News Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant is operational

[Bodge]

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said that the Bushehr power plant is operational, Press TV reported on Wednesday.

"As we have previously announced, Bushehr power plant has reached the criticality stage, meaning it has been successfully launched," Salehi reportedly said.

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=221118

After Fukushima, let's all hope they have a sucessful operating record!

It's too late for Israel to pull another Operation Opera, as they did in Iraq.

Will Stuxnet make another appearance? Can the Iranians safely operate a reactor?

"Not only do they have active faults, but many, many unmapped active faults," says Andrew Freed, an associate professor with Purdue University's Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. "(It's) not a good place to build a nuclear plant."

The reactor design is the Soviet VVER-1000 PWR.

 

[minerva]

Good for them. They have every right to enjoy the benefits of nuclear power and other peaceful nuclear science and engineering, and a light-water power reactor is not particularly useful for proliferation, even in rogue hands. I wonder what their arrangements are with regards to IAEA safeguards or inspections?

I trust their cyber-security is better this time.

 

[nikkkom]

Good for them. They have every right to enjoy the benefits of nuclear power and other peaceful nuclear science and engineering

Considering how nuts their state ideology is, I am not excited about this in the least.

 

[ayahsafety]

Every country has the right to own nuclear power facilities, not only USA and Israel.

That's good for Iran, and I wish that for all other countries.

Concerning the safety, I think Iran has many nuclear scientists qualified to deal with accidents, etc.

 

[nikkkom]

Every country has the right to own nuclear power facilities, not only USA and Israel.

Yes.

That's good for Iran

Economically speaking, it is not. Iran has vast reserves of cheap oil, and there are byproducts of oil extraction, such as gas, which cost almost nothing (at the point of extraction).

This is yet another reason to suspect that Iran regime does not build reactors because they want cheaper electricity.

 

[QuantumPion]

Every country has the right to own nuclear power facilities, not only USA and Israel.

That's good for Iran, and I wish that for all other countries.

Concerning the safety, I think Iran has many nuclear scientists qualified to deal with accidents, etc.

No. Only Sovereign nations with truly democratically elected governments and leaders should have the "right" to nuclear technology. That being said, I do not really have a problem with Iran contracting the russkies to build and operate a LWR for electricity.

 

[zapperzero]

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said that the Bushehr power plant is operational [...]
The reactor design is the Soviet VVER-1000 PWR.

More or less news, more or less true.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2011_06/IranReactor

 

[Caniche]

Considering how nuts their state ideology is, I am not excited about this in the least.

Yes ,quite,you must ask how many countries these fruit loops have bombed into oblivion in recent years

 

[NUCENG]

Thus far the thread has generated two facts.

• Bushehr is operational.
• It is a VVER reactor design.

and one potential discussion on seismic risk.

The rest is politics, not nuclear engineering.

 

[etudiant]

If memory serves, the initial designs and construction were for a Siemens/AREVA offering, so there must have been substantial re-engineering to fit the VVER into a different construction envelope. That may be as much a factor in the delay as foot dragging for political purposes.
More broadly, the reactor will help train new generations of nuclear technicians in quantity. With a sufficiently deep talent pool, Iran's nuclear development will gradually become largely impervious to outside pressures.

 

[NUCENG]

If memory serves, the initial designs and construction were for a Siemens/AREVA offering, so there must have been substantial re-engineering to fit the VVER into a different construction envelope. That may be as much a factor in the delay as foot dragging for political purposes.
More broadly, the reactor will help train new generations of nuclear technicians in quantity. With a sufficiently deep talent pool, Iran's nuclear development will gradually become largely impervious to outside pressures.

What is known about the extent of uranium resources inside Iran, are they dependent on imports? I know they have initially bought foreign enrichment equipment (thus the vulnerability to stuxnet). It also appears large nuclear vessels and large valves have been purchased outside Iran, so they may still have foreign dependences.

 

[nikkkom]

Yes ,quite,you must ask how many countries these fruit loops have bombed into oblivion in recent years

They did not, because they can't.

It was 1944-55 last time when a country was bombed into oblivion. Evil Allies, they bombed poor Germans and Japanese civilians? Right??

Seriously though.

I am not careless enough to dismiss presence of raving lunatics in power just because *so far* they were unable to force their insane beliefs to the rest of the world.

