What we really need to avoid Armageddon (Iran)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been through the straits more times that I care to remember... On one occasion we were surrounded by the Islamic People's Revolutionary Guard or something to that effect... It was nighttime during most of our transits but if I rmember correctly, it wasn't "that" narrow... I mean, if you are in the middle you can see land and islands on both sides, but the horizon line is a good ways off, so...
 
Biker said:
Could be you're right, I don't know. This is all speculation of course, but what would happen to oil prices in those two months and would Iran allow the operation to continue unchallenged?
Biker
Oil prices WOULD spike, no doubt about it, but it would be temporary, until the straights are clear. I never suggested Iran would not resist us taking control of the straights, but I don't expect they could KEEP US from taking control. We would just have to pay the price.
 
At some point an extended and dramatic spike in oil prices along with a tightened oil supply could provide the oil shock needed to send the world economy over the tipping point into a world-wide depression that could last for years. This is what everyone involved is trying to avoid, except perhaps for a few nutjob mullahs in Iran.

As for the Straights, how wide are the actual shipping lanes? Those tankers need some fairly deep water in which to operate. The shipping lanes themselves could just be a small area of the water body.
 
This would most likely never happen for two reasons. One, back when Eisenhower was president, he came up with the idea to stockpile many products in case all outside trading was cut off due to war. The United States has enough crude oil stockpiled to last for at least 4 years and if ties and imports with Iran were to ever break off temporarily, this stockpiled oil would be put to use to make sure there is no economic pandemonium. Two, Iran is the 4th largest exporter of oil, with the United States being one of their largest importers. If they were to cut off oil exports with the US it would be an economic disaster for THEM, not us. This is why if it happens, it won't last for very long and in order to avoid economic breakdown, they will have to start exporting again.
 
It was wide enough for several merchant ships to run convoy, not in a line but in side by side positions(several miles apart); I was doing security for merchant ships, and no one seemed too concerned about the Iranians... It is an international channel, so anyone has a right to pass through it. The Iranians aren't going to violate international maritime law over the whole thing, plus if you look at it, the stated that they had a right to nuclear power, not to nuclear weps. It was media that mistranslated and misquoted the president over there; Iran is suprisingly secular in many ways. They are far more liberal that Saudi, our "staunch" ally in the region; The Paki's have nukes concerns me far more... If Musharrif(sp) goes down, who'll control those? I think part of the problem is this; Many of our allies over there are headed by backwards feudal dicatator-types, again the Sauds, Kuwaitis, Bahraini's, and so on... When a country has a gov't that has been established through civil participation, they are a threat because the become harder to buy off in some ways. I'm not saying Iran is a great place, but in the grand scheme of things, they may be closer to us in their political and social direction than many think or want to think... Look at some of the political events in our nation inthe past 2 decades, as well as the influence the religious right has in this country...
 
matthew.g.george said:
The Paki's have nukes concerns me far more... If Musharrif(sp) goes down, who'll control those?

+1

matthew.g.george said:
I'm not saying Iran is a great place, but in the grand scheme of things, they may be closer to us in their political and social direction than many think or want to think....

I think Iran wouldn't be such a bad place if the people actually got their way with what they want the social and political ways to be like. Of course, the vast majority of the iranian population loves the U.S., so that explains that...

And I think the Iranian government is crazy, always has been since the revolution...
 
Krikee! Read some of the links on that site, from such "liberal" sources as "U.S. News and World Report." This is a nightmare situation no matter how you look at it.
 
And how long would that sunken tanker sit in that location? Given the importance of flow of ships thru the Straights of Hormuz, I figure the US Navy would assume control of the straights (and the land adjacent) within 48 hours, and begin salvage operations immediately thereafter.

