Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why Doesn't Iran go "Solar" instead of the "Nuclear Option"?

Posted 8 years ago on Dec. 23, 2011, 4:50 a.m. EST by OccupyNews (1220)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If Iran cannot make solar energy work in their desert regions, than the planet's humanoid inhabitants are mostly doomed as they continue to over rely on petroleum.

If Iran succeeds developing solar energy, the excuse to invade Iran would vaporize as well.

(edit note, I changed the phrase "desert environment" to "desert regions".

New Info, Check out this link. http://theenergycollective.com/namarchetti/74929/now-s-one-hell-solar-power-tower?ref=popular_posts

389 Comments

389 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 years ago

Solar is a dream for the future not a technology that will provide for the energy needs of a nation today. It also lacks the ability to instill the fear that a nuclear powered nation can instill if it's neighbors believe the technology extends to weapons.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Lets focus on your first point. Without horse and buggy, the industrial revolution may have never happened. Isn't it logical to then assume that solar can only happen if petroleum assists in its development?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 years ago

I don't see how the horse and buggy type technology was actually necessary to the development of machines.

The money from oil can certainly help, in developing solar. There is no way to tell now long the development process would take though. Nuclear technology already exists to make it a source of energy now, and if you actually do wish to develop a weapons program solar would be a waste of time.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Thanks for being honest. But before the industrial age there were horses with saddles and with buggies, and that is how america was built. Eventually, enough blacksmiths making enough metal parts, very heavy metal parts, that then had to be moved, by horses, to critical locations so that further industrialization could occur, eventually led to petroleum exploration and development.

Solar is now where petroleum was when there was only horse and buggy to get things done. It is critical that a certain percentage of ALL petroleum go toward the further development of solar energy.

Solar energy must be infrastructured to the point where additional solar energy can be created by using energy from existing solar energy plants.

One rationalization used against solar is that it requires a lot of petroleum and coal energy to produce the solar panels and other such solar ingredients, (including huge magnifying glass lenses).

Again this same argument could have been used to stay with horse and buggy. The amount of horse and buggy energy needed to get petroleum development off the ground was not justifiable at first, because simply having the horse and buggy do the actual work made the existing infrastructure a lot more money.

It is time to let solar energy not only exist, but then use it's existing solar energy power base to create more solar energy infrastructure.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 7 years ago

ows should have loyalty to geo political issues like certain developing oil base economy country wanted to switch to nuclear energy. nuclear energy are need ed to obtain the power ballance in the region but not to have a nuclear disaster . take Japan for instance, they had terrorist attack in subway, but it didnt stop the from building the nuclear plants. and i think they planning to built more power plants in the future

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

Based on its recent history, I believe that Iran's intention is to instill fear in its neighbors because it could not instill respect. It has the inferiority complex running amok with a nuclear-missile-capable technological base, coupled with a covert expansionist foreign policy powered by its duplicitous peace-in-name-only "Islamic" ideology.

It was NOT enough for the U.S. and N.A.T.O. to have driven out the Taliban from Afghanistan and turned Iraq into a Shi'ite-ruled country at great expenditures of blood and treasure, ALL to the geopolitical advantages of Iran. Iran probably even supplied shaped charges (which showed technological sophistication that can help start a nuclear detonation) that blew up U.S. humvees and killed our personnel in Iraq to destabilize our efforts to make Iraq livable for Iraqis. Iran also supported and may still be supporting subversive if not terrorist organizations in the Middle East. As Saudi Arabia put it very well in supposedly diplomatic secrecy (sorry, Saudia Arabia, the U.S. should have guarded that better): "Cut off the head of the snake." Saudi Arabia was right because Iran with its current geopolitical trajectory has been and remains a destabilizing force in the Middle East, bad for the neighborhood. Today, the Middle East, tomorrow, the world.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

There is NO need for more Americans to join our U.S. Navy to fight Iran because Iran is in a different class altogether. More Americans joining the U.S. Navy to be deployed there will only add to the potential casualties. I am much more concerned that our Commander-in-Chief would fall into the political trap of directing our navy personnel to enter the Persian Gulf to show our military muscles and instead have them suffer severe nosebleeds. We have longer-distance strike instruments that can do the job from afar. Why risk unnecessary casualties just to calm the nerves of Iran's neighbors?

We should keep our aircraft carriers out of the Persian Gulf and ready for action. Iran does NOT need to see the carrier battlegroups to know that they are there ready to pounce.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 7 years ago

mercenaries army. aliens who barely speaks english. i know what you talking about. proxy war, - internet and drone tricknology. cargo containers full of ammunition. check the Syrian map. find out where the rebel impedance coming from http://www.hangthebankers.com/british-born-jihadists-fighting-assad-in-syria-captured-photographer/ it is a busyness, of course. but what is your point?

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

My point is that this bone of contention is a slow-motion rerun of the Cuban missile crisis so the U.S., Israel, and other allies can and should pick the time and place for the coordinated attack of Iran to finish off the threat for good. Nuclear-armed missiles, jihadist ideology, and the world's largest oil supplies do NOT belong together so the nexus must be broken before they coalesce.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 7 years ago

good point. im not going to criticize you for that

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 7 years ago

Why would you cite Japan as a successful example of nuclear energy when they are still experiencing a "fallout" from the tsunami that wreaked havoc on some of their nuclear power plants?

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 7 years ago

why do you think some people likes big musculus? does they have physical activities on the work? does they need musculus for fighting? i dont think so, there are many different ways to express the power. shake it up! Jewish humor: - papa, why did you hit me? i didnt do anything... - not yet... - here is the glass jar, and i want you to go to the river and bring it back full of water and to be safe and sound! do you understand me now? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/world/middleeast/leon-panetta-urges-israel-to-allow-more-time-for-iran-sanctions-to-work.html

[-] 1 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 8 years ago

This is important and true. It won't be the time when oil starts to be scarce and its securing by nations causes ever more political and military conflict to start developping the technology and building the infrastructures for its replacement. We have the energy means to do that heavy work now without too much pain. We won't in 50 years.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

Iran's generation of electricity is definitely a good thing for its people but it does NOT need to use enriched-uranium (nuclear-weapons-capable) technology to achieve that. It has abundant natural gas that can be used for generating electricity on demand. It also has huge deposits of oil.

Iran is prone to very severe earthquake so nuclear reactors may be damaged and leak radioactive materials. The radioactive contamination can last many centuries, rendering the areas involved uninhabitable. Iran is located at low latitude and enjoys abundant sunshine so its developing a sun-based electricity producing industrial base makes much sense.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

And as the price of petroleum rises, the odds that any of it will be used to develop solar goes DOWN, not up. Right now prevailing thought is as petroleum prices rise, than alternative energy will look more attractive.

This will only be true if enough alternative energy infrastructure exists so that it can replace itself without needing very much petroleum.

The idea being that a solar energy plant can produce enough energy to justify making solar panels. If not enough solar plants exist, and petroleum rises in price, then the desire to create solar panels using petroleum will no not be advocated by a society in fear of depleting petroleum supplies.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 years ago

That is a possible interpretation. We had the basics for centuries. A steam engine of sorts was built in almost two millennia before the industrial revolution. It took time though for chemistry to develop the metals needed to contain the forces.

Doesn't matter, oil companies are not going to be interested in solar development until the supply of oil, tar sand, oil shale, and even coal runs low.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I agree, the oil companies will soon have to be declared enemy combatants by Barack Obama and locked up.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 years ago

Normal tactic, government can't plan properly for the future as far as the budget is concerned, so they deflect attention away from their shortcomings by demonizing someone else.

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 7 years ago

No offense but actually this isn't true; there were very few "horses and buggies" prior to the industrial revolution. Heavy objects were moved with oxen.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

What is your source?

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 7 years ago

The library, under the heading of "colonial history."

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

A bluff. If you want to debate here you need real verifiable facts to prove your point.

[-] -2 points by Porkie (-255) 7 years ago

I don't think this requires any proof; it's a well known fact. And you shouldn't go through life thinking all knowledge can be derived of the ten second sound byte of a link.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

So according to you, anyone can defend their statements by referring them to the library as their source or say it's a well known fact. Quite a low standard of proof.

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 7 years ago

If the Net is your standard of proof, you're in serious trouble. The same is true even in the library; we must sort through the all the worded BS, in an unbiased manner, to find true truths. The horse and buggy does not appear in America until the late 18th century; the carriage, needless to say, was popularized by the southern tobacco farmer as an expression of status; northern colonials relied on the oxcart - it's a much more practical work vehicle.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

Because a source is taken from the internet does not reduce it's integrity. I regularly cite sources that are not usually available at a public library. The Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Social Security Administration, plus many newspaper articles. If anyone wishes to check the facts presented, they can quickly do so. Do you really mean to suggest we should travel to a library to confirm what someone posted here?

Without a higher standard of proof than hearsay, our discussions become meaningless. Without evidence to support our words they mean nothing.

[-] -2 points by Porkie (-255) 7 years ago

Yes I know but the problem is that you are approaching this in the same way an attorney would; if a source cannot be cited the fact does not exist. But you yourself know that the horse and buddy is something easily wiki-ed; you are dismissing it because it is not of legal form. I would rather you researched history itself. The Net really is a tremendous tool but if we were to base all knowledge of history on the little bit that is posted here, often of an erroneous slant, you would be rather poorly schooled. It would be nice if every book and every historical document available anywhere in the world was available online but that will never happen; government is too inefficient and private ownership rarely shares. Developing opinions requires an often infinite investment of time.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

"Yes I know but the problem is that you are approaching this in the same way an attorney would; if a source cannot be cited the fact does not exist."

Exactly. If a source can't be cited, or supported by other solid evidence, then why would the person making the claim believe it himself?

There are many posts here that contain the standard party line from both sides that are clearly dishonest, fabrications, or partial truth. In a proper discussion, only the facts should considered, the garbage should be swept away and discarded. I detest lies no matter which side they originate.

The internet is fast replacing the library. Google has millions of book titles, searchable and viewable. More than any public library.

http://books.google.com/

[-] 0 points by Porkie (-255) 7 years ago

There are millions of primary sources documents contained in the both public historical collections and private hands; there are books that are considered "obsolete," many written more than a century ago; there those that are newly published, which demand a higher price - none of these will ever see the Net. History, other than that which is maligned as viewed through a particular glass, will never see the Internet.

