El Baradei: Iran will have 8,000 centrifuges installed by year's end

[TheAli]

ashtar jan,

If only one nukular (nuclear in Bush's language) bomb falls into Tel Aviv then there will be no more reason for West (Jewish lobby) to continue a war against Iran becasue there would be no Israel left. This means that all the policies and plans they had followed would have fallen down. Hence, I agree with what Ken is saying. If Iran had nukes then no Western politician would have the guts to talk about direct military intervention. No one would ever imagine of asking the people to vote for a military intervention.

The reason they invaded Iraq was because they were 100% sure Iraq did not have any chemicals or nukes. They researched it well before going there. But this is not true about Iran. They are not at all sure what Iran has and has not, so this requires the long-term policy they have followed which is putting economic "sanctions" on Iran.

Now, I believe that, they are becoming more and more certain that Iran has more than it is claiming. Iran's program, no matter what El-Baradei says, may be far more advanced than what we know. This requires continuing the older policy of sanctions and no more war talks.

 

[Bauvafa]

The above are generalizations based on current hype that are untrue and more importantly not applicable to Iran's situation.

Based on proven current reserves and not on any new discoveries, Iran has enough natural gas to serve its energy needs for hundreds of years. This is what a nuclear reactor would replace.

There is enough natural gas around world, based on existing proven reserves for over a hundred years. There is enough oil around the world to serve the world's needs for about a hundred years. And there is enough fossil fuel of the other sort, coal to alst the world many hundreds of years. The issue is about cost of production, i.e. about economics and not some scientific prediction that these are running out. So again, there is zero economic justification for Iran develop nuclear energy.

Other issues are that these resources are not distributed evenly and some countries have a lot and others less. And more recently concerns about global warming.

What is interesting the current hype has been fostered by US oil companies and their friends but bought by people around the world, for a second time, the first being in the late 70s.

This is the most uninformed claim I have read about the current world demand and supply for energy and the future forcast. Your claim is quite in-line with what the neo-cons have been spewing about Iran having enough gas and oil and therefore doesn't need nuke energy. It's equivalent of saying a country produces enough rice and therefore should not be allowed to produce wheat. Not to forget that the US still has enough coal and petroleum at home to meet its domestic demand so why has it been importing oil for decades?????

The energy policy of most modern countries is shifting towards a more diversified portfolio to reduce dependency on a single type of energy, let alone the source of that energy. Iran needs to follow the same path regardless of its reserves. Besides, Iran's role in the region and the world will change within the next decade and we need to plan to turn Iran into an energy hub for the region.

 

[Fole_Penalt]

This is the most uninformed claim I have read about the current world demand and supply for energy and the future forcast. Your claim is quite in-line with what the neo-cons have been spewing about Iran having enough gas and oil and therefore doesn't need nuke energy. It's equivalent of saying a country produces enough rice and therefore should not be allowed to produce wheat.

The energy policy of most modern countries is shifting towards a more diversified portfolio to reduce dependency on a single type of energy, let alone the source of that energy. Iran needs to follow the same path regardless of its reserves. Besides, Iran's role in the region and the world will change within the next decade and we need to plan to turn Iran into an energy hub for the region.

LOL! Rather your post is quite in line with much of Iranians, unfortunately:
1) exaggeration: so my post is the most uninformed claim...
How about a sense of proportion? . When you say marg bar aamrika you really do not mean death to America, it is just something one says.

2) Being wrapped up in one's ownself and one's emotions so much so to not understand an oft repeated and simple point of another.

The clear statements in my post(s) were that there is zero economic justification for nuclear energy for Iran. It has got nothing to do with allowing or not allowing any nation to have nuclear bombs as you ascribed to me. Who gives any right to America to or the western governments to allow or not allow anyone else to do anything?

