Official: Russian (nuclear) Fuel Ready for Iran

[jpak]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3ZOgW0rLhODJL3mrASw7b1ebABA

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Enriched uranium fuel is ready to be shipped from Russia to Iran's first nuclear power plant, state television on Sunday quoted Iran's foreign minister as saying.

The announcement comes after talks in Moscow between minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Russian nuclear chief Sergei Kiriyenko to address delays in completing the $1 billion joint Iranian-Russian Bushehr power plant.

"Nuclear fuel for this power plant, inspected and sealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, is ready," the broadcast quoted Mottaki as saying late on Saturday. "We do see the trend of cooperation between Iran and Russia moving ahead for the Bushehr power plant."

The project, Iran's first nuclear power plant, has been beset by repeated delays due to payment problems on the Iranian side, according to the Russians. Tehran, however, maintains it is because Moscow has been caving into Western pressure to halt the project.

<more>

[NNadir]

1. They should ship the fuel and start the reactors. Iran burns a lot of dangerous

fossil fuels and dumps lots of dangerous fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere.

This practice threatens all of humanity. Although the anti-nuclear industry couldn't care less, having to service all the clients at Gazprom and at Walmart, Iran dumped 400 million tons of dangerous fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere in 2004, and that's only considering the dangerous fossil waste carbon dioxide.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

We can expect of course, that the anti-nuclear industry will work to help Dick Cheney et al whip up hysteria about this - much as they did in the lead-up to Iraq with that screaming about Uranium!!!!!!! - but the Iranian people have a right to nuclear reactors, as does all of humanity.

[jpak]

2. If Iran was buying wind turbines or PV arrays - no one would care

and there would be no neocon calls for air strikes against these facilities.

Once again, nuclear power threatens world peace...

[Dead_Parrot]

4. True, but they would have much energy, either.

Maybe they wanted something with more than a 30% capacity loading? :shrug:

[jpak]

7. They would have plenty of reliable carbon-neutral electricity and no need for

multi-billion dollar Russian air defense systems to protect those facilities.

a win-win situation...

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Great! So why aren't Germany doing it? nt

[NNadir]

5. Maybe you are calling for air strikes, but I'm certainly not.

Any air strikes would be an excuse for stealing dangerous fossil fuels, as we saw the last time that the anti-nukes teamed up with Cheney, Powell et al to raise nuclear bugaboos.

The number of nuclear wars in the last 50 years is zero. The number of dangerous fossil fuel wars is not zero. The number of wars fought to fight nuclear weapons programs is zero. Not one country, zero, has ever legitimately invaded to stop a nuclear weapons program.

Or is it your contention that the war in Iraq was legitimate, that a nuclear program was in fact involved? Let me guess, you and George W. Bush, Condisleeza, and Dickie are smarter than either El Baradei or Hans Blix?

Out with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The number of countries that have banned dangerous fossil fuels with solar and wind is zero.

Maybe you haven't figured that out, but most people on the planet have done so. This would include the Iranians. Thus they have nuclear plants, to which they have an absolute right.

Now, if you could name a country that phased out an existent reliance on dangerous fossil fuels using your pet solar and wind fantasy, you'd have something to say to the Iranians and any one else. But you don't. You just have blank endlessly repeated platitudes of the type that the Walmart executive Amory Lovins was producing - almost word for word - 31 years ago.

It's not like Ohio has phased out fossil fuels using solar and wind. Or Iowa. Or Germany. Or Denmark. Norway is adding fossil fuels. In fact, Germany is adding fossil fuels, big time, on a billion ton scale, not even counting the cost of shipping coal from the South African and Polish mines.

I do realize that the anti-nuke industry couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel waste, but the rest of us do. I would be concerned if Iran announced a "wind and solar" program, since everyone who does that simply increases their reliance of fossil fuels.

This is, in fact, why Lovins takes some big paychecks from big energy companies. He serves their interests pretty well, as do all anti-nukes.

I wouldn't go so far as to call for air strikes on the 26 new coal plants the Germans are building, even though this coal plants are certain to kill innocent people. However the anti-nuke Gazprom executive, Gerhard Schoeder has thus far committed far more damage than Iran's nuclear program.

Actually, the call for air strikes is based on vast ignorance and nothing else. It's simply marketing by the way. Georgie uses nuclear ignorance to justify his violence, but he couldn't care less about nuclear weapons development.

Have you ever heard of North Korea?

No?

You haven't?

What a surprise. Let me tell you about North Korea. It's a country bordering China. It tested nuclear weapons. Cheney and his friends couldn't care less about nuclear weapons, just like the anti-nuke industry couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel violence.

Are you calling for air strikes, by the way?

The anti-nuke fear mongers did a great job getting air strikes and worse accomplished in Iraq with the Niger uranium scare story, and one would think, given how that turned out, that the anti-nuke industry would have developed some sense of how morally vapid their position is.

Apparently not though.

[jpak]

6. North Korea used its Yongbong nuclear *power* plant to produce plutonium for its weapons program

India used civilian nuclear *power* programs to develop its nuclear weapons program.

Iran's nuclear *power* program is viewed as a threat by GOP pro-nuclear-power-anti-solar-energy-global-warming-denier neocons who are actively banging the drum for war.

All three examples have resulted in multiple political/military crises and regional/international instability.

All the result of "peaceful" nuclear power programs...

and this was precious...

"I would be concerned if Iran announced a "wind and solar" program, since everyone who does that simply increases their reliance of fossil fuels."

what horse shit

[NNadir]

9. Yeah right...

So let me get this straight. You're calling for air strikes on North Korea too?

As for the renewables lead to more fossil fuels, let's take a look at your favorite anti-nuke paradise, Germany. In 2002, the Gazprom executive who was then running Germany, if negotiating the country's sale to Gazprom, Gerhard Schroeder told the world he was going to phase out nuclear power and move in to solar and wind. He apparently couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuels because that was where his money was going to come from.

What has actually happened? German renewable electricity grew by a modest 33 billion kilowatt-hours over ten years. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

German electricity demand rose by 62.1 billion kilowatt-hours, or almost twice as fast as renewables, meaning that <em>renewables are losing ground on dangerous fossil fuels</em>. It will be worse when the twenty six coal plants that the anti-nuke industry is installing in Germany begin to operate.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

Of course, you can never expect an anti-nuke to understand a number, unless it's the size of the check from Chevron, or Wallmart, or Gazprom.

[losthills]

10. No one has mentioned "air strikes" except you...

Herr Goebbles...

[skids]

3. What does "Bushehr" mean?

..."screw you, Bush"?