The problem with the argument is that he put the horse before the cart; the industrial revolution was under way before the horse and buggy; capitalism was literally fueled by the ability to transport both oneself and goods to an ever and ever more competitive market. Before mechanized terrestrial, transport we were limited for the most part to that which was derived of the local economy. Successful industrialization as capitalization was limited to port cities until the railroad, furthered later by the ten wheeler.

It seems there is some concern here for Iran's ability to power itself without enriched uranium; this forum condemns the capitalist and pities the bomber... yes - it's a strange, strange world indeed. Now is that fact or fiction?

Ultimately everything is placed "before the court."

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 7 years ago

lol, oxen and buggies? You figure every city in america at that time had a couple of horse and buggies, no?

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 7 years ago

The industrial revolution actually began at the time of the Revolution in the creation of "manufacturies" - a very hotly debated subject. In colonial America they used horses primarily for individual transportation; the horse and buggy only rarely existed - they relied almost entirely on oxen and the two wheeled oxcart (and what I have labeled as "sledding" - many things were simply dragged and that's the reason we see so many deeply rutted, single, straight-laned dirt-roads or "ways" in rural America) . When we speak of the horse-and-buggy, we are speaking of the Victorian era which begins in the second quarter of the 19th century and ends about 1962 (which I know is somewhat contrary to current belief of the educational establishment but they don't always examine closely or think very clearly). Probably the most common example of this would be the long-stated, rather superficial assertion that European Enlightenment philosophy imparted an increased humanity focused on individualism. The reality is that Humanism developed in conjunction with religious dissent; the Puritans themselves were enlightened (what is "enlightenment"?) and in a world where all are were religious, must be more aptly labeled as left-wingers than right-wingers.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 7 years ago

The second quarter of the 19th Century would be 1825 no? I have no quarrel with that. The industrial revolution did not occur until after that, no?

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 7 years ago

Yea, in my opinion the Victorian Era begins about 1830 or so... The concept of an industrial revolution is a mixed bag; there were fundamental differences between Great Britain and the US. Just as an example, wood utilized by the colonial joiner here in the manufacture of furniture was always milled; we were mechanized... the English were not; everything was hand sawn. And I think that there are other issues often overlooked - staples from the Americas finally allowed the English poor to rise, very slowly, from a perpetual starvation; this in turn generated a healthier and more anxious labor force.

The industrial revolution in the US began at the time of the Rev with a conscientious decision to attempt mass manufacture. The desire to mass manufacture initiated a "revolution" (really?) which in turn led males to the cities, and out of the home, while simultaneously it freed women from the rigors of continuous labor, and further empowered her, not only on the home-front due to the absence of the male but also in the expanded social circle. It is - or rather, "was" - said that by 1900, female labor had been more than halved as a result of modernity's conveniences.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

Have you ever tried to build a solar bomb? Man, it is tough. Nuclear is tough enough. But if you truly believe you have to have a bomb to get the world to fear you as much as they fear Pakistan, there is only one choice and it isn't TNT.

This isn't about keeping the lights on in the park or the library. So, what was your question again? OK, I answered it.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Pakistan and India both have the bomb. If Iran gets it, than Iraq will follow.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

Before we invaded Iraq, I said we should be invading Pakistan to get their nukes and clean out their terrorists. We have been nibbling around the edges. Then demands on Iran to come clean allow IAEA unimpeded would have been taken seriously. Staying in any of these more than a few months was insane.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Why should Pakistan give up their nukes if India still has theirs? If Iran gets nukes, then Iraq will want nukes as well.

Solar just makes it easier and better for everybody.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

If they would give up their terrorists, I would say keep them I can't recall how many terror attempts originated in India? Help me with that? They have been victims of groups from where was that again?

Solar and wind are the way to go everywhere. If Iran were really interested in energy not weapons that is what they would be developing. Also, if they weren't interested in weapons they would have built several refineries.

It is pretty clear that the Pak ISI is the world's largest terrorist organization and I am tired of supporting them

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Sounds like you agree with the premise that if Iran focused on solar energy, that it would be a step forward for both Iran, the world, and peace.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

I do, and further, the benefits would be true and multiplied for every country that adopted this policy. I can't recall any country threatening another with solar annihilation.

l would like to see a mutual nuclear disarmament treaty among, India, Pakistan, Iran and Israel with full and unfettered inspection and protection from the UN Security Council. Countries who make the kind of belligerent, threatening statements that Iran has made are the last that can be trusted with weapons that can threaten the entire earth's population.

[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 8 years ago

Actually Iran is just picking up on something the Shah started before the revolution. He wanted to plan for the day the oil would run out. Nuclear technology is available solar technology is still closer to science fiction then useful when it comes to providing power for a country.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I gotta call bullshit on this mindset. Solar is not here simply because petroleum doesn't want to share. This will actually destroy civilization as we know it.

You can't wait until oil runs out or it is very expensive to suddenly switch, because as oil gets scarcer, those who want the oil will absolutely not allow any of it to be "wasted" on solar research and development.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 8 years ago

Sorry, I don't follow what you mean.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Solar Energy cannot be created without an assist from petroleum. However, if we wait until petroleum is scarcer and more expensive, then the "I can't spare a square" society will say it is a waste of money to use any petroleum resources on solar.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 8 years ago

I'm not sure I agree with that conclusion, but who knows? I see us more going through a progression of increasingly expensive petroleum, first from tar sands then oil shale. The "squares" are there just more expensive in both environmental costs as well as dollars. It may push research. Gets complicated though the largest deposits of oil shale and tar sands are in North America making them potentially the new OPEC.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Sounds like we will have to choose, spend more money to get to this tougher to get to petroleum, or use those resources to improve solar energy even farther than it is now.

What do we think we will be chosen? ergo, solar will never replace Petroluleum, and that will be a bad bad thing.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 8 years ago

Left up to the people we'll go with the cheapest and easiest, I think that's human nature. If you live near the deposits of whatever, or the place where solar cells are going to be placed, you'll want you area protected. You'll probably get outvoted by people that want energy and live farther away. Like the Kennedy's were against wind turbines when they would have to actually see them off shore from their own house.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

The desert is about as far out there as it gets, no?

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 8 years ago

You've got to know the environmentalists would want studies done on it's impact. You can't just start placing solar cells all over the desert creating a shady desert soil without somebody trying to block you. We're not talking about just a few panels.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Probably true, but it would take a few years to establish the type of solar energy system that would then be reproduced, that would be the time for environmental impacts.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

They are lost in the need to control a nuclear weapon. The Nuclear Reactor to provide power is an excuse. They want to join the nuclear club of power. This is the way of the world. To change it we need to have the backing of the people not the backing of government. We as a people need to stand-up for the welfare of all.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Well said DKAtoday.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Thank you.

It really is up to the people.

[-] 3 points by Mowat (164) 8 years ago

To stop the greedy thieves from controlling Iran’s assets including oil, Iran MUST acquire a deterrent mass-destructive weapon. This is the only way for them to ensure their independence and keep their wealth.

It's the boss Netanyahu and his agencies and followers: the CIA, AIPAC, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bernanke and co. who don’t like that. Those are the thieves who cannot accept anybody keeping their wealth and their freedom.

[-] 2 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

The other reason why Iran needs a nuke is to keep Israel in line. Israel has over 200 nuclear warheads, some I'm sure aimed at them. Mutually insured destruction, sad to say, seems to be the only deterrent that works. Would be better if everyone would sign on to a nuclear non proliferation act.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I don't get how this works. Iran gives Israel an excuse to invade, yet you call that a deterrent.

[-] 1 points by Mowat (164) 8 years ago

Invade what? Israel could not invade tiny Lebanon because there existed a small army - less than 10,000 - which fights fiercely. When Israel tried to invade Southern Lebanon in 2006, in two weeks it lost 114 soldiers to Hezbollah.

Israel is a paper tiger. They are a glorious army when killing women and children with phosphorus bombs; cowards when fighting other soldiers. Their nukes are all they got but they can't use them against neighbors because the radiation will come back at them.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Which would mean that Iran could develop Solar Energy and the ideal method for maximizing solar, and then export that technology along with their oil.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Mowat, as in More wattage? Your post doesn't sound very friendly. The U.S. military did not have an easy time in Iraq, so how do you propose that this wealth be stolen if there is no nuclear weapon to "deter" america?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

You must be kidding. All the american oil companies swooped in on Iraq right after the invasion in 2003 and took over the oil ministry and began to lay the plan to take the oil fields. This is how they steal the oil. Exxon, Shell, Chevron, they're all there, and how much do you think they are paying the Iraqi's for their oil? Pittance, that's how much.

[-] 2 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 8 years ago

your an idiot, they are paying the market price. WE SHOULD BE buying oil from Iraq for $1.00 a barrel until its empty. We owned their asses. The US does not fight wars the way wars are suppose to and have been fought since the dawn of time.

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 8 years ago

Really. All thse self righteous folks that cry "it's all about the oil" are the same ones who cry when gas goes over $4/gal and heating oil over ??. If we didn't ensure cheap oil for this country there'd be a bigger crowd at Zuccotti

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

Ah, spoken by a true imperialist.

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 8 years ago

A true pragmatist. The 99% w/b in Deep Doo Doo without cheap oil. If only I could remember a book I read that spelled this out. Coulda even been fiction but it really hit home. We are a collective bunch of hypocrits when we denounce the USA's IMPERIAL OIL POLICY. How would your economic life be if you pd European (hell, CANADIAN) prices/gal? Think about food prices if farmers did.

Not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's reality today as I type.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

It appears that my post was put in the wrong order, not sure how that happens. My response was to bill1102inf2 right above your post. However I do agree that the US has gotten way to used to cheap oil and I know about Canada, I lived there once and gas was very very expensive. We drove less and adjusted our lives accordingly. I imagine that is what people would have to do in this country if gas prices here were comparable to Canada. But it really has turned into such a complicated issue it's hard to know where to begin.

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 8 years ago

No Prob. This website kinda reflects the movement. I understand. Posts seem to be shaken in a bag and thrown back out even when they are originally posted as a reply to something specific.

Again. I aint sayin we are right about oil, just trying to be realistic. Guess I could be 'justthefacts2''. I appreciate her posts cuz I too, am a logical, analytical person. Emotion works for some aspects of life....

