If electricity shortage is the primary concern of the day for the government, why hasn't Manmohan Singh uttered the word "conservation" in the last four years ? If the country is facing shortage of power then shouldn't we limit or ban air-conditioners and other unnecesary power guzzling appliances in private homes and also offices, or take care of the distribution losses. Even in the US conservation is a big part of the discourse regarding power shortages (from what I read in their newspapers).
Manmohan Singh is being dishonest -- the nuclear deal has ulterior motives -- the issue about power generation is there only to make it palatable to the general public, who otherwise would find this strategic subservience to the US a bitter pill to swallow.
RE:The deal is NOT about electricity.
by Gopal on Aug 07, 2008 04:05 AM Permalink
It started with the signing of black day declaration. Aim to get Uranium from market Canada and Australia holds 50% of world uranium deposit. Reported that at the present rate of use world deposit will last till 2070. Initially GoI was projecting to increase capacity by 6000MW. Later it is enhanced to 20000MW by 2020 presumably to make it appealing By conventional methods commissioning such large capacity addition in 12 years is impossible. The cost of Uranium will be dictated by Australia and Canada by 2020 as the plant is running.
The decommissioning cost is very high. Google “Group chosen for Sellafield job” Briton and Nevada “Report: Nuclear waste disposal will cost US $96B” By International standard the nuclear waste is to be kept safe for ten thousand years. Waste include all materials used at the site including switch gears and other plants and used fuel rods. Contract at Sellafield awarded to a consortium. Cost -1.7 Billion sterling pounds a year for ten years. Nevada site is for used rods alone which cost $96 Billions at the present cost. Inflation additional. Disposal of other materials is additional. Cost yet to be decided. Compare cost of coal and gas fuels. It was in the news that oil price hike was artificially created. Other problems: Radiation hazards and terrorism Reckless terms of project have been negotiated.
Why should we surrender our freedom and sovereignty for this deal? Stand for the debt trap?
RE:The deal is NOT about electricity.
by Rehaan on Aug 06, 2008 05:28 PM Permalink
Jagdishji Bose.
Its all about power. 1. Diplomatic-power: India will join the coveted few of the N-club in a specially new created category. India gains substantially in getting rid of the ban. 2. Nuclear-energy: The power would be the by-product. Today just 2% contribution. Just imagine if this becomes 15%, will it improve upon or not India's power shortage. 3. Political power: India gains politically as after this only Pak and Israel remain out of N-business. In fact only Pak. No other govt dare support Pakistan like India is getting the support from the world. 4. Economic power: If we are getting access to n-technology, then you have to pay. Besides tech, India would be able use its own Uranium production for military purposes and use all imported for power generation. Hawks say that N-power is expensive. My dear friends, fossil fuels have doubled in last couple of years from 80$ to 140$. Does India have the might to capture a few gulf countries and secure its energy needs? Absolutely not. Lets be fair anf just.
India is a growing and we have to learn to behave like responsible citizen.
The deal is good and it helps India in its immediate needs and have a long term strategic gains.
