First think I would like to say is: the writer is biased because he is from BARC. Any BARC scientist has a solemn pledge to oppose the deal, because it is definitely not as per their wish. I am not criticizing Mr Prasad, but I am just saying he has a personal interest in it.
Second, the apprehensions raised by him is unfounded. The involvement of foreign companies and fund will only help to improve the potentiality of the nuclear sector. The writer is concerned about future fallout if supply stops in case of India takes any adverse decisions. But before we jump into that discussion, we need to learn what do we mean by adverse decisions? In what context that situation may arise? I can only think about one a possible situation where India tests an atomic bomb and consequently the supply stops. But that has been debated endlessly since the beginning and it has been concluded that the safeguard agreement does not have any clause to prevent India doing so and more importantly, even the supply is cut off, India can take "corrective measures" to tackle the situation.
Any way, I think BARC scientists will always have a one sided view on this and we should not give too much importance on them.
Good analysis, but you seem to have left half unsaid. Agreed that this may create dependency on external suppliers, but is that not the case with fossil fuels?
You probably know better than many, but does this not make better sense to work towards improvement of technology and measure to avoide chernobyl than resisting a whole technology.
Further, with all due regards, why has BARC not been successful in building a thorium based electricity which is econimically viable? As far as I know, India is self sufficient in thorium.
Of course there will be big money involved, but we live in the era of public corporates, where each shareholder is a owner. Why are we talking like the last century corporate terms when a very few individuals owned corporates and their profits.
All my above agruments be damned with, can you suggest what is the real solution to India's energy hunger? Why nuclear, we must look at all options together and pursue all, not pose one against other.
This is all my 2 pence worth. Will be happy to get your response.
RE:Good analysis, but..
by samsungsang on Jul 15, 2008 11:52 PM Permalink
Nanda, your message is not 2 pence worth even. And you claim it to be. What is so difficult about the india's inability towards self energy production. How did people live thru the centuries. You seem to be more concerned about the energy needs than the people who really need it. There is still lot of ways to get through the energy crisis than falling at others' feet like you. 50 years back india was called the snake charmers' world. Now there is substantial developments. And which country does not have problems. Why not spend your two cents thinking of other indigeneous ways to develop our country rather than depending on others. Parasite.
Sub:TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT-NUCLEAR INDUSTRY 1. Business to Business -comes under Technology Transfer 2.Research and Development - Technology asssessment and identification of higher goals 3. Sensitive issues beyond Regulatory bodies- United Nations -Neutral Governance 4. Goverment to Government - Issues with Human approach Emotional Whims and fancy have no roll Vidyardhi Nanduri Cosmology World Peace
