mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Soap Box

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-04-30, 19:21   #89
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·599 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by only_human View Post
I really don't know why the U.S. is so eager to share nuclear technology in the Middle East at all. Thoughts anyone?
It's to dissuade them from starting their own nuclear programs, as Iran did, which could easily morph from civilian to military.
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-30, 19:24   #90
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·599 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garo View Post
If they use nucular energy for power, they can export more oil to the US, no?
Yes.

Quote:
Does anyone else find it a bit odd that an agreement is held up because of torture by Obama who has promised not to prosecute any torturers who were "just following orders"?
The "member of the royal family of Abu Dhabi" was issuing the orders rather than following them, presumably. It's consistent.
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-30, 20:35   #91
only_human
 
only_human's Avatar
 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002

3,581 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
It's to dissuade them from starting their own nuclear programs, as Iran did, which could easily morph from civilian to military.
Sure that's the goal and of course interested parties say that they could trade elsewhere if this deal isn't struck -- BUT --
How strong are these 123 Agreements anyway? It looks like the 123 Agreement with Russia is defunct:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/115895.pdf
Quote:
On September 8, 2008, President George W. Bush officially notified Congress that, in light of military actions taken by the Russian Federation against the nation of Georgia, he was rescinding his statutorily required certification of the proposed U.S.- Russia nuclear cooperation agreement.1 The President’s action, in effect, withdrew the proposed agreement from further congressional consideration for the foreseeable future.

The President’s notification raised the possibility that should circumstances “permit future reconsideration of the proposes Agreement, a new determination will be made and the proposed Agreement will be submitted for Congressional review” pursuant to section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act.2 In light of these developments, this report is being archived and will not be updated.
And it looks like India's has exceptions: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/75274.pdf
Quote:
The Administration proposed legislation (introduced as H.R. 4974/ S. 2429) in March 2006 that, in addition to providing waivers of relevant provisions of the AEA (Sections 123 a. (2), 128, and 129), would have allowed a nuclear cooperation agreement with India to enter into force without a vote from Congress, as though it conformed to AEA requirements.
In the State Department analysis of the UAE one it looks like a lot of countries are getting in on the action. Can we track and manage them all?: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/120974.pdf
Quote:
The governments of Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria have announced their intent to acquire nuclear energy production capabilities; their respective programs have moved forward in recent years with varying degrees of specificity and commitment. To date, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt appear to have made the most progress toward their stated goals of constructing and operating domestic nuclear power plants. Like the UAE, their plans do not envision operational plants before 2015. Turkey and Egypt have active peaceful nuclear cooperation agreements with the United States pursuant to Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954.
Here is a sweetheart provision:
Quote:
It also is worth noting that an Agreed Minute to the agreement includes a provision which apparently intends to establish the U.S.-UAE agreement’s conditions as minimum standards for future such agreements in the Middle East. Stating that “the fields of cooperation, terms and conditions” accorded by the U.S.-UAE agreement “shall be no less favorable in scope and effect than those which may be accorded, from time to time, to any other non-nuclear-weapon State in the Middle East in a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement,” the Minute explains that, in the event that Washington concludes a more-favorable agreement with another regional government, the United States will, at the UAE’s request, consult with the UAE “regarding the possibility of amending” the agreement in order to make its terms equally favorable to the new agreement.
And are we happy here?
Quote:
The United States government has stated publicly that some UAE-based entities are involved in Iranian weapons-related procurement activities. For example, an October 2008 Department of Justice fact sheet states that eight companies, five of which are based in the UAE, were charged the previous month with crimes related to their participation in exporting dual-use items to Iran. Additionally, two men were indicted in July 2008 for “participation in a conspiracy to export U.S.-made military aircraft parts to Iran” via a company based in the UAE, according to the fact sheet.

Evidence also suggests that UAE-based entities are involved in procurement activities connected to Iran’s ballistic missile program. For example, the Department of the Treasury designated two such entities under Executive Order 13382, which freezes assets under U.S. jurisdiction belonging to designated foreign entities engaged in activities related to the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The Treasury Department designated Oriental Oil Kish in October 2007 for unspecified “proliferation activities.” Oriental Oil Kish is an entity affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a department press release said, adding that the IRGC develops and tests ballistic missiles. In September 2008, the Treasury Department similarly designated Oasis Freight Agencies as a company affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL). Adam Szubin, director of the department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, indicated during a September 10, 2008 press conference that IRISL has procured items for Iran’s ballistic missile programs. Additionally, the Treasury Department designated two other entities located in the UAE, Melli Investment Holding International and BMIIC International General Trading Ltd., in March 2009 because of their ties to Iran’s Bank Melli, which, according to a March 3 Treasury Department statement, has been involved in procurement activities and other forms of support for Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

Concerns about suspicious transfers to Iran prompted U.S. action in 2007 to encourage the UAE to improve its national export control system. In February 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce released an advanced notice of proposed rule-making that would have created a new export control designation known as “Country Group C” that would have established license requirements on exports and re-exports to countries that represent a diversion or transshipment risk for goods subject to the Export Administration Regulations. Although no countries were mentioned in the notice, the proposal was widely considered to be directed at the UAE.
Finally, this:
Quote:
Some observers have speculated that a failure to conclude the proposed nuclear cooperation agreement would be viewed by officials and influential figures in the UAE as an indication of a lack of faith and commitment by the United States government in the UAE, which could have negative implications for other aspects of the bilateral relationship. These fears appear to be based largely on the perceived repercussions of Dubai Ports World’s failed 2006 bid to acquire and operate U.S. port terminals.