I am no expert on marine salvage but the straights would probably reopen within 2 months of such a sinking.
The Navy does have a plan for such an event. Two months ... hmm. Took us three days to get a grounded Exxon tanker (the Exxon HOUSTON) off the reef near Oahu in 1988. It'd take three weeks at least just to get the salvage ships over to the Straits (there are salvage ships forward-deployed in Japan); getting a tanker off the bottom (especially if it turned into a combat salvage op) could be interesting ...
The Iranians aren't going to violate international maritime law over the whole thing, plus if you look at it, the stated that they had a right to nuclear power, not to nuclear weps.
Sure they will.

I think I'm gonna see how much I can get for the SUV and the truck, maybe start lookin' at a Prius ...
 
Ummm.

We produce and dispose of enough surplus corn in this country to produce more than enough ethynol alcohol fuel... The problem is oil companies and gov't block investments in these and other alternative fuel sources in order to maintiain the current status quo; that is lotsa money in the pockets of business, execs, and politicos... Is another war what we need, so we can establish a hold on another 20 years of cheap gas? maybe we need to worry less about those areas outside of our borders and figure out how to use what we have... You can say it is a nightmare, but it is one of our creation... Alaska isn't the solution, pandering to the Arab states certainly won't help; We need to start restructuring our national fuel and energy infrastructure. We need safe nuke energy on a mass scale. We need to utilize hydro more efficiently... We have too many people making too much $$$ by keeping us hobbled and blindfolded and dependent on their inefficient, artificially expensive product.
We have to be somewhat empathetic with other countries, popular or not. What if a foreign power (hostile to our interests) occupied mexico? And we didn't have a strong military, in modern terms...? We would try to get an upper hand over that occupying power (nukes, economic...?) We would do this not for the purpose of dominating them but rather in an attempt to ensure our own survival!

Just some food for thought.

MGG
 
Lobotomy Boy said:
And how do we generate the energy required to produce the corn and turn it into alcohol?

I don't know.

And how do we generate the energy required to keep people from crossing the border from Mexico and working in the cornfields for cheap?:evil:
 
Lobotomy Boy said:
As pointed out, it would be fairly simple for Iran to shut down shipping in the Straights, and IIRC, they have the firepower there to do it. Their goal would be to shut the tap on oil.

Do I view Iran as a terrorist threat? Yes. But let's take a step back into what I like to call the real world.

First of all, Iran is itself a major oil producer and would face severe economic impact from shutting off its own oil production. The Iranian government's major concern right now is not the US or Israel but its own young and dynamic population, most of whom have no memory of the Shah or revolution. Several abortive revolts have been put down with brutal force by the mullahs, but the know full well they can't use force to kill everyone. If they shut off their own oil pumps the ensuing depression would throw millions of Iranians out of work and in that part of the world that means starvation. The Mullahs would risk getting the boot from their own people.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

Secondly, an attack by the Republic of Iran against the straits would unify the US and western europe, not to mention the Gulf States, against them. It would be the single biggest gift they could give US foreign policy and the Bush administration. It would be sending the President a gift wrapped aliance the likes of which hasn't been seen since the first Gulf War. The Iranian theocracy would be history, and our problems in Iraq would be solved.

You are making the grave mistake of confusing Iranian RHETORIC with REALITY. Their clerics and politicos thwap swords on the table and yap about the Great Satan and Israel. They've been doing this since 1979. It does not mean they're mounting a military assault against us. It's an old tool they've used with great success to keep their own people distracted from the horrific conditions around them.

If Iran actually followed through on threats against oil shipping or Israel, that would be the end of the theocracy. It would run against their interests, which is why they won't do it.
 
"Journal of Engineering and Public Policy
(Vol. 9, August 2002)

Corn Ethanol as an Alternative Fuel: Technical, Economic and Policy Issues
By Sarah R. Walter

Executive Summary

As the world’s supply of petroleum decreases, the search for renewable alternative fuels has become very active. Corn ethanol has been utilized as an alternative automotive fuel throughout the United States and has infiltrated the agricultural industry; creating thousands of jobs and stimulating the economy. As new technology emerges and the need for independence from foreign sources of petroleum becomes more evident an analysis must be made to determine whether existing alternatives to petroleum are temporary solutions or long term solutions. There are many technical, economic and policy issues that line the current debate behind the longevity of the use of corn ethanol as an alternative fuel. Ethanol is one of many alternatives to petroleum that must be utilized in the United States' transition to a renewable energy-based economy, yet corn ethanol alone is not a viable replacement for the future of our current petroleum driven industry. The United States must diversify the sources in which it fuels its growing economy to insure energy security."


