other countries' stockpiles. But they should be mentioned. Biological? None that I've heard of, unless you count kebabs that have been left out too long -- but maybe they are working on them. I haven't heard any allegations, but maybe I'm just that out-of-the-loop. And we'll need an article on Iran's Ministry of Energy if there isn't one already. So get to work, Wikipedians! I'll help out when I have time, but I really should be focusing on my paper and upcoming exam. --Jpbrenna 05:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
International response - Israel
Ongoing discussion regarding content moved to Talk:Iran and weapons of mass destruction with this heading left for historical purposes. --Uncle Bungle 20:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm busy all day today and will answer your charges later. In the mean time, I suggest removing the content from Iran's nuclear program and moving this talk page to the discussion page for Iran and weapons of mass destruction. No sense in maintaining both, and the content, however it is finialized, belongs in the WMD article. I'll wait for your agreement on that before making the change, Jayjg. --Uncle Bungle 12:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, remove it from here, leave the information and Talk: at Iran and weapons of mass destruction. Jayjg (talk) 17:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Clean up tag
I put the cleanup tag up because the page needs some major revisions, considering that we now have the new Iran and weapons of mass destruction page. Therefore any and all discussion about the WMD matter will go to that page, while the material pertaining to Iran's civilian nuclear power industry remains here. The two need to be distinguished and separated from eachother. For example, the NPT and text about missiles and all that is not irrelevant on this page. There's a lot of overlapping between the two. But it can be done with your help. Thanx.--Zereshk 22:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've started to do a few things, but we should discuss guidelines. I don't think this article should cover any of the controversy, personally. Instead it ought to focus entirely on the technical status of Irans nuclear program, and leave all the international negotiation and accusation to the WMD article. It's an idea anyway. Comments? --Uncle Bungle 02:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indeed that's why the Iran and weapons of mass destruction page was made.--Zereshk 03:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nuclear PROFILERATION Treaty
"July 1968: Iran signs the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and ratifies it. It goes into effect on March 5, 1970."
Does this try to say the "nuclear NON profileration treaty" or is this a different treaty?--HJV 23:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
It should be the Non Proliferation Treaty.--Zereshk 23:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Krupp
I changed Krupp to ThryssenKrupp AG as they merged into one company a few years ago. Perhaps another link to the original Krupp could be added. freestylefrappe 05:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)