Last fiddled with by only_human on 2009-04-30 at 21:03 Reason: Minor reformatting. Quotes reformated by hand and don't follow source document formatting
only_human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-01, 12:09   #92
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

2×5×251 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
The "member of the royal family of Abu Dhabi" was issuing the orders rather than following them, presumably. It's consistent.
Not consistent. Any US government official (CIA/military) who issued orders to torture after taking legal advice - now claimed to be faulty - will also be exempt from prosecution. It has been 5 years since Abu Ghraib. How many people issuing orders were prosecuted there?
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-02, 06:15   #93
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×599 Posts
Default

Oh, you're right. I was misinterpreting.
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-03, 22:38   #94
only_human
 
only_human's Avatar
 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002

358110 Posts
Default

Since new nuclear licensing options are being considered by the NRC, etc., I thought I would post the existing state of nuclear power plant licensing that I just came across.
Obama opposition to nuclear waste site questioned
Quote:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received 17 applications to build 26 new U.S. nuclear reactors and could get five more applications for seven reactors by the end of next year. Each new reactor is expected to cost $6 billion to $8 billion, including financing costs.

The NRC expects electricity will likely be generated by the next new nuclear power reactor in 2016.
only_human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-06, 17:13   #95
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

6,451 Posts
Default Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNdPW...eature=related

(Apparently) obligatory commentary:
If you don't get it, I'll swim the Atlantic (and if necessary the Panama
Canal or Tierra del Fuego) and hit you.

David

Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2009-05-06 at 17:15
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-19, 06:35   #96
only_human
 
only_human's Avatar
 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002

3,581 Posts
Default

I serve up this article with no particular agenda except that it ties together commodity pricing, wall street and nuclear fuel into an interesting package. The bankrupt Lehman Brothers are stuck with having take physical delivery of half a million pounds of processed uranium ore ("yellowcake") from a matured commodities contract, most of which is currently being held in Canada.
Lehman Sits on Bomb of Uranium Cake as Prices Slump
Quote:
The uranium, which may be as much as 500,000 pounds, might fetch $20 million at today’s prices of about $40.50 per pound
Quote:
The market is regulated by governments, who control transport of radioactive material and limit the number of buyers and sellers by requiring them to obtain licenses. Utilities and producers are key buyers and sellers. Lehman got its license just a month before its bankruptcy, one of the traders said.
Quote:
“We plan on gradually selling this material over the next two years,” he said. “We are not dumping this on the market and have no fire-sale mentality.”
Quote:
Lehman’s radioactive material is partly stored in Canada, Marsal said. One trader, who declined to specify a date, said he was offered 450,000 pounds of Lehman uranium stored in facilities owned by Canada’s Cameco Corp. and France’s Areva SA.

“When Lehman first approached the market to sell the material, they had a flawed market strategy,” said Kevin Smith, head of uranium trading and marketing at commodities brokerage Traxys SA. “They were trying to sell it all as a block and part of it was at a less desirable location. It was a take-it-or- leave-it offer, so everyone left it.”
only_human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-14, 07:51   #97
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

2×811 Posts
Default

For a long time, cold-fusion seemed to be the "holy grail" of energy production. It required no shielding, and operated using seawater. It fell by the wayside supposedly because it consumed more energy than it produced.

CERN in Switzerland is messing with antimatter, anti-hydrogen to be exact. I don't know what they plan to do with that.

I've watched a lot of documentaries the past few years. One of the neatest things I saw was was something that looked like one of the older satellite dishes, the big ones. It was actually a parabolic mirror which focused sunlight at a small black canister containing compressed ammonia that would drive a small turbine generator. It would put out enough power for a single house. It could easily sit in someones yard just like one of those old dishes. It was all quite compact for what it did. I don't know what the backup was on a cloudy day or at night. I would guess a battery array inside the house with a large a converter.

There are a lot of possibilities. They only need to be researched out.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-14, 08:26   #98
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·599 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
For a long time, cold-fusion seemed to be the "holy grail" of energy production. It required no shielding, and operated using seawater. It fell by the wayside supposedly because it consumed more energy than it produced.
There were some comments last year in this thread (go to page 2):

http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=6236

Quote:
I've watched a lot of documentaries the past few years. One of the neatest things I saw was was something that looked like one of the older satellite dishes, the big ones. It was actually a parabolic mirror which focused sunlight at a small black canister containing compressed ammonia that would drive a small turbine generator. It would put out enough power for a single house. It could easily sit in someones yard just like one of those old dishes. It was all quite compact for what it did. I don't know what the backup was on a cloudy day or at night. I would guess a battery array inside the house with a large a converter.
I recall that another thread (not the one linked above) discussed something like that, but I can't find it now.
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-14, 08:34   #99
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

279216 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
CERN in Switzerland is messing with antimatter, anti-hydrogen to be exact. I don't know what they plan to do with that.
CERN has been "messing with antimatter" for a very long time. By and large they deal with isolated antiparticles such as positrons, antimuons and antiprotons and either study their properties in isolation or collide them with regular matter. Occasionally an experiment is run to collide antiprotons and positrons at very low energies in order to produce anti-hydrogen atoms.

What they do with all this messing around has always been quite clear: to investigate fundamental physics.


Paul
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unfavorable price trends for AWS EC2 spot instances? GP2 Cloud Computing 14 2018-01-11 02:01
How much do you pay for your electric energy? em99010pepe Lounge 31 2011-02-14 01:57
kinetic energy science_man_88 Miscellaneous Math 8 2010-05-29 04:14
Energy Minimization ShiningArcanine Math 2 2008-04-16 13:47
Energy efficiency for LL markhl Hardware 5 2004-02-04 13:33

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:24.

Fri Oct 30 20:24:49 UTC 2020 up 50 days, 17:35, 1 user, load averages: 2.35, 2.08, 2.04

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.