IT IS NOT A SOLE ALTERNATIVE; IT COULD BE A PORTION OF A MORE VIABLE ENERGY PLAN... I AM NOT A CORN EXPERT... I DO QUESTION THE ECONOMIC VALIDITY OF LOADING HUGE SHIPS WITH OIL AND SHIPPING IT HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD TO BE PROCESSED, AT HUGE COST, IN SHIPS THAT BURN UNGODLY AMOUNTS OF FUEL EVERY MINUTE... I WAS ON MV'S AND A USNS AND IN SPEAKING WITH THE ENGINEERS, THEY WERE BURNING A CUBIC TON OF FUEL AN HOUR AT NORMAL OPS TEMPOS... I CANT EVEN BEGIN TO THINK WHAT SOME OF THE TANKERS BURN; EVER HEAR OF BIO-DIESEL?

POINT IS WE ARE DRIVING ALONG THE HIGHWAY ON EMPTY SAYING "WE'LL STOP AT THE NEXT STOP... WE'LL STOP AFTER THIS ONE, AND ETC..."
 
http://www.wise-intern.org/journal01/index.html

MOVING TOWARDS BIOMASS:
CURRENT SUPPORT FOR BIOMASS
USAGE IN THE UNITED STATES
BY
JENNIFER WALDEN
PREPARED FOR THE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON INTERNSHIPS FOR STUDENTS OF ENGINEERING
SUMMER 2001
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................1
ABOUT THE AUTHOR ..............................................................................................................2
THE WISE PROGRAM..............................................................................................................2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................2
EXECUTIVE SUMMERY............................................................................................................3
ISSUE DEFINITION...................................................................................................................4
Overview ............................................................................................................................4
Relevance to the General Public ............................................................................................4
Relevance to AIChE.............................................................................................................6
BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................7
Definition of Biomass ..........................................................................................................7
Uses for Biomass.................................................................................................................7
Legislative History of Biomass Research and Development ....................................................9
BIOMASS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000 ..........................................................11
The Legislation Itself .........................................................................................................11
Organization of the Biomass Research and Development Initiative .......................................11
Current Appropriation Status ..............................................................................................13
Department of Energy Involvement.....................................................................................14
United States Department of Agriculture Involvement..........................................................14
KEY CONFLICTS, CONCERNS, AND CHALLENGES....................................................................14
Research Challenges ..........................................................................................................14
Market Challenges .............................................................................................................16
Policy Challenges ..............................................................................................................19
Possible Opposition to Biomass Usage ................................................................................21
RECENT POLICY ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION ...................................................................24
Current Legislation in the 107th Congress ............................................................................24
Commodity Credit Corporation Funds .................................................................................24
Conservation Reserve Program Lands .................................................................................25
Supporting Private Sector Consortia ....................................................................................25
CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................................26
ENDNOTES ...........................................................................................................................27
2
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jennifer Walden is entering her fourth year of undergraduate studies in Chemical
Engineering at Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT). This paper was researched and
written through her participation in the Washington Internships for Students of
Engineering (WISE) program in the summer of 2000. The American Institute of
Chemical Engineers (AIChE) sponsored her participation in this program.
THE WISE PROGRAM
The Washington Internships for Students of Engineering program is a ten-week
program for outstanding engineering students who have completed their third year of
study. Applicants have an interest in public policy, especially the role that engineers play
in the policy process. Participants attend frequent meetings with government officials,
policy makers, academics, lobbyists and other non-government individuals to learn how
the government makes decisions on complex technological issues and how engineers can
contribute to legislative and regulatory public policy decisions. Each student also
researches, writes and presents a policy paper on a topic of interest to his or her
sponsoring society. For more information visit www.wise-intern.org on the World Wide
Web.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank everyone involved in the WISE program for
making the experience educational and enriching. Special thanks go to the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers for the opportunity to participate in the 2001 WISE
program. The advice and guidance of Ron Hira, Darlene Schuster and Carla Sullivan
were invaluable throughout the process of developing this paper. Finally, the author
thanks her fellow WISE interns for making the experience so fun.
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMERY
Biomass is defined as any organic matter that is available on a renewable or
