the urgent need for treaty is that of supply of uranium.india have technology.BUT according to HT india is sitting on uranium resereve that can last for 40 yrs for the need of whole country power needs .why the UPA is hiding this fact .what is the urgency and hurry there is something very fishy.
RE:uranium
by surath mukherjee on Jul 03, 2008 11:06 PM Permalink
RE:Nuclear Fallacies? = Part 1 by All Right on Jul 03, 2008 11:01 PM Permalink
We concerned with energy security. A good energy security strategy depend upon a diversified basket of options - coal, wind, solar, gas, petroleum, nuclear, bio-fuels etc.
So just as it is necessary to widen our options through the Iran pipeline, we need to expand our nuclear power generation capacity. So India is pursing a multi-strategy policy. Even after factoring the deal, in 2020 nuclear power is expected to command only 6% of our total power generation capacity.
The world has changed. We may not like Bush, but he is remitting office by January. We collaborate with the US where ever it is possible. What is wrong in that. We still did not take Bush's bait to send our army to Iraq. Why should we do that? If US expects us to range war with Iran, why should be cooperate with them?
Why shouldn't we cooperate with them in things like civil nuclear energy? We need power to sustain our high growth potential. How much longer should we bear with power shortages? Now we are being conditioned to accept petrol rationing as well
RE:uranium
by sublimestuff on Jul 03, 2008 11:29 PM Permalink
Because this is politics. It is meant to deceive people like you and me. Instead of fishing around for points to argue, just hope our country gets the energy it needs.
RE:WHY??????????????
by Jo Ho on Jul 03, 2008 11:09 PM Permalink
Don't believe Pakis, ever. The current government is better but if you look at the history, thsi country does not have any stability in the face of ISI and the armed forces. Friendship or fraternity with Pakistan is a welcome approach but India need be cautious. The IP pipeline is vulnerable to jehadi attacks. To be practical, US is numero uno in power, no doubt about it. We Indians are definitely at a disadvatageous position today with respect to US or China. China is a friend of Pakistan and not of India. Russia is history. US wants to form a power axis with India to make a balance against China that India also need. The deal is a win win situation provided we do not lose nuclear sovereign. And, after all, beggars are no choosers. If Dr MMS could make his points clear to the media (assuming he's telling the truth that it ain't hurt us anyway), he could have earned the support of NDA as well and in that case SP or LF would be insignificant.
Nuclear Deal, should we sign or should we refrain? What will bring us energy independence? Let's ask Dr. Kalam
by Mrinmoy Boruah on Jul 03, 2008 10:53 PM Permalink | Hide replies
Patience is really the key before taking a final decision to sign the n deal! The pros and cons should be made public and put for parliamentary debate first. If the parliament fails to take a consensus decision then the matter should go for direct voting by the citizens of india. In this process, whatever the decision may be, the citizens are going to be much more aware about the benefit of optimal use of energy. This alone and the vast area of our country that offers opportunities to use renewable energy like solar, biomass, wind, sea-waves, tidal-energy, agri-waste, alagae etc. in decentralised manner holds the answer to our energy independence. Mrinmoy Boruah, Energy Auditor, Assam, India
Vikas Bhat is full of questions. Let me try to give my own take on some of them
1. Why Western countries have not set up nuclear plants?
The exceptions are France - where nuclear reactors is the major power source. They are the most power surplus country in Europe that they export power to European countries who in turn need not make heavy investments on nuclear power.
There are many reasons why a country opt or avoid nuclear plants. They may have other options - hydel, coal, wind, oil etc. Then there is the safety factor. Lastly nuclear power is expensive.
What has changed is that resources like coal, petroleum have depleted and began to be costly. Over the decade, prolonged use of nuclear power have in-built better safety stds. With the price of oil hitting the USD 140-150 as compared to USD 25-30 band 5 years, nuclear economics have become that more competitive
RE:Nuclear Fallacies? = Part 1
by All Right on Jul 03, 2008 11:01 PM Permalink
We concerned with energy security. A good energy security strategy depend upon a diversified basket of options - coal, wind, solar, gas, petroleum, nuclear, bio-fuels etc.
So just as it is necessary to widen our options through the Iran pipeline, we need to expand our nuclear power generation capacity. So India is pursing a multi-strategy policy. Even after factoring the deal, in 2020 nuclear power is expected to command only 6% of our total power generation capacity.
The world has changed. We may not like Bush, but he is remitting office by January. We collaborate with the US where ever it is possible. What is wrong in that. We still did not take Bush's bait to send our army to Iraq. Why should we do that? If US expects us to range war with Iran, why should be cooperate with them?
Why shouldn't we cooperate with them in things like civil nuclear energy? We need power to sustain our high growth potential. How much longer should we bear with power shortages? Now we are being conditioned to accept petrol rationing as well
RE:Nuclear Fallacies? = Part 1
by All Right on Jul 03, 2008 10:50 PM Permalink
Cont'd Part II
2. Why we have not exploited our own resources
a. To some extent, bureaucratic apathy b. Enviromental concerns paticularly NE states like Meghalaya c. Mining has attracted local community resistance. Jharkhand - Naxalite menance d. Deliberate strategy of Indian government to keep reserves unexploited for latter use. Similar what US and Canada is doing to their petroleum reserves. They rather import at high prices rather than consume it at present
Why did Congress not develop our own Nuclear Fuel available in natural ores?
by Vikas Bhatt on Jul 03, 2008 10:14 PM Permalink | Hide replies
We have sufficviant Uranium and Plutonium ores in places like Meghalaya, Jharkhand etc and our Nuclear Ebergy Department was supposed to mine them and extract them. Yet despite knowing that our existing stocks were depleting, various Govts including various Congress and Left Govts that ruled 12 of the last 17 years showed no urgency in making the mines operational. It takes 10 years before an ore mined and processed is converted to Nuclear Energy. Since we had stocks we slept and did not plan for the future as is the case with most of our corrupt Babus and now even as we sit on these stocks and treasure of nuclear troves, we have no option but to buy stocks from other nations at higher costs. When will bastich politicians see beyond kursi and communalism and look at what needs to be done at the right time?
