Cutting Edge Energy Technology for Iran?

The present commotion over Iran is about the installation of 6,000 Mw of nuclear generated electricity.

Here is an alternative:

Insolation (i.e. received solar energy) in Iran is about 7Kwh per day.

There are 70 million Iranians.

If each Iranian were to be allocated 3 square metre of Photovoltaic film, the arrays would receive 1470,000 Megawatt hours of insolation per day.

At 10% efficiency (a conservative estimate, cutting edge PV reaches 20%) that gives 147,000 Megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity per day, from 3sq me solar per capita.

If the 6,000MW of planned nuclear capacity equates to 6,000 x 24 to give 144,000MWh per day, then the solar beats the nuclear. Including the down-time which forms such a fascinating part of civil nuclear power, I reckon we might need to give the Iranians only 2 sq meters of solar panel and keep one for ourselves.

I have not done the cost calculation. PV is expensive, but then so is a global nuclear war.

And yes, I know, mad Iranians might just break the panels up and use the sharp edges as a weapon against us.

It was just an idea...

Definition of Terrorism

Terrorism has to be capable of definition, because it is a major world issue, exceeded in importance only by global warming, over-population, resource depletion, peak oil, deforestation, desertification, soil loss, poverty, overconsumption, militarisation and probably a few other issues that evade me at the moment. Anyway, it is a biggish issue, and a major issue for those directly affected by it when they lose loved ones, and it affects all of us when our liberties are taken away in the name of the so-called War on Terror, so LW is quite right to ask for a definition. The fact that there is no agreed definition reflects the pejorative aspect of the word.

Let me try again, this time by assembling the components:
Terrorism includes:

1 Violence against civilians, not combatants, which is the criminal element that appears in some definitions.
2 For political (religious or idealogical) ends
3 Aims at frightening the general population
4 Not restricted to non-state groups (i.e. state terrorism exists, states can commit war crimes in undeclared wars)
5 The crime may be intentional or collateral.

Does that cover all relevant aspects, or is there stuff there that should be taken out? If we agree the elements, we can then fuse it into a definition for use here, and who knows, the method might pass on up as far as the UN, or at least over to the terrorism board on oD?

I spent a long time last year debating terrorism in the Madrid section of oD, hence my interest in securing a definition.

Speeding ticket

I got this from via Peter Britton,

Top this for a speeding ticket...

Two  traffic patrol officers from North Berwick were  involved in an unusual incident while checking for speeding  motorists on the A-1  Great North Road   One of the officers used a hand-held radar device to check the speed of a vehicle  approaching over the crest of a hill, and was surprised when the  speed was recorded at over 300 mph. Their radar suddenly  stopped working and the officers were not able to reset it.
 Just then a deafening roar over the treetops revealed that the radar had in fact latched on to a NATO Tornado fighter jet which  was engaged in a low-flying exercise over the Border district, approaching from the North Sea .
 Back at police headquarters the chief constable fired off a stiff complaint to the RAF Liaison office. Back came the reply in true laconic RAF style:

"Thank you for your message, which allows us to complete the  file on this incident. You may be interested to know that the  tactical computer in the Tornado had detected the presence of,  and subsequently locked onto, your hostile radar equipment  and automatically sent a jamming signal back to it.  Furthermore, an air-to-ground missile aboard the fully-armed  aircraft had also automatically locked onto your equipment.  Fortunately the pilot flying the Tornado recognized the situation  for what it was, quickly responded to the missile systems alert  status, and was able to override the automated defense system before the missile was launched and your hostile radar installation was destroyed.

Have a Good Day..."

Trust in Bush

Debating Missile Shield on openDemocracy

Iron Mike:C'mon Richard...you're not thinking this fully through.

Me: You're right Mike. I must think it through fully.

The US gets bombs which can kill 200,000 in an instant, so Russia, UK France and China must have them too, and this keeps the peace for 50 years because they have this effect of raising the threshold at which politicians declare war, but only if the politician is Sane.
US UK Russian French and Chinese leaders are Sane and to be trusted with nukes even though sometimes they behave more like cheese eating surrender monkeys.