Otherwise, you know of course that you have now backed off of your prior claim and changed your reasoning from:
a)

Fossil fuel reserves are pretty much well discovered and mostly developed and operational. There are no huge reserves anywhere in the world that hasn't been discovered. All that points to energy crisis in the future (within a few decades) unless other forms of energy are produced. One such option is nuclear energy and there is a race between major world powers to 1) Sign up major contracts for building reactors across the globe and 2) monopolize the energy produced.

to
b)

The energy policy of most modern countries is shifting towards a more diversified portfolio to reduce dependency on a single type of energy, let alone the source of that energy. Iran needs to follow the same path regardless of its reserves. Besides, Iran's role in the region and the world will change within the next decade and we need to plan to turn Iran into an energy hub for the region.

Instead what I wrote is precise and clear. You would have been better off to verify that information. And if the information were incorrect you would have been better off to remain consistent as a proof for your own self of your own truthfulness.

There is zero economic justification for nuclear energy. Fossil fuels are not running out for the world any time soon. Iran has enough fossil fuels to last it well over a hundred years.

Now if there are other reasons for Iran to develop nuclear energy using the resources that belong to Iranian people then it is up to the Iranian people to decide its worth vs. cost.

For example, I fully support Iran having a nuclear bomb, IR or no IR, Shah or no Shah. I do not support incompetence, theft, oppression, killings in getting there.

On the other hand there are many who think it is worthwhile to have the nuclear bomb at practically any price. These same people were and are against the Shah's regime while if we had the Shah's regime we would not have one pathetic power plant but 16 or more plants operational for decades now. This proves their hypocrisy. They are liars. Instead they have some other real motives and they lie even to their own selves let alone others about it.

 

[Bauvafa]

LOL! Rather your post is quite in line with much of Iranians, unfortunately:

I am fortunately Iranian and have no reason to escape from it.

1) exaggeration: so my post is the most uninformed claim...
How about a sense of proportion? . When you say marg bar aamrika you really do not mean death to America, it is just something one says.

Stay on topic if you can or it will be my last response to you.

2) Being wrapped up in one's ownself and one's emotions so much so to not understand an oft repeated and simple point of another.

The clear statements in my post(s) were that there is zero economic justification for nuclear energy for Iran. It has got nothing to do with allowing or not allowing any nation to have nuclear bombs as you ascribed to me. Who gives any right to America to or the western governments to allow or not allow anyone else to do anything?

Otherwise, you know of course that you have now backed off of your prior claim and changed your reasoning from:
a)
to
b)
Instead what I wrote is precise and clear. You would have been better off to verify that information. And if the information were incorrect you would have been better off to remain consistent as a proof for your own self of your own truthfulness.

There is zero economic justification for nuclear energy. Fossil fuels are not running out for the world any time soon. Iran has enough fossil fuels to last it well over a hundred years.

Now if there are other reasons for Iran to develop nuclear energy using the resources that belong to Iranian people then it is up to the Iranian people to decide its worth vs. cost.

For example, I fully support Iran having a nuclear bomb, IR or no IR, Shah or no Shah. I do not support incompetence, theft, oppression, killings in getting there.

On the other hand there are many who think it is worthwhile to have the nuclear bomb at practically any price. These same people were and are against the Shah's regime while if we had the Shah's regime we would not have one pathetic power plant but 16 or more plants operational for decades now. This proves their hypocrisy. They are liars. Instead they have some other real motives and they lie even to their own selves let alone others about it.

You are all over the map which makes it hard to tackle any one issue. Prove to me how Iran has zero incentive in developing alternative forms of energy. Again, your argument suggests that if we have enough rice, we can't eat wheat!!!!:boxing:

Did I ever mention anything about the bomb??? I am talking about energy supplies for Iran's domestic consumption as well as what it takes to become a major player in future energy markets.

I am pointing to the basics of demand and supply for the future; something we have always failed to plan for in our modern history.

