Posted by
Andrews on Friday, December 14, 2007 11:39:46 AM
I keep hearing people supporting the recent NIE by saying "Sure, Iran has a lot of oil, but they lack refineries, so OF COURSE they want nuclear electricity."
This may make sense to the speaker, but, with just a moment's thought, it kind of falls apart.
First: Natural gas is almost always found where oil is found. I found a
site which estimates Iran's natural gas reserves as the second largest in the world, at 974 trillion cubic feet. (And that is known reserves, there may actually be more, of course.) So, why is Iran not building natural gas fired power plants rather than refining uranium?
Second, even assuming Iran has no refining capacity, which costs less: nuclear power or refineries and petrochemical generators? This is especially relevant as Iran does not have an existing nuclear program.
Perhaps for France or the US it may be a matter of indifference whether we build a nuclear plant or a new refinery and diesel plant, but Iran has no nuclear energy program. So, for Iran, they not only have to build the nuclear reactor, but first have to develop the technology to refine fuel, THEN develop the technology to build a reactor, THEN finally build the reactor.
If they hope to meet civilian energy needs, this is a strange approach. It would seem much cheaper to build a refinery (using known technology) and diesel plants (or even easier, natural gas plants) and generate electricity that way.
It seems to me that for the NIE to think that a civilian nuclear program for Iran makes sense just shows how partisan the NIE is. There are many alternative choices for civilian power generation that make much more sense for Iran. The only conceivable reason Iran would be seeking nuclear fuels is to mask a military nuclear program.
NOTE: When I say "partisan", I don't mean liberal/conservative exactly. Sure it has been used by the left to beat up on Bush, but that was not the motive of the State Department/CIA faction that wrote it. More, it is influenced by the pro-Arab/pro-Persian "diplomatic" faction, which has been obsessed with "stability" above all else, and has pushed the anti-Israel, anti-change line in our foreign service for the past several decades. The same group which told Carter to let the Shah be deposed, let Panama get control of the canal, and backed the "two state" solution in Israel. That is the party I mean when I say "partisan". That it was to the benefit of the Democrats may secretly please some of these career diplomats, but it is just a side-effect, their primary interest is in the promotion of their stability-oriented diplomatic agenda, and nothing else.