Iran's Nuclear Plant Circus

Why so naive, world?
The Iranian government is having a field day with this.

If you read news online, you already know that Iran has a second nuclear power plant. But there is much more news here than you might think.

First, the LA Times article has this quote from President Obama.

Speaking before the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh, President Obama said the plant is a "direct challenge" to global nonproliferation. He added, "Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and make clear it is prepared to meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations."

Oh, and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown chimed in, doubtless trying desperately to tie himself to President Obama in any sense, having already been snubbed repeatedly at the G20 and having chased Obama through breakfast just to get a chance to speak with him. But that's another story.

Added Brown: "The level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the entire international community. The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand."

Oh dear. How many times has Iran heard that line? Something tells me they aren't impressed.

But there is more heavy-handed political-speak to come. This from the Washington Post article. Be afraid Iran:

"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," Obama said, detailing how the facility near Qom had been under construction for years without being disclosed, as required, to the International Atomic Energy Agency. "International law is not an empty promise."

"Ah, now I see", President Ahmedinejad was quoted as saying. "The first 14 times you said that and did nothing I did not believe you, but now on this 15th time I see that you are serious."

Ok no, I made that quote up. What he actually said was this:

"If I were [President] Obama's adviser, I would definitely advise him to refrain making this statement because it is definitely a mistake," Ahmedinejad told Time magazine Friday in an interview in New York that took place even as Obama was publicly revealing the plant's existence. "It would definitively be a mistake."

Now the plot gets thicker.

But White House officials said Western intelligence agencies have known about the facility for several years and believe that Iran acknowledged its existence Monday in an attempt to head off intense criticism that they knew was coming.

"We believe that the Iranians learned that the secrecy of the facility had been compromised," a senior White House official said Friday morning. "We've been aware of this facility for several years, building up a case so that we had very strong evidence."

I'm willing to hazard a guess that in this case "Western intelligence agencies" means MOSSAD, aka Israel. Unless Iran was too obvious, and some kid found it on google earth...

The basic alleged situation is that everyone knew Iran had the extra power plant, they just rushed to condemn it once Iran realized that they knew, or something.

What it boils down to is that there has been no strong, unified international effort to force Iran to stop, even though (remarkably) nearly all nations agree that Iran with military nukes would be a terrible idea. Ahmedinejad is somewhat insane, but definitely not an idiot. He knows what he can get away with, and he's been doing splendidly so far.

Sooner or later this is all going to come to a head when the Israelis decide it has to end, and send an air strike. That may not succeed as well as the Osirak operation in Iraq did; Russia is supplying Iran with advanced air defense weaponry at the same time as it suggests it might be open to the idea of sanctions. (Putin likes to have his cake and eat it too, it would seem.)

Now the real question in all of this to me is not necessarily what happens to Iran, but to what extent their national sovereignty matters these days. That is to say, we are all pointing fingers at international bodies and saying "Why aren't you doing anything?". Do we really want the UN to be able to do something? Do we want them in the position to be able to go into a sovereign nation and by force, violate their sovereignty and impose international will on them?

Sure, this time, it's Iran. What if international consensus decides that America should give half of Texas back to Mexico?

The argument still smolders in this country over state's rights and how the Federal government is encroaching on their last remainders. Perhaps the real movers of the times are ignoring the tea parties and such things because they know that protests against national government excesses are irrelevant in the face of coming international law with teeth. It would matter little how many Americans or American congressmen agree or disagree with environmental issues if the UN could simply declare it to be international law and demand all nations conform to it. (and be able to enforce that demand)

So in all of the controversy over Iran and their nuclear program, before you think "they should do something about that", stop and ask yourself. Who are "they", and how much do we really want them to be able to do? And if we don't like what they can do, is there anything we can do about it? Not really. We live in different times now.

America's say in world affairs is only determined firstly by her economic might, and secondarily by her military supremacy. The economic might is vanishing before our eyes, and a good portion of America's clout with it. Watching the irresponsible way our government is handling the crisis doesn't help the world view us in a more favorable light, either.
The traditional American response has been "Well, the world can take a hike."
But that statement has only been possible because we had the power to back it up.