 

[Reyna10]

According to the AP/AFP reports I've read, the IAEA inspectors haven't been able to verify whether Iran is capable of successfully running the centrifuges for long periods of time and whether their centrifuges can spin at supersonic speeds without crashing. These are two key technical problems that plagued Iran in the past. Iran has no chance of enriching uranium on an industrial scale unless they've surmounted these two hurdles. The IAEA said Iran has curtailed their access to the centrifuges, which is why they can't answer these two questions. Although they may have 3K centrifuges running by the end of July, the 2 key questions are 1) can they keep them running for extended periods and 2) can they run them at the necessary supersonic speeds

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/2386

"Whether some of the centrifuges are running with the speed desired, whether some of the centrifuges have been crashed, that is a part we have yet not seen and we still have to do some analysis," ElBaradei said.

 

[Bauvafa]

According to the AP/AFP reports I've read, the IAEA inspectors haven't been able to verify whether Iran is capable of successfully running the centrifuges for long periods of time and whether their centrifuges can spin at supersonic speeds. These are two key technical problems that plagued Iran in the past. Iran has no chance of enriching uranium on an industrial scale unless they've surmounted these two hurdles. The IAEA said Iran has curtailed their access to the centrifuges, which is why they can't answer these two questions. Although they may have 3K centrifuges running by the end of July, the 2 key questions are 1) can they keep them running for extended periods and 2) can they run them at the necessary supersonic speeds

This is the revised version of the report. The original report by El Bardaie (sp?), not long ago, clearly suggested that Iran has surpassed all technical barriers but his report upset the folks who are trying to portray Iran as being incompetant to make such advances, and their harsh reaction resulted to the `correction` of the report. Keep in mind that if they accept Iran's achievements then the game they have been playing is pretty much over for them so they have to insist Iran is having difficulties.:Iran1: :wave:

 

[Reyna10]

^^ That's true, but I read another article saying that perhaps ElBaradey was exaggerating Iran's progress in order to get Ohmreeka vah Engeleece to drop their demand about suspending enrichment as a precondition for negotiations. I don't know if that's true or not, I read it in Haaratz which of course is most likely trying to demonize and slander Baradey. The other thing is about ball bearings for centrifuges. I don't remember the article that well, but Scott Ritter was talking about how Iran doesn't have enough for industrial scale enrichment and that the purity of Iran's UF6 is so crappy that the centrifuges explode.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2000303,00.html#article_continue


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG-IxXl9LCQ&mode=related&search"]YouTube - Scott Ritter on Iraq and Iran[/ame]

 

[Bauvafa]

As I said before the report changed its findings because some people didn't like the outcome but in a more conventional sense, the Dems, or as reffered to as the liberals, are trying to use this strategy --in their analysis Iran's lack of competancy-- as a way to buy time to avoid neocon's war. The reports are more a reflection of internal politics than a true analysis of Iran's progress. Mind you, all this is based on what Iran has willingly demonstrated to the world. If Iran does have a covert operation then that operation could be many years ahead of what IAEA has observed.

 

[Simply Ken]

Bauvafa has dealt with the questions raised regarding Iran's technical abilities succinctly and in a well informed manner.

With regard to Iran's energy needs, let me say the following: While Iran has substantial natural gas reserves, namely the second largest in the world, that does not translate into Iran being able to utilize those reserves to meet its annual energy needs now or in the future, much less be able to use that resource to replace oil as a source of foreign exchange earnings.

First, regardless of the reserves in various Iranian gas fields, there is a finite amount of natural gas that can actually be carried through pipeline and/or converted into LNG in any given period of time. And that amount, even in reasonably optimal usage, would not be of sufficient quantity to provide Iran with both its domestic energy needs as well as a source of export to replace its oil exports which can dwindle to zero in the near future. We already have issues of that nature in various negotiations regarding export of our natural gas, and requests by potential buyers to be guaranteed priority allocation from our fields less future domestic demand deprive us of the ability to provide natural gas for export.

Second, without knowing ultimately what kind of technologies in the future will be geared toward what kind of energy usage internationally, it is rather foolish to build your entire energy sector on natural gas alone. The technologies that will be used to produce as well as consume energy for various needs internationally will determine future demand for natural gas -- and affect the degree to which natural gas can augment other alternatives. The economic justification (including the justification for investing tens of billions more, or less, in pipelines, compressors, and LNG facilities needed to exploit the natural gas reserves) is pegged to this issue.

