the urgent need for treaty is that of supply of uranium.india have technology.BUT according to HT india is sitting on uranium resereve that can last for 40 yrs for the need of whole country power needs .why the UPA is hiding this fact .what is the urgency and hurry there is something very fishy.
RE:uranium
by surath mukherjee on Jul 03, 2008 11:06 PM Permalink
RE:Nuclear Fallacies? = Part 1 by All Right on Jul 03, 2008 11:01 PM Permalink
We concerned with energy security. A good energy security strategy depend upon a diversified basket of options - coal, wind, solar, gas, petroleum, nuclear, bio-fuels etc.
So just as it is necessary to widen our options through the Iran pipeline, we need to expand our nuclear power generation capacity. So India is pursing a multi-strategy policy. Even after factoring the deal, in 2020 nuclear power is expected to command only 6% of our total power generation capacity.
The world has changed. We may not like Bush, but he is remitting office by January. We collaborate with the US where ever it is possible. What is wrong in that. We still did not take Bush's bait to send our army to Iraq. Why should we do that? If US expects us to range war with Iran, why should be cooperate with them?
Why shouldn't we cooperate with them in things like civil nuclear energy? We need power to sustain our high growth potential. How much longer should we bear with power shortages? Now we are being conditioned to accept petrol rationing as well
RE:uranium
by sublimestuff on Jul 03, 2008 11:29 PM Permalink
Because this is politics. It is meant to deceive people like you and me. Instead of fishing around for points to argue, just hope our country gets the energy it needs.