recurring basis. It can be used for chemicals, power and fuels. The market, once geared
towards biological sources, shifted to petroleum because of the availability and low cost
of fossil products in the early 20th century. However, there are many reasons to look at
augmenting the use of oil with biomass. The use of biomass could benefit the United
States’ economy, environment, energy security and market opportunities.
Currently, there is a great deal of support for biomass in both government and
industry in the United States. The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000
detailed an integrated research effort between the DOE and the USDA. Although
funding for the initiative remains relatively static, the federal agencies are actively
participating in research as well as deployment efforts. These agencies are working
towards tripling the use of biomass by 2010, which is a national goal established by
former President Clinton.
There are many research, market and policy challenges that need to be overcome,
as well as some opposition to address in the drive toward increased biomass usage. Some
of these challenges are currently being explored. Detailed research is being performed,
biorefineries are being built and policy matter is under consideration. Work in these
areas still remains.
There is governmental activity underway to try to integrate an increased use of
biomass into the market. This includes the introduction of multiple bills in Congress as
well as the use of Commodity Credit Corporation funds and Conservation Reserve
Program lands. These all work to provide incentives for biomass usage. Another
possibility for helping to jumpstart the biobased industry could be the creation of a
private sector consortium. In this way technical challenges could be cooperatively
explored by industry leaders and perhaps advancement could occur more quickly.
Looking at all this, it is apparent that there is interest in the use of biomass. It
should be noted that biomass will best be used as a complement to existing products and
not as a total replacement. There is quite a bit of research to perform and hurdles to
overcome, although an excellent start has occurred and forward progress will continue.
Biomass will, without a doubt, be a part of the future industrial market.
4
ISSUE DEFINITION
OVERVIEW
Since ancient times, renewable resources from agriculture and forestry have been
used as raw materials for countless products. However, the United States experienced a
shift to fossil sources in the early 19th century with increased coal usage. At this time,
fossil fuels were cheap and abundant and the market welcomed the transition. During the
1920s, most chemical producers replaced biological raw materials with petroleum. By
the 1970s, petroleum accounted for 70 percent of America’s fuels, and fossil fuel
resources decidedly dominated the market.1 Fossil fuels, however, are a nonrenewable
resource and the International Energy Agency says that world production of oil will peak
sometime between 2010 and 2020.2 This being the case, the concept of augmenting
industrial production and energy needs with the use of biobased resources is one to be
strongly considered. Starting in 1999, various national activities have shown increased
interest and support for biomass usage, including the presidential establishment of a
national goal to triple biobased product and bioenergy usage in the U.S. by 20103. The
National Research Council also issued a report on Biobased Industrial Products in 2000.
Another significant activity was the signing into law of the Biomass Research and
Development Act of 2000. This act is designed to provide integration and direction for
the research and development activities with regard to biomass and provided an
authorization of $49 million for research programs.4 All of the activity in the area of
biomass is helping to open new opportunities for the United States’ future in energy, fuel,
and chemical production.
RELEVANCE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
The recently issued NRC report on biobased industrial products states,
“Biological sciences are likely to make the same impact on the formation of new
industries in the next century as the physical and chemical sciences have had on industrial
development throughout the century now coming to a close.”5 This impact would affect
the economy, environment, energy security, and competitive position of the United
States.6
5
Economy
The increased usage of biomass would stimulate economic growth, notably in
rural and farm communities. Meeting the national goal set forth would provide a market
for what is normally considered agricultural waste. Additionally, biorefineries set in
farming communities would provide jobs and benefit industry as well. A recent Oak
Ridge National Laboratories study states that bioenergy crop production programs would
increase U.S. agricultural income by $6 billion per year.7 An Economic Research Service
study adds to this, stating a figure of about $250,000 in sales per job.8 The multiplier
effect goes on to say that for every primary job in manufacturing, four more jobs in
service and supply are created. The NRC committee responsible for the report foresees
approximately 1 million jobs in biochemicals alone.9 These values do not take into
consideration potential jobs lost in the petroleum industries and further research is
necessary to evaluate possible effects.
Environment
The issue of climate change has worldwide attention right now, especially with
the debate over the Kyoto Protocol. Biomass could prove to be one way to help alleviate
environmental problems such climate change. Although debate persists, research has
shown that the use of biomass has the potent ial to reduce carbon dioxide and other
pollutant emissions, reduce soil erosion, protect water supplies and quality and diversify
crops.
The burning of biofuels does release CO2 into the atmosphere. However, this
release is what was and will in the future be fixed by photosynthesis.10 Thus, there is
essentially no net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere with the use of biofuels. Another
environmental issue along the same lines is the attempted phase out of the use of the fuel
additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), which is now believed to threaten ground
water quality. More research needs to be performed to determine what effect ethanol has
on drinking water supplies.
6
Energy Security
The United States is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign oil imports,