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I heard in Mexico that Mexico kicked out the U.S. oil companies. I would suggest that the U.S. oil companies could be bribing key Iranian players to get their way.

I don't believe that any country can just move in and take another country's oil without paying a generous tithe. There is a lot of wealth in the middle east. Unfortunately, it is not always distributed in a beneficial way to the populace.

[-] 0 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

Really? What do you think Iraq was about? The story circulating before the invasion was that Sadam Hussein was going to start trading oil in euro's instead of dollars. This probably would have had the effect of really jacking up oil prices for the US. So, if the US couldn't get the oil the way they wanted they were going to take it, by war.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I never heard that story, it's a good one however.

[-] 2 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

You'll never find that story in the US press, gotta go look at the European press and other alternative news outlets. There is so much information being kept from us by MSM that it is near impossible to make any informed commentary.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I do find it ironic that several middle eastern countries think it is acceptable to punish the U.S. by rejecting the U.S. Dollar when it was the U.S. that most likely initiated the Middle East's oil wealth, yet these same middle eastern countries would never tolerate such insolent behavior from their own women.

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

Not only Iraq, but the Saudi's were considering denominating oil in some other currency, or a basket of currencies--and we made an example out of Iraq (it was probably the easiest place to pull it off). Libya was also talking about denominating oil in gold (we never invaded Libya for doing stuff like blowing up Pan Am 103, murdering 189 US citizens, but as soon as they talked about fucking with our oil, the shoe dropped in a New York second).

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

I have a sneaky suspicion that we helped foment the shit that went down in Libya. I don't think the US gov could have withstood the backlash that would have been created had they directly invaded Libya, and the other stuff they've been accused of may deserve another look.

Even more interesting is the news that China and the UK have some financial arrangments brewing. Gee, I wonder if the yuan is going to be the new reserve currency or a major part of a basket of currencies.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

It's hard to imagine the Yuan as a new reserve currency, being they still peg it on the dollar. One Yuan is worth something like 16 cents, and China is still not a place that gives global investors or oil producers a warm and fuzzy enough feeling to hop over to the Yuan. The Euro was looking good, but given all the economic unrest in Europe, I think the dollar is probably safe for a while. If the world eventually goes to a basket of currencies approach (which I actually think would be great) the Yuan would only be a small part of the basket (the Yen is more stable and desirable), I think the dollar would be its major component, second to the Euro.

[-] -1 points by believeingod (-72) 8 years ago

you are dumb...nuff said.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Hey, why dontcha head over to Illinois and blow off some radioactive steam wafting out of an Illinois Nuclear Reactor.

http://news.yahoo.com/ill-nuclear-reactor-loses-power-venting-steam-203743828.html

[-] 2 points by alepo (2) 8 years ago

I am Iranian I don't like to say bad about the Mola's Regime , bad or good they rule us, but every body knows that Iran is not going to attack Israel or any other western country he nuclear weapon is a false excuse to follow their unhamane goals Let us solve our problems ourselves . And boycott has nothing for the government , just we poor peaple suffer more and more ,day by day goods get more expensive , Are you human , Can you stand and see people suffering
I think many ordinary things such as tourism have become for Iranian middle and low-class households just a dream

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Solar Energy would show the world that the petroleum industry is leading us to our doom. Uranium is a limited supply. Mining destroys more than it creates in the long term. Solar does not.

[-] 2 points by buphiloman (840) 8 years ago

They're trying to power a large country, not a Casio wristwatch.

[-] 1 points by buik4 (-10) 8 years ago

hahaha truly

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Yes, and Iran has a LOT of LAND to do it with.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 8 years ago

My point was that Solar power is still cumbersome, unreliable, technology and frankly it doesn't multi task, Where nuclear energy is compact, mostly reliable, and has the upside of creating weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Kind of like having a handgun economy. Not only do people get put to work making the handguns and the bullets, the police, judicial, forensics, and medical industry benefits every time the gun is actually used.

sheesh.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Re. Iran - some hard facts may bring some 'Light' to matters, rather than all the unpleasant 'Heat' being generated by the constant fear and loathing & WAR-mongering :

a) Iran has The World's 3rd Largest known 'Total' & 2nd Largest 'Liquid' Oil Reserves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iran ,

b) Iran has The Worlds 2nd Largest known Gas Reserves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_reserves_in_Iran

c) Further consider and cogitate upon the fact that in Feb. 2008, Iran opened a Hydro-Carbon Bourse at The Kish Island Mercantile Exchange (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm and also http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28646.htm ) - trading in a basket of currencies, including Euros, Roubles, Yuan and Iranian Rial BUT NOT in U$ Dollar$ and thereby challenging both Reserve Currency, Dollar "HegeMoney" as well as the Monopoly of the existing Oil and Petroleum Bourses.

d) The Iranian Central Bank is State Controlled & Entirely Government Owned and NOT Privately Owned { http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2011/12/15/senate-passes-sanctions-on-irans-central-bank/?mod=google_news_blog & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran } . Thus do 'a-d' here actually constitute the Real "Casus Belli" ?!

e) The same NeoCon, Neo-Colonial, Paleo-Imperial WARMONGERS who beat the drums for The Unconscionable, Illegal & Immoral WAR on Iraq [where The Only "WMD" = Words of Mass Deception !!] are now beating the Drums of War and this time Iran is in the Imperial crosshairs. Pls. Research PNAC [eg http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC etc.]

~*~

Also see the film, "WHY WE FIGHT ; What are the forces that shape and propel American militarism ?"

fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Iran's place in the world in terms of oil reserves is not really the point. The point is Iran is choosing Nuclear energy over solar energy when their country is perfectly positioned to use solar energy in the desert regions to power the rest of the country.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

The reasons for sabre rattling and indeed drive for WAR on Iran have everything to do with the above and NOTHING to do with "solar power" ! What proportion of electricity is solar generated by other countries (U$A, UK et al) ? What is the International Average for Solar Generation ?

Further, Iran is a signatory of NNPT ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty ) and there is NO evidence that it has NOT acted in accordance of it's treaty obligations.

Finally, your equating 'Desert' simply with 'Sunshine' is very far from accurate ! Iran is more mountainous than it is desert. Perhaps you should look into the origins and etymology of the word "Dust" (clue, look at the Parsi word for desert) !! Finally, perhaps you ought to run your eye over the following towards some further research { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_iran_biotopes_simplified-fr.png }

ad iudicium ...

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

.+ ...

1) "Marching Towards War : EU Reaches Agreement to Ban Imports of Iranian Oil" (Reuters) ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30162.htm &

2) "Obama Seeks to Distance U.S. from Israeli Attack", by Gareth Porter ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30158.htm#idc-cover .

fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Ok, so what I am getting out of all of this is the Middle east's desire to not trade in American Currency has brought the wrath of america down on them.

While this sounds like america is doing an evil thing, it is also evil to make huge amounts of money off america, than cast it aside once other markets have opened up and can sustain the middle east without america's participation.

This would also explain america's reluctance to go solar, since the less oil we use, the more and more we become marginalized by the middle east.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

This is one of the most bizarre replying posts that I've ever received in my time on this forum.

Just for starters. re. " ... it is also evil to make huge amounts of money off america, than cast it aside once other markets have opened up and can sustain the middle east without america's participation." !!

WTF would be "evil" about That ?!! Isn't That the 'Free Market' ?! The U$A bought oil at a per barrel price that was cheaper than Coca-Cola for much of the last 50 years and The US economy has Gained Hugely from this so it make out that The U$A has some how 'been had' or has been 'hard done by' is beyond credulity.

Your conflation of The U$A's reluctance to 'go solar' with the becoming "marginalized by the middle east" is also bizarre to behold.

You really ought to re-read our exchange here - and slowly !!

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I find it disingenuous that countries that dominate their women and make them cover up their faces, then cry and scream when their own government is treated the same way by others.

The comparison to coca cola is silly. Coca cola does not gush out of the ground.

sheesh.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

You are unwilling or waay to stupid to understand my posted points, let alone address them ! You merely regurgitate your own prejudices in a brain-spasm masquerading as a thought out response !! Stick to guzzling your gaseous gut-rot by the gallon - "sheesh" indeed !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Maybe you are so fixated on your posts you aren't acknowledging other ideas. I went back and culled some major opposing points and addressed them up above,

So your accusations are baseless.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

"You really ought to re-read our exchange here - and slowly !!" ad iudicium ...

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

He's a conspiracy theorist. Don't waste your time with him.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Who is the conspiracy theorist?

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

The user you are having a discussion with: shadz66. Who else?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I wasn't sure because there was no ident after the previous comment you had made.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Iran has two smaller regions that are desert, and HUGE regions that are desert like. I would assume that deserts have an abundance of either sunshine, wind, or both, otherwise it probably wouldn't be classified as a desert or semi desert.

[-] 2 points by TheEvilFuckaire (208) 8 years ago

Well lets see, if the Japanese had developed nukes in 1945, would we have nuked 2 of their cities in 1947? HELL NO, we would have negotiated peace. Why are we against Iran? They were our best friends 40 years ago? They stopped being our little bitch puppet nation and stood up to us. We in turn financed Saddam Hussein and armed him with chemical weapons to use against Iran. We are an evil empire. We are not the good guys. Wake the F@ck up! The few nations that stand against us are the last free nations on earth. Before you tell me how enslaved they are visit them in person.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

If Japan had developed nukes in 43, would we have nuked them in 45? Wouldn't the entire western half of the U.S. been nuked?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

lol, Iran is a "free nation"?

[-] 1 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 7 years ago

Iran sees that it doesn't work here so why should they make the same billion dollar mistake that we've made in the last 3 years with all of the solar panel companies going broke. After getting money from the Government I might add. The technology is not there yet. What's the efficiency of solar panels at? 33.7%? We could pave the entire country in solar panels and we'd still need to get energy from Canada and Brazil and the Saudis... We've spent how much money in Iraq and Afghanistan? A trillion dollars or so? When the empty heads start yelling about blood for oil and that we went into Iraq for petroleum I start to wonder where they get their information. The gas pumps still say $3.50 a gallon. If we did go to Iraq for oil as you say, where's it going? Also, I'd actually LOVE it if we did. If I were in charge I'd say "Okay, we've lost 5,000+ of our boys, and spent Trillions of our people's money trying to bring your sorry 5th century asses out of your funk, we get 100% of your oil exports for a decade. Don't like it? We'll pull out completely. See how well that's working in Iraq?" But I was only a SrA when I was in Iraq and I did what I was told.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 7 years ago

I saw a study on facebook that if solar energy received the same subsidies that the oil industry gets that solar would actually be cost effective in many applications. I'm not sure that solar panels are the only way to go in terms of solar. There are many conpeting options out there. Some just collect the suns rays and use the heat to turn turbines. What about wind? I bet there are backyard designs that are doable and that don't kill birds that are being suppressed.