Finally, the same folks who talk about Iran's fossil energy reserves to argue that Iran has no need for nuclear energy in the US have also been pursuing policies to deprive Iran of the investments necessary to fully and optimally develop its oil and natural gas reserves. Indeed, the US has had extra-territorial sanctions in place in that regard for some time and has recently beefed up enforcing those sanctions and using them to try to chase away potential foreign investors. A recent study by Harvard University went so far as to argue that Iran would become a net importer of energy within a decade.

To end on a happy note, however, let me stress that if and when Iran overcomes the challenges against it led by the US/Israel, our country will be well positioned to continue to be an even more important actor in the energy sector in the future. The combination of Iranian oil, natural gas (including LNG), as well as nuclear fuel will give Iran tremendous economic clout.

 

[Reyna10]

I would also like to see Iran master the fuel cycle on an industrial scale but there is no evidence to support that we have overcome the two key technical hurdles I spoke about. Also, these two questions raised by El Baradei today weren't in the context of a revised report that Baufava discussed, but rather at a press conference after an IAEA board of governors meeting. Until it can be demonstratedly proven and officially confirmed by the IAEA that Iran has overcome these two hurdles, I can't believe otherwise.

 

[Simply Ken]

I hope that Iran can master the fuel cycle on an industrial scale but there is no evidence to support that Iran has overcome the two key technical hurdles I spoke about. It's just speculation. Also, these two questions raised by El Baradei weren't in the context of a revised report that Baufava mentioned, but rather at the end of an IAEA board of governors meeting about Iran. Until it can be demonstratedly be proven that Iran has overcome these two hurdles (IE: evidence), I can't believe that Iran is as far as they claim to be.

There is evidence with regard to the issues you mentioned. The amount of uranium Iran enriched and showed the IAEA, when divided by the number of machines Iran had in operation being fed UF-6 at the time it enriched that amount, can give you a rough idea of how long those machines were running. Until recently, that amount showed Iran running its machines for an average of 6 hours a day. While the calculations have not been revealed more recently, all the comments by the IAEA itself (as opposed to outside 'experts') show that Iran has basically overcome the so-called technical challenges and the machines are capable of being run nonstop. (I say "so-called" technical challenges, since some of the issue related to outside attempts at sabotage of Iran's program and had elements of a disinformation campaign as well).

 

[ashtar]

If as some people claim, Iran hasn't mastered the technology to enrich the Uranium to even the 5% that is needed for fuel then that begs the question as to what the f... are IAEA and US talking about when they keep asking about "unanswered questions" about Iran's previous activities? Whatever their activity in the past, if you say that today they don't have the technology to enrich Uranium to even 5% then why are you worried about them having enriched it to 95% 10 years ago?

If on the other hand, they have mastered the technology to enrich Uranium to the desired purification then what's all this jumping up and down about "preventing" Iran from gaining the technology?

 

[ashtar]

ashtar jan,

If only one nukular (nuclear in Bush's language) bomb falls into Tel Aviv then there will be no more reason for West (Jewish lobby) to continue a war against Iran becasue there would be no Israel left. This means that all the policies and plans they had followed would have fallen down. Hence, I agree with what Ken is saying. If Iran had nukes then no Western politician would have the guts to talk about direct military intervention. No one would ever imagine of asking the people to vote for a military intervention.

The reason they invaded Iraq was because they were 100% sure Iraq did not have any chemicals or nukes. They researched it well before going there. But this is not true about Iran. They are not at all sure what Iran has and has not, so this requires the long-term policy they have followed which is putting economic "sanctions" on Iran.

Now, I believe that, they are becoming more and more certain that Iran has more than it is claiming. Iran's program, no matter what El-Baradei says, may be far more advanced than what we know. This requires continuing the older policy of sanctions and no more war talks.