importing 56% of its total petroleum11 and borrowing $1 billion per day from other
nations to finance its high consumption. 12 Additionally, over two-thirds of the worlds
remaining oil reserves are in the potentially volatile Middle East.13 This dependence
keeps military forces of the United States in the Persian Gulf, affects foreign policy, and
gives the region a great deal of leverage. In fact, a renewed interest in ethanol was
apparent in the 1970s, when oil supply disruptions in the Middle East became a national
security issue.14 The Persian Gulf crisis in the early 1990s continued to support
investigation into other sources of fuels as well. Ethanol advocates Senator Richard
Lugar (R-IN) and R. James Woolsey believe that increased usage of bioproducts and
biofuels could greatly benefit the U.S. by reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
Competitive Position
Products from biomass could open up new technologies, industries and export
opportunities for the United States. The 1994 Uruguay Round and the World Trade
Organization are helping to increase access to international markets and establish new
rules for freer trade.15 If the U.S. works to become a technological leader in the biomass
market, it could capture an important market share and lead in some important
intellectual property areas. Other countries involved in significant biomass research
include Austria, Canada, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa and the United
Kingdom.16
RELEVANCE TO AICHE
As a professional association of more than 50,000 members, the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers works to provide leadership in advancing the profession
of chemical engineering. The membership of AIChE spans academia as well as many
areas of the private sector. Thus, an increase in biomass activity is sure to affect AIChE,
as the organization fosters and disseminates relevant knowledge, supports the
professional and personal growth of its members, and applies the expertise of its
members to address societal needs throughout the world.17 As an organization AIChE
7
advocates public policy that represents the interests of chemical engineers. Biomass is
one such area that AIChE should find relevant and timely.
BACKGROUND
DEFINITION OF BIOMASS
The definition of biomass as used in the wording of the Biomass Research and
Development Act of 2000 is as follows:
Biomass is any organic matter available on a renewable or recurring basis,
including agricultural crops and trees, wood and wood waste and residues, plants
(including aquatic plants), grasses, residues, fibers, and animal wastes, municipal
wastes, and other waste materials.18
To demonstrate the availability of biomass, the United States disposes of
approximately 350 million tons of agricultural wastes each year.19 Much of this waste
could potentially be converted to ethanol or any number of other products.
USES FOR BIOMASS
In the early 20th century plant matter was providing the basis for most industrial
products, including dyes, chemicals, clothing, and plastics. However, fossil products
became plentiful and production methods using oil were cheaper. Fuels and products
from oil became available in large quantities at low cost, and, by the 1970s, petroleum
had taken over the market20 phasing out plant matter usage. Wit h the current push to
supplement the use of petrochemicals, however, there are many potential uses for
biomass in today’s market. The three categories most commonly used for grouping are
biofuels, biochemicals, and bioenergy.
Biofuels
Ethanol is a clear, colorless, flammable fuel, predominantly coming from the
fermentation of corn starch. Ethanol can be blended with gasoline for vehicular use and
is also being looked at to power fuel cells. Approximately 56 fuel ethanol plants exist in
8
20 states, wit h production capabilities ranging from 0.5 million gallons to 310 million
gallons per year.21 The cost of ethanol production has decreased from $3.60 per gallon in
1980 to $1.27 per gallon in 1991 and should continue to decrease with improved
technology. 22 The use of cellulosic biomass (virtually any plant or plant products) as a
source for ethanol production could reduce costs even further and perhaps provide a
major market niche.
Biodiesel is made using plant oils and methanol to produce fatty acid methyl
esters. Oils that can be used include soybean, canola, industrial rapeseed, and even used
vegetable oil. In 1998, Congress passed legislation classifying biodiesel as an alternative
fuel under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. EPACT mandates that federal, state, and some
private fleet acquire alternatively fueled vehicles.23 Now, soy-based biodiesel is
currently being used by more than 80 fleets nationwide,24 and in May of 2001, the first
pure biodiesel public fueling station opened in San Francisco.25 Biodiesel can be used in
diesel engines without negative impact, an important quality, 26 although blended fuel is
reportedly better for use.
Biochemicals – Intermediate and Specialty
Intermediate chemicals are utilized to produce paints, plastics, solvents, synthetic
fibers and the like. Ethylene, the most versatile petrochemical, can now be produced
using lignocellulose conversion technology. However, the biobased ethylene that results
from this process is not cost competitive at the present time. Stable production cost may
allow it to compete with the rising petrochemical ethylene cost within the next five years,
however, assuming the continued rise of oil and gas prices.27 Acetic acid is another
intermediate chemical that could be targeted by bioindustry for a multitude of uses.
Fermenting corn starch or cheese whey waste produces acetic acid. Used for soaps and
lubricants, fatty acids such as esters, ethoxylates and amides can readily be produced
from plant oils. In 1991, forty percent of the 2.5 million tons of fatty acids produced in
the United States were derived from vegetable and natural oils.28 This market share
could hopefully be expanded.
Specialty chemicals are a high value market, generally selling for more than $2.00
a pound. Annual sales exceeded $3 billion in 1994 and the market for specialty
9
chemicals is expected to continue to grow at a 10 to 20 percent per year rate.29 This
market has been tapped, with examples of biobased chemicals including bioherbicides,
thickening agents, flavors, fragrances, chiral chemicals and enzymes. The growing.... (SEE WEB LINK FOR REST OF ARTICLE)
 