[-] 1 points by farmer88 (40) 7 years ago

Because Manhattan Project.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 7 years ago

Will going solar be mentioned as an option to Iran?

[-] 1 points by Denofearth (41) 8 years ago

Because Israel ( with our shadowy support ) would invade and wipe them out tomorrow if they didn't have at least the impression that they might be able to nuke Jerusalem.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Can you define where Israel has encroached upon other country's land outside of the gaza strip, which has been a known point of disagreement for many decades?

[-] 0 points by Pujete (160) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Southern Lebanon - the Golan Heights - the occupied territories...

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

How much territory are we talking about that would make people think that Israel would now want to invade Iran?

If Iran has a nuclear weapon, Iraq will want one to, is that really a good idea?

[-] 0 points by Pujete (160) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Israel doesn't want to invade Iran. Israel want's US to invade Iran.

If Iran had nukes it might deter that from happening. If Iraq really had WMDs, Iraq might not have happened.

Hell yeah, It's a good idea. A better idea would be to stop threatening them so that they don't feel a need for one.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

But they're threatening Iran NOT to develop nuclear weapons. How is justification for Iran developing nuclear weapons? If Iran does not develop nuclear weapons, then there is no threat of invasion.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

no two countries that both have nuclear weapons have gone to war with each other

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 7 years ago

I would suggest that countries with nuclear weapons that have conflicts get underreported by the media to prevent escalation, and countries that do not have nuclear weapons might have their disagreements escalated since there is no threat of a nuclear confrontation.

That is a scary prospect as it falls into the line of thinking of arming everybody to prevent what happened in Aurora Colorado.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Pakistan and India regularly have border fights. More likely skirmishes between countries that both have nuclear weapons gets under reported specifically because both sides have nuclear weapons, meaning the power of the written word ironically seems to play a significant role in downplaying the actual confrontation.

Would rather have examples of countries that warred with each other, than when one side got a nuclear weapon there were no more wars between them.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

thanks

[-] 0 points by Pujete (160) from New York, NY 8 years ago

What Iran is doing is developing the capability - know how - to build a weapon. There's nothing the West can do about that except make things worse by trashing their country - like we did Iraq. Up for that?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Sure there is, ask them to develop solar energy instead.

[-] 0 points by Pujete (160) from New York, NY 8 years ago

"Asking" them anything would be a welcome change in our Iran policy.

Who knows,they might even do it.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 7 years ago

So, is it suspicious that there is no asking? I think it is suspicious, and makes me wonder if world leaders do collude with each just to keep the masses on edge, nervous, and therefore grateful for whatever they already have.

[-] 0 points by Pujete (160) from New York, NY 7 years ago

Nothing to be suspicious about. It's just your classical Yankee arrogance that's driven our foreign policy for over a century.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 7 years ago

I think most world leaders welcome some level of external adversarial actions as it tends to rally their own people around their government.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

So the Gaza strip runs electricity off of diesel??? Really? That is more efficient than solar, really?

http://www.irishtimez.com/2012/02/gazas-energy-crisis-close-to-tipping-point/

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

You forget that Iran's leadership is brutally oppressive and not caring for it's people, they want a nuclear weapon for bragging rights, similar to Pakistan. They don't truly care if it brings invasion.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Making solar the best alternative for the Iranian people and the world as well.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

I agree, but Iran's does not care for it's people.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 8 years ago

For the same reasons we don't. Just answering the title ... your post doesn't make much sense either.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

We are not similar countries, we are not equal countries, we are not even in the same region. If Iran is ever nuked, it would be by the taliban trying to end western civilization, if they have nukes, it makes it that much easier for someone else to infiltrate and set off their nukes.

If Iran goes solar, they become a world leader in tangible energy solutions.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 8 years ago

Regardless, seems like the ol' U.S. of A. is the most backward-looking country on the planet. Seems sad that the entire world should be forced to suffer through our mid-life crisis, or something like that. So young and so spent -- so sad.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Interesting way to put it.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by smmv2005 (106) 8 years ago

We will clear the name of Israel from World map, not with nuclear weapons but relying on the power of faith Insha'Allah (If God wills).

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Looks like a nuclear reactor in Illinois has shut down and is venting radioactive steam as I write this.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

Thorium reactors would work ...A lot safer also.. If you were interested in nuclear energy, it's the way to go! But you can't make weapons grade fuel with 'em..

Sure they want a bomb...and have every right to have one, at least for leverage against the other lunatic countries that have one...Yes that means the US also.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Nobody is going to nuke Iran and ruin their oil supplies in the process, and yes that sounds callous, but who cares, any reason not to use nukes is a good reason in my book.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

Never said Iran would get nuked...Just said they might want leverage...That's all.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Their oil supply is huge leverage, if anybody even hinted at nuking Iran the U.S. would be in their face big time.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

Never said Iran would get nuked...Iran may want leverage, and in obtaining a nuke they would get that leverage. I couldn't blame them for wanting one..

The US/UK Empire is using Iran's nuclear ambition as an excuse to steal what's under the feet of Iranians..It's just for the Oil.

They say Iran is a sponsor for terrorism...But look at what the US does..We could be seen as terrorists also..

I'm sure someone out there thinks we are fighting for "freedom"...Maybe the freedom for Corporations to steal resources from others....But that's about it.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

but Iran already has leverage, they are not going to be nuked unless an insane person has access to a nuke.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

You mean like Israel? War is coming...Again..

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

and avertable if Iran goes solar.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Middle school kid gets solar energy research award.

http://www.katu.com/news/28432984.html

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

Solar would not work for mass transportation. Cars, maybe, but for trains, subways, airplanes, etc., I don't think it is dense enough. Also, it could not power heavy industry.

Once we run out of fossil fuel, we will need to be able to create synthetic fuels using nuclear energy.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

If Solar contributes significant amounts of energy to the power grid, it's all good and delays the onset of petroleum desperation.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

I have some doubts. For example, I've heard that homes with solar panels are generally left to burn if they catch on fire, since the fireman would be electrocuted if he tried to put it out with a hose.

Also, large land areas that are covered with solar panels are consigned to remain deserts, when they could be better off growing plants, since plant harness the sun's energy better than solar panels.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 8 years ago

They really need to work on a transparent solar panel so they can be stacked

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

This story is now a couple of years old and involves 3d solar instead of 2d. http://www.katu.com/news/28432984.html

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 8 years ago

Because Solar doesn't go BOOM! enough!

HA HA!

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Ask an insect just before a magnifying glass vaporizes it if that is true. Make the magnifying glass bigger, repeat the process.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 8 years ago

Cause you cant make an Abomb from a solar panel?

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

The simple answer is Iran is developing nuclear energy for the amount of electricity (wattage) it provides. Compare a nuclear plant to a solar plant of the same cost, and you'll see what I mean.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

You are only using one moment in time for your calculation. Nuclear energy efficiency is similar to the efficiency of a state lotto system.

As the years progress, the state lotto gets less and less efficient because there is an ever increasing cascading affect of more 20 year lotto winners (aka increasing nuclear waste disposal and storage costs) while the revenue remains stagnant (the amount of nuclear energy that is being created versus the disposal and storage costs which continue to increase)

The nuclear energy cost to energy created efficiency paradigm is destined to decrease with each passing year while solar energy remains a constant and could even increase as new research and development is implemented.

Slash and burners believe that nuclear is more efficient than solar because they are looking at the relatively immediate gains, not the long term additional costs that keep mounting while only the amount of energy created remains constant.

Until the uranium runs out, which is also a distinct possibility as there is well less than a hundred years supply of uranium. There are more coal reserves than uranium.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

Nuclear energy is much more efficient than solar. The size of the panels needed to compete with nuclear would be of tremendous cost and size, nevermind they would take away sunlight away from plant life that could exist in the same area and create their energy through photosynthesis.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

You don't need solar panels to create solar energy, it can be done with large magnifying glass as well. As for taking away from photosynthesis, that's not necessarily accurate.

In desert like conditions the additional shade in the regions where the solar energy is being created might actually help plants stay alive. Plus, plants would be less dry resulting in less fires.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

Just do the math on the wattage. Nuclear energy, particularly fusion energy, should be the main power source for humanity. Otherwise, we won't have enough energy to even keep the present population alive.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

The problem with petroleum, coal, nuclear, is that they are not easily renewable and they are taken for granted by society. I would much rather see how power is generated as a constant reminder than have countries fight over access to someone else's supply of these non renewable resources.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

same reason America doesnt go solar!

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

greed?

[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 8 years ago

Aside from the practical considerations of efficiency in terms of space and overall assurance of consistent supply. Solar power is only generated during the day... which means you need to store all the energy you want to use at night somewhere... most energy storage options on the scale required to compare with a nuclear power plant are arguably more toxic and/or expensive than the very same capacity nuclear power plants...

That is a practical standpoint... but now lets look at why Iran would want nuclear weapons as well...

Go look at a map and think about where Iran is sitting in is part of the world...

Surrounded by US allies with several US military installations and Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Israel...

Lets put it this way...

Iran is a kid who is in a corner of the gym surrounded by a mob subservient to a jock and is looking at 2 other guys who have been beaten bloody by them... the jock has a 'little friend' who likes to order the jock to beat up whoever pisses him off...

The jock and the little friend are both holding rather large sticks...

Now... its only natural for the kid to want the same kind of stick... it might not save his skin... but it will give the mob something to think about...

Perhaps my analogy is a bit crude... but I hope you get the point.... its a rough neighborhood and Iran is feeling a bit lonely and insecure... a nuke will give them some comfort... even if the rest of the world does not like it...

That said, given the fact that we are the only country to have actually used a nuclear weapon in armed conflict... and caused the most collateral damage in human history... I find it strange that our politicians feel comfortable claiming that they have the moral high ground when denying anyone access to these weapons...