Sane politicians now have some 25,000 nukes worldwide (a 50% reduction on Cold War times), equivalent to 5 tonnes of TNT for every man woman and child on the planet, which is a really Sane and Trustworthy amount to have.

Every schoolboy knows that "Nuclear weapons keep the peace".

Q: So why not give ten Nukes to every prime minister and president on the planet and stop all wars world wide?
A: Because some politicians are untrustworthy and might be mad enough to use them.

But any politician, evern the least trustworthy, can see how powerful it makes you to have nukes (after all , why else should UK and France be on the UNSC?), and how safe, and so Israel, Pakistan and India now have some too, but luckily they are all Sane and can be Trusted not to use them, but if North Korea and Iran get them they are definitely not sane and so must not be allowed to have them. And if Mr O. Bin Laden (not those other Bin Ladens, mind, the business associates of George Bush Senior, who are all so sane and trustworthy that we might sell them a dozen H-bombs if we can get them to agree on a price), if Osama got some he is definitely mad enough to use them, and would probably also make it worse by going "heheheheheheh" as he did so.

So Iran must be stopped even if it means dropping nuclear weapons on their factories. The world will trust us and understand that we only do this because the wily Iranian leader Mr ArmoureDinnerJacket has buried them so far below ground that he leaves us no choice. (Russia can bomb Iran too, if it would make it feel more included?).

But when we have stopped Iran, there are other Mad Dictators who will feel the need to have the security that a only a solid arsenal of nukes can provide. We Realists have to face the fact that proliferating nuclear weapons are a wee bit of a Problem. Mr Kissinger has said this and he is Mr Trustworthy Sane Kissinger.

So what is the answer? Definitely not to negotiate in good faith to rid the world of nuclear weapons forever and completely, even though we did cut them by 50% in the START treaty, and even though that is what Mr Henry Kissinger thinks should be done.

We should definitely not agree to take a $100 chainsaw to all the ICBMs while they are in their silos (yes, folks, that's all it takes to kill an ICBM) That is a stupid answer that comes from stupid greenies and peaceniks who are weedy and stupid and cannot Think.

The answer is to spend tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in dotting the world with high technology Missile Shield gear that will be able to destroy these self same ICBMs while they are in the air. Yes siree. While they are in the actual air, and coming our way. Bang! Zap! Problem solved. And if Russia objects, they can have some of the technology, and they can kill our missiles when they are in the air too, and coming their way. And Russian and US technology can kill Iranian and Chinese ICBMs while they are in the air too, even if the Chinese come up with Multiple Independent Targeting for their warheads which are wily and cunning enough to try to Get Past The Missile Sheild (which they will not be able to do, anyway). And the Russian shield will be able to kill the US incoming ICBMs just so long as they keep up with their payments. They can trust us that the SatNav stuff will all work even though our countries are at war.Why ever should it not? Trust us...just trust us.

I try to trust, Mike, but when I sing "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam", I can only see those rays coming out of a mushroom cloud.

Richard

NP DOES NOT PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE:

1 Electricity Produced by Nuclear Power (NP) is not CO2 free

"The use of nuclear power causes, at the end of the road and under the most
favourable conditions, approximately one-third as much CO2-emission as
gas-fired electricity production. The rich uranium ores required to achieve
this reduction are, however, so limited that if the entire present world
electricity demand were to be provided by nuclear power, these ores would be
exhausted within four years. Use of the remaining poorer ores in nuclear
reactors would produce more CO2 emission than burning fossil fuels
directly." - ref: http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen

2 Conventional NP offers an insignificant contribution to world energy needs

The finite nature of uranium reserves mean that a fourfold expansion of the world's nuclear fleet would exhaust the known global reserves of uranium. It would produce maybe 5% (maybe less) of the world's energy needs for some thirty years, then that would be it.

Breeder technology would offer a more significant amount, but

3 Fast Breeder technology means uncontrollable nuclear weapons proliferation

The plutonium-driven fast breeder reactors could make a more significant
contribution, but this would mean kissing goodbye to any notion of
preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states and terrorists, because there would be so much plutonium around, there is no way we could keep it from falling into the hands of terrorists.

