Good news: Iran working on second nuclear reactor
posted at 6:10 pm on December 17, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Good stuff. Technically, in fact, this would be their third reactor; a heavy-water model capable of spitting out lots of bomb-worthy plutonium is already in the works at Arak.
Iran confirmed on Monday that it had received the first fuel shipment for its nuclear power plant at Bushehr [from Russia], but also indicated for the first time that it was building a second nuclear power plant.
The revelation came in comments by Iran’s Atomic Organization, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, made to state-run television and reported by the semi-official Fars news agency. He was dismissing speculation that the arrival of the fuel would allow Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, in Natanz.
“We are building a 360-megawatt indigenous power plant in Darkhovein,” he said, referring to a southern city north of Bushehr.
Blog often enough and you’ll eventually find yourself re-writing old posts. Here’s the post I would have written today if I hadn’t written it already. In a nutshell, there are two ways to make a bomb: enriching uranium to bomb-grade levels of purity, which is what they’re doing with those centrifuges at Natanz, or taking the spent fuel from a nuclear reactor and reprocessing it into plutonium, which is what they could conceivably do at Bushehr with what they’re getting from Russia. (The Hiroshima bomb was a uranium model, the Nagasaki bomb was of the plutonium variety.) Supposedly they haven’t figured out yet how to highly enrich uranium, which makes Bushehr their only option for the moment. What’s to stop them from reprocessing the Russian fuel and turning it into a Nagasaki bomb? Three things: (1) IAEA inspections, as overseen by an Iranian stooge who’s already publicly declared it his mission to do and say whatever he has to in order to avoid war; (2) Russia’s insistence that Iran return any and all spent fuel to Russia, an assurance that depends upon our old friend Vladimir Putin’s good word; and (3) the lack of a reprocessing facility, which Iran may or may not have stashed away somewhere inside its spacious borders. How lucky do you feel?
The president thinks it’s a super idea, although only because it gives him a little extra leverage with sanctions. If they’re getting all the fuel they need from Russia then technically they shouldn’t have to enrich any uranium at Natanz to fuel-worthy (i.e. low) levels. Hence the admission of the second reactor: Sure, sure, Russia can power Bushehr — but what are they going to do about Darkhovein? Answer: How about some more Russian fuel?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Threat? What threat? I don’t see no stinkin’ threat.
amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Meanwhile, the Left is concerned the blast in the FOX building wasn’t bigger? Sheesh.
SouthernGent on December 17, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Strictly for peaceful, energy generating purposes. We insist. Lots of energy. All at once. Death to America.
Frozen Tex on December 17, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Tick tick tick.
infidel on December 17, 2007 at 6:18 PM
And think, if Hillary gets elected, she can do like Bill did with North Korea. Try to bribe them with millions and billions of tax dollars not to build anymore reactors and by the end of her term, Iran could be up to their ears in nuclear reactors and weapons using our money.
Also, maybe if we’re lucky Hillary can do what Bill did with China and give them classified secrets while they build more reactors in defiance.
Aren’t we all better off after what the Clintons did in the 1990’s with those two countries?
Planet Boulder on December 17, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Ron Paul says it’s none of our business. They only hate us because we’re in Iraq. Send over some Christmas hams and they’ll love us once again.
Oh wait.
Gregor on December 17, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Great! Then when they get those nuke power plants online they can lower the price of oil since they wont need their own crude for power.
back to reality….with all that oil and natural gas, the disinterest in building more refineries, why do they need nuke power plants again?
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Eight days before Christmas,and all through the middle east
it was quite,until Dinnerjacket got thinking about peace.
When all of a sudden,come low and fast from the east, was a
gaggle of F-16 Falcon’s coming in for the feast,they dropped
their load,and to their surprise the mission went well,so they were thinking about partying, and headed for home.haha
canopfor on December 17, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Thank you! My laugh of the day!
Frozen Tex on December 17, 2007 at 6:38 PM
@ Gregor on December 17, 2007 at 6:33 PM
It IS none of our business. It IS Israels business. Iran has no way to attack mainland USA. It CAN attack Israel. Let Israel handle this for once, we dont have to handle EVERYTHING.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Right. Because 9/11 never happend. Because it would be physically impossible to carry nukes across our lock-solid secure border.
What the Hell was I thinking?
Gregor on December 17, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Oh wait. Are you a Ron Paul supporter? I forgot. You probably believe we blew up the towers with explosives and Bush and Rove did it.
Gregor on December 17, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Iran should not be allowed to become a nuclear power. Period.
Zorro on December 17, 2007 at 6:44 PM
You can’t be serious.