To ALL nuclear armed nations who want others to disarm or not develop nuclear weapons: Practice what you effing preach

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 8 years ago

Uh, no. Iran still has the oil underground, and the robber-barons want it. Also, Iran is trying to quit using the dollar as its international exchange currency, and the Powers That Be simply won't have that. That's what Libya and Iraq tried to do, and look what happened to them.

Your notion is terribly simplistic.

You could say the same thing about California and Arizona. And it would be far more accurate there.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Well, yes, California and Arizona SHOULD be going full solar, and how better to shame them and our own government into doing the solar dance than by having Iran lead the way.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

our government has no shame. to think that way is ludicrous . and what are we now the irans mom? 'have' them lead the way?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Of course our government can be shamed. It just takes obvious proof before shame can happen. A shameless government is a dangerous government.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

Ain't no sunshine when you're gone....

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 8 years ago

Imagine if they became the leader in solar energy and everyone wanted to be like them. That is really not there style.

They want us to think that they have the capability to produce nuclear weapons, whether the can or not. This gives them bargaining power. A gamble, but far more effective than threatening the west with solar panels or a mild sunburn.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

Wow, this post is pretty much summed up as: If Iran would coddle America's paranoia, then everything would be kosher. From an energy efficiency point of view, considering solar technology is more of a novelty than a practicality, and oil is a finite resource, I see no reason why Iran should choose nuclear tech, a technology that has been around for over fifty years and is used almost exclusively in France. I believe American officials are paranoid that Iran may pull an American blunder, using the bomb to squash dissent. Seriously, I see no problem with any nation having a nuclear bomb. In fact, I'd be so bold as to say that once all nations have the bomb, war will become a thing of the past. Moderating Aggressive Decisions through MAD worked before. Who is to say it can't work again. And this line of thought is only contingent on whether I don't believe that Iran wants nuclear technology for energy purposes. Besides If I had two neighbors, Pakistan and Israel, who used their guns to garner respect from others, would it be out of line that I too would think about owning a gun? Also if my electric bill goes up year after year, would It be irrational of me to think about other forms of energy?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

and if you're wrong, we won't be around to kick your butt, will we?

The idea that solar energy is not ready to help reduce the world's dependence on oil is typical one percent spin that you have bought into.

Oil WAS NOT ready to help industrialize the planet without horses doing the heavy lifting that helped create the products needed to further petroleum research and development.

Now it's time for petroleum to DO THE SAME THING as the horses.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

Well, as a pacifist, I say good luck with whooping Iran, though I hear they got some militarily superior allies, Russia and Chine come to mind right off the bat. But i think there are a few other nations who would also step up to the plate, Ie, Chile, Venezuela... Besides the CIA does not even fear Iran's nuclear capability. Why should I? I call solar tech a novelty because the square mileage that it would take to equal a coal burning power plant is enough to make people think twice. But I do agree that Oil is a waning work horse.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

But the solar energy plant keeps working year after, the coal mining actually destroys topsoil and then the next coal mine must be found and dug up.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

That is a good point. You mast be talking about those Solar power towers. You do know that your proposal will have a whole industry to trifle with. But I can see those towers being a good idea for the long haul.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Your link went back to this page, is that what you intended?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

http://lisas.de/projects/alt_energy/sol_thermal/powertower.html

My bad, I fixed it too, but here it is again.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

The link was definitely worth fixing. Yes, see this is a technology that does not have to wait until solar wafers become more efficient.

Can someone claim that this is not energy efficient?

[-] 1 points by buik4 (-10) 8 years ago

solar energy is a nice little dream for people with no understanding of science.

iran should go modular nuclear in a highly regulated environment. problem solved

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

thanks for making me laugh.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Because solar doesnt get you respect.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Ask Rodney Dangerfield how much he resented getting no respect. Dangerfield did quite well for himself.

Frankly, being successful economically while being ignored is probably the best way to go, no?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

People that run things have all the personal money they could ever need. Its about respect.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Does Switzerland have the "bomb"?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

No, Switzerland is lucky enough to have the backing of all the bankers. Thats why they are always neutral.

But even they are now manipulating their currency, pegging it to things.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Are the things bad things?

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 8 years ago

Solar isn't practical yet.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

If petroleum is used to create and develop solar energy rather than used to drive the SUV to the store to buy a gallon of milk, than solar is practical, now, simply because the alternative is,

insane.

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 8 years ago

Why doesn't Israel? They are the bane of human civilization. They are the cause and the disease.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Israel should go solar as well, however they have much less land than Iran.

Iran is 636374 square miles, Israel is 8,000 square miles. Apparently Iran is approximately 80 times larger than Israel.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

Iran needs nuclear weapons because Israel has about 200 nuclear warheads aimed at them. Once Iran has nuclear weapons then there is assured mutual destruction which in during the cold war kept us safe? What a joke.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Once Iran has nuclear, than if someone were to detonate a nuke, the blame would be almost impossible to place since one could argue that it was a bomb that went off by accident within the country.

If Iran has no nukes, than if one were ever to go off, nobody could blame Iran. Keep in mind if Iran did have nukes, all that would happen is both sides get annihilated, whereas if Iran did not have nukes, I believe the side that launched the weapon would ultimately pay a higher price for their irresponsibility.

Although why does Israel have 200 nukes pointed at Iran, what purpose does that serve?

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

Let's put it this way, regardless of where nuclear weapons are detonated, the global environment can't take much more poisonous polluction not to mention the fallout spreading across the globe and people dropping like flies as a result. Iran and Israel would not just be annihilating each other, they would be destroying alot of life all over the world. Israel has nukes because we give them 3 billion plus per year in weaponry and subsidies to keep their extreme government in power. We keep them in power to have a foot in the middle east. By now, the israeli nukes are probably pointed at every country in the middle east that they deem hostile, which is just about everybody. And I wouldn't put it past the israeli government to plant a nuke in iran and blow it up then blame it on the iranians.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Your last point is an excellent reason to not even dabble in nuclear energy or weapons. Steer clear, make clean energy, be an energy leader that embarrasses the U.S. into doing the same thing.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

God, I wish life was as simple as you propose regarding embracing solar energy. This subject has a million nuances of which only a couple hundred are being addressed by the solar industry. The thing that keeps this industry from moving forward are the greedy people who refuse to let this move forward unless they can monopolize it somehow, as they did with oil and continue to. The only way I can see change to solar is if everyone and I mean everyone who has a car goes electric and refuses to use gas. Then refuse to use petroleum products, like everything we buy that's packaged in plastic, and whatever other products that use oil for manufacture. Trying to stop the oil machine makes my head spin. Millions and millions need to go to the streets to protest, boycott, etc. to make things change. God help us all.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

A couple of ideas. Find a struggling city in the U.S., perhaps in Arizona, and they change their name to solar city. And of course, they do as much as possible with solar energy.

The other idea is to create solar energy alternatives that work off of magnifying glass heating turbines. I wonder if something could be designed for the more temperate parts of the U.S. that could be sold as kits.

Even if they they don't produce a lot of energy, if they produce anything it might excite people into wanting more solar.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

if people didn't demand transportation in vehicles x20 their own mass,

the energy require would be 5% current expenditure

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

This is true Matt, now what.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

drive smaller vehicles less often

create an environment where people don't have to drive to work

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Back in 1981, Subaru had their five passenger wagons to between 2100 and 2200 pounds and they got 36 miles to the gallon on the freeway.

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

Who owns the patents on Solar?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

badconduct, I have no idea who owns the patents on solar energy. Although I would guess that the oil industry has their hand in there somewhere. However, I don't think certain processes are patentable, such as using large glass magnifiers to concentrate and redirect the sun rays to a steam based energy production.

[-] 1 points by nachosrulz (63) from Eureka, CA 8 years ago

abolish the army we have no reason to fight right now

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 8 years ago

Abolish the Army??? We would do that because you no longer want to be the United States of America?

[-] 2 points by nachosrulz (63) from Eureka, CA 8 years ago

A country can run just fine without an army i think Japan did it so did costa rica. americas army left a big foot-print in afghanistan and iraq when we didnt have that good of a reason to fight. back in 2001 people where scared shitless cuss 9/11 it pretty much gave the army permission to invade any country we see fit. 10 years later we see no progress. and there is no threat to the usa just seems like a kina pointless war driven with fear if you ask me. sorry about my spelling im 15

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 8 years ago

Uh....I think Japan was like the 49th state for many, many years. Costa Rica? Who the hell could get mad at them?

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 8 years ago

A country that would not be attacked by other countries could run just fine without an Army. We don't live in that Utopian World unfortunatly. The Army doesn't arbitrarily invade anyone. It is ordered to by it's civilian leadership. Your comments defenitly show your age.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Never read a larger lie than that, mister.

The invasion of Iraq was never ordered by civilians anywhere.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

The Army doesn't arbitrarily invade anyone. It is ordered to by it's civilian leadership.

Red herring.

[-] 2 points by JimBeam (152) 8 years ago

Utopia!!! Can I live where you live so that I could feel so secure in the world where you wouldn't need a military.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

It's somewhat possible to have a limited army, if one wasn't consuming 25% of the planet's resources while creating approximately the same percentage of products.

If the U.S. were able to mine all of their own resources the odds of being invaded would be minimal because of the expanse of the country plus 2 and 1/2 sides are flanked by water.

Plus, war is over rated. Try picking up another potato every 50 yards. As a country is invaded, the invaders have to deal with the people they have invaded, and that takes more work than the war itself does.

[-] 2 points by JimBeam (152) 8 years ago

Until of course those other countries who wanted your resources came a callin to take them from you with your limited Army. Yeah, history definetly shows that war is over rated WWII, Civil, Revolutionary, those were pretty insignificant and over rated.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

There are rumors that World War II was bank related causation. Nowadays, with the explosion of communication techniques, it's more difficult to get away with stealth invasions.

Plus, the Civil war and the revolutionary war don't really relate to the discussion. Revolutionary war was how the country was formed, the Civil war was within the same country. WWII may have been bank instigated or at the very least, may have been bank supported.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by InspectorGadget (-50) 8 years ago

Please spread the news about www.copblock.org & www.adamvstheman.com which is two groups of very dedicated people out on the front lines fighting the growing tyrannical para militarized police state and corrupt governmental system for our rights. Thanks!