 

[zapperzero]

Thus far the thread has generated two facts.

• Bushehr is operational.
• It is a VVER reactor design.

and one potential discussion on seismic risk.

The rest is politics, not nuclear engineering.

I will add one, which was implied by the stuff I posted earlier.

Bushehr has been operational for quite some time. This is known. Someone in Iran chose to remind us of this fact. This thread is pure politics, because it a reaction to that (redundant) announcement.

So maybe we can all stop hyperventilating and go back to the nuclear engineering talk?

 

[Caniche]

They did not, because they can't.

It was 1944-55 last time when a country was bombed into oblivion. Evil Allies, they bombed poor Germans and Japanese civilians? Right??

Seriously though.

I am not careless enough to dismiss presence of raving lunatics in power just because *so far* they were unable to force their insane beliefs to the rest of the world.

Hmm ,more than a little disconcerting.

 

[Dotini]

Iran has vast reserves of cheap oil, and there are byproducts of oil extraction, such as gas, which cost almost nothing (at the point of extraction).

This is yet another reason to suspect that Iran regime does not build reactors because they want cheaper electricity.

#1) Iran's reserves are currently in the depletion phase.

#2) The US and the EU have, in their wisdom, decided to impose sanctions upon Iran's economic jugular, its oil exports, and also upon the banks that finance deals involving Iranian oil. This is tantamount to an act of war, and is intended to destabilize the regime and provoke regime change. Unintended consequences to many parties are possible.

#3) In response, Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz - their choke point to the Persian Gulf and a big percentage of global oil production. Some in the West have said this (a form of MAD?) is their right, and that they have the ability to do it. This is of course in some dispute. But the situation threatens to become grave.

Apparently the sanctions are to go into effect in July.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[MarcoD]

What is known about the extent of uranium resources inside Iran, are they dependent on imports?

They have ten mines in production. Internationally it was judged to be a minimal quantity. It may be enough to produce local electricity.

On the politics side, I'm inclined to the opinion that you don't give guns to madmen.

I don't think their government is sustainable, but the people seem to accept it. This month they moved to implement an 'halal' isolated version of the Internet. I imagine it will become as bad as North Korea.

 

[ThomasT]

Can the Iranians safely operate a reactor?

In the sense that I think you mean it, yes. But I think that their nuclear efforts are going to get bombed/missiled -- in the foreseeable future. Unless it's clearly established that their nuclear programs aren't producing materials for massively destructive devices. But even then -- why take a chance. Plus they control substantial oil reserves. There seem to me to be some good reasons to think that Iran's going to get hit hard.

 

[phinds]

Some of the comments in this thread decry the fact that much of the thread is about politics and not science. Did anyone notice the forum in which it is posted? I just don't get why a thread in the Politics and World Affairs forum is supposed to avoid discussion of Politics and World Affairs.

 

[phinds]

Concerning the safety, I think Iran has many nuclear scientists qualified to deal with accidents, etc.

I seriously doubt that that (factual though it may well be) has any particular relevance to the issues at hand. The main issue is that the leadership in Iran in the hands of people whose actions make them appear to be lunatics and it's not wise to let lunatics play with guns.

 

[Caniche]

Oh for the gift of seeing ourselves as others see us. Just a thought

 

[zapperzero]

I seriously doubt that that (factual though it may well be) has any particular relevance to the issues at hand. The main issue is that the leadership in Iran in the hands of people whose actions make them appear to be lunatics and it's not wise to let lunatics play with guns.

Fun fact: they already have guns.
Fun fact 2: they have shown considerable restraint with regards to WMDs by not retaliating in kind when Saddam gassed their front line troops during the war.
Fun fact 3: The current Ayatollah was in favor of stopping at Iraq's border, when the war started turning.
Fun fact 4: Prior to Amano being instated as DG of the IAEA, the agency had stated repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that there is no Iranian nuke program. Now it's all "coulda woulda mighta" and still the inspections turn up nothing untoward.

 

[phinds]

Fun fact: they already have guns.
Fun fact 2: they have shown considerable restraint with regards to WMDs by not retaliating in kind when Saddam gassed their front line troops during the war.
Fun fact 3: The current Ayatollah was in favor of stopping at Iraq's border, when the war started turning.
Fun fact 4: Prior to Amano being instated as DG of the IAEA, the agency had stated repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that there is no Iranian nuke program. Now it's all "coulda woulda mighta" and still the inspections turn up nothing untoward.