Zorro on December 17, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Really? See, Iran keeps testing longer and longer range missiles. The latest one, the Shihab-4 missile, is being developed by Iran. That one has a range of 2,300 to 3,000 KM. That would mean most of Europe could be reached by an Iranian nuclear weapon. Each missile they develop has a longer range.
I won’t even get into the fact that Israel’s an ally of ours. And of course it’d be physically impossible that a terror organization (I know, Iran doesn’t support any of those) could get a hold of one and detonate it in a port.
amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 6:47 PM
@ Gregor on December 17, 2007 at 6:43 PM
You are an idiot.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 6:47 PM
@ amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Let EUROPE deal with the problem. Once they are within several years of developing a weapon that can hit the US, THEN it becomes our problem. We SERIOUSLY dont have to solve ALL of the worlds problems.
Don’t you think a BETTER method of making sure an attack on the US doesnt happen would be to SECURE THE DAMN BORDERS?
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 6:49 PM
This situation with Iran,AcmedDinnerjacketnutcase building
another nuke complex,and then having the audacity to claim
that the United States has surrendered,is like the scene from Team America with Kim ill and the UN,only this time
substitute Dinnerjacket and the NIE report,sounds like
Dinnerjacket wants to keep everybody on edge through the
holidays,I hope Mossad,and US Special forces have some
presents lined up!
canopfor on December 17, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Classic PaulBot. Welcome to HotAir. Now go upstairs and wake up your grandma.
Gregor on December 17, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Right, because Europe has such a great track record of dealing with threats. Of all of the problems we don’t have to solve in the world, a rogue Islamic nation getting a hold of a weapon that can wipe entire nations off the map isn’t one of them.
Securing the damn borders? Yes. Why is it one or the other? Fighting terror means fighting on many, not one, front.
amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 6:52 PM
@ canopfor on December 17, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Ackmadinnnajoddd LOVES when the US is talking about Iran as an evil nation. It is SO easy to play the message to his people that HE is the only one that will stand up to the “evil US” who wants to destroy Islam, blah blah blah. He is TRYING to stir up controversy again after that NIE report.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 6:53 PM
@ amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Well, its been one of the other for the past thirty years. I think for the past thirty years, we have chosen the WRONG choice. I still cannot contemplate how we can justify such a giant advances military presence around the world, while we leave the backdoor to our house off the hinges, with all the windows open. Shouldnt shoring up our borders be the FIRST line of defense against terrorism? Seems to me when we build a base overseas, the FIRST thing we do is build walls to protect the base, not send troops out all over the countryside.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Dont forget Cheny took out an insurance policyb a week before the WTC was hit, even though he does not own the building nor the businesses within.
muyoso your statements are flat out ignorance. People like you also said Korea gave up its nuclear program during Clinton’s era too. Iran has something that negates the need to ICBMs….religious suicidal brain washed maniacs. By the way, didnt we recently catch them and NK transferring missile and military technology?
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 6:56 PM
@ Gregor on December 17, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Do tell, who do you support for president? As you have shown, you know nothing of the average Ron Paul supporter. Accusing somene like me of being a 9/11 truther is laughable. I would LOVE to know who you support for president so I can criticize your conservatism.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Yes, it’s an essential. But that doesn’t mean we should stop our efforts overseas, instead only concentrating on building walls. That becomes isolationism and doesn’t work.
amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Now that is a brilliant observation. Complete 180 from your Iran cant attack us comment.
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 6:58 PM
@ El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 6:56 PM
We GAVE the Koreans nuclear technology because Clinton was an a**hole. I don’t know what you are getting at.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 6:58 PM
@ El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Are you serious?
How is protecting our borders while removing troops from overseas a 180 reversal? Iran CANT attack us unless we are in the middle east and or Europe. They simply do not have the organization or technology to carry out an attack on mainland USA.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:00 PM
There is absolutely no way some psycho in a cave in Afghanistan can attack us unless we’re in the Middle East. He simply doesn’t have the organization or technology to carry out an attack on mainland USA.
amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 7:02 PM
@ amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Touche
You bring up a valid point. Consider the things that FAILED to allow that to happen. Then realize, NOTHING has changed. Don’t you think we should solve those things before starting yet another war?
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:04 PM
I believe diplomacy should come first, just as President Bush does. I also believe we need to be working double, nay, triple time to build the border fence. But if our intelligence and military say we need to attack, I’m all ears.
amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 7:06 PM
muyosos refer to my first post:
And i know Clinton gave them nuke tech on the hopes that it would be used for electricity only (what a dumb @$$). What I am getting at is, your statement like Iran has no way to attack the CONUS is as ignorant as those people years ago who believed North Korea gave up its nuclear weapons program or even the arrogance and ignorance of believe that terrorists could never strike on our own soil.
