Iran to nuke Jupiter?

On 3/19/2010 8:37 AM, LSMFT wrote:
So instead of building reactors, why isn't Iran building petroleum
refineries?
That would reduce people's fears, remove Iran's reliance on others to
refine their crude oil, and since they could now export finished
petroleum products as well as crude oil and have plenty of petroleum
products to use for internal needs at lower cost, make the whole country
more profitable.

Pat

Crude pollutes. They want to reduce C02. And why not?

Lord knows a Russian reactor has never polluted anything. ;-)

Pat

On 3/19/2010 8:42 AM, LSMFT wrote:

What I don't get is why Hypocrite America is building more nukes to
reduce C02 and frigging with another country that is going clean.
America is just the asshole of the earth.

I think it has something to do with the IAEA asking Iran: "Do you have
any other uranium enrichment facilities you haven't told us about?"
And Iran answers: "No."
Then the IAEA asks: "Then what's this thing that was built inside the
mountain near Qom?"
And Iran answers: "Other than that one of course."
That's not exactly how you build trust with the rest of the world.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
On 3/19/2010 8:37 AM, LSMFT wrote:
So instead of building reactors, why isn't Iran building petroleum
refineries?
That would reduce people's fears, remove Iran's reliance on others to
refine their crude oil, and since they could now export finished
petroleum products as well as crude oil and have plenty of petroleum
products to use for internal needs at lower cost, make the whole country
more profitable.

Pat

Crude pollutes. They want to reduce C02. And why not?

Lord knows a Russian reactor has never polluted anything. ;-)

Pat


That was a mismanagement problem, not a reactor problem.

--
LSMFT

Drive slower than the posted speed.............................
And you too can become a fracking prick..............

In article
tatelephone, Pat
Flannery wrote:

On 3/18/2010 2:29 PM, LSMFT wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
At least that's what I make of the guy on the right in the photo with
this story:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...rmament-confer
ence-in-tehran/#more-23289


That's what our government needs for its news conferences - more
dancers. ;-)

Russia will be starting Iran's nuke generator soon. The US is having a
hissy fit.


There's one thing I don't get here.
Iran says it needs reactors because it lacks the ability to generate
sufficient electricity for its own needs.
Although he country is swimming in oil, it doesn't have the capability
to refine that oil into petroleum products with which it could run
powerplants.
So instead of building reactors, why isn't Iran building petroleum
refineries?
That would reduce people's fears, remove Iran's reliance on others to
refine their crude oil, and since they could now export finished
petroleum products as well as crude oil and have plenty of petroleum
products to use for internal needs at lower cost, make the whole country
more profitable.

They know how much oil they have, and like a number of oil rich nations
may be trying to get infrastructure up that will be useable once their
own production starts dropping. Plus, if their fields are near the
border they may not want their own energy needs that exposed to
Iraqi/US disruption.

--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

LSMFT wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
On 3/19/2010 8:37 AM, LSMFT wrote:
So instead of building reactors, why isn't Iran building petroleum
refineries?
That would reduce people's fears, remove Iran's reliance on others
to refine their crude oil, and since they could now export finished
petroleum products as well as crude oil and have plenty of
petroleum products to use for internal needs at lower cost, make
the whole country more profitable.

Pat

Crude pollutes. They want to reduce C02. And why not?

Lord knows a Russian reactor has never polluted anything. ;-)

Pat


That was a mismanagement problem, not a reactor problem.

Yes and no. A reactor better designed (such as having an actual containment
building) almost certainly would not have released nearly the amount of
radiation Chernobyl did.

But yes, from the perspective of, "let's do this stupid experiment and see
what happens" it was a management problem.


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Mar 19, 8:30*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 3/19/2010 8:42 AM, LSMFT wrote:

What I don't get is why Hypocrite America is building more nukes to
reduce C02 and frigging with another country that is going clean.
America is just the asshole of the earth.

I think it has something to do with the IAEA asking Iran: "Do you have
any other uranium enrichment facilities you haven't told us about?"
And Iran answers: "No."
Then the IAEA asks: "Then what's this thing that was built inside the
mountain near Qom?"
And Iran answers: "Other than that one of course."
That's not exactly how you build trust with the rest of the world.

Pat

The question hinges on enrichment. If any country is enriching
uranium to only 5% U235 (the enrichment would in typical although not
all commercial nuclear reactors), I would not give it a second
thought.

If on the other hand, a country is enriching to weapons grade-level,
then they should not be especially surprised if they attract the
attention of others. Enrichment just costs too darn much to justify
higher enrichments.

Unless you need high power density in a small volume without refueling
(i.e. more modern submarine reactor designs), high enrichment is
absurdly expensive . . . unless you want to build weapons.

John

On 3/23/2010 3:21 AM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
LSMFT wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
On 3/19/2010 8:37 AM, LSMFT wrote:
So instead of building reactors, why isn't Iran building petroleum
refineries?
That would reduce people's fears, remove Iran's reliance on others
to refine their crude oil, and since they could now export finished
petroleum products as well as crude oil and have plenty of
petroleum products to use for internal needs at lower cost, make
the whole country more profitable.

Pat

Crude pollutes. They want to reduce C02. And why not?

Lord knows a Russian reactor has never polluted anything. ;-)

Pat


That was a mismanagement problem, not a reactor problem.

Yes and no. A reactor better designed (such as having an actual containment
building) almost certainly would not have released nearly the amount of
radiation Chernobyl did.

But yes, from the perspective of, "let's do this stupid experiment and see
what happens" it was a management problem.

They'd been trying to talk someone into doing that stupid experiment for
years, but the management staff at Chernobyl were the first ones that
actually fell for it.
Even then, there wouldn't have been the explosion if they had just taken
their time and restarted the reactor over around a day or two's time
rather than trying to do it in such a hurry.
The choice of the stainless steel ends for the cadmium control rod
assemblies was a major design error though, as in their isotopic form
from long radiation exposure they actually upped the chain reaction rate
when they started to re-insert them into the reactor after the botched
restart.


Pat

On 3/23/2010 7:42 AM, John wrote:
I think it has something to do with the IAEA asking Iran: "Do you have
any other uranium enrichment facilities you haven't told us about?"
And Iran answers: "No."
Then the IAEA asks: "Then what's this thing that was built inside the
mountain near Qom?"
And Iran answers: "Other than that one of course."
That's not exactly how you build trust with the rest of the world.

Pat

The question hinges on enrichment. If any country is enriching
uranium to only 5% U235 (the enrichment would in typical although not
all commercial nuclear reactors), I would not give it a second
thought.

If on the other hand, a country is enriching to weapons grade-level,
then they should not be especially surprised if they attract the
attention of others. Enrichment just costs too darn much to justify
higher enrichments.

Unless you need high power density in a small volume without refueling
(i.e. more modern submarine reactor designs), high enrichment is
absurdly expensive . . . unless you want to build weapons.

The Iranians are claiming they need uranium enriched to 20% for their
medical research reactor.
The Iranians are basically seeing just how much **** they can get away
with for the simple purpose of ****ing everyone off.

Pat