Iran

Consider specific people in the fusion research community, business, or politics who should be made aware of polywell research, and how we might reach them.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Nanos
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK
Contact:

Iran

Postby Nanos » Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:04 am

As they have an intent to use nuclear power for electric generation and their relationship with the west could do with improving, cooperatiion over such an endeavour would help international relations whilst at the same time reducing tensions over fission work in their country.

Zixinus
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:39 pm

Postby Zixinus » Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:56 am

I don't think they have enough money to fund the research, and I'm sure that they won't due to political concern.

I find it a sad story that such a country has to be without electricity because of the paranoia of the West.

Nanos
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK
Contact:

Postby Nanos » Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:38 am

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iran

Five-Year Economic Development Plan (2005-10)

The five-year economic development plan also calls for generation of 6,000 MW of electricity through nuclear technology by 2010 to meet its increasing demand for energy.


My understanding is their oil reserves have peaked and they are aiming to move away from having to rely on oil revenue.

If they could be encouraged to invest in fusion technology, and export that, the economic symbiotic relationship would help reduce tensions world wide as they moved away from the need for fission.


It would appear offhand they have plenty of money to fund research.

I don't see them being without electric as the russians are helping them with their reactors, the only thing the west can do to stop them is invade, which is a costly exersize on both sides.

Peace is always the cheaper option :-)

I was reading the UK's own cost of the war in Iraq for example and thats cost the UK alone 5 billion, imagine if that had instead been spent in more peaceful endeavours.

PMN1
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:31 pm

Intresting comment on Iran's nuclear programme

Postby PMN1 » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:28 am

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Deadloc ... d_999.html

by Pyotr Goncharov
UPI Outside View Commentator
Moscow (UPI) May 29, 2007

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, thinks that Iran has gone so far in its nuclear program that it is no longer relevant to demand that it should stop uranium enrichment. Moreover, he believes that since the major world powers have come to terms with a nuclear North Korea, they should do the same towards Iran.

It turns out that the head of an organization in charge of monitoring compliance with nuclear non-proliferation is urging the world community to accept the idea that another country will join the nuclear club in the near future.

If this is so, the much-abused Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons may be buried -- what's the point of having a treaty that is so easy to breach? Moreover, even the U.N. Security Council is unable to uphold it.

On March 24 it approved Resolution 1747, providing for tougher sanctions compared with the previous resolution and giving Iran 60 days to stop all uranium enrichment. If you believe Iranian officials, a total of 1,600 centrifuges are currently in operation at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Upon the expiry of this deadline, ElBaradei should submit to the Security Council a report on Iran's compliance with the resolution.

When the resolution was adopted, Iran had two cascades with 164 centrifuges each. Iran has refused to stop uranium enrichment. In order to reach an industrial level of nuclear fuel production for its nuclear power plants, Tehran intends to launch 3,000 centrifuges. The Iranian leaders have declared their intention to have more than 50,000 centrifuges up and running in order to meet the requirements of their civilian nuclear power industry.

This is no bluff. The Natanz facility is designed for 54,000 centrifuges. They will be capable of producing the required amount of nuclear fuel for 20 nuclear units with an aggregate capacity of 20,000 megawatts that are mentioned in all of Iran's plans for its nuclear industry. The first unit is now under construction in Bushehr.

The experience of the Bushehr nuclear plant shows that the construction of 20, 1000-megawatt units will take decades. This is why experts are wondering why Iran is rushing to get 50,000 centrifuges if it does not even have the technology to handle enriched uranium. The very idea of starting industrial uranium enrichment on 3,000 centrifuges, not to mention the commissioning of the entire enrichment facility in Natanz, is counterproductive.

However, there are other calculations that allow one to look at this problem from another angle. Experts believe that 3,000 centrifuges can enrich uranium to the level of 80 percent to 90 percent required for one nuclear bomb, whereas 50,000 can accomplish this task in five to seven weeks or two months at most.

These facts allow the West, especially the United States, Iran's main opponent, to accuse Tehran of trying to develop technology for producing weapons-grade uranium.


