Print

Print


Re: Iranian Automaker Pushes Dual-Fuel Cars
Yoshie quoth:

If there's any country for which CNG makes sense, that has to be Iran,
what with the second largest natural gas reserves it is said to have,

        -  fine  -  and you can add those night-time satellite pix of huge flares


Tehran will never be able to convince those who believe that its
nuclear energy program is not for energy but for nuclear weapons, just
as Saddam Hussein could never convince that his government no longer
had WMDs.

        This is not a logical comparison.
        The search for WMDs in Iraq, conducted by hostile parties highly motivated to find them, failed; therefore we disbelieve them.  No search at all is necessary to support the conclusion that Iran has huge available NG, as outlined above.
        The only further step needed is the price of nuclear v. NG-fired power stations.  The former is shrouded in enormous subsidies which cannot now be traced fully, but looks to be somewheres around U$10/W or more.  The fuel is not cheap, especially when it's not in your own country and most especially if the type of reactor you choose requires enriched fuel rather than natural U.  The operations & maintenance costs of nuclear are many times those of standard gas-burning power stations.  Iran could choose tandem-cycle NG-fired stations, 50% efficient, a few $/W and can be built within 1-2 y.
        Iran's development of nuclear reactor technology can therefore not be for electricity.

        The 'wind map' propaganda was evidently written by some PR agents  -  as evidenced by their
"a price range of 450 to 650 rials per kw/h."
       

I must correct Yoshie's assertion

In any case, Iran, imho, is less warlike than New Zealand, which
joined the USA's Iraq and Afghanistan Wars

        The first accusation is false.  We refused to join the Bush/Blair 'coalition' in Iraq.  We have a few score personnel there, rebuilding water supplies, schools etc.  They are army engineers, for good reason, but are in districts where combat is not expected.  Their classification would be 'peacekeepers'.  I just wish the peace were more solid!
        The picture for NZers in Afghanistan is similar.  But we also have there, as complained of recently by a visiting anti-Blair Labour UK MP, the mysterious SAS of vague numbers, position & function - our elite army unit, there presumably on the principle 'the riot squad are restless, they need somewhere to go'  -  and there are some pretty nasty gangsters in that country whom even Yoshie might not want to support.  Just because the Yank armed forces are there in a big way (and botched the capturing of Usama bin Laden) doesn't mean other countries' forces have no valid role there.
        True, us Kiwi peace movement activists have decades ago called our nation "the Gurkhas of the S. Pac." for our former willingness to join damn near any war.  That period is well & truly gone; for a decade now we've had a policy of undeclared pacifism, crippling the armed forces on the unstated assumption that we could never again get in any war.

RM