What I mean with that? That I have seen examples of that softer views do appear in the mainstream media in Iran, so that the views of Ahmedinejad doesn't necessarily represent the people of Iran. Beyond that it is something you read into it.
LOL, i don't mean it like that :hehe . i'm not talking about Iranian eating habit. what i meant is how a different culture achieved the same end with a different method or something like that. you can't judge a different culture using your culture standard. you're not suppose to impose your value on other culture, you're suppose to live along with it and learn from it.
The benefits from nuclear energy are not marginal.
Nuclear energy. They are, if you sit on top of so much natural gas. Then (in the Iranian model of subsidies) you'll have export more gas to pay for the same electricity, than if you just used the gas on making the electricity. Nuclear energy is not free , nor cheap. And if gas is cheaper, then you actually deplete your reserves faster than if just using the gas yourself. And with oil it gets ludicrous...
There's evidence? where is it? American so called "evidence" have been so far remain a claim nothing more. nothing solid have ever been presented to the UN or any international organization. there's reason to believe the so called evidence are non-existence in the first place. sure, they say Iranian shaped charge was found in Iraq, but the report also ignored the existence of many local manufacturing workshops that produce the shaped charges and many other weapons use by the insurgents. the number of shaped charge that's coming from Iran are miniscule compared to the one made locally. and how do you know the iranian one are supplied by the Iranian government? it may be an unlawful smuggling ring operated outside government knowledge. Hezbollah possesed thousands of M-16 rifle and several MILAN ATGM. Is that mean US and French government supplied Hezbollah with this weapons?
A mod comment. We can discuss if there is evidence of Iran waging a proxy war in Iraq, no problem. But the discussion of what constitutes terrorism as opposed to a ("genuine"?) resistance movement is going to derail any topic. So off limits.
In Irans case, the cost of their nuclear power stations would have more than covered the cost of installing the infrastructure to capture all the gas they currently flare off from oil wells, pipe it to the nearest towns for cooking, etc, build power stations (gas powered electricity generators are relatively cheap) near large oilfields & bottling plants near small ones. This would have provided Iran with more power than the nuclear plants at much lower cost, the capital cost being much lower & the fuel itself being absolutely free. The capital investment would have started generating returns much quicker, too. And since the gas is currently being flared, using it has no carbon footpring implications, & the carbon footprint is therefore less than nuclear, because less energy-intensive construction would be needed.
Swerve and GD here are not wrong - can anyone here tell different?
You could always have a go.
Consider - the gas is being burned as we type, but to no purpose, just making big flames above oil wells. Trapping it & burning where it would be useful would add nothing to the CO2 output. To the extent that it replaces other fossil fuel, it will reduce CO2 output.