The world community will soon try to lure Iran back to the negotiating table. The U.N. Security Council is drafting its third resolution on Iran, and on Friday Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, will meet Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign and security policy chief, for a second round of talks.

However, these talks are giving rise to many questions. It seems that Solana, a skillful negotiator, does not really know what he wants from Iran. In turn, Iran is playing the same game -- it does not know what the world should expect from it.

After the first round of the talks in Ankara, Turkey, in the latter half of April, Larijani and Solana reported progress in drawing up a common Iran-EU position. It is clear what progress Larijani had in mind. Since last March Iran has increased its nuclear-enrichment capacity by five times!
Moreover, Tehran adamantly rejects the idea of resuming talks with strings attached -- Iran is supposed to stop all uranium enrichment if it wants to return to the negotiating table. The more centrifuges go into operation, the more confident and uncompromising Tehran's tone becomes.

But what did Javier Solana have in mind when he talked about progress?
Maybe he thinks like ElBaradei, and for him progress means that he has also realized that it is no longer urgent to demand that Iran cease nuclear enrichment activities.

PMN1
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:31 pm

Postby PMN1 » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:33 am

Nanos wrote:My understanding is their oil reserves have peaked and they are aiming to move away from having to rely on oil revenue.



Some reports say its peaked, others say they have the 2nd or 3rd largets reserves in the world, others say they will be scraping the bottom in under 10 years.

It puts into question the published reserves of other countries - the data used to get these reserves is a very closely guarded secret and when investment in your country and your pumping quota is dependent on what other countries think of your ability to pay and what oil reserves you have, its in your intrest to inflate those figures.

MSimon
Posts: 14330
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Depending on our enemies

Postby MSimon » Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:33 am

Nanos wrote:From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iran

Five-Year Economic Development Plan (2005-10)

The five-year economic development plan also calls for generation of 6,000 MW of electricity through nuclear technology by 2010 to meet its increasing demand for energy.


My understanding is their oil reserves have peaked and they are aiming to move away from having to rely on oil revenue.

If they could be encouraged to invest in fusion technology, and export that, the economic symbiotic relationship would help reduce tensions world wide as they moved away from the need for fission.


It would appear offhand they have plenty of money to fund research.

I don't see them being without electric as the russians are helping them with their reactors, the only thing the west can do to stop them is invade, which is a costly exersize on both sides.

Peace is always the cheaper option :-)

I was reading the UK's own cost of the war in Iraq for example and thats cost the UK alone 5 billion, imagine if that had instead been spent in more peaceful endeavours.


Actually their oil reserves have not peaked.

They have stopped maintaining their oil fields in order to spend the money on jihad:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/01/oil-outlook.html

Which says that their nuclear intentions may not be benevolent.

It is well known that the jihadis have declared war on the west. I see no reason to avoid returning the favor.

As to peace is always cheaper: Remember, peacemongering in the 1930s brought us a world war in the 40s. I see no reason to repeat the exercise. Except for the usual human stupidity. Far fetched analogy? Mein Kampf (suitably redacted for Islamic audiences) is still a best seller in the Middle East.

The most difficult part of this war is that we need the jihadi oil to run our civilization.

BTW a Bussard Reactor fixed up to make copious neutrons would be ideal for making Pu if the reactor had a uranium blanket and was burning a neutron producing fuel.

Aneutronic fusion does not get us out of the proliferation woods.

Nanos
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK
Contact:

Postby Nanos » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:51 pm

Its always hard to tell with oil reserves, as it relies heavily on experts plucking figures out of thin air, much better to rely on something concrete to supply your populations electric, such as nuclear reactors.

I don't know what this jihad thing some people are going on about, Iran hardly strikes me as a country about to try and invade another (sure it responded when Iraq caused trouble and we had the Iraq/Iran war.), if we are to worry about 'jihad' countries, I'd point the finger towards the US who recently invaded some country called Iraq, and Isreal who are invading the neighbours on a regular basis, and who pay no attention to joining any nuclear treaties at all, whilst Iran goes out of its way to do so..