4 NP possession now implies Nuclear War later

No country has developed nuclear weapons without first having a nuclear power programme. That is what the fuss is about in Iran and North Korea.
If we have weapons, we will inevitably use them at some time in the future, because no human system is perfect. America has already used them once, on the Japanese. US presidents have considered using them many times since Hiroshima. Next time they use them, there is a risk that everyone else will join in, producing a nuclear holocaust. The only way to avoid this is to get rid of nuclear weapons, which means we must get rid of nuclear power.

5 Nuclear Power is Not Insured

UK NP stations carry £140 million of public liability insurance, and the Government would contribute an equal amount, but after that - tough luck if there is an MCA.
Ironically, the planning Inspector ruled that we could not have a wind farm near Hinkley point NPS because a blade might break off... and damage the NPS.

6 Routine discharges of radioactive materials cause cancer

There is a vast amount of writing on this subject, but it is not necessary to develop it here, since it could be argued that a few local cancers are a small price to pay if nuclear power saves us from the catastrophe of global warming, and the relatives of the cancer victims could be compensated. The low level Radiation Campaign is a useful site for this information: http://www.llrc.org/index.html

7 Nuclear Power Stations are vulnerable to terrorist attack

9/11 demonstrated the acute vulnerability of the structures of western civilisation to attack from terrorists motivated by suicidal religious convictions. We cannot hope that humane and rational considerations would inhibit terrorists from using the same technique on one or more NPS. It would be consistent with the modus operandi of Al-Qaeda to do this kind of high profile action. It is a moot point whether a jumbo jet would breach containment, but it would certainly disrupt the coolant circuits sufficiently to cause releases, and a critical incident (major meltdown) cannot be ruled out

8 The waste problem is not solved

Some nuclear wastes have radioactivity that remains dangerous to human and animal health for 250,000 years. What ethical right do we have to dump that problem on our descendants for the sake of a few years worth of electricity?

9 NP stations are vulnerable to flooding as sea levels rise

They are mostly built near the sea, for cooling and waste discharge purposes. Sea level rise due to global warming will add a huge amount to the decommissioning costs.

10 NP would suck funding away from the real long term solutions which are energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Nuclear power was developed through massive state subsidies as part of the nuclear weapons development programme. These R+D costs are not included in conventional nuclear power costings. In the UK, these expenses were hidden from parliamentary inspection in the post-war public accounts as "Repairs to Public Buildings". NP was a spin-off of the nuclear weapons effort.

The NP programme died off in the 90s, ironically not so much through the activities of the green lobby as through the policies of Mrs Thatcher, who although a staunch supporter of NP, insisted on privatising it. When the City took a look at the books, they did not like what they saw, and decided not to buy into it.

There is a finite amount of money available to meet the costs of Global Warming. Energy Conservation is at least 7 times as effective in reducing CO2 emissions than NP. PV cladding on every house in Britain would produce more electricity than NP at a fraction of the cost.

Israel cuts power to Gaza

On openDemocracy

Abdulksaida is a Palestinian, writing here http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/2007/10/28/fragile_peace

I understand her to be saying that Palestinians get called terrorists by western media, but they are only defending their right to live in the land that is now occupied by Israel.

Whatever our journalists may say, he definition of terrorism is the act of killing and injuring civilians, non-combatant men, women and children, for a political aim. Under this definition, it is clear that Israel, Hamas, and the UK and US are ALL guilty of terrorism. Israel UK and US are state terrorists, and Hamas are just ordinary terrorists; but in the end they all kill civilians to get their political aims.

Israel's current threat to cut electricity supply to Gaza is economic violence, it will hurt civilians, maybe kill some. It does not promote peace, build trust, or lead to any kind of a solution.
Hamas' (and other violent jihadis') rockets will hurt civilians, maybe kill some. They do not promote peace, build trust, or lead to any kind of a solution.

Both actions only serve to strengthen the passion of the extremists on the opposite sides. Extremists only see the wrongdoing of the other side, they cannot see that they are in a system, that is, that their actions create reactions, and that the end result of these actions and reactions is not good.

The OneVoice movement http://www.onevoicemovement.org/ is where people of both sides have a non-violent approach.

I have heard innuendo against oneVoice, but I have seen no evidence to suggest they are not on the side of sanity.