Desiring Machine

This pronouncement from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disturbs me. The nuclear issue is not closed. Iran can not have Nuclear weapons, and by extension a Uranium enrichment program, end of story. If this means military intervention in Iran then I support that. However, I think all diplomatic channels should be pursued aggressively, but a military option is permissible in my opinion. I know this may run counter to many on the left. I am opposed to the folly in Iraq, but I am not inclined to see Iran persist in its Uranium enrichment program. More to the point I am not sure Iran is entitled to any Nuclear program whatsoever. Even if it is “completely peaceful and transparent”. If they wanted to satisfy their domestic energy needs then Ahmadinejad should be talking to us about the progress they are making on solar energy. Surely the have enough sunshine in the desert to power all their homes? If he started talking about that then I would be impressed. The UN needs to step up, and major action needs to be taken immediately.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Bush has any more capital to spend on this issue. It will be up to Hillary to put Ahmadinejad in his place in 2009.

Of course as a side note, as long as the USA, France, and other major powers depend on Nuclear energy, we cannot avoid becoming duplicitous on this issue. That is why the only viable long term solution is to mothball Nuclear power across the globe. America needs to lead by example. And France, could help out as well.

A few interesting facts about Solar energy from wikipedia.

The total solar energy available to the earth is approximately 3850 zettajoules (ZJ) per year. When they first started researching solar energy it cost about $1500 per watt to produce. But today with greater efficiency it is less than $3 per watt to produce with modern Solar technology. There are estimates that a well-managed nuclear unit can produce electricity profitably at a total cost of 2.0-2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. However, I suspect this cost overlooks certain fixed costs and decommissioning costs that are inevitably borne by the tax payer. Not to mention the many, many, many years that it will take to safeguard nuclear waste. The economics of this issue needs more research on my part and I will return to the subject in a future blog post to address the economics. But this paper from the Rocky Mountain Institute entitled, Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential, is a good unbiased place to start. I welcome comments pro and con.