Katepalli R Srinivasan should be fired from his job immediately. These are the kind of "scientists" that populate our government organisations. The heat of nuclear fission is used to convert water to steam and this steam propels turbines that generate electricity. Shame on Rediff for publishing such a stupid article.
RE:Shame on Rediff
by Good_man on Jan 06, 2008 12:36 PM Permalink
With Carnot Cycle efficiency of ~40% there is always waste heat. Nuclear energy is better than coal because CO@ emission brings up Global warming because of Green house effect which changes the albedo of the atmosphere. Carbon burning alters environment much before the actual waste heat potential is reached. Therefore Nuclear Energy is better. ~ 40% energy of 40% ie total 16% is lost in electric transmission. Therefore Compact advanced Technology Nuclear Reactors distributed near points of major consumption make greater sense.
Regretting that only a few Indian scientists approach the Centre to pursue research, he called upon the country's young scientists to join the Centre to take up research works.
where are scientists in india? every one with brain either becomes a doctor or an engineer. tell me one big scietific achievement done by iit/iisc or any other research lab in india. they are horrible
RE:hopeless
by bee suman on Jan 06, 2008 12:15 PM Permalink
hi kittappa don't u beleive india's leap to neuclear science, space oddessy, missile technology et al
RE:hopeless
by vishwa kapila on Jan 05, 2008 10:15 PM Permalink
Nuclear power has the impact of environmental enhancement in ALL countries. Views expressed here are based on Non-Science...
I don%u2019t know whether the report is full or just some of the statements were taken out of context, otherwise its sounds ridiculous for a person of his position to make such a contradictory statement. To bring down carbon emission (which is the cause of green house effect) alternate source of fuel is needed, which means a source of fuel which does not add up to the carbon emission. To my understanding, water, wind, nuclear etc are sources which have no carbon emission. So it would be better if the director of ICTP think all angles before making a statement. Whether we need US or any other help for that matter is debatable. Please don%u2019t confuse readers and if there is more to this report, publish all of it. Don%u2019t publish just to have a good headline.
It is sad to see a scientist that too a physicists takes like this . In fact the nuclear energy is the cleanest form of energy. The waste produced by this form of energy generation is far far less than any other form of energy generation. Only that it is radioactive and requires proper handling and disposal. And India has the expertise for this. The beauty of the nuclear energy is that it is the most concentrated form of energy. Nuclear energy is the only answer currently for the energy crisis and environmental problem
RE:Nuclear Energy is the best
by Dharmesh Patel on Jan 05, 2008 10:57 PM Permalink
Sivaprasad,
Don't prove yourself fool in this forum.
How you can says Nuclear power is cleanest form of energy. It is the most harmful source of energy to environment and this is the reason why most of countries in European Union are closing down their Nuclear Power Plant slowly and turning to renewable energy.
As USA is losing their customers (Germany, France etc)for Nuclear fuel, they are looking for new customers and our stupid indian government are trapped in this policy.
Now, if we spend the same amount of money which we are going to spend on nuclear fuel, we can get more energy from renewable sources and that is without depending on USA.
RE:Nuclear Energy is the best
by Sethu Nandakumar on Jan 05, 2008 11:18 PM Permalink
I really doubt your claim that countries in European Union are going non-nuclear. France for example is fully reliant on nuclear energy, and they dont have any plan to change it.
I fully agree to your point that India should not lose our self-reliance and depend on another country, like US, for our energy resources. We need to find ways to stand on our own leg, other than criticizing technologies which several other countries are utilising for their energy need.
RE:Nuclear Energy is the best
by vivek on Jan 06, 2008 01:17 AM Permalink
The by products after fission reactions are still radio-active and its a headache to find a safe disposal for them.Other forms of energy like wind , thermal, hydro energy are still in use but do not meet energy demands.In my view the deal should be signed by safeguarding our interests.
RE:Nuclear Energy is the best
by Tim on Jan 06, 2008 01:34 AM Permalink
The best solution for energy problem in India are available with the communists. Looks like they are the masters in this area after being the masters of deception, treason and unpatriotism.
They seem to know the answers to all the problems. I think they should be give the role to solve the problem and you will see them run away like hell.
RE:RE:Nuclear Energy is the best
by roverphoenix on Jan 06, 2008 10:12 AM Permalink
guys like u just l**k whtever USA throws and just blame communists for anything, are u some IT li**ing servitute
RE:Nuke deal may not be beneficial to India: Expert
by raw brandy on Jan 05, 2008 09:02 PM Permalink
What's the problem with alternate sources of energy? He didn't utter anything wrong , did he?
Dear Mr.srinivasan, By burning fossil fuels do we reduce carbon emission ? Does the application of atomic enrgy for production of electricity increase the total heat produced and contribute to greater global warming comparatively ? How do you find that the nuke deal does not to contribute to the goodness of our country ? Your hyphothesis requires elaboration. Making statements do not credit for scientific analysis !
