It is very much regretful that a senior scientist from ICTP is saying like this. Infact it is the nuclear energy which must be utilized for energy as it has least environmental pollution and helps in preventing global warming. All other sources of energy are either pollutogenic or are impractical. The best among these would be water dam energy but it has to rain effectively to get this energy. Nuclear energy on the other hand has no pollution and is plentiful. The only trouble with this is that it needs total control. When all the European countries and USA can have it why not us? When we burn fire in our kitchen aren't we careful not to burn ourselves. Similarly Nuclear energy demands some precautions and we are fully equipped to meet this demand. Moreover it also generates other byproducts or isotopes which are useful for medical and industrial requirements. The debate whether we need help from USA or not may be questioned instead of rejecting Nuclear energy.
RE:Atomic Energy
by nostraddamus on Jan 05, 2008 08:49 PM Permalink
hi kamalkash.. u seem to advocate use of hydro electricity to fight global warming.. well you should know one thing that i read only a few days back .. it is that dams lead to methane emissions which contribute to global warming worse than co2.it is a very lesser known fact..u should google it..
RE:Atomic Energy
by Kamalaksh on Jan 05, 2008 09:08 PM Permalink
Hi. I am not advocating hydro electricity projects. My view point is we must use nuclear energy till we get another energy source which is better and safer than this. To meet the energy demands right now there is no other choice. Thank you for enlightening me on methane emissions from the dams. This confirms my opinion on the benefits of nuclear energy. Good luck!
RE:RE:Atomic Energy
by ASHOK on Jan 05, 2008 09:12 PM Permalink
Kamalakash >> Having said about Hydroelectricity I would like to confirm , that I fully agree and endorse your line of thought
RE:RE:Atomic Energy
by ASHOK on Jan 05, 2008 09:09 PM Permalink
nostradamus >> Thats right.
Vegitation submerged during Dam formation and water accumulation leads to Decay which causes Methane formation and Metahne contribution to Green House effect is far worse than CO2 emmission. Once BBC printed a full article on this.
Hydroelectricity is not a consistent source as BASE LOAD. Electricity supply varies depending upon Rain pattern.
A certain % of Nuclear energy is boon especially down south of India.
Look at narmmada project of Gujrat , it is huge project and electricity generated at proper narmada Dam will be just 1500 MW.
Today it is easy to see 1 Nuke reactor generating 1000 MW.
These people like "SRINIVASAN" have very little overall understanding and they talk in isolation. But it is misleading the masses.
Let him come to a debate , he will be stripped in no time.
RE:Atomic Energy
by raw brandy on Jan 06, 2008 12:17 AM Permalink
Alternate energy sources are the only safe future. You will not realise this until the half the coastal towns are under water.
RE:Atomic Energy
by C J Rackham on Jan 06, 2008 12:39 AM Permalink
I think the article is incomplete. Either Srinivasan was dumb to give such an incomplete answer or Rediff has plucked out a part of the conversation and applied that as a news.
RE:Atomic Energy
by Kamalaksh on Jan 06, 2008 03:31 PM Permalink
Hope so. Otherwise it has come to me as a rude shock to know a senior science faculty talking such crap. This would be a great insult to us. Once there was a scientific committee composed of scientists in agriculture, who visited a certain village to understand the problems affecting ground nuts. To the utter disappointment of the villagers these scientific faculty did not know where would the ground nut be on a ground nut plant.