I'm no particular fan of Iran, or the middle east, but considering how brainwashed (and I do use the term correctly..) everyone was over the threat of Iraq which turned out to be, oh shock, nothing much at all, we are heading the same way with Iran.

Being how the west has been planning to invade Iran for at least the last 5 years, and looking for any excuse it can to justifiy taking them on, its no suprise they are helping people in Iraq defend it against invaders whilst buying them more time to bolster up their ecomonic ties with the west (selling oil in euros for example) so as to make an invasion less likely because they will be seen as a valuable part of a symbiotic relationship, rather than someone like North Korea who we do little trade with and therefor is of no value to the west.

In the UK, we have had home grown terrorists born here, ones from Saudia Arabia, yet we do not go bombing our own people in the UK, or finger pointing at the Saudia's do we.. ?

I'm not talking about peacemongering, I'm talking about how its cheaper to form symbiotic economic relationships, trade, thats what makes peace, when you rely on another country for something, your less likely to want to go to war to take it from them.

If we at least offered to cooperate with such countries and had more than just a few people from the west here, if we had Chinese, Iranians, even North Korean people, working together, we might start to mend some of these fences we have trambled over in the last few decades and start to enhance civilsation rather than pushing our war foot ward and stomping on anyone we like.

PMN1
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:31 pm

Postby PMN1 » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:34 pm

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Can_The ... e_999.html

Can The Iranian Nuclear Complex Survive A Bad Earthquake

by Claude Salhani

UPI International Editor

Washington (UPI) July 20, 2007

What do Japan and Iran have in common? Japan has nuclear power plants and Iran is on its way to acquiring nuclear technology. Japan is prone to powerful earthquakes, and so is Iran. This is where the similarities end. If a similar earthquake was to hit one of Iran's nuclear facilities, the consequences could be expected to be far worse, affecting oil production in the Gulf region and sending the price of a barrel of oil skyrocketing.

When a quake measuring 6.8 as on the Richter scale struck the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant earlier this week causing radiation leakage, it raised alarm among the public and shook the government's plans to expand its nuclear power industry, both at home and as a potential export product. The only reason a real disaster was averted is largely due to Japan's extremely strict building laws.

The quake killed nine people, left more than 1,000 injured, and forced thousands out of their homes and into makeshift shelters. But the quake also revealed something far more frightening for the safety of the world at large: If Japan, with all its preparedness and its advanced technology, succumbed to such an unfortunate -- and hazardous -- accident, what would happen in the eventuality of Iran's nuclear installations being hit by a similar quake, or one even more powerful?

The earthquake that shook the seven nuclear power plants in the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa complex was designed to withstand the force of a 6.5 quake. As it turned out, the quake registered 6.8 and caused about 50 different problems at the power plant, such as a fire, nuclear material seeping into water, and -- unbelievable as it may sound -- caused more than 400 drums containing low-level radioactive waste to topple over. And due to the severity of the quake, some of the drums broke open.

And that happened in a country that takes its earthquake preparation very seriously. The architects of the plants had considered it unlikely that an earthquake would affect the plant in such a way. The Japanese have installed extremely advanced safety standards aimed to cut down possibility of accidents happening, such as the ones that were caused by the quake.

It took about two hours for firefighters to extinguish the fire that had broken out as a result of the earthquake. This was the first time a nuclear plant was hit by an earthquake in Japan. Officials the next day spoke of reports "of a leak of radioactive water from one of three reactors into the Sea of Japan."

The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear-power complex, one of the world's largest nuclear plants, is run by the Tokyo Electric Power Co. With its seven reactors, it has a capacity to generate about 8,000 megawatts.
Now what would happen if the scenario was to unfold in Iran, where the building codes are not nearly as strict as those of Japan, and several of Iran's nuclear facilities are situated near highly populated urban areas?

The outcome of a tremor similar to the one that struck Japan earlier in the week, or one of a stronger magnitude in Iran, would have devastating consequences. Leakage from one of Iran's nuclear facilities would send deadly clouds of nuclear material floating over densely populated areas.