RE:alternate energy sources.
by raw brandy on Jan 05, 2008 09:04 PM Permalink
Sir, please read the article again. No where does he suggest burning carbon. He is saying renewable sources meaning, wind and solar energy.
RE:alternate energy sources.
by Maverick on Jan 05, 2008 09:21 PM Permalink
That will only take care of the that light in the loo. our requirements are mammoth if we have to grow at present rate. Wind and Solar energy are not sufficient.
RE:alternate energy sources.
by raw brandy on Jan 06, 2008 12:18 AM Permalink
May be true in the present situation, but they are the only road to a safe future. We have to grow, yes, but at what cost to the future generation?
Dear Mr.srinivasan, By burning fossil fuels do we reduce carbon emission ? Does the application of atomic enrgy for production of electricity increase the total heat produced and contribute to greater global warming comparatively ? How do you find that the nuke deal does not to contribute to the goodness of our country ? Your hyphothesis requires elaboration. Making statements do not credit for scientific analysis !
Dear Mr.srinivasan, By burning fossil fuels do we reduce carbon emission ? Does the application of atomic enrgy for production of electricity increase the total heat produced and contribute to greater global warming comparatively ? How do you find that the nuke deal does not to contribute to the goodness of our country ? Your hyphothesis requires elaboration. Making statements do not credit for scientific analysis !
It is very much regretful that a senior scientist from ICTP is saying like this. Infact it is the nuclear energy which must be utilized for energy as it has least environmental pollution and helps in preventing global warming. All other sources of energy are either pollutogenic or are impractical. The best among these would be water dam energy but it has to rain effectively to get this energy. Nuclear energy on the other hand has no pollution and is plentiful. The only trouble with this is that it needs total control. When all the European countries and USA can have it why not us? When we burn fire in our kitchen aren't we careful not to burn ourselves. Similarly Nuclear energy demands some precautions and we are fully equipped to meet this demand. Moreover it also generates other byproducts or isotopes which are useful for medical and industrial requirements. The debate whether we need help from USA or not may be questioned instead of rejecting Nuclear energy.
RE:Atomic Energy
by nostraddamus on Jan 05, 2008 08:49 PM Permalink
hi kamalkash.. u seem to advocate use of hydro electricity to fight global warming.. well you should know one thing that i read only a few days back .. it is that dams lead to methane emissions which contribute to global warming worse than co2.it is a very lesser known fact..u should google it..
RE:Atomic Energy
by Kamalaksh on Jan 05, 2008 09:08 PM Permalink
Hi. I am not advocating hydro electricity projects. My view point is we must use nuclear energy till we get another energy source which is better and safer than this. To meet the energy demands right now there is no other choice. Thank you for enlightening me on methane emissions from the dams. This confirms my opinion on the benefits of nuclear energy. Good luck!
RE:RE:Atomic Energy
by ASHOK on Jan 05, 2008 09:12 PM Permalink
Kamalakash >> Having said about Hydroelectricity I would like to confirm , that I fully agree and endorse your line of thought
RE:RE:Atomic Energy
by ASHOK on Jan 05, 2008 09:09 PM Permalink
nostradamus >> Thats right.
Vegitation submerged during Dam formation and water accumulation leads to Decay which causes Methane formation and Metahne contribution to Green House effect is far worse than CO2 emmission. Once BBC printed a full article on this.
Hydroelectricity is not a consistent source as BASE LOAD. Electricity supply varies depending upon Rain pattern.
A certain % of Nuclear energy is boon especially down south of India.
Look at narmmada project of Gujrat , it is huge project and electricity generated at proper narmada Dam will be just 1500 MW.
Today it is easy to see 1 Nuke reactor generating 1000 MW.
These people like "SRINIVASAN" have very little overall understanding and they talk in isolation. But it is misleading the masses.
Let him come to a debate , he will be stripped in no time.
RE:Atomic Energy
by raw brandy on Jan 06, 2008 12:17 AM Permalink
Alternate energy sources are the only safe future. You will not realise this until the half the coastal towns are under water.
RE:Atomic Energy
by C J Rackham on Jan 06, 2008 12:39 AM Permalink
I think the article is incomplete. Either Srinivasan was dumb to give such an incomplete answer or Rediff has plucked out a part of the conversation and applied that as a news.
RE:Atomic Energy
by Kamalaksh on Jan 06, 2008 03:31 PM Permalink
Hope so. Otherwise it has come to me as a rude shock to know a senior science faculty talking such crap. This would be a great insult to us. Once there was a scientific committee composed of scientists in agriculture, who visited a certain village to understand the problems affecting ground nuts. To the utter disappointment of the villagers these scientific faculty did not know where would the ground nut be on a ground nut plant.