RE:Why did Congress not develop our own Nuclear Fuel available in natural ores?
by KHAN on Jul 03, 2008 10:51 PM Permalink
LOOK, THERE IS NO NEED TO DO A DEAL WITH FASCIST US
RE:Why did Congress not develop our own Nuclear Fuel available in natural ores?
by Vikas Bhatt on Jul 03, 2008 10:15 PM Permalink
The Nuclear Energy Department was also aware that our stock was depleting in mid-90s and half the reactors were running at 50% capacity and yet we built more reactors and spent billions on them lying idle instead of starting the mining operations on an urgency without any sense of proportion.....
RE:RE:Why did Congress not develop our own Nuclear Fuel available in natural ores?
by Vikas Bhatt on Jul 03, 2008 10:16 PM Permalink
If Nuclear Energy is so good then why are advanced nations will Nuclear stocks like USA, Europe, UK, Aus etc not setting up more nuclear energy rectors in last 15 years? Why is USA Nuclear industry in dire straits? Why is oil and fossil fuels still a major source of generated energy? This is because it is the most expensive form of energy to generate. One lak crores of investment needed to run one generating reactor station and yet after signing this deal we will only have operational plants after 10 years producing just 7% of our energy needs at expensive rates which is not enough. Where is the investment going to come from to keep building more reactors and will people afford then energy at rate 30 Rs per unit if one calculates progressive increase in essential prices then? This deal will benefit US economy and thgeir unproductive nuclear companies more. We need to invest more in solar energy as an alternative and that too will need huge amount of money in research.....
RE:Why did Congress not develop our own Nuclear Fuel available in natural ores?
by ravi on Jul 03, 2008 10:26 PM Permalink
1. developed countries have a saturated power market. 2. They don't set any power plant at all except few small scale turbines, since they have the required power 3. They are reopenning many closed nuclear power plant: France, Scandevevia 4. They also invest on renewable energy for pure business perspective 5. We can't develop anything, any technology. Developing TATA nano car or doing IT consultancy is not developing nuclear fuel.
RE:Why did Congress not develop our own Nuclear Fuel available in natural ores?
by Umang on Jul 03, 2008 10:35 PM Permalink
Going ahead with the nuclear deal does not mean that other alternative options cannot be used at the same time. If Indian politicians were smart (since they control the funding) or if the private players get involved, India has the climate (hot) and the geography (vast coastline) to develop technologies to generate power (solar and wind). The remaining deficit can come from nuclear and hydro plants. Coal based power plants are not the preferred choice since they are too polluting for the environment. Bottomline: we shouldn't bank on just one source for our power needs rather diversify (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear and as a last resort coal).
RE:Why did Congress not develop our own Nuclear Fuel available in natural ores?
by Harshawardhan Narendra Joshi on Jul 03, 2008 10:51 PM Permalink
this opion is obviously ill informed.1. france generates 70% of required energy as nuclear energy. 2. US never had nuclear energy as a priority due to environmental concerns and they had other resources enough. 3. no country in world generates elecricity with petroleum products , but they require it for automobiles. 4 india, does not have problem with petroleum as we also do not generate electricity with it. 5. our coal deposits are depleting and quality of coal is not that good. 6. Nuclear deal is about opening the trade of uranium as we r not NPT signatory. is does not mean that u have to buy reactors from US. u can buy the from russia, france and anybody willing to sell it. 7. so we need nuclear enerrgy, though at a cost, But there is no free lunch anywhere in world probably except in India.
We have to face the reality. Nuclear power is essential for sustaining development in future. We should not do anything which delays generation of nuclear power. If this Govt falls on this issue future will blame left parties for making such a fuss. In eighties we saw left parties shouting slogans against computerisation in Banks. Now can you imagine modern banking without computer? Left parties developed the reputation of understanding everything late.
RE:Nuke deal a need of the hour
by sai on Jul 03, 2008 10:11 PM Permalink
I agree with you..junk Communists ..NO morals. They fight against Congress in Andra (they alliance with Congress at the time of elections) and support at Center..Power broakers..No aganda... No principles..Look at coomunist China and learn to progress..The other worst creatures on India are Maoists..The great morans after Cogress politicians except Manmohan..
RE:Nuke deal a need of the hour
by Hasmukh Gandhi on Jul 03, 2008 10:12 PM Permalink
Well, one feels pathetic when one fails to read between the lines...
Congress and left both r most opportunistic parties...
They will stick to power at the cost of anything...
Whatever Gulam nabi azad had done in Kashmir on Amarnath land issue, is nothing but sale off of indian pride and patriotism...
Now both congress and left r showing flase bravado to fool the public as both know that in any case, elecetion is around the corner...
Let next election be fought, and god forbid, if it throws the similar electoral arithmatic, I will not be surprised that left will "rush" to support congress from "outside" and congress will not hesitate to accept it in the name of "seclularism"...
Its time we shed our prejudices and read between the lines
cancel man mohan's tour to japan.he is just enjoying life and trips and causing irreparable damages to country in almost every manner.Congress High command must cancel all his trips.It will be more injurious to nation's health.It is time he is thrown out along with PC