The results would be catastrophic, and not only for Iran. Depending on weather conditions, the lethal and invisible clouds could find themselves drifting over parts of the Gulf states, such as Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, or possibly parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, contaminating oil facilities -- the fields, refineries and oil terminals where the oil is pumped into giant tanker ships that then transports the oil to markets in Europe, Asia and the Americas.

Should one or more of the giant oil facilities, such as Saudi Arabia's installations at Abqaiq, become contaminated by nuclear fallout from one of Iran's nuclear power plants, either due to a powerful earthquake or other natural or man-made disaster, the result would be devastating, not solely on the economic level, but also the effect it would have on the heath of the area's population.

We have seen the results of what happened at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, and the devastation it took on the people living and working in the vicinity of that station. All the precautions, safety measures and goodwill in the world might not be enough to deter what happened in Japan's nuclear power plant from happening in Iran.

Under such a nightmare scenario, the price of oil would shoot up to well beyond $100 per barrel. Depending on the intensity of the accident and how much nuclear material was released into the atmosphere and how much of it drifted over the producing states, an accident of the type described here could send the oil markets spiraling out of control.

Ironically, the country that would be the hardest hit would be Iran. Having no oil refining facilities of its own, Tehran relies on third countries -- mostly India -- to refine its oil and ship it back. But in the event of a nuclear disaster in the Persian Gulf region, Iran may find itself isolated, unable to send its crude oil out of the country for refinement. And the nuclear power plants the Islamic Republic claims it is building to produce electricity would find themselves incapacitated.

Earthquakes are highly unpredictable. Constructing nuclear power plants in areas prone to earthquakes is playing with fire, literally.

PMN1
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:31 pm

Postby PMN1 » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm

An article from last weeks new scientist

Earlier this year an Iranian nuclear scientist at the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan died from poisoning with uranium hexafluoride gas. Accidents like this keep Najmedin Meshkati awake at night. A leading expert in nuclear safety at the University of Southern California, the Iranian-born engineer worries that the Russian technology and human error that led to the Chernobyl disaster may cause a similar tragedy at Iran's nuclear facilities in Bushehr and elsewhere. The biggest nuclear threat from Iran is not from an attack but from an accident, he told Deborah Campbell, and international sanctions are only increasing the risk

How did you become involved in nuclear safety?

I was a graduate engineering student researching mathematical models for decision analysis. Then Three Mile Island happened on 28 March 1979. That changed my research direction and my life. The root cause of that accident was considered to be human error, and my dissertation project became measuring the mental workload of the operators of nuclear and other plants. My career, which has focused on the safety of complex technological systems such as nuclear power plants, was shaped by three accidents: Three Mile Island, the Bhopal chemical plant in 1984, and Chernobyl in 1986. These three catastrophic accidents all involved large-scale technological systems that contained hazardous materials, and all were caused by human and organisational failures.

You visited Chernobyl. What was it like?

Driving to the plant from Kiev, there is a checkpoint before you can enter the exclusion zone. It's a circle around the plant with a radius of 40 to 50 kilometres from which all the inhabitants have been evacuated. At the time of the accident about 7 million people lived in the surrounding area. I went to the city of Pripyat where 100,000 employees and their families used to live. It's a ghost town now, right down to a deserted Ferris wheel.

Arriving at the reactor site, at the smoke stack and the sarcophagus they built around reactor 4 where the accident happened, hit me very hard. This accident caused a radioactive fire that burned for 10 days, releasing 190 tonnes of toxic materials into the atmosphere. There is no other human construction on this planet that has had as much impact, not only on the people living around it but on those downwind of the fallout and the generations born with birth defects.

What struck you about the control room?

I went to the control room of reactor 3, which is a few hundred metres from the doomed control room of reactor 4. I've been to many control rooms around the world, but the design of this one shocked me. It looked as if someone had thrown dials into a bag and tossed them against the wall. The haphazard nature of the arrangement and the height of the display of dials defied logic. You could barely see it. Valery Legasov, the physicist at the Soviet Academy of Sciences who investigated the meltdown for the Politburo, concluded that the primary cause of the accident was rooted in human factors: confusing control room design, inadequate operating procedures and the lack of a safety culture. He later committed suicide.