You feel real comfortable w/ them have nukes, huh?

Nothing untoward? Are you reading the same news stories I am? The IAEA seems to have shown conclusively, even with the limited information they have been able to obtain, that Iran is unequivacably doing refinement operations that have NO possible use other than building a bomb. Do you figure they are making this up?

 

[zapperzero]

You feel real comfortable w/ them have nukes, huh?

Nothing untoward? Are you reading the same news stories I am? The IAEA seems to have shown conclusively, even with the limited information they have been able to obtain, that Iran is unequivacably doing refinement operations that have NO possible use other than building a bomb. Do you figure they are making this up?

Please, show me those reports. Such IAEA documents are public. Show them to me.

Am I comfortable with Iran having nukes? No, not particularly. I wish no-one had nukes. I hate the idea of a nuclear-armed North Korea, of nuclear armed Pakistan (a terrorist-supporting islamic state on the brink of dissolution btw) etc etc.

 

[phinds]

Please, show me those reports. Such IAEA documents are public. Show them to me.
.

that reasonable. Here's just a quick example that took me 1 miinute to find:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf

from page 8:
44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons.

 

[OnceMore]

You feel real comfortable w/ them have nukes, huh?

Personally, I am not comfortable with any state having 'nukes' ...but it seems hypocritical of any state that has a supply of nuclear weapons to tell another they cannot, if that is Irans ultimate purpose.

Nothing more annoying and likely to set off tempers than saying do as I say, don't do as I do.

 

[phinds]

Personally, I am not comfortable with any state having 'nukes' ...but it seems hypocritical of any state that has a supply of nuclear weapons to tell another they cannot, if that is Irans ultimate purpose.

Nothing more annoying and likely to set off tempers than saying do as I say, don't do as I do.

I agree w/ you about America's arrogance. It's one of the things we're best at.

That still doesn't make it a good idea to let lunatics play with guns.

 

[OnceMore]

That still doesn't make it a good idea to let lunatics play with guns.

Oh very true, but, if you will excuse the analogy, we are not their parents. We do not have the right to tell anyone what to do.

Like I said, I would rather no one had nuclear bombs ...or guns for that matter. All you can do is live in the world, respect those around you, and deal with situations as and when they arise.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan or Iran. Ahmadinejad is on the wrong side of crazy. But that is the world.

Also, as a side point, I am sure Isreal have nuclear weapons raises tensions more than a little bit in that part of the world.

 

[ThomasT]

Oh very true, but, if you will excuse the analogy, we are not their parents. We do not have the right to tell anyone what to do.

Actually, the US does, because "might makes right". That might not conform to some ethical picture of the way things should work, but it's the way things do work.

Iran is a threat. With nuclear weapons it's an immediately grave and unacceptable threat. Plus they have vast oil reserves. Iran is going to get hit ... in the foreseeable future. Bet on it.

 

[zapperzero]

that reasonable. Here's just a quick example that took me 1 miinute to find:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf

from page 8:
44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons.

These activities are not identified in the report text. Annex C is full of

Information the Agency has received from Member States

(which Member States go unnamed) and that

information, collectively referred to as the “alleged studies documentation”, which was made known to the Agency in 2005, indicated that Iran had been engaged in activities involving studies on a so-called green salt project, high explosives testing and the re-engineering of a missile re-entry vehicle to accommodate a new payload.

Green salt! Oh noes! Is this anything like the Iraqi/Sudanese yellow cake?

Irony aside, the agency has nothing new. They have dug up a bunch of documentation dated 2002-2003 and fed to them by the CIA in 2005, given it a polish and are now presenting it as new evidence that Iran is up to no good. (Incidentally, Iran announced its policy of transparency and started permitting inspections in 2003).

They are trying to pass off absence of evidence as evidence of a cover-up. That's pretty sad. By the same standards of evidence, I could accuse you of being the Marquis de Carabas (because the Puss in Boots told me so and you refuse to grant me access to your manorial archive).

 

[zapperzero]

Iran is a threat. With nuclear weapons it's an immediately grave and unacceptable threat.

To whom? Certainly not the US, as Iran's biggest, best missile might possibly be capable of flying 2000 km with a reduced payload.