No more posts?

By the way, it'd be easier to foul things up by blowing up an LNG on the Suez... (Liquid Natural Gas)...
 
Cosmoline said:
Do I view Iran as a terrorist threat? Yes. But let's take a step back into what I like to call the real world.

First of all, Iran is itself a major oil producer and would face severe economic impact from shutting off its own oil production. The Iranian government's major concern right now is not the US or Israel but its own young and dynamic population, most of whom have no memory of the Shah or revolution. Several abortive revolts have been put down with brutal force by the mullahs, but the know full well they can't use force to kill everyone. If they shut off their own oil pumps the ensuing depression would throw millions of Iranians out of work and in that part of the world that means starvation. The Mullahs would risk getting the boot from their own people.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

Secondly, an attack by the Republic of Iran against the straits would unify the US and western europe, not to mention the Gulf States, against them. It would be the single biggest gift they could give US foreign policy and the Bush administration. It would be sending the President a gift wrapped aliance the likes of which hasn't been seen since the first Gulf War. The Iranian theocracy would be history, and our problems in Iraq would be solved.

You are making the grave mistake of confusing Iranian RHETORIC with REALITY. Their clerics and politicos thwap swords on the table and yap about the Great Satan and Israel. They've been doing this since 1979. It does not mean they're mounting a military assault against us. It's an old tool they've used with great success to keep their own people distracted from the horrific conditions around them.

