Finally, the nuclear deal will do little to promote India's energy security. To start with, nuclear power is a dubious route to security because it is fraught with grave problems of operational safety, proneness to accidents, routine radioactivity releases and exposure, and above all, high-level wastes that remain radioactive for centuries.
India's nuclear power plans have always been marked by utopian and constantly missed targets. For instance, India was projected to generate 43,500 megawatts of nuclear electricity by 2000. Today, India produces less than 1/10th of that amount in nuclear reactors. However, even if India's romantic plans fructify, the contribution of atomic energy to total electricity generation will rise by 2030 to 6 percent, from the current level of 3 percent. That can hardly be a source of energy security!
RE:That can hardly be a source of energy security!
by Sandeep on Aug 02, 2008 12:30 AM Permalink
Nuclear energy is a proven resource. France generates 75-80% of it's power from Nuclear. Japan is doing 40% or so. Even US has 15% share of Nuclear Energy.
One of the reasons this deal is good for India is that India has not been able to generate enough from Nuclear dues to variety of factors such as shortage of Uranium, Thorium not as successful etc. This deal will exactly allow India to overcome these obstacles. The numbers you quote are incorrect. It is slated to be 20,000 MW which will be 7-8% by 2020 and should rise to 25% by 2050. An note here, even 20,000 MW is lower number. It can go even upto 40,000 MW as per estimates some people gave. Remember, even 20,000 MW is enough to power about 7 states like Kerela with no power cuts. So it is not as small as you think. It will be 10-15% of current production.
RE:That can hardly be a source of energy security!
by Gopal on Aug 02, 2008 12:15 PM Permalink
Mr.Sandeep Again you write the same story. Please read the link I gave you. If you do not believe the news I shall give you more links.
RE:RE:That can hardly be a source of energy security!
by Gopal on Aug 02, 2008 12:22 PM Permalink
Mr. Sandeep Do you believe that 20000MW (Nuclear Power)can be commissioned in another 10-12 years? I suspect a ploy by special interests to install second hand plants (NUCLEAR WASTE)in Indian soil. Can you please give a time schedule of works involved? There is another angle. The engineers working in our nuclear plants and research organisations will be loured out to the new plants jeoparadizing our atomic energy programs.
RE:That can hardly be a source of energy security!
by Suraj Singh on Aug 02, 2008 01:42 AM Permalink
The Nuclear deal is not the panacea for our growing energy needs as even by 2030 it can gratify only 5% of our total energy needs. The government has done nothing to harness India"s abundant renewable energy sources. When Pranab Mukerjee indulges in the sophistry of pointing out the nuclear energy assets of France we are not told the almost 100 fold increase in infrastructure it would entail; he also fails to take into account the criticism of the deal by top scientists who warn the government whether we want this mythical extra "energy security " through this deal , paying almost thrice the unit capital cost of conventional power plants , with the additional burden of subjugating the freedom to pursue a foreign policy and indigenous nuclear R&D programme of our own. [11] The internal inconsistency of the government is highlighted by the fact that it aims to tackle the provisions of the draconian Hyde by framing a separate law. Doesn"t the PM, the congress and India"s vain intellegensia realize that just like American laws don"t apply to us, similarly India"s law cannot apply, forget counteract American laws. The fact of the matter remains the 123 agreement is bound by the Hyde act and only the American government can amend the agreement to make it immune to the provisions of the Hyde act. The BJP planned to pressurize the Americans into amending the 123 agreement suitably similar to their agreements with China and Japan, but the emasculated CIA appeasing UPA government has n
RE:That can hardly be a source of energy security!
by Sandeep on Aug 02, 2008 01:51 AM Permalink
Your 2030 figures are wrong. If it will be 7-8% by 2020 and 25% by 2050, it can not fall to 5% by 2030.
There is no other alternative now. Coal is cheaper but it has environmental costs and it will also go up now that India is talking about importing coal.
RE:That can hardly be a source of energy security!
by Suraj Singh on Aug 02, 2008 12:38 AM Permalink
There are no transparent figures for the costs involved in implementing the energy aspect of this deal. With the target being 40,000MW, estimates begin at Rs 300,000 crore. But in the popular obsession with oil, what has remained unreported is that the price of uranium has gone up four times than crude in the same period. There is a cartel of uranium suppliers appearing, and they are in a position to toss out all planning and costing.
The only fuels that have no such prices are renewables. Government figures show that without solar energy, India’s renewable energy potential is above 1,200,000 MW. Solar energy alone is available at 20 MW per sq/km. The future lies in tapping this resource. At today’s technology levels the costing would be less than a fourth of the nuclear deal.
The new economic theory believes that India can be energy secure by having an international agreement that is entirely import-driven. How imports can enhance India’s energy security is a theory that defies reason. So much for Gandhiji’s idea of ‘swadeshi’.