Throughout my career I have been trying to transfer the lessons from one industry to the next. All the factors that existed at Bhopal and Three Mile Island were present at Chernobyl. No one had learned from the previous accidents. Russian control room design and nuclear safety culture are still among the worst in the world.

You have sounded alarm bells about the current state of nuclear safety in Iran. What concerns you?

The fact that Iran is at the mercy of Russians. Because of sanctions, Iran has not been able to hire qualified western contractors to conduct safety analyses and quality control inspections. So the Russians are not only building the nuclear reactor at Bushehr, they are supervising themselves. The fox is in charge of the henhouse. For project oversight work Iran has to use companies staffed by former officials of the same ministry of nuclear energy that was in charge of Chernobyl. We have an expression in Persian that the knife doesn't cut its handle. Basically, people will not be critical of their colleagues.

“Because of sanctions, Iran can't hire qualified western contractors”

Also, Iran cannot hold the Russian contractors to account. Through my personal contacts, I know that the Iranians have pushed the Russian contractors to adhere to the latest standards in the design, construction and operation of nuclear plants, but the Russians refused due to cost and lack of technical capability. The Iranians would lose face if the Russians pulled out, so they have to acquiesce.

Aren't sanctions necessary to prevent Iran from proceeding with its nuclear programme?

Sanctions on certain technologies may be necessary, but when it comes to safety, a nuclear accident anywhere is a nuclear accident everywhere. Chernobyl is exhibit A. The fallout travelled all over Europe and the former Soviet Union. It is up to diplomats and others whether to give Iran nuclear fuel or a reactor but when it comes to quality control or the expertise to review control room design, this is benign technology that can only be used to ensure safety. It won't enable Iran to make a bomb. As Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said: "The first lesson that emerged from Chernobyl was the direct relevance of international cooperation to nuclear safety."

How far would the fallout from a nuclear accident in Iran spread?

There would be a lot of contamination. If it happens in Bushehr, which is on the Persian Gulf, and the containment dome can't stop the fallout from travelling, the whole of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai and the rest of the Gulf will be downwind. If it happens at one of the uranium enrichment plants, the local population centres will be at the mercy of the wind direction, as with the accident at Japan's enrichment plant in Tokaimura in 1999.

Where does the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty stand on these issues?

Under the NPT every signatory [Iran included] is entitled to technical assistance from the IAEA. But on 9 February, under US pressure, the IAEA announced that it is ending 22 of 55 technical cooperation projects with Iran, several of them directly related to nuclear safety. The only place Iran can look to for independent safety review, knowledge and practices is the IAEA technical cooperation programme, and now it is prevented from doing that.

Some would argue that safety issues raise the stakes and we must try harder to stop Iran.

This is a double-edged sword. Being a signatory to the NPT gives countries the right to build nuclear power plants for peaceful civilian purposes. So stopping them is not legal or logical. If you want to stop Iran getting a nuclear bomb, do it through negotiation. But by preventing Iran from accessing safe nuclear technology you are potentially harming the whole planet.

How then should the international community respond to the crisis?

Nuclear safety must be decoupled from political considerations. Technology and know-how that relate to nuclear safety should never be made a pawn of political feuds. To paraphrase the French statesman Georges Clemenceau, nuclear safety is much too serious a matter to entrust to diplomats and politicians.

From issue 2612 of New Scientist magazine, 11 July 2007, page 46-47
Profile

Najmedin Meshkati is a professor of civil/environmental engineering and industrial and systems engineering at the University of Southern California. His research, which is concerned with reducing risk and enhancing the reliability of complex, large-scale technological systems, has been drawn upon by nuclear power, aviation and petrochemical industries around the world.

rexxam62
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:13 pm

Wikify Fusion

Postby rexxam62 » Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:19 pm

Nanos

Being Jewish myself and having lived in Israel. Let me give you some facts about middle east. Because westerners look at the issues with western eyes and get the situation in the wrong way always.