If Iran actually followed through on threats against oil shipping or Israel, that would be the end of the theocracy. It would run against their interests, which is why they won't do it.
I agree up to a point, and that point is the minute the US or Israel starts dropping bombs.
 
What I can't figure out is, why Iran is so blatantly defiant toward the rest of the world in regard to it's nuclear ambitions? Are they foolish, thinking the threat of sky-rocketing fuel prices is going to prevent action against them? Or do they have a trump card we don't know about. Has Russia secretly agreed to intervene if Iran is attacked? What then, Armageddon? Just wondering.
 
I'm starting to think that the leaders of Iran don't mean what they are saying. They might just be playing the same game as everyone else, and that is just the part they play in this particular melodrama.
 
What I can't figure out is, why Iran is so blatantly defiant toward the rest of the world in regard to it's nuclear ambitions? Are they foolish, thinking the threat of sky-rocketing fuel prices is going to prevent action against them? Or do they have a trump card we don't know about. Has Russia secretly agreed to intervene if Iran is attacked? What then, Armageddon? Just wondering.

Iran sees the disparity in how the USA is treating the other 2 "Axis of Evil" countries. The one with nukes gets paid off (North Korea), while the one without gets invaded and it's leaders deposed (Iraq). They would much rather be paid off after some saber rattling, thus the mad race to get nuke facilities up and running.
 
matthew.g.george said:
By the way, it'd be easier to foul things up by blowing up an LNG on the Suez... (Liquid Natural Gas)...

Don't worry to much, :) you will find it extremely difficoult to blow up an LNG-tanker. The key-word is 'Liquid', tha gas has to boil off to be flameable, and even if this will happen pretty fast if the LNG is spilled you would not have an explotion but only a gigantic and fast fire. So it would be bad for the boat, and probably the terminal (if the tanker is loading/unloading). Only way to blow up a LNG-tanker would be when it has nearly empty tanks, and the crew have failed to fill the tanks with inert-gasses.
 
Malone LaVeigh said:
I agree up to a point, and that point is the minute the US or Israel starts dropping bombs.

Things would get more intense at that point, but keep in mind that Iran will still try to drive a wedge between the US and Israel and the rest of the world. Iran would love to continue selling oil to fuel its own counter measures against the US in Iraq or possibly Israel. Any move against the straits would immediately put Iran at odds with Europe, China and the rest of the Gulf states.
 
Thermal depolymerization. You might need some biostock to help augment this. It would at the least help insulate the nation from global price fluctuations. I've heard they can use it to process oil shale and tar sands for cheaper than current methods. Most likely you'd be mixing garbage, shale/sand, and biostock to get a feedstock for your plants, as the recipes for the various products are different.

Nuclear power with solar, wind, etc. augmenting it. natural gas lines could conceivably be used for hydrogen, helping the crux with not having infrastructure. I'm seeing natural gas straight though, no hydrogen(not yet anyway. It doesn't have enough density last I heard). Transmission technologies would help get more power out of each generator.

Biggest problem is, money. With the world buying oil in dollars, this helps float the debt that the U.S. has. Any move away from global oil would also have to do something to help keep the money afloat. You can't just stop printing, you have to tie it to something, and start paying off debts. that's really the threat of Iran's exchange. People stop buying dollars to buy oil, and inflation goes crazy.

We also have to do something about cost of living. Big reason that companies move overseas is that they can pay a person $500 a year, rather than $500 a week. Thing is, the cost of living is low enough that they can live on that, comfortably even. If we go to a self-sustaining economy, you need to make sure that everyone's making enough to maintain thier standard of living(are you going to give up the internet?:neener: ) Once you get this sorted out, we can produce in the states, and it'll be competitive with overseas. Tarriffs might help, but probably be bad in the long run.

Oh, and for fun(warning for language):
The end of the World as we know It. Not really the right scenario, but still funny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top