Iran set to build 5 new nuclear reactors

[jpak]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=79135§ionid=351020104

Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (AEO) says the country plans to construct five additional nuclear reactors in the next five years.

AEO Deputy Head Mohammad Qannad revealed Sunday that the agency has been tasked with meeting 10 percent of the country's energy demand -- approximately 20,000 megawatts -- through nuclear energy in the near future.

"For the next five years, Iran plans to produce 5,000 megawatts of energy," he added.

Iran suffers from an electricity shortage and adopted a rationing program in the summer to ease the problem by scheduling power outages across urban and rural areas in the country.

<more>

[Deja Q]

1. And yet they're an oil producing nation that exports rather a lot of the stuff.

Forgive me for being skeptical.

[mahina]

3. Unfortunately, the reality is that we're going to have to increase nuclear power around the world in

a big way if we're going to stay below 550 ppm in 100 years. Without it, status quo, we will be looking at 800 ppm at least. This planet will be just short of uninhabitable.

Iran is a dangerous nation, and nuclear waste is an unimaginably dangerous pollutant, that is true.

You may know that Iran has horrendous air pollution, as do China and India. We're going to need parallel development of all non CO2 emitting energy generation technologies, nuclear included.

This is complex subject but it really is worth our time to familiarize ourselves with the nuclear protocols. It is entirely possible for Iran to develop safe nuclear technology and follow international law. We have to keep our eyes open.

The deal was that the nuclear nations would assist other nations with development of nuclear power in return for security measures. These are impossible to fudge, really.

Check out the http://www.iaea.org/ We can't let knee jerk reflex reaction replace thought in this environment.

[kristopher]

4. Impossible to fudge?

Once they have a reactor they have the ability to produce plutonium for bombs. A typical 1GW light water reactor produces about 200kg of plutonium/year as about 1% of the spent fuel. IF political circumstances change and a "peaceful use" nuclear nation decides it wants to withdraw from the nonproliferation treaty, there isn't a way short of force to stop them or to remove their ability to process their spent fuel to recover the plutonium.

Renewable technologies CAN meet world energy needs.

[bananas]

5. That's incorrect, ill-informed, and naive

Every serious analysis has come to the same conclusion: nuclear energy will only be a small part of reducing CO2 emissions.

A couple of years ago, nuclear energy was 16% of global electricity generation, and was expected to increase slightly as a percentage. It's declined to 14%, and the IAEA projects it will remain between 12.5% to 14% over the next several decades.

Iran's enrichment facilities are in underground bunkers because they are military targets.Even if they aren't producing weapons-grade uranium now, at any point in time they can change their mind, start producing weapons-grade uranium, and prohibit IAEA inspectors from inspecting the facilities. According to Seymour Hersh, Bush wanted to bomb them with nuclear bunker-busters. Other countries don't have all the "checks-and-balances" we do that kept Bush in check.

"The deal was that the nuclear nations would assist other nations with development of nuclear power in return for security measures. These are impossible to fudge, really."

Some countries violated "the deal", and others never signed on. India violated "the deal" (its agreements with Canada) and made nuclear weapons. Pakistan got nuclear weapons because their enemy India got nuclear weapons. Now India has a special "deal", they have a waiver from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, only a few of their reactors will be subject to IAEA security measures, the others are off-limits to the IAEA and will be used for nuclear weapons production. This is an escalation, so Pakistan and China are responding by increasing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

[mahina]

6. Excluding John Holdren and Nicholas Stern.

Nice to meet you.

[bananas]

8. Including John Holdren.

He's well aware of the limitations of nuclear energy.
Here's an audio interview with him from 2006.
Note that he mentions nuclear as 1/6 of global electricity generation.
That was true in 2006, now it is only 1/7.
The "nuclear renaissance" is going backwards.
The mp3 file is 30 minutes long, 80kbps, about 17 megabytes.

http://corporatewatchdogmedia.blogspot.com/2006/09/will-nuclear-power-save-us-from-global.html

Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Will Nuclear Power Save Us from Global Warming?

Harvard University Professor and National Commission on Energy Policy Co-Chair John Holdren discusses the role of nuclear power as a potential solution for climate change, identifying four primary problems that would need to be overcome for nukes to be a viable part of an overall greenhouse gas reduction strategy.

Listen

posted by Sanford Lewis, Esq. at 12:59 PM

[TheWraith]

7. Only if you define "every serious analysis" as those that specifically intended to conclude that.

It doesn't take a Greenpeace study to realize that there's only a few ways to produce energy that don't also produce CO2. Nuclear is one of those few, and one of the biggest.

[bananas]

9. Maybe you should listen to the interview in post #8. nt

[joshcryer]

11. They also have one of the largest uranium deposits in the world.

It's a very double edged sword here. While I would chastize Iran for not building oil burning plants in the intrim, they do have a legtimate use for nuclear power, they have the uranium!

[NNadir]

2. That's really good news.

Most of Iran's electricity currently comes from dangerous fossil fuels, and the waste released by these plants kills people continuously.

The population of Iran is 70 million people, all of whom deserve access to clean energy.

[Citizen Number 9]

10. Yeah, but

Iran will either burn the fossil fuels themselves or sell it for hard currency for others to burn. Either way, their oil production gets burned, doesn't it?