My point is that wars are not a matter of "people's vote". The Cuban missile crisis is a perfect example of how politicians will be willing to sacrifice not only their own people but the entire world to pursue their political agendas.

As it is, when talking about a military option against Iran the most anyone thinks about is tactical nukes in a very limited circumstance (may be as a means to destroy a bunker). And even then their military generals who argue against it based on moral, ethical and tactical issues pointing that one need not use nuclear weapons against a country with limited military threat.

Now imagine if Iran did have one or two nuclear bombs. Then the military strategists would be sitting and thinking about how to nuke entire Iran in order to prevent them from getting their one or two bombs in the air.

Nuclear weapons will only make a country safer if that country is on equal footing with other superpowers in other aspects of life as well. i.e., If one can have comparable conventional military, weapons, economy and international politics then one can use the nuclear weapon as a deterrent card. But having one or two bombs without adequate means of delivery or adequate conventional military will only invite more deadly and destructive attacks from the foes as opposed to deterring them.

 

[Bauvafa]

The issue of deterrence is not about having the ability to win a nuke war, rather having enough fire power to prevent the war in the first place. To better understand the dynamics of deterrence, one needs to understand the psychology of war from each side's point of view. Iran's position, in case of a war, is in ensuring survival while the other side is looking to gain the upper hand in the region without excessive cost. Now, if the price of such adventure is too high then the aggressor would be foolish to take any steps that would jepordize its current holdings, since its initial intent was to enhance those holdings. It's all about the economics of war.
The best resembelence is found in high school with the guy who plays bully. His mentality is to gain more by bullying the weak for lunch money. The price of someone standing up to the bully is a lot more than missing an opportunity to take away his lunch money; he may end up losing the bullying power to do the same to another kid. A smart bully would never jepordize that. The same applies in the wild, a predator always goes after an easy kill; the game of survival thought to all by nature is not to become an easy kill.

 

[Khoda]

If as some people claim, Iran hasn't mastered the technology to enrich the Uranium to even the 5% that is needed for fuel then that begs the question as to what the f... are IAEA and US talking about when they keep asking about "unanswered questions" about Iran's previous activities? Whatever their activity in the past, if you say that today they don't have the technology to enrich Uranium to even 5% then why are you worried about them having enriched it to 95% 10 years ago?

If on the other hand, they have mastered the technology to enrich Uranium to the desired purification then what's all this jumping up and down about "preventing" Iran from gaining the technology?

Good points all. The problem is intent. When they hide they nuclear activities, by their own admission, for 18 years and come clean only when they are caught, then you can't be trusted when you say you just to keep the lights on. Even the most ardent supporters of IR don't deny they are after nukes. The only argument is why not?

 

[R_E_Z_A]

Good points all. The problem is intent. When they hide they nuclear activities, by their own admission, for 18 years and come clean only when they are caught, then you can't be trusted when you say you just to keep the lights on. Even the most ardent supporters of IR don't deny they are after nukes. The only argument is why not?

Iran is not after nukes, I wish they were. Iran has not hidden their nuclear activity, Iran is a member of NPT and there has been 100s if not 1000s of inspections. The western media has made you belive that Iran is doing ilegal activities. The case against Iran is a very weak one, they "suspect" that Iran is building nuclear bomb! this is obsurd ! Iran is a suspect cause USA and its gigant media does'nt like us, its as simple as this.

 

[Fole_Penalt]

I am fortunately Iranian and have no reason to escape from it.

It is good that you are happy to be Iranian, a fact that you had nothing to do with but were simply born with and could not escape from even if you tried. All Iranians are not the same. It would be good for you and me or anyone else, Iranian or not, to escape those inherited characteristics or aadaab o rosoom, even if practiced by majority, that are harmful and foster those that are good.

Stay on topic if you can or it will be my last response to you.
You are all over the map which makes it hard to tackle any one issue.

LOL! Considering the board, to your credit, you have remained reasonably polite and calm. I trust that some others can follow what I wrote. Perhaps if you read it again you can too.