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

What a fascinating topic. Would make an interesting television series or movie. Can be taken from so many viewpoints.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

Do we really know what is going on in Iran? Where do we get our information, from who? You would have to devote a huge amount of time sifting through the propoganda to have any idea what's really going on there.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Gyspy King, I totally agree. However that is why I think Iran going Solar would be a great way to chill the negative discussions about Iran in general.

Being a leader in solar energy development would be about the best thing any country could do or achieve in regards to the evolution of the world's energy sources.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

That's a very good idea. How you would go about convincing Iran to do so, or the mainstream press to admit it if they did, I don't know.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

This is a job for SOLAR PERSON !!!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

Great! Have at it! I think encourageing solar power anywhere is terrific!

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I think its time to upgrade to a solar powered decoder ring, no wonder solar person has been ignoring me.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I am not Solar Person. I just have a decoder ring for contacting Solar Person, but it only works if SP is following me, which they are not. sigh.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Here is the solar technology that Iran could easily install.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/solar_millennium_palen/index.html

[-] 1 points by reckoning (53) 8 years ago

Because its their damn coutnry and they do want ever the hell they want.

How about worry about ur nation??

[-] -1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Because they don't have separation of church and state, and this results in a possibly more reckless course of action, that's why.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

Which country is that? Just curious

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

ha ha, good one spade2. Both the U.S. and Iran, probably. However in the U.S. we do vote them out every now and then.

[-] 1 points by johny5 (7) 8 years ago

You believed the us government about weapons of mass destruction. then you stood silently by as your government killed 100's of thousands of Iraq civilians-- your government, knew there were no weapons . The Iranians also have no intention of building nuclear weapons , They have been having blackouts often due to lack of electrify- there oil is almost gone and they have massive amounts of uranium. -------------- It all so the us can take over the world, and enslave us, the way it has enslaved the stupid Americans. ------------------------------------------ Solar has never been cost effective-- except for the growing of food for energy

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

Iran's uranium resources are not considered rich, which is why they may be looking elsewhere for uranium imports.

It doesn't make a lot of sense for a country with the world's third-largest oil reserves to import uranium for energy production, does it?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Solar energy is cost effective. There are several variations to consider. Did you know using huge magnifying glass can direct enough heat to run turbines to generate electricity?

This would be a much more effective way of generating electricity than nuclear since its renewable.

[-] 1 points by johny5 (7) 8 years ago

and Santa's reindeer fly-

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

by the way, Southern California is developing various solar energy projects, and their doing it in their desert regions.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Powered by wind energy. Your point?

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 8 years ago

Why Iranian nukes?

It might have something to do with being surrounded by aggressive US military forces and the history of US aggression going back to the early 1950's.

U.S. Military Bases in the Middle East

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

The nukes can't be used at close range, can they? Would the U.S. military in that region use them when they themselves are so close that they would feel the impact themselves?

Wouldn't solar energy pretty much make the U.S. and Israel look foolish for considering Iran a threat if they can't make Nuclear weapons but are leading the world towards solar energy instead?

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 8 years ago

You are missing the point. The US has Iran surrounded, and has for a long time. Huge puddle of oil under that sand, can't just leave it to the towel heads and chinks.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

And creating nuclear weapons is an excuse to invite the U.S. and Israel in.

Harder to invade a peace loving, solar using country, isn't it?

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 8 years ago

Countries don't attack countries that have nuclear weapons. They attack the ones that can't make those kind of threats. Iran is not trying to start world war 3 or blow up Israel. They are trying to get some security I think. If they had nuclear weapons who would dare invade? Thats how the game works.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

However attempting to enter the nuclear arms race IS an invitation to stop that country from developing one.

Why would the United States consider Iran a threat if they went solar, what would the U.S. be worried about?

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 8 years ago

It's not really much of a race at this point is it? If Iran gets nuclear weapons than they can start trowing their weight around a bit in that region which could fuck up a lot of what the US is trying to do. It is a mess.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Is the U.S. affecting the Iranian way of life right now?

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 8 years ago

Yes.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Isn't the Iranian government adversely affecting the Iranian way of life as well?

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 8 years ago

Yea the media only shows the desert, and the impoverished areas - most people only see through those eyes. Many countries have desert...OccupyNews, you need to speak to people from those countries I have friends from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Russia amongst others. They pointed out how our media is sanitized to make things worse than they seem.. Iran is not the greatest, but I can tell you that we (USA) look a lot worse to the rest of the world through their media....We are ignorant and arrogant - we at our level, the citizen level are all in the same boat worldwide, it is our leaders that keep us divided, and start all the wars and trouble....Open your eyes and see the light...

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Who said I don't advocate solar energy wherever there is a desert type environment. I also did not insinuate that Iran is all desert either, but they are somewhat close to the equator, no, and they DO HAVE desert areas.

From World Atlas dot com....DASH -E LUT (Lout Desert) This region of eastern Iran is an arid, wind-blown desert, completely surrounded by mountains. In the summer months, it can be one of the hottest and driest spots on the planet. In some areas here rain has not been measured.

DASHT -E KAVIR (Kavir Desert) This plateau of north-central Iran is often referred to as the "Great Salt Desert." It's the largest desert in the country and is mostly uninhabited wasteland covered with crusty salt ridges.

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 8 years ago

I never said you per se, just response to previous comment...I think the previous comment is who you need to direct question. When I replied, I received notification and was on another pg. It was only showing builder-down. I agree with you they should put it to work..sorry man...

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 8 years ago

I disagree that the planet is doomed all by itself.. Humanity is doomed, the planet will always recover. It is a shame that humanity has to mess it up for all the other life here. So another way to put it, the planet isn't going anywhere. We are!; The planet is doomed in a sense to support certain forms of life, including US

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

And I agree with you. If humankind dooms itself, the planet will probably get along fine without us. And the cockroaches will have plenty of housing for the next several hundred years.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

As I stated below, I never said Iran was "all desert". However, Iran has some huge desert areas, and they would be perfect for developing Solar Energy.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I never implied Iran was all desert. Iran has rich agriculture as well, its a HUGE PLACE. And among all that land, there are large areas of desert land that could work well for solar.

Just as Arizona could in the U.S.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I still can't figure out how China's population does not decrease when they have placed a one child maximum on those who marry.

I bring this up because China probably won't embargo anybody since keeping almost a billion people employed is no easy task.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

The one child policy only applies to ethnic Han Chinese living in urban areas. Also, if a couple is composed of two people without siblings, then they may have two children of their own, thus preventing too dramatic of a population decrease.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Sure, I've seen the reports about makeshift schools in China set up to deal with the children of unregistered migrants.

Perhaps the Chinese government sees the migrants as a way to keep their own people humble and accepting whatever job they can get, isn't that the real reason most governments allow migrants in?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I think it depends where one goes. Some areas that are now concrete freeways and cities were bicycling routes just 10 to 20 years ago.

Ironic that we may go more towards bicycling as China moves away from it.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Cons need to just layoff Iran. Dummies just need to quit following into the next big war emergency. If it wasn't for Israel and oil we wouldn't even care. We should simply say goodbye to both and save ourselves a world of trouble, riches and lives.

Iran will get a nuclear weapon for the same reason as North Korea, national security. After all Iran has been through from meddling outsiders, like us, who could honestly blame them. They would be stupid not to. Or course they would be even more stupid to use it, so let's hope to god they haven't undergone the same kind of education funding cuts and society dumb-down there as Republicons have achieved here. Or Ala, whatever fucking works. And get your dumbass noses out of Iran's ass!!

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Have you forgotten the Iran/Iraq war of the 80's? So now Iraq will need to have a nuclear weapon as well.

Or, according to the pro nukers, Iraq should get one as well.

sheesh.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 8 years ago

everybody have to have availability of renewable source of energy as solar or even nuclear power. Everybody, do you understand? We are special nation. God is blessing us.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

nuclear energy is NOT a renewable resource. I have read that there is around a thirty year supply of the proper uranium. Maybe more can be found in the future, but for now, I've read there is a thirty year supply.

The sun, perhaps a one billion year supply.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 8 years ago

solar battery not forever too. until first shower of hail =) check this comment, - info from russian wiki http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-doesnt-iran-go-solar-instead-of-the-nuclear-op/#comment-564445

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

You mean the war we sponsored?

Get your paranoid misled nose out of THERE!!!

We need to wash our hands of the whole mess and concentrate, and remove the Big Oil barriers, on alternative energy. That is a REAL matter of "national security."

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Yes, if Iran wants to return volley, do it with a hugely successful solar energy program.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Sure, solar and all [progressive] alternatives to fossil fuel/energy should be exploited. In Iran and the world!

Nuclear development in Iran is an understandable national security issue, for them. They'd have to be crazier than North Korea or Israel to use it, and that's not possible.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Actually, Iran could possibly use nuclear and no one would fire back for fear of destroying Iran's oil reserves. Now that's something to think about.

Iran's plentiful oil, uranium and solar options is what makes them powerful, developing nuclear energy that can be converted to a nuclear weapon knowing that nobody would fire back and destroy such a huge oil reserve means Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Better just to wash our hands and let them be.

We should have been off oil in the 70s!!

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Let them be what? Are Iran's people actually happy with their leader? Did you know there are no homosexuals in Iran, just ask their president. Does somebody who actually believes that be in charge of a nuclear weapon?

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

We have bigger and better fish to fry. North Korea has the bomb, and they don't get crazier. The Right has been itching for a war with Iran for decades, don't be a sucker.

Give up on oil!

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Right, so if Iran chose solar over nuclear, it would defuse any excuse either Israel or the U.S. has to invade. And frankly, there are other countries that don't want Iran to get a nuke, don't think it's just those two countries.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Nuke guarantees national security. I'd do it. Without it, they're sitting ducks.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

They're NOT sitting ducks because they have oil fields that any intelligent industrialized country WILL NOT want to destroy.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Lot of good that did to protect Iraq.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

The same argument applies to Iraq. If they had a solar energy program, then any argument of weapons of mass destruction is even more easily debunkable.

Is Iran more protected now that the U.S. is out? Apparently there are three warring religious groups within Iraq. When Hussein was in power his iron hand allegedly kept these three groups in check.

