While it may be true that other traditional power plants could have been set up, thermal power plants are terribly polluting, while hydel destroys a lot of the flora and fauna around. Why not, then nuclear power? Having said this, however, I must say that I am strongly against the nuclear power deal. How about spending the same amount of resources on harnessing other power sources, optimally and sustainable?
Signing nuclear deal does not mean that India has to install nuclear power plants tomorrow to get power. It is important that India needs lot of electrical power. For installing a power plant all the costs and benefits analysis should be done. It will be improper to install a coal fired power plant near highly populated urban city like Mumbai because it create pollution and will cause health hazards. Signing Nuclear Deal will alow to procure equipment and material for nuclear power plant otherwise India will have to get it indigenously.
RE:Please answer these questions for yourself
by mallinath asangi on Jul 25, 2008 04:18 PM Permalink
Hope u have a blood of terrorist.. that's why..?? Not accepting the ground realilty.We r the suferes . So plze don't even try to comment on this issue. mba
At present India gets 3% of its power form nuclear reactors. If USA starts building new facilities today, it will start producing power in 7 to ten years. The best estimate is 7% of India's power will come from nuclear power plant by 2020. This is a huge jump given the fact that India's power genration will increase between 3 to 5 fols by then. Power from these new stations will be way more expensive than cole powered plants but they will be pollution free. The problem may arise when:
1. Accident happens. USA did not build any new plant for about 30 years. There was Chernobyl melt down. 2. Decommissioning a reactor at the end of its life cycle is exgtremely expensive unless you are willing to contaminate the environment. US electricity customers are heavily paying for decommissioning. This means you have to pay even if do not get anything. This aspect is very difficult to explain to ordinary indians like us.
RE:Nuclear power
by rohn on Jul 24, 2008 07:05 PM Permalink
well.. all i know is there is 7 hrs of power cut at my house from the past one year and i live in the suburbs of Mumbai.... :) ... can you say something abt that ?? and we call our country progressing ? well progressing in which direction ?? well if we want to grow , we need power.. we need energy.. with time the need for enegry is gonna increase...and it will. from where will the power come ?
can somebody explain the cost of producing one unit of electricity from various sources? Eg:Coal, Hydro, Deisel, Gas, Wind, Tidal & NUCLEAR Also indicate the %age of total power produced from each source
ok, we all understood why this nuclear deal is not priority number one in the list of things thats need to be done for our country - some other top order priorities can be for example that of selling "common man's" Air India and in the process saving tens of billion of dollars for setting up schools and health care unit in our villages.
But what is the wrong thing about deal ... nobody seems to know or articulate that.
* why do we need to have more nuclear bombs then we currently have ?? * is the current set of bombs we have is not sufficient to deter our enemies (Pakistan and China) * what is the chance that there is going to be a nuclear war between Indian and China or between Indian and Pakistan - and rest of the world will just watch the fun * what is the change that a fundamentalist Indian ruler will drop a bomb on Pakistan just to prove a point. * Remember Enron power plant * France (size of UP) has more than 75% power (more than all we produce today) generated from nuclear plants * If nuclear fuels can be disposed in underground concrete bunkers - it is greener than Coal or Naptha - no green house gases * and on and on...
RE:Why ?
by susheel raut on Jul 22, 2008 01:27 PM Permalink
Which deal are you talking about?
This deal is about civil nuclear co-operation only. No military facilities or reactors fall under the 123 agreement? Meaning we are making this deal so we can have more power-plants and technology to make more effective power plants. This deal is all about generating power and not about making more bombs. (India already has enough fissile material for that, but that's another story). Arguments regarding any military usage are invalid in the context of this deal.
I keep hearing "Enron" during each argument. Enron was a COMPANY that betrayed the US(American) people more than it betrayed us(Indian). It sucked Californians dry with corrupt power-trading practices that hurt the US economy 100 times more than it did India. It lied to US investors and had fraudulent business practises even in the US. So, yes it was wrong on our government's part to do a deal with Enron. But Enron is not the US government and the both can't be put in the same bracket. Most of Enron's top management like Jeff Skilling and Andy Fastow are serving rigorous jail time in the US for that. What happened with Enron is unfortunate and we must take care that the same thing doesn't happen again with any other "COMPANY", but that's nothing to do with the deal or the 123 agreement and in no way relates to this article. We were duped by Enron just as much as the US people were. Besides the Enron's power plant (Dabhol) was a naphtha based plant and not a Nuclear plant.
RE:Why ?
by Sankha Ghosh on Jul 22, 2008 11:54 AM Permalink
another self serving instance of hypocrisy is that all this leftest never objected or raised their voice when this government ordered for huge number of Airbus and Boeing planes at a cost of Rs. 50,000 crore (all in foreign exchange) so that "common man" can have the fun of air travel - and now we are concerned with cost ....
I don't know whether you were there or not at that Nellore meeting, but let me make it clear to you that the world Mr Sonia Gandhi used about the Nuclear Deal, was - ``that our government had drawn up an international agreement that will enable more nuclear power plants to be established in our country, so that we can generate more power.''
Kanchan, your sentence related to this particular wording in the artical subverts the entire meening and is very misleading.
1) Kanchan is so stupid she is comparing price of uranium to price of oil. Of course she has no clue that the percentage cost of uranium in producing a unit of power is ultra low compared to oil.
2) 8% of power from nuclear is nothing to sneeze at. If you have 8% less power than needed the economic costs multiply.
3) I can rebut more points but this article is so stupid it is frankly waste of my time.
But remember kids this type of people are not just against nuke deal, they are against your life these are blood thirsty and they are baying for your blood.
RE:here is what Kanchan gupta is BULL SHITTING you kids
by Harilal Patel on Jul 22, 2008 08:13 PM Permalink
Dear Guest,
You are referring the reaers as Kids. You think you know it all or what? Are you a teacher who is in power industries, Concern about welfare of India and has no bias for anything. I am in Environmental field and visited all kind of power plants in USA for testing emission and doing Environmental impact . Except natural gas power plants, each one has its own problem to environment.
Regarding the cost of coal, oil or uranium no one should be left in dark. What is cheap today is and can be more expensive tomorrow. USA is not a friend of India. They have exhibited this in 50 years of relationship
RE:here is what Kanchan gupta is BULL SHITTING you kids
by Sandeep on Jul 22, 2008 11:32 AM Permalink
Guest, Please stay cool and do not start abusing. It is understandable you are frustrated with people not understanding your view points but every effort should be made to bring it across in gentler manner.
1. You are correct, cost of Uranium is very low in overall production cycle since you don't need it in huge quantities.
2. 8% less is like having 2 hours of power cut everyday. So it is not that trivial. Additionally, I had pointed out before, the total is 20000MW targeted which is like 1/7th of current production. Also, MMS has said with this deal through, a lot of constraints will be removed and it could go upto 40000MW also. Even with the lower estimate, by 2050, 25% is expected to be Nuclear. So pretty major contributor.
RE:here is what Kanchan gupta is BULL SHITTING you kids
by lucifer on Jul 22, 2008 12:36 PM Permalink
Sundeep,
Calling someone dull doesn't necessarily constitute abuse. If she made a rational argument instead of flat out misrepresenting things, now that would have deserved a more restrained response.
Any way most people here seem to understand what is at stake so that is really cool.