Losing that power, we will merely have the attitude of a superpower without the force to sustain it. Don't think some nations will lose any time putting us in our place.

Wake up America. As goes our economy, goes our standing in the world. As goes our standing in the world, goes our national sovereignty. If those in Washington want to chip away at the strengths in our economy according to their ideologies, rather than solve the problems there according to practical reality, they are betraying our nation in a more fundamental sense than any Revolutionary War Benedict Arnold or Cold War Rosenbergs possibly could have.

-()4|<.

Nuclear Angst

Alabama honor: Bush visits first new reactor to open for decades

We may be thanking God for Mississippi in most state comparison rankings, but Alabama is currently leading the way in the quest for sane and efficient power generation. President Bush will be visiting the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens on Thursday, where the Unit 1 reactor has recently been restarted. While this may not sound significant, it is the first reactor to be started in the US in 20 years.

You may be asking yourself why this is, considering that nuclear power is the most efficient power generation means available to us by far. The only by-products are hot water and small amounts of very radioactive but containable material. (Yes, this material poses an obvious and enduring health hazard until it's safely under Yucca Mtn., but not nearly as much as the lack of power infrastructure will cause in the event of a national emergency, or even just an over-stressed power grid.) Those situations involving mishaps and the threat of radiation leaks, most notably Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in the Ukraine, are irrelevant at this point: Chernobyl is a nightmarish scenario that is not possible with modern US reactors, and the lessons of Three Mile Island have been well-learned and taken into consideration.

I have noted that Browns Ferry Unit 1 is the first reactor to be started in the US in 20 years, making it unit number 103 in the US as a whole. Contrast this to nuclear efforts in China:
(info from http://www.world-nuclear.org)

* Mainland China has nine nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, a further two units grid connected, four more under construction, and at least four more about to start constuction in 2007.
* Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a fivefold increase in nuclear capacity to 40 GWe by 2020 and then a further three to fourfold increase to 120-160 GWe by 2030.
* The country aims to become self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.

To summarize, China has plans to increase their nuclear power capacity by 15-20x its current level in the next 27 years.
By contrast, in the past 20 years, we have only shut down or paused the construction of plants, not opened any.
Now, lest I be accused of sinophobia, I will call attention to the fact that China only has 11 working reactors at this point, so it will take some time for them to catch up, even at the rate they are building.

However, my point is not to worry lest we be overtaken in numbers by any specific country, but that we have irresponsibly neglected to keep a robust power infrastructure in place. Remember the rolling blackouts in California? They were at least partially responsible for the referendum that kicked Gray Davis out the door and ushered in the era of the Govinator.

And it's not as if we can solve the nation's energy crunch with the ongoing boom in windmill construction either. Though they may alleviate problems in some areas, as a whole you're not going to help lighten the load on the nation without a veritable sea of them covering vast sections of the Midwest, and the energy required to create and construct said sea of windmills would make such an effort counterproductive.

In the end, nuclear power is the only option that makes sense. There are no coal-based clouds of smoke, no swirling windy blades of death, no acres of solar cells with meager power returns. Though these (coal-powered, wind-powered, solar-powered) solutions make sense in certain locations and contexts, the only technology that makes sense to use as the backbone of a heavily loaded power infrastructure in great need of shoring up is nuclear power. Even France has figured this out.

(That, or we can wait for the even cleaner and more efficient process of nuclear fusion to be perfected. But even setting aside the fact that it is the technology of the future and probably always will be, why do I have this sneaking suspicion that the drinkers of Gore-aid would find some reason to scream out against them too?)

If we continue to allow regulatory dead-locks and people who oppose the idea of power plants on principle (often the same people who think the fewer humans living and disturbing nature's tranquility the better) to prevent the responsible and practical process of increasing our grid capacity, the problems will only get more severe. Let those who complain of global warming go without air conditioning for a summer, and then decide if a few more reactors aren't worth it...


-Oak