However, his sons were apparently very spoiled, malevolent sorts. Ironically, it was Hussein who burned his own oil fields.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Could we have gone solar in the 70's, I don't know. But clearly, now is the golden time to do so. Gas is just expensive enough to want other alternatives to be found, but not so expensive as to not want to waste a drop on research and development.

In response to jiffysquid below, so an economic embargo is ok since that would be leaving Iran alone, right?

Oil and or coal is needed to develop solar energy.

[-] 1 points by EconomicCrack (22) 8 years ago

again, you are arguing with thrasy. If you say red, he says blue. Your position is not the object of his disagreement. Just FYI. Continue with him if you chose.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

This is... OK. Iranian Nukes are not a threat to us. Solar is fucking great!! Try and sell it to an energy monopoly of oil!! Why do you think we didn't dump oil for the vast alternatives in the 70s?? Monopoly!! Power!! Entrenchment!! GREED!!!! They are just itching for a reason or excuse to do what they did in Iraq to Iran!!!

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

In your logic they are.

Oil fields can be repaired. As they were in Iraq.

Do your sheeple duty and focus on Catholic contraceptives.

Iran will be just fine if we all just leave them the fuck alone.

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Iran has a perfect right to develop whatever form of energy it deems appropriate. It's not as though no one else has nuclear energy. The US is hurting the ordinary people of Iran with its war like economic attack and its threats of outright military action.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I would not call Iran developing Nuclear Energy a perfect right. I would call it an act that accelerates the next world war simply because nuclear energy is not the future, solar and wind energy are.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 8 years ago

They have a right to do what other countries do.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

What about the rights of their own people to dictate if they want solar or nuclear?

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Iranian public opinion seems to be pro the nuclear program, and very against "backing down." I'd say that we who are not in Iran have no right to dictate what they are going to do.

http://csis.org/publication/iran-public-opinion-foreign-nucler-and-domestic-issues

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Except that the framing of the issue is what matters most.

How about the following question instead....

Would you rather be a world leader in alternative energy creation such as solar energy, or develop nuclear energy with all the known risks regarding radiation along with possible retaliation from those who don't want anymore countries to develop a nuclear weapon?

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Of course we all know that polls are shaped by the type of questions posed. Iranians apparently answered "no" to being forced by the west to change its energy and national security policies. They also answered "yes" to the question "did you vote for Ahmedinijad?"

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

What is the difference between force and manipulation? Iran was manipulated into Nuclear Power by countries such as Russia, Japan and France, no?

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 8 years ago

I don't know the history of that.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Russia has always supported the middle east, Japan and France like to spread nuclear energy because they can make money by having other countries use their technology.

This is not altruism, it's f-up the world when it's time for solar to come onto the scene.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Where is the manipulation or coercion you mentioned?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Russia, France and Japan are all big nuclear energy advocates. I haven't seen those countries pushing Iran to go solar, I haven't seen those countries leave Iran alone, but they do seem to be interested in having a nuclear power relationship, even if it leads to Iran being able to make nuclear weapons as a result.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 8 years ago

So, the pressure and coercion are coming from where? For whatever reasons, modern nations seem to want nuclear energy. I don't like nuclear but it seems that decision makers almost everywhere do. Iran has the same rights as any of them, including the right to be wrong.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

That does not make the decision makers right. Decision makers are many times "balance or don't balance the budget whores" so they can keep profiting off of the status quo.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Was anyone else on the ballot?

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Yes. It was a contested election as was the previous one in which Ahmedinijad also won handily.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 8 years ago

Solar power tech has not advance enough to make it economically feasible. Nuclear Power provides a lot of power and is a great front to make weapons.

[-] 0 points by gosso920 (-24) 8 years ago

They can't nuke Israel with a Solaranite bomb.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Yes, but they could blind invaders with the sun and mirrors.

[-] 0 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 8 years ago

The FACTS ARE: that Iran could EASILY power the entire country with Solar power during daylight hours and this is the SAME for ALL ME countries. Also, Iran all other ME countries that 'produce' oil have the $$$ to do just that. They can also run oil fired power plants at night time and to load balance the grid.

Unfortunelty Iran is run by lunatic-fringe-maniacs (much like the USA) who would rather spend the $$$ on nuclear weapon research, missiles, war material, gold plated toilets, harems , funding terrorists, etc.

Its the same reason the USA still uses ME oil when we could create 100% of our liquid fuels from LFTR-Synthfuel processes.

$$$ Greed $$$ Greed $$$ Greed $$$ Greed

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

What are LFTR Synthfuel processes?

And at night, giant spinning turbines can store the excess solar energy that might be created during the day.

Yes, petroleum profits are being wasted on extravagant, petroleum guzzling machines or products such as gold plated machines.

Petroleum profits should be steadfastly used to create the next real energy solution.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 8 years ago

you guys have no clue about electricity extraction process. "spinning turbines can store the excess solar energy" the old like days giant batteries which may coast good money. Solar energy is not powerful enough. i dont know how to start my explanations, but here is the thing: for example to start giant turbine (or whatever engine) from 0 to idle you need 2 to 7 times power of turbine (if it 100W you need 700W peak overload power to start spinning) therefore following - "night" giant battery has to be designed for high voltage which make them even bigger and expensive

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

couldn't you use a solar powered pump to store water in a reservoir during the day, while it is powering a dynamo, then during the night use the stored water to power the dynamo.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 8 years ago

i couldn't see this efficient. this pump is the dump. at least dont use dynamo at night. if you need a lot of energy for tonight party, - at the morning its gonna be no water?

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 8 years ago

Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors of which the fuel is Thorium. Synthetic fuel can be created from the electricity + CO2 +H from water.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by LongDaysnight (354) 8 years ago

Solar alone will not power much especially a modern city. Then what happens when you have a cloudy day? Also do you think we should have any say over what another country does? That just invites the same oppression inward.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I guess I disagree with you regarding your solar statement.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Slowing down the consumption of petroleum can generate newer and better advances if we give solar a chance. On cloudy days, wind may be more abundant.

The purpose of a power grid is to be able to power a state from another location when necessary. It's generally never cloudy over the entire U.S.

Plus, power storage can be accomplished via spinning turbines that store energy until needed. This ideas are ridiculed because they are not considered "efficient", yet, this is how to create jobs while creating the ability to store energy in a natural state.

As for oppression, the one oppression I totally agree with is forcing a country to be energy efficient and to embrace efficient technologies, and that would include the U.S.

[-] 0 points by LongDaysnight (354) 8 years ago

Rebuilding our power grid or asking others, on the hope of future advancements is a bit off kilter.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I don't understand your comment.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 8 years ago

Iran is mostly not in a desert type environment to begin with.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Iran is HUGE, with huge pockets of desert like environment.

Apparently....about 50 percent of Iran is semi deserts with vegatation and 10-20 is pure desert.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_Iran_is_desert#ixzz1iNGGCMP4

[-] 2 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 8 years ago

I think a better question is why arent we developing solar power? We really have no say in what Iran does.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Or, there both important questions.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

Why does it matter?

It would make you sleep better at night?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

If we all glowed in the dark, we might have trouble getting to sleep, but at least we would have a built in glowlight for going to the fridge to get some glowing soy milk in the middle of the night.

[-] 0 points by afterforever (-6) 8 years ago

I heard it said that going solar isn't conducive to helping to produce a nuclear weapon. You do know that's what Iran is trying to do?

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 8 years ago

That's because US foreign policy is to fuck up any country without nuclear weapons that doesn't suck their dick.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I hope that is not true, hamalmang.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

In the U.S. the neoconservatives and the ultra progressives do not represent mainstream america, they just think they do, and every so often they are able to sheeple enough of the sheeple into following their sometimes fervorish ways.

Now imagine countries that have no seperation of church and state where dying for one's religion is considered honorable, and where families of suicide bombers get significant rewards.

Do we want these countries dabbling with nuclear energy? Isn't the world a big enough mess already without more countries going nuclear?

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

Maybe if the US stopped invading sovereign countries based on lies, other countries wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves at any cost.

[-] 2 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

We did that ONCE, Jesus, everyone loves to crap on America these days

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

No, actually the US has been invading countries both overtly and covertly since the mid 1800's, read your history.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

We still aren't the Europeans who are the reasons for most the problems in Third World countries

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

Well that's true but we certainly are descendents of the Europeans. Third World countries? What about First World countries, the US has diligently spread their brand of financial religion all around the world and have almost succeeded in destroying the global economy with the help of the Europeans. It's the elite against the rest of us.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

the U.S. is out of Iraq, and would have no reason to invade Iran if Iran was going solar. Does anybody really disagree with that concept?

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

Yes, Exxon, Mobil and Chevron to name a few who would disagree. And don't kid yourself, the US is not fully out of Iraq. If people really think the US want to invade Iran because of the "nuclear" issue, think again. That is only a diversion for public consumption. The real agenda has to do still with oil and like I said in a previous post, until the oil barons have sucked the earth dry of oil, they will not stop.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

but you are disagreeing with me while making my point. Nuclear is a pretty good excuse to invade. If Iran takes that excuse away by going solar, then what?

[-] 0 points by afterforever (-6) 8 years ago

Sorry OccupyNews but Iran is already "dabbling with nuclear". The whole idea is to stop them from becoming a nuclear power.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Which is why if Iran goes solar, they don't need to develop nuclear power and in the process they really don't become a "threat" to anyone else, no?

[-] 0 points by afterforever (-6) 8 years ago

They want nuclear to create bombs,duh!!

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Which would justify the world's concern at letting more and more countries into the nuclear bomb arena, and justify an invasion, no?

I'm for preventing the invasion by helping to save the planet by being a leader in solar energy research and development.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

You'd have to ask them.

Why would we know anything about it?

Pakistan's got nukes too.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by mee44 (71) 8 years ago

Because Iran doesn't care about the energy. It's a cover to get the bomb.