 

[OnceMore]

"might makes right"

Ah, the philosophy of the school yard bully.

The problem with this philosophy though, is that usually the person been bullied is push to a point, and lashes out.

 

[ThomasT]

To whom?

It would be a threat to the US interest in being the predominant bully wrt middle eastern affairs, imo. I could be wrong about that, but it seems to me that the US wants a certain kind of 'peace' in the ME that, for obvious reasons, doesn't include any ME states except Israel having nuclear weaponry.

 

[ThomasT]

Ah, the philosophy of the school yard bully.

The problem with this philosophy though, is that usually the person been bullied is push to a point, and lashes out.

Which is one reason to prevent any ME state except Israel from developing nuclear weapons.

 

[epenguin]

Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant is operational

Funny name.

 

[zapperzero]

Which is one reason to prevent any ME state except Israel from developing nuclear weapons.

I hope you're trolling. You best be trolling.

 

[OnceMore]

Which is one reason to prevent any ME state except Israel from developing nuclear weapons.

Yea, I'm knew here, so I don't actually know if you're taking the piss, or you're serious.

 

[ThomasT]

I hope you're trolling. You best be trolling.

Yea, I'm knew here, so I don't actually know if you're taking the piss, or you're serious.

Is there some reason to believe that the US doesn't have a vested interest in trying to keep Iran, or any other ME state except Israel, from developing a nuclear arsenal -- and that US policy entails doing whatever might be deemed necessary to keep Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal?

 

[OnceMore]

A vested interest? Maybe they do. But a state cannot, and should not pass another states boarder without premission.

What if Iran decided they had a vested interest in stopping a potential stike from Isreal, backed by the US? Would you agree also that they have a right to strike?

To quote Noam Chomsky “Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.”

 

[ThomasT]

What if Iran decided they had a vested interest in stopping a potential stike from Isreal, backed by the US? Would you agree also that they have a right to strike?

"Right" and "rights" are meaningless in this context. The government of Iran will do what it deems to be in its best interest to do. And so will the US.

To quote Noam Chomsky “Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.”

If only it were that simple. But it isn't. Countries, like individuals, have their self interests which might or might not coincide with other countries. Often they don't. So there's the continual struggle for dominance.

Imho, the US will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

 

[OnceMore]

Imho, the US will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

You are probably right. And if it does happen, lots of people will die. And there will be even more people who will grow up with very anti-American views.

Like I said, it would be better if no one had nuclear bombs.

 

[Evo]

You are probably right. And if it does happen, lots of people will die.

Please post the mainstream article that backs this up. I suggest before you post again that you read the rules for posting in this forum which is stickied at the top of P&WA. Posting opinion as a fact is a violation of the rules.

 

[OnceMore]

Please post the mainstream article that backs this up. I suggest before you post again that you read the rules for posting in this forum which is stickied at the top of P&WA. Posting opinion as a fact is a violation of the rules.

My apologies. What I said was my own opinion.

Since I am aware of this rule now, maybe ThomasT can post his mainstream article that backs up his comment that

Iran is a threat. With nuclear weapons it's an immediately grave and unacceptable threat. Plus they have vast oil reserves. Iran is going to get hit ... in the foreseeable future. Bet on it.

I may be wrong, but this seems to be an opinion posted as fact.

 

[ThomasT]

You are probably right. And if it does happen, lots of people will die. And there will be even more people who will grow up with very anti-American views.

Yeah, it seems that the US is pretty much despised by lots of people in the ME -- and with good reason, imo. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the US has been the predominant bully in the international schoolyard.

I certainly hope that the Iran thing doesn't come to something like an all-out war, with occupation and such. But it seems to me that some sort of violence is inevitable.

 

[OnceMore]

I certainly hope that the Iran thing doesn't come to something like an all-out war, with occupation and such.

I hope you are right! :)

I have enjoyed this back-and-forth. Most people I know hate to discuss politics.

 

[ThomasT]

I may be wrong, but this seems to be an opinion posted as fact.

You're right, I should have tacked an "imo" onto any statements that I didn't.

Anybody's (except the people making and dictating policy) ideas about what the governments of the US or Iran (or any country for that matter) should or might do given certain circumstances is conjecture. But I do think that some conjectures can be reasonably assessed as being more accurate than others.

One would hope that violence doesn't become necessary. But it's the ability to do violence that, generally, governs the course of events ... imo.

