France gets about 80% if its Electricity from Nuclear energy. It is the largest net exporter of Electricity in the world, inspite of being one of the largest industrialized nations.
Nuclear power has its pluses and Minuses. But, the pluses seem to outweigh the minus at present.
Currently 16% of world electricity is Nuclear energy. The reason it is not higher was because Oil was at $20/barrel and Nuclear energy was considered expensive. In future, considering the ecological cost of Hydrocarbons, Nuclear, Solar and wind energy will constitute close to 100% of energy production of the world (within 50-70 years).
Irrigation, for example, needs massive electricity, without which our grain production will suffer (Can't feed estimated 2billion with sand on sea!)
Our best bet to alleviate poverty and reduce depravity, is faster growth. And growth needs energy.
So, what Rajeev says doesn't make whole lot of sense. As a transitory measure at the least, we need to have access to Nuclear energy, or loose out on growth. while it may be acceptable to Rajeev, it won't be acceptable to millions of Indians below poverty line.
May be 50-70 years down the line when Wind/solar energy is efficient enough to sustain humanity, we can let go dangerous Nuclear energy. But, that's two generations away.
