On 7/30/07, Robt Mann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Yoshie quoth:
> >  other countries similarly rich in energy resources, for
> >instance, Russia, which is responsible for the largest amount of
> >flared gas in the world according to Washington ("Russia Top Offender
> >in Gas-flare Emissions," 21 June 2007,
> ><>),
> >also turn to nuclear power plants:
>         The reason why the USSR turned to nuclear fission reactors,
> and later to generating some electricity from their waste heat, is
> much the same as the reason why the USA, UK, France did so: to make
> Pu for nuclear bombs.

Historically, atomic bombs came first and then functional nuclear
power plants to serve end consumers, state-owned or commercial.  In
the USA and the USSR, the nuclear programs were at first clearly
weapons programs.  The USA dropped its atomic bombs in 1945, but its
first commercial nuclear plant didn't become operational until 1957;
the Soviets tested their first bomb in 1949, and their first nuclear
power plant went online in 1954.  It is therefore more accurate to say
that nuclear power plants in these countries were byproducts of a-bomb
programs, and the same goes for the UK and France.

So, if Iran wanted nuclear bombs and bombs alone, it might as well
skip building nuclear power plants like Bushehr and Darkovin.

> I had opined:
> >  >  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."
> to which Yoshie replied:
> >
> >Iran's economy is very statist, with little left to the free market,
> >so at this stage of development of renewable energy, it's hard to say
> >what they mean by the "price range" from just one article.
>         The point is not the "price range" but the wrong units "kw/h"
> which no physicist or engineer, or even biochemist, would write.

Why is a kilowatt hour a wrong unit when discussing the price of power?

>         Altho' Yoshie doesn't concede the correction to his assertion
> that New Zealand is taking part in Dubya's attack on Iraq, I note he
> doesn't renew the claim.  I'm proud to say we resisted that pressure,
> when 4 decades earlier we had not stayed out of the Viet Nam war.

It's better than sending combat troops into Iraq, foolishly, but it
would have been still better not to send any troops into the country
at all.  New Zealand is very much part of the US-led multinational
empire, in a way that Iran never has been, albeit New Zealand doesn't
play as big a role as Washington's more important allies.