[-] -1 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

Efficiency solar cells and modules

Power of solar radiation flux at a distance of 150 million km from the Sun, excluding losses in the Earth's atmosphere is about 1350 watts [2] per square meter. At the same time, the power density of solar radiation in Europe in very cloudy weather, even during the day can [3] to be less than 100 W / m ². With the most common solar cell can convert this energy into electricity with an efficiency 9-24%. The price of batteries will be about 1-3 U.S. dollars per watt power rating. In the industrial generation of electricity using solar cells cost per kWh will be $ 0.25 According to the European Photovoltaic Association (EPIA), 2020, the cost of electricity generated by "solar" systems will decrease to less than 0,10 € per kWh h for industrial plants and less than 0,15 € per kWh for installations in residential buildings. [4] It is reported that in some laboratories obtained solar cells with an efficiency of 43% [5]. In January 2011, is expected to supply the market of solar cells with an efficiency of 39% [6]

translated by google translate from russian wiki

here is the thing: you can get 24W power out of 100W/m^2 power density of solar radiation(24W/m^2). to start the engine of vacuum cleaner you need what? like 700-1500W? and im not sure if it is gonna be enough voltage, but is about 30 or 62.5 square meters battery, wow that a huge pan

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Magnifying the suns rays may be more efficient.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 8 years ago

Excellent point. I would really enjoy a lush Iran, with baseball as the national pastime.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Kirby, I don't understand. If Iran went solar, they would be completely ahead of the energy curve. How does Iran going solar imply that we have americanized them?

[-] -2 points by bearclaw (-152) 7 years ago

The reason why Iran has not gone "solar" yet is because the "solar missiles" have not evolved yet

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 7 years ago

What is a solar missle?

[-] 0 points by bearclaw (-152) 7 years ago

They do not exist just like I said

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 8 years ago

Why doesn't Iran go solar? Instead of meaningless banter without data and full rhetoric, here is some real data for you (though I doubt most of you will care to read a research paper. And among those who care, even fewer would understand any of it)

http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2011/Barcelona/MNICEG/MNICEG-38.pdf http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2010/Corfu/SYSTEMS/SYSTEMS1-13.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/06/alternative-energy-solar-power

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148199000889

Short answer. Yes, they are also looking at Solar as an energy source.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I have read that Iran and Iraq have solar energy advocates and associations. All the more reason that all of their research should be in this area.

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 8 years ago

Because solar is unreliable .

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

lol. That dang sun, can't trust it.

[-] -2 points by WooHoo (15) 8 years ago

Because they can't blow up Israel with a solar bomb? Just a guess.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

So we have two polarized sides, one side says nuclear is for defense, the other side says its for offense.

Isn't the best way to melt the polarization, solar?

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 8 years ago

I can't believe people are still arguing this?

The short answer to this question (and I am sure someone has already said this): Cost

Solar is at the moment far costlier than Nuclear. Besides, solar needs adequate amount of sunlight to be commercially viable. It also requires a lot of space, preferably desert (so as to not use agri land) and the area needs to be as level as possible (Mountainous terrains arent good for solar).

Nuclear is far easier. The tech is readily available. So it makes more sense to go nuclear provided safety is ensured.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

More BULLSHIT. Do you work for Focks news?

Solar Energy Cheaper Than Nuclear Energy

Electricity generated from solar PV is now being sold by commercial developers to the utility companies at 14 cents or less per kilowatt-hour (kWh), while nuclear plants in the planning stages will be incapable of offering electricity cheaper than 14-to-18 cents per kWh, according to the report.

And that is without considering the cost of nuclear subsidies and cost for decommissioning and waste storage and security.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 8 years ago

Why did Solyndra, among others go tits up? Obama spent a lot of our money on his pals failed projects.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Oil and nuclear companies get far bigger subsidies.

Senate votes down bill to end oil company subsidies, see how they voted and who gets oil money

As expected, a Democratic bill that would have put an end to the multi-billion-dollar annual tax subsidies for oil companies Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil failed to overcome a Republican filibuster on Tuesday evening. The heavily partisan 52-in-favor, 48-against vote fell eight shy of the 60 required to bring the bill to the floor.

[-] -2 points by Kirby (104) 8 years ago

Nice. Gotta keep oil prices low as possible.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Subsidies to corporations are paid for by taxes collected from citizens. Therefore you are not getting the benefit of the "low price".

You should really try a little harder to think these things through ... it's not that difficult.

[-] -2 points by Kirby (104) 8 years ago

Do you have E85 in your area? It is close to a dollar cheaper than regular gasoline. Subsidized by fellow taxpayers to encourage it's consumption. It is very simple math.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

The production of E85 consumes more fuel than it produces, and which is simply another gigantic subsidy for ADM, Cargill, etc. In this case the subsidy is multiple, once on ethanol production, once again at the pump for the consumer. You (assuming you pay taxes) are paying TWO federal subsidies for E85.

As you said, it is very simple math.

Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 8 years ago

I usually don't talk to people with IQ of less than 100 and spent most of my day with people with IQ of over 130. But still, I will reply to you. Consider yourself very lucky.

  1. Read the whole article on the link you provided. The paper which says this was written by a lone researcher and as the article points out, his authority on the matter is rather questionable. funny, you pick one part and leave the other.

  2. By and large solar remains slightly expensive. Costs will probably go down and demand for solar PV technology increases or solar will become more attractive as costs of coal and oil increases.

  3. One article by one researcher does not prove a lot just as one sparrow does not make a summer.

  4. Cost of harnessing solar power varies from place to place and so does it's commercial viability. A commercially viable solar installation on a large scale require a certain amount and intensity of sunlight. So not many places can qualify. Which is also why the Desertec project chose the deserts of Africa for it's rollout and not Milwaukee. So the quoted figures do not represent a global picture.

  5. Costs of solar PV panels have fallen lately because of over supply in the US market. In fact the fall has been upto 50% -60%

  6. Subsidies exist in solar too just in case you did not know and I doubt you anything at all.

  7. Solar PV panel are also hazardous. They are in fact carcinogenic.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

Talking about IQ, is like sex. Those who talk about it the most have the least.

  1. I did read the article, and thought it interesting that it included criticism from a clearly pro-nuclear blogger with no credentials.

  2. Solar is clearly less expensive when you factor in massive nuclear subsidies as well as decommissioning and waste "management". In fact the well-financed and politically entrenched nuclear industry (and oil industry) has been instrumental in collecting subsidies and keeping them away from technologies such as solar and wind that would have severe adverse effects on their bottom line.

  3. There are a variety of articles either way, by concerned parties on either side. That does not change the proportion of money between the two industries, or the fact that solar receives a tiny fraction of the investment (and subsidies) that nuclear does.

  4. Obviously.

  5. Manufacture in China has been the primary cause of price reduction in the US, as well as the primary cause for the failure of US companies trying to manufacture solar panels here.

  6. Solar gets an insignificant amount of subsidies compared to nuclear or oil.

  7. As if burning fossil fuels and nuclear power was without any ill effects ...

Got any more bullshit for me to debunk?

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 8 years ago
  1. How can you be so sure that 'solar is clearly less expensive'? Have you done any research to back it up? Are you a energy scientist? As for subsidies, there are plenty of subsidies for companies manufacturing PV panels to the ones deploying them for power generation. The subsidies are commensurate to their extent of proliferation.

  2. You should see some of the fantastic green tech IPOs lately. There is investment pouring in from all places. Ever heard of Solyndra?

  3. There was an article in the Economist to confirm my assertion. Google it up. Price do not fall 50% in a year because of China. Lot of these companies have been manufacturing solar panels in China, Phillipines and other asian countries for quite some time now. The price fall was only a more recent phenomenon.

  4. No.

  5. I never said there weren't

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

140 years ago you could have been the leader of horse and buggy manufacturing and leasing and made the exact same argument about petroleum.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 8 years ago

I am talking about now. Why are you guys always stuck up on what could have been and what would have been? If you had bothered to be more sincere at school and if had been smarter you would have had a engineering or maths or MBA degree and you could have been making more money. But you aren't. So lets deal with what is. None of what you said refutes my points.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

For every MBA degree there has to be dozens of people below that person doing the actual work that the MBA creates.

As for my analogy it's spot on accurate and it appears your education has limited your way of thinking.

If Petroleum is not used now to create solar energy, it certainly won't be "wasted" on solar when it becomes more scarce.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 8 years ago

What do you mean by actual work? Is fitting nuts and bolts the 'actual work'? That any fool can do.

Lets not get into my education and how it allows or does not allow me to think.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Surely you understand that anyone who earns an MBA is at the top of a job pyramid. For their job to produce any result, others must then do the labor. Everybody can't be MBA without several people that actually do the manual labor.

This should be obvious to you.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 8 years ago

No need to, as it is clearly evident.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 8 years ago

Why don't you pay a visit to Ahmedinejad and explain to him the benefits of going solar? I am sure he will listen. Go right ahead

[-] 2 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

Yes and while you are at it you better go talk to big oil too because they are the bastards that have tried to hold back every kind of alternative energy source for the past 40 or so years. They won't move on until they're satisfied that they've sucked every last drop of oil out of the earth that they can. Keep in mind they want to every last bit of profit from the oil infrastructure they've built in the last 100 years. And the Iranian's want their oil money too.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

The oil we are wasting driving SUV's to the grocery store for a gallon of milk are desperately needed for creating the pathway of equipment and research needed to make solar energy viable.

Right now, petroleum can be used to generate the energy to create products that run on petroleum, but solar energy is not embedded enough for it to recreate itself, it needs petroleum as the stepping stone. So these years are critical and what Iran is doing is just adding another nail in the solar energy coffin.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

Not sure why so much focus on Iran. Why don't you go yell at the French, they're the ones selling the components to Iran to make nuclear power plants. And don't forget to get rid of the nuclear power lobbyists that keep this filthy industry going.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Because Iran is becoming a focal point for a new war, and having Iran going nuclear further dooms the planet in its quest to develop solar.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

The media and our government are pushing and pushing this propaganda trying to inflame the US public into supporting another war, it's just another bullshit story just like the WMD's of Iraq were.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

What part is the bullshit part? It seems like Iran is not denying their enrichment of uranium for making a nuclear bomb.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

They are not denying uranium enrichment for energy purposes. They didn't say they were making a bomb. Even Obama's stooge Panetta from the Pentagon said they do not have a bomb.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

If Iran generated enough solar for their own country, the Uranium they are mining would stabilize the rest of the world's supply that is not plentiful as people think.

[-] 2 points by mvjobless (370) 8 years ago

The globe needs to get out of the business of uranium mining because it is not a sustainable practice, too polluting and destructive to the environment. All countries should start to move away from generating nuclear energy and move on to alternative non polluting methods.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

well stated mvjobless.