 

[ThomasT]

I have enjoyed this back-and-forth. Most people I know hate to discuss politics.

By the way, welcome to PF. You'll find a lot of people here willing to discuss politics, and just about anything else I think.

We, the common folks, are forced to hash things out in endless discussions because we don't know what the people in power know.

And then there's PF's primary raison d'etre. It's a great place to discuss any and all things scientific, especially physics.

 

[OnceMore]

By the way, welcome to PF

Thank you very much :)

It's a great place to discuss any and all things scientific, especially physics.

Good good! I am hoping to learn lots, get questions answered and, in turn, answer other peoples questions.

 

[shashankac655]

No. Only Sovereign nations with truly democratically elected governments and leaders should have the "right" to nuclear technology. That being said, I do not really have a problem with Iran contracting the russkies to build and operate a LWR for electricity.

Lets not forget the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat]1953[/PLAIN] Iranian coup d'état (the US and the UK overthrew a Democratically elected Iranian government ,just because it nationalized it's oil fields.)
And now these countries preach other countries about democracy?
Recently some other country paid the price for nationalizing oil companies .
see here
and here
(THESE ARE NOT CRACKPOT LINKS)
and i got 5 points for telling the truth.
Iran might want to have nukes to protect it's oil reserves ,there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[gravenewworld]

Profile: Norman Schwarzkopf Sr.
Norman Schwarzkopf Sr. was a participant or observer in the following events:
August 19, 1953: Iranian Government Overthrown by Rebels and CIA

CIA coup planner Kermit Roosevelt. [Source: Find a Grave (,com)]
The government of Iran is overthrown by Iranian rebels and the CIA in a coup codenamed Operation Ajax. The coup was planned by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt after receiving the blessings of the US and British governments. Muhammad Mosaddeq is deposed and the CIA promptly reinstates Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on the throne. The Shah’s secret police, SAVAK, trained by the CIA and Israel’s Mossad, are widely perceived as being as brutal and terrifying as the Nazi Gestapo in World War II. British oil interests in Iran, partially nationalized under previous governments, are returned to British control. American oil interests are retained by 8 private oil companies, who are awarded 40% of the Iranian oil industry. US General Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr. (father of the general with the same name in the 1991 Gulf War) helps the Shah develop the fearsome SAVAK secret police. [ZNET, 12/12/2001; GLOBAL POLICY FORUM, 2/28/2002] Author Stephen Kinzer will say in 2003, "The result of that coup was that the Shah was placed back on his throne. He ruled for 25 years in an increasingly brutal and repressive fashion. His tyranny resulted in an explosion of revolution in 1979 the event that we call the Islamic revolution. That brought to power a group of fanatically anti-Western clerics who turned Iran into a center for anti-Americanism and, in particular, anti-American terrorism. The Islamic regime in Iran also inspired religious fanatics in many other countries, including those who went on to form the Taliban in Afghanistan and give refuge to terrorists who went on to attack the United States. The anger against the United States that flooded out of Iran following the 1979 revolution has its roots in the American role in crushing Iranian democracy in 1953. Therefore, I think it’s not an exaggeration to say that you can draw a line from the American sponsorship of the 1953 coup in Iran, through the Shah’s repressive regime, to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the spread of militant religious fundamentalism that produced waves of anti-Western terrorism."

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=norman_schwarzkopf_sr__1


Maybe the US should stop giving into the whims of Israel, stay out of Iran's business, and stop upsetting world order. If we simply minded our own business in the past, we wouldn't have the huge blowback problems we have today.

 

[QuantumPion]

Lets not forget the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat]1953[/PLAIN] Iranian coup d'état (the US and the UK overthrew a Democratically elected Iranian government ,just because it nationalized it's oil fields.)
And now these countries preach other countries about democracy?
Recently some other country paid the price for nationalizing oil companies .
see here
and here
(THESE ARE NOT CRACKPOT LINKS)
and i got 5 points for telling the truth.
Iran might want to have nukes to protect it's oil reserves ,there is nothing wrong with that.

What is your point? That because we interfered with their political affairs in the past that they have the right to have nuclear weapons now? Sorry, but I don't buy that. Europe had colonized many African nations in the past but I don't think that means, say, Ethiopia or Sudan has the right to have nuclear weapons.