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:07 PM
All it takes is one secret deal and BOOM, Iran has ICBMs. I do not want to assume that such a deal would never occur.
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:08 PM
@ amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 7:06 PM
I agree completely.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:09 PM
The beautiful thing about AQ, is that it is not organized like a typical military. It is as organized as the religion of Islam itself. Taking out one cell will not necessarily hurt another. They are all almost independant, except for the $$ which we are not able to cut off completely thanks to privacy laws.
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Send over some Chritmas hams….
Gregor on December 17,2007 at 6:33PM
Gregor:You can’t be serious,with the History of the middle
east,the prussian’s twice tried to take the world,Hitler
only had one shot at it.England,France,were in the middle east for a long time,like the 1700 and 1800’s.Those countries were running their little empires.
So,are you trying to tell me that since the late 1800’s
and in the last 80 years the United States of America has
the middle east in a tizzy,were the other European countries for hundreds of years have nothing to answer for.
And nobody business with Israel,trust me,Israel knows their
alone,accept for the United States of America.
Israel will do what they have to do,and GOD BLESS THEM!
canopfor on December 17, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Allah,
Good post. Very informative, thanks.
bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 7:13 PM
@ El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:07 PM
All I am saying is we should get our priorities in line. I think war should be the LAST option, and should ONLY be available if congress DECLARES war. I think the intelligence community needs to be completely recreated. I believe the border should be SEALED tight. I believe we should diplomatically deal with Iran and other nations. IF THEN there is an OBVIOUS and IMMINENT threat, THEN we use force.
Instead, our method is more like this. Take intelligence community, add MORE red tape and bureaucracy. Leave borders wide open. Throw out rhetoric of attacking Iran if they dont follow our demands. I dont see that as a positive step.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:13 PM
How very pre-9/11 of you. Al Qaeda? Taliban? Nah, they live in caves. They’d never be able to attack the US. Hmmm, funny how that plane’s turning toward our building…
Califemme on December 17, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Care to speculate on what a nuclear tipped cruise missile (yes they have those that are capable of handling that) if launched from 40 miles offshore from some old tramp steamer?
CommentGuy on December 17, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Iran will attack the gulf states. They have been after them and Iraq for a long time. Even if they are defended by al-Qaeda, we lose out. We get a lot of oil from the gulf states, so it is our business. Iran will also go after Saudi Arabia when it can. Mecca would be a great gem in their caliphate.
bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Actually it would surprise a lot of people but we get almost as much oil from Africa as we get from the mideast.
CommentGuy on December 17, 2007 at 7:19 PM
@ CommentGuy on December 17, 2007 at 7:14 PM
There are a MILLION ways to attack the USA. There are a million ways to attack any country. The way to deal with that isnt to take on everyone who doesnt like you, its to defend yourself when threatened, and otherwise keep to your damn self and stop messing with other countries business.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Ooooops,my sincere apologies to Gregor,my comment was aimed for MUYOSA, Gregor,sorry.
canopfor on December 17, 2007 at 7:19 PM
muyoso and CommentGuy,
Why not just put one of their conventional missiles on a tramp steamer and fire it off in International waters for it to explode and set off an EMP over, say, New York? They could fire it off anywhee in the North Atlantic and it would easily reach New York City. Wouldn’t take much of a nuke to send a nice EMP pulse over NYC.
bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 7:20 PM
@ bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Exactly why I think MASSIVE amounts of money should be going into alternative fuel. NO ONE can explain why we are not funding this research now. WHY is it a republican position to remain dependant on oil?
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:20 PM
muyoso I agree with you on that! Our FED is WAY too big, and the intel community is never held accountable for leaks or theft (Sandy Burger), which a lot of them were hold overs from the Clinton years which could explain all the leaks.
Our problem is that we let people, and foreign countries get away with too much stuff that when we do decide to enforce all those UN resolutions that Saddam kept violating (remember the UN was also corrupt and bought off by Saddam, as was every country that voted against the invasion, how ironic!) we are labeled as the bas guys. Similar to our cops suddenly deciding to enforce a law that is decades old. People start crying foul, racism, fascism, etc.
The UN must goo too. They have accomplished nothing, and do nothing but extort money from other countries.
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:20 PM
@ bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Why not send a few people here from Mexico, have them buy some weapons, spread out over the country, and walk into elementary schools and take out as many kids as possible. One after another, bam bam bam. There are a MILLION ways to attack the US, we can never stop all of them. We need a policy change so that there are less people wanting to kill us.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:22 PM
@ El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:20 PM
YOU better stop, that is two positions you agree with Ron Paul on, next people will be accusing you of thinking Bush brought down the world trade center.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:23 PM
The market, we the consumer, arent demanding it. that is why. plus it has yet to be proven to be cheaper and more effeicent than oil. Even ethenol or E86 costs more to make than what it yields (plus ethenol is taxed twice – gov’t subsidies, and then again at the pump).
It does not help much that all those hybrids and alternative fuel cars ar fugly either.
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:23 PM
I already can prove any phyisics prof or any nuttjub that steel does not have to melt in order to fail. plus the dust came from the top-down, not from bottom-up like what happens in imploded bldgs.
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:25 PM
@ El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Nuclear power plants and electric cars. Done and done.
Hydrogen fuel.
Ethanol is stupid, biofuels are stupid. No country is going to grow their fuel. Give me a dozen new nuclear reactors across the country and start mass producing these:
http://www.teslamotors.com/
GM is releasing this in 08. Took them damn long enough.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:26 PM
And our govt it too big. What does the last ammendment say? somethig to the effect of, any power not outlined herein shall be delegated to the States. In other words, the States need to answer up and solve their problems instead of having other citizens from other States pay for them.
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:27 PM
@ El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:25 PM
So can I. Doesnt stop people from accusing me of being a 9/11 truther. I believe even in this thread I was accused of that.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:27 PM
@ El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:27 PM
Quoting the constitution now. Jesus, you are getting WAY into RP territory. People are going to accuse you of listening to Alex Jones now.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:28 PM
muyoso what do we do with all the spent fuel rods?
And hydrogen fuel is still too expensive for the typical consumer, thus not an economical alternative to oil. Electric cars need charging dont they? that will run up your electric bill even more.
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:29 PM
muyoso
Im not a RP supporter or a nut, I just remember what i was taught in highschool Gov’t class. Who the heck is Alex Jones? I am a recent converted “Ditto Head”
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:32 PM
So it sounds like,Israel and America pack it up and leave.
And no more middle east oil,and all attacks stop,and the
middle east is Utopia,or is it the Islamofachist desire to
have a Global Caliphet.
canopfor on December 17, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Yea. Actually, I think a dirty bomb would be more spectacular. If placed in the right place, it would cause billions of dollars in damage and disrupt the US economy. A lot easier then either a nuclear bomb and less likely to be used as poor propaganda like holding children hostage.
But I don’t see Iran attacking us directly just yet. I see them attacking “western” interests in the mid-East and forcing western interests to leave the area. That could deprive us of oil and wreck havoc with our economy in an indirect fashion. First though, they need nukes for self defense. The US has never attacked a nuclear power.
bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 7:33 PM
@ El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:29 PM
That electric car i linked you to. A FULL charge costs 2-3 dollars. That is, 230 miles for 2-3 dollars. Find me someone who doesnt want to pay a slightly higher energy bill and pay nothing for fuel.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:34 PM
Kids need the computer for homework. Nice chat, muyoso. I’ll save that link and read up on it. Thanks.
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Let’s let them get the safety bugs out of it first then see what it gets on a full charge. We need to be making these things, and as Huck said in the video I watched today, we need to do it in the next year or two, not 10 years out.
Does Ron Paul have a plan on how to get the Fed Government behind oil independence?
bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Sorry Muyoso, here is my case proven again. Alternative technology is not cheap enough for the average joe to afford.
My sister’s house cost less than that. until it gets cheaper and more affordable, the demand for that market will not grow.
El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 7:49 PM
You’re right. It was sarcasm. You know? “Ham?” Muslims? Paulnuts?
The whole “it’s because Americans are terrorists” thing.
Gregor on December 17, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Whew. Thank God, lol. I really was a bit shocked that someone might have taken my comment seriously.
Gregor on December 17, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Muyoso…..fine. Fort up. Bar the gates. Fill the moat. Man the towers. Don’t worry about all the screams floating over the walls. It is none of your concern.
Limerick on December 17, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Bush rejected diplomacy with Iran in 2003 when they came to us with hat in hand. His diplomacy with Iraq was worthless — his administration was talking about attacking Iraq as soon as he came to office, and 9/11 just gave them a convenient segue with which to unite the American people behind the invasion. If you truly believe that successful diplomacy should be our preferred way of settling international arguments, it might behoove you to choose a different way of describing your support of such a policy. Diplomacy “just as President Bush does” sounds like you’re mocking Bush, diplomacy, or both.
Mark Jaquith on December 17, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Comment pages: