Whosoever will give the uranium will give at his own terms whether US or Australia. Nobody in the Communists countries is having surplus raw material to offer. We are to decide whether we need N-bomb or energy for our fields and industry.In the present circumstances, the deal with US appears to be the only alternative.
RE:Uranium
by Tonmoy Phukan on Aug 16, 2007 05:06 PM Permalink
If we are to test a N-bomb again we are we aiming it for - who is India's enemy - Pakistan? China? or the US? India doesnot need a N-bomb to tackle Pakistan. China it is not their diplomacy to use nukes against India. US: India will never dare to fight against them. Instead of putting millions of money into testing a nuclear device - eradicate the poverty of million Indians. fight the in-fighting, the hatred between various communities. Improve the economy. Let there be a homogenous development withour concentrating investments in metros and mini metros. Flush out funds to smaller towns and villages. use nuclear energy for peaceful means - look how japan/ australia are doing it... emulate them.
RE:Uranium
by India Fan on Aug 16, 2007 05:10 PM Permalink
We are struggling with power subsidy, even with the cheapest gas based power stations. With the most expensive nuclear power, how will subsidize it? By the way nuclear power will cost you all more than Rs.10 per unit are you ready to pay or are your farmers willing to pay?
RE:Uranium
by India Fan on Aug 16, 2007 04:45 PM Permalink
There are many other alternatives, by the way there are abundant coal reserves, abundant sunshine for solar energy, abundant hydel power, the largest wind power generating capacity in Asia and more.
Nuclear Power is very costly and not economically viable, who will pay for expensive nuclear power? Especially when all of our power is subsidised. Another hike in power tarrifs and people will be on the streets.
Nuclear power unit cost is the highest, its dangerous to the environment and facing opposition for poor disposal of spent fuel and residues which can cause diseases like cancer, deformity.
RE:Uranium
by sushil sati on Aug 16, 2007 04:57 PM Permalink
Wow! u must be the national advisor, showing all those non-renewable energy reserves and possible use of renewable energy. But I am afraid ur data is extremely outdated. Please talk sense here, the energy needs are not going to be fulfilled by these outdate and outwitted energy generation approaches. One has to think new and bold. I support the new N-deal.
RE:Uranium
by crazy on Aug 16, 2007 04:58 PM Permalink
dude... Coal energy causes maximum pollution.. look at china... solar energy is not reliable, the technolgy is still costly and unable to generate huge amount of energy we need. Hydel and wind energy too is not feasible option.It will take 20000 wind mills to power a city like mumbai. where will you put 20000 wind mills? for next 10-15 yrs Nuclear is the only solution. Then we can move to other forms of energy.
RE:RE:Uranium
by India Fan on Aug 16, 2007 05:03 PM Permalink
You are really crazy, Germany has already set a target of 27% energy generation by solar energy by 2020 and they are ambitiously working towards it. That to despite, Germany is a rainy country with a cold weather.
Solar energy is cheaper, cleaner and contains no harmful byproducts like nuclear energy.
RE:Uranium
by sushil sati on Aug 16, 2007 05:14 PM Permalink
'India' you are collecting facts which are half-baked. Germany and many west countries are strictly relying on nuclear power-plants for their energy generation. Moroever there is very small population to support in Germany and major consumption is at the transport and industries. given your data on the solar energy plans of germany, it looks possible but only in 20 years from now. Do you know how are they tackling there energy requirements till then. It is important to carry on with the development at higher costs to really harness much cleaner energy resources. But it will require advancements in economy and tech. which will be limited, if not ceasing, with the current energy situation. All the western countries are therefore moving forward as much as they can by keeping the main agenda in sight, i.e., to improve the environment. And mind you when we say that we have to improve the environment it is one of the highest demanding frontier, both in terms of expenditures as well as advancement in science.
RE:RE:Uranium
by India Fan on Aug 16, 2007 05:22 PM Permalink
By the way MR, its France (not Germany which is heavily dependent on Nuclear energy), the report on German resolve for 27% solar energy is dead right. Majority, of western europe is dependent on Russian gas for electricity (so its mistake on your part again).
The unit cost of Nuclear energy is the highest, you will have to shell out more than Rs 10 per unit of power, when our power starved consumers get to here that amount they will start rioting on the streets.
RE:RE:Uranium
by arungopal agarwal on Aug 16, 2007 04:52 PM Permalink
I appreciate your comments, but nobody can compare the advantages of nuclear power with any other source of power.Ultimately, we will have to depend on it due to very large demand, population and countrys size.
RE:Uranium
by India Fan on Aug 16, 2007 05:01 PM Permalink
By the way the unit cost of Nuclear energy is highest, you will have to pay >Rs 10 per unit of electricity, can you or for that matter a poor farmer afford it?
Nuclear energy is extremely unsafe, dangerous to the environment, the government is sleeping over hydel projects, projects like Dabhol have been on the back burner.
Nuclear energy projects US companies who will make >$200 billion by selling equipments for the plant alone. Plus, you do not have a free market situation because practically the entire reserves are with Australia, so they will price it in a very high bracket and you can't negotiate (on the contrary they will set terms for you).