Prove to me how Iran has zeroeconomic incentive in developing alternative forms of energy.

It is not that Iran has zero incentive to develop alternative forms of energy, that is not what I stated, instead what I have consistently and precisely stated is that Iran has zero economic justification to develop nuclear energy. This is a proven fact. You just need to educate yourself about it. Perhaps this helps: the cost of production of electricity via natural gas plants is dominated by the cost of gas. Over 70% of the cost of production of a KWH of electricity using a natural gas plant is the cost of gas. In the US, in the most optimistic calculations in favor of nuclear energy, the operational cost of electricity production via natural gas and electricity produced via nuclear energy becomes the same when the natural gas price is around $4 MBTU. Because Iran has such great amount of natural gas easily accessible the cost of natural gas in Iran is less than $1 MBTU. In other words there is no way in the world that nuclear energy can ever be produced economically in Iran.

And this is just the operation cost. The initial capital investment is far greater for a nuclear power plant. This is done in hopes of recovering that capital cost in the future due to better operational cost. In France for example the cost of natural gas is $5 MBTU or more.

And all this assumes a competent and non-corrupt operation. IR and Sepah in particular is as corrupt as any organization you can find anywhere in the world and they are incredibly incompetent. Thus their costs are orders of magnitude greater. There is zero economic justification for Iran to develop nuclear energy.

Again, your argument suggests that if we have enough rice, we can't eat wheat!!!!:boxing:

No, instead your example fails. First of all it is not about whether Iran can or cannot do something. Iran can eat shit if it wishes to, and it has, and no one has the right to by force to tell it do otherwise. Secondly the output, in this case electricity is not different as rice and wheat are. You cannot tell the difference between electricty produced via natural gas and electricity produced using nuclear energy. Most people can tell the difference between eating rice vs. eating wheat. So they may choose to eat wheat sometimes, with abgoosht for example, and rice at other times, with chelokabob for example. Now many, couldn't tell the difference between shit and chelokabob when it comes to what is right and what is wrong, but we are talking about honest rational people here. Instead the correct analogy would be to say that Iran should produce wheat using water from rain and dams but it should also produce wheat using water distilled in the desert from moisture in the air even if it costs 100 times as much, just to be diversifed. As you can see it does not make sense.

 

[Khoda]

Iran has not hidden their nuclear activity, Iran is a member of NPT and there has been 100s if not 1000s of inspections.

Iran hid their enrichment activity for 18 years. This is what IAEA says. If IAEA was kept informed why are they still asking for documentation from those years even now? To date IAEA says they don't have the full story. Did we ever read about Iran's nuclear work prior to 2002 (or whenever it was the lid came off)? We didn't. You can have thousands of inspections and still hide what you are doing. If I was IR I would withdraw from NPT, announce that what I am doing is nobody's business and be done with it. They would not be in a worse situation than they are now.

 

[Bauvafa]

Iran can use the case of the so called "international community" supporting Saddam's war of aggression (yes, the same Evil Saddam) against Iran for 8 bloody years as a justification for having lost faith in that body, and therefore limiting its cooperation with them at the time. Even today, Iran has every right to be suspecious of these "international" bodies and not come out quite clean. Actually, IMO, it would be stupid of them to reveal everything and if they should do so then they have lost all the leverage. Keep em guessing.

 

[Mr Thick]

Iran is not after nukes, I wish they were. Iran has not hidden their nuclear activity, Iran is a member of NPT and there has been 100s if not 1000s of inspections. The western media has made you belive that Iran is doing ilegal activities. The case against Iran is a very weak one, they "suspect" that Iran is building nuclear bomb! this is obsurd ! Iran is a suspect cause USA and its gigant media does'nt like us, its as simple as this.

WTF Iran has not hidden its activities?... Mongolee ham haddee dare bache ghomee.

====

(Baghiye adamizad):
Right now their case against Iran is one sided based upon Iran hiding its activities for so long. This will pass though as the whole game in the middle east is slowly changing.