First of all the money spent on the Iraq war is nothing compared to the riches in the Iraqi soil that is estimated to be worth about $25tr (Conservative est!) that is two times the American GDP in one year. America has spent $1tr so far.

As for who is causing all the trouble in middle east. Then let me tell you, most of the once causing trouble in middle east and in Iraq are Saudis. I would probably say 70% of the trouble in Iraq is caused by Saudis and the rest is caused by Shia Iranians with no respect for life at all. These people have exactly the same thinking as A. Hitler did. They celebrate death.

Now as for Israel invading its neighbours. You should be happy Israel wiped out a section of the trash in Lebanon. Otherwise Iraq would have imploaded already. That was just a gift for America so it is easier to stabalize Iraq. Btw America should not leave Iraq. Because either America gets the oil riches or China does. I preferre America.

But I dont care so much about these issues because Iraq will be the last of the last when it comes to oil wars over high quality petroleum. Oil is peaking all over the planet big time. The future is electricaly driven transportation and fusion would help out alot in that type of future.

And nobody will attack Iran. But assasinations and regime change would be nice. And you should have no sympathy for these people at all. They hate our guts and are willing to 'pull the trigger', believe me. I have seen some of these people upfront. They are totaly impossible to compromise with and constantly play games.

Anyway this was a little offtopic. But it all ties in. Yes fusion if it works would solve a hell of a lont of issues on this planet. I would welcome fusion with open arms. Combine that with 100% electrical driven transportation and I think we humans might survive a couple of hundred more years.

//Rexxam62

Nanos
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK
Contact:

Postby Nanos » Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:20 pm

Thank you for your input there, it adds to my knowledge of the area, of which other friends have spoken to me over the years, and who I still worry about to this day whenever I hear of a bomb having gone off in Jerusalem.

Sadly, the more I listen to people around the world, the more I see the same story from both sides, and its hard at times to gauge whose the worst, who started it, whats really happening. But each little piece of the jgsaw helps to get a little more of the picture, and we hear so little from people from that area its hard for us isolated in the west to know whats really happening.

My hope is that some of us from different countries can work together in some way that will benefit all of us, and not just some of us at the expense of others.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Postby Roger » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:55 pm

Nanos wrote:
I'm not talking about peacemongering,


Peacemongering is a long way from plotting the 1934 coup on FDR, selling Germany plate steel as late as Aug 1942, being charged under Trading with the Enemies in 1942. Rebuilding & supporting the German military machine, as well as supporting the Italian Fascist leader all seems to fit under "Reasons we had to fight WW2.

Somehow Chamberlins actions seem to pale to Harriman Brothers shipping of Remington rifles and Thompson machine guns to the fledgling Nazis in 1933, GM building the factory that builds the Panzer4 tanks.....

And even Chamberlin stopped and saw to it the Brits had 1 million gas masks before he left office. Chamberlin knew war was coming and used the gas masks to send a message to the Brits... war is coming, time to get prepared.

So if we are going to begrudge peacemongering... lets give equal time to the warmongerers...

...thats fair.... right ?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Re: Wikify Fusion

Postby Roger » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:22 pm

rexxam62 wrote: Oil is peaking all over the planet big time.


The Chevron CEO agrees with you:

“It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil,” notes Chevron Corporation’s two full-page ad that began appearing in July in the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, Financial Times and elsewhere. “We’ll use the next trillion in 30,” the ad continues,
http://www.energybulletin.net/7388.html

It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil.

We’ll use the next trillion in 30.

So why should you care?

David J. O’Reilly
Chairman & CEO
Chevron Corporation

http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/re ... arrels.pdf


Energy Information Agency does too:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e101/ ... ateau2.jpg

Image
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Postby Roger » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:34 pm

Nanos wrote:Its always hard to tell with oil reserves.


Hubbert had little problem.

I've seen 3d reservoir sims of Ghawar in KSA. All that water aint pretty.

Image

While production numbers are very clear compared to reserves:

Image


Once the Canadian tar sands are productive we can expect them to help out:

Image
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Postby scareduck » Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:40 am

Controlled terrestrial fusion or heat death. In the long run those are our choices.


Return to “Networking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests