"Pakistan aiming for 8,500 MW of nuclear power by 2030"

[TexasLawyer]

Looks like Pakistan plans to use a LOT of nuclear power over the next few decades. I hope Dr. Kahn is not helping to develop Pakistan's grocery list of nuclear needs.

What a difference between US reaction to Iran and to Pakistan. Iran wants to begin generating nuclear power, and that presents an intollerable outrage, since Iran might develop nukes on the side.

Pakistan HAS nukes, HAS nuclear generating facilities, HAS threatened its neighbor with its nukes, has possible governmental connection with nuke sales to Libya and North Korea, and now plans to increase its nuclear generation by 1800%.

Kinda makes you wonder!


Govt aiming for 8,500 MW of nuclear power by 2030

Daily Times, Pakistan Tuesday, March 01, 2005

By Khalid Mustafa

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has decided to explore new markets for the import of equipment and expertise in order to be able to generate 8,500 megawatts (MW) of nuclear power by 2030. A senior official said the decision to diversify nuclear technology imports was made after President Pervez Musharraf was given a presentation on Pakistan’s ‘Action Plan’ for meeting future energy requirements. Dr Akram Sheikh, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, made the presentation on February 15.

Pakistan currently generates 462 MW of nuclear power a year, 300 MW from Chashma Nuclear Power Plant and 162 MW from Karachi Nuclear Power Plant. Pakistan imports Chinese technology for its nuclear plants, but the official described this technology as “crude” compared to newer European technology. “With Chinese technology, Pakistan can get a maximum of 600 MW from one unit,” or plant, he said.

The Planning Commission wants Pakistan to be able to generate 8,500 MW of nuclear power by 2030, and to achieve this target needs equipment and expertise from European countries such as France or Germany, the official said. “France has developed a capability to generate 2,000 MW of nuclear power from one unit. That is the kind of technology we need.” The official said Pakistan wants to standardise nuclear power generation at each plant to 1,000 MW per unit.

Under the long-term ‘Action Plan’, Pakistan would generate 32 to 35 gigawatts (GW) of hydroelectricity by 2030, though this could be potentially as much as 45 GW. The official said Pakistan could achieve this target by building large dams at Kalabagh, Basha and Akhori.

<snip>

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-3-2005_pg7_1

[Igel]

1. They seriously need the power.

For all we hear of power shortages in Iraq, theirs are just worse. Pakistan and some other countries in the area have their share--some from sabotage, just some insufficiency of power generation. They're in for some rough days ahead.

And, as for them developing/getting the bomb: they were on the US's shit list until 9/11. Then we suddenly needed them. They're messing in Kashmir and were in Afghanistan, but that's not seen as the tinderbox that the E. Mediterranean region is. That's where Iran's poking.

[TexasLawyer]

3. But why is Pakistan's need for additional power generation

seen as a legitimate justification for growing Pakistan's nuclear power output by 1800%, while Iran's need for additional and diversified power generation is viewed by the US as a cause for alarm bordering on panic?

For some perspective:

http://www.payvand.com/news/04/dec/1056.html

12/7/04
Iran's Nuclear Energy Program. Part IV: Economic Analysis of the Program
By Muhammad Sahimi


<snip>

Iran's nuclear energy program has been transformed from one not needed by, or suitable for, Iran to one for which the EU is willing to GUARANTEE the supply of nuclear fuels, provided that Iran "suspends" indefinitely its uranium enrichment program!

At the same time, it should be pointed out that when, under the US encouragement (some say pressure), Iran's nuclear energy program was started by the Shah in 1974,

(a) Iran's population was less than half of the present 70 million;

(b) its oil production was about 5.8 million barrels (MB) per day, compared with the present average daily production of 3.9 MB/day;

(c) it exported about 5 MB/day of oil, compared with the present average daily export of 2.6 MB/day;

(d) its energy consumption was less than one-fourth of the present;

(e) the Shah's government was burning Iran's natural gas for elimination, simply because it had no use for it, and,

(f) unlike now, Iran's oil reservoirs were not in decline, needing re-pressurization (see below) by natural gas injection.

In short, Iran did not need AT THAT TIME to generate electricity using NPPs. This then begs the question: Why is it that, given its present conditions which can justify use of NPPs for producing electricity (see below), the neo-conservatives and their allies believe that Iran does not need nuclear energy, whereas the US strongly pushed the Shah in the 1970s to build NPPs when Iran had no need for them?

<snip>

According to reliable statistics (provided by not only Iran's Ministry of Power, but also by International Energy Agency, the British Petroleum Annual Statistics, etc.), between 1977 and 2003, Iran's rate of energy consumption has on average increased 5.5% per year, from an equivalent amount of 181 MB to about 740 MB of crude oil. Moreover, since the end of Iran-Iraq war in 1988, Iran's oil consumption has had an annual growth rate of about 8%, while the supply of energy from all of its sources has had an annual growth rate of 6%, hence barely keeping up with energy consumption. Between 1977 and 2001, the electricity production has been experiencing an average annual growth rate of 8.5%. Iran currently produces 31,000 megawatt (MW) of electricity. Most importantly, in 1977 Iran consumed 29.6 MB of crude oil to generate electricity, whereas 265 MB of oil were used in 2003 for the same purpose, representing an average annual growth rate of 8.8%.

If the above trend continues and crude oil is not replaced by another energy source, and if Iran does not increase its oil production significantly, it may become a net IMPORTER of oil over the next decade, a huge catastrophe for a country that obtains 80% of its total export earnings, 45% of its total annual budget, and about 15% of its GDP from exporting oil. It is estimated that during 2004 the average price of Iran's crude oil will be about $30/barrel. It is noteworthy that Iran earns about $900 million/year for every $1/barrel increase in the price of its oil.

<snip>

[Igel]

5. Because one has as it's explicit aim (at least currently)

the regaining of Kashmir.

If the MMA takes over, I strongly suspect Pakistan will rise greatly on everybody's list of troublemakers: it doesn't have oil to entice the needy and greedy to trade.

Iran hasn't quite settled on Islamism in one country. (Can't help the Stalin allusion.) If they have an armed takeover and the religious fruitcakes are out of power, they'll be lowered on everybody's list of troublemakers (even while everybody wrings their hands over what a horrible transgression of human rights it is). This assumes the next government honors the contracts signed by this one.

[Rose Siding]

2. Pakistan funds terrorists.

Out loud, in broad daylight. Surpisingly, this state funding of terrorism got little media play. The cash was funded through tribal militants as repayment for loans but how is that not putting cash in Al Qaeda's pocket?

Pakistan pays tribe al-Qaeda debt

Pakistan says it has paid 32m rupees ($540,000) to help four former wanted tribal militants in South Waziristan settle debts with al-Qaeda.
Military operations chief in the region, Lt Gen Safdar Hussain, said the payments were part of a peace deal signed on Monday with tribesmen.

It is the first time Pakistan has admitted making such payments.

Also on Wednesday, wanted militant Abdullah Mehsud rejected Monday's peace deal signed by others in his tribe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4249525.stm

I posted this before- it's just so blatant. There was a time when this would have guarenteed them a spot on the axis of evil.

[Igel]

8. I read that, but don't have enough information as to whether

or not it's a good thing.

Pay the debts, and they then don't have to have ties with al-Qaeda--with any strings Zawahiri would impose. On the other hand, there's then more money for terrorism--if that's indeed what it will be used for (I think I read a version of the story where the debts were incurred by the men on behalf of al-Qaeda). It's a question of trust between the Waziristanis and the central government; the government has scant control there, and has gotten in severe hot water for daring to send troops in. The trust has been violated before, with Mehsud in the forefront. Screw over the tribals up in that area, and it's a worse mess. But the risk is being duped by them.

I don't begin to understand the Northwest Province negotiations and dealings: it's so mixed up with tribal politics, local concepts of honor and virtue, and the oddball relation between the central and tribal governments that I've long since stopped making predictions. I read, and hope to form a sufficient understanding to one day "get it".

[TexasLawyer]

4. Why Iran needs nuclear energy

"Why Iran needs nuclear energy"
On 02/08/2005 at 05:23:13 pm, Samicat wrote:

8 February 2005 Business Recorder (Pakistan)
English
© 2005 Business Recorder. All Rights Reserved.

Iran in search for a pattern of energy compatible with its sustainable development and the livelihood of its present and future generations had to opt inescapably for diversification of its energy sources and, thus, decided to develop nuclear energy. This option was not adopted after the advent of the Islamic Republic in Iran in 1979.

Quite the contrary, the Iranian Royal Government started entertaining this option towards the beginning of the 1970's and by the eve of the Islamic Revolution, the Iranian energy program was well advanced, benefiting from the active assistance of a number of European countries, and a favourable and encouraging approach by the United States.

In terms of energy self-sufficiency, Iran, with a territory of 1.6 million square km and a population that doubled since 1979 to close to 70 million at present and is projected to be more than 105 million in 2050, has no choice, indeed, but to seek access to more diversified and secure source of energy.

The growing Iranian economy, with a growth rate of around 7%, should be able to provide for a growing and rather young population, of which around 70% is under the age of 30. At present, we consume half of the crude oil we produce inside the country, and every year we are in need of around 2000 mw of additional electricity.

As an example, the Iranian Government could provide electricity, in the period of the past 25 years, to 46,000 villages out of more than 60,000 existing Iranian villages scattered over a vast territory from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf. Whereas at the beginning of the said period the number of the villages that had access to electricity did not exceed 4,400.

To satisfy the growing demand for energy, it is neither possible nor wise to rely exclusively on fossil energy. More gloomy projections suggest that if Iran continues on the same track, with the current domestic energy consumption growth rate, the possible depletion, and more expensive and difficult oil extraction process; it may end up being a net importer of energy in about 20 years.

<snip>

http://www.wnyc.org/discuss/soapbox.html?message_id=54429

[Charles19]

6. Every country has a right to generate power.

What is wrong with you people.

[lovuian]

7. Pakistan is our real enemy!!!

:nuke:

[jpak]

9. Pakistan needs 8500 MW of new nuclear capacity

because the nuclear weapons tests they conducted in 1998 seriously depleted their reserves of fissile material.

They need those reactors to support their nuclear weapons program - period.

Pakistan (unlike Iran) is not a signatory to the NPT.

Who is going to sell them these reactors??????

ChimpCo????

China????

Russia????