India will get some Uranium from USA or other countries. USA will make huge money from this sale to India. Hoping people in Indian villages will allow nuclear power stations to be built in their backyard (after long agitations like Nandigram), India will build nuclear power stations at huge cost after killing many agitating Indians. Now comes some excuse and US slaps sanctions on India!!! No flow of Uranium to India and all the money we spent for the power stations is wasted. Anyone who remembers what was happening to fuel supply for Tarapore plant from USA in 1960s would know their track record. Anyone who does a risk analysis of this deal will not advise to go ahead. The risk of accident (similar to atom bomb explosion) also very high with this technology. On top of all this, it can only produce electricity which cannot be used as fuel in cars and buses - and the price of this electricity will be more expensive than all other means of electricity production, one KWh (unit) may cost Rs 10 my friend.
RE:The economics of nuclear deal
by vsn on Jul 09, 2008 10:00 PM Permalink
GET YOUR IDEAS CORRECT before commenting. the initial cost of investment is high. but we have already spent money on that- the main problem is lack of fuel. not that we have adequate numbers of reactors- we need more, but the amount of energy the nuclear fuel can make is unlimited. once it starts, the cost of electricity is going to be much more cheaper (production cost and maintainance cost) than any other form of energy. You have to be in north america to see it and beleive it. one 50 floor building has all its lights on 24 hours 7 days a week (all holidays and weekends) even when there is no single person in that building. Every system is electronic- which is not posible without electricity. if there is a power failure in a small area- its a national news. this is only possible with nuclear, no other form of energy can provide this. one city with less than 10 lakh population in north america, consumes more electricity than an average state with 5 crore population. and about blasts- those occured 25 yrs ago-not with the available technology. Do you think the US and other organizations are carzy to give us fuel if we dont have the tech? or did you here of any blasts in the nuclear reactors in the last 10 yrs any where in the world?? DONT WRITE STUPID COMMENTS
RE:The economics of nuclear deal
by All Right on Jul 09, 2008 09:49 PM Permalink
Some Reactions:
1. Yes there is risk of nuclear accidents. So far for the last 60 years, there had been only 1 major accident though more minor ones. The purpose of risk analysis is exactly to eliminate or minimize risks. So we have 60 years of reactor working as a dataset, which lends itself in good stead.
2. It is puerile argument hat nuclear power cannot be used in transportation, whether road or rail. Our railway system is electrified. We are fast moving to an era of road transport that increasingly use electricity. Further, nuclear power will set free petrol,diesel and gas to be used for cars and buses without starving our industrial need for power. 3. As for your allegation that the deal benefits US business, there appeared a Washington Post editorial that says that once we receive NSG clearance we not need USA. This is because we can freely trade in the world market. Secondly, it does not mean that trade is one way. We can also emerge as a significant nuclear exporter. Our fast breeder reactors are cutting edge, several generations ahead of the US. We have the largest reserve of Thorium in the world. Once our fast breeders come on stream, we can sell plants - thorium and uranium (processed from thorium) in the world. 4. About pricing, even assuming your estimates of Rs 10 is correct, it may not be expensive since all commodoties whether coal, petrol, gas etc are escalating
RE:RE:The economics of nuclear deal
by Hate Who divides on Jul 09, 2008 10:01 PM Permalink
well said .........if we get NSG clearance there is no need to deal with US we have more freindly supplier like russia , Australia and canada .............well future is of electric vehicle ......we can have power station to charge battery of vehicle instead of putting petrol .....regarding cost something we have to compromise
RE:The economics of nuclear deal
by Nitin Karwa on Jul 09, 2008 09:43 PM Permalink
Dear scientist Joy, what you said is all rubbish. Nuclear reactors are as safe as any other power plant. Except Chernobyl no nuclear plant accident had been reported. Secondly nuclear plant have long pay back periods, but the cost of electricity is less because the running cost is less. Thirdly, we can use electric cars/buses or fuel-cell cars/buses with hydrogen as fuel. Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis (cheap electricity from nuclear plants would be used).
RE:The economics of nuclear deal
by Hate Who divides on Jul 09, 2008 09:55 PM Permalink
During Tsunami Kalpakam reactor was not Tsunami proof .......by luck its got shutdown due to earthquake proof [roperty other wise it would have second chernobyl
RE:The economics of nuclear deal
by Joy Abraham on Jul 09, 2008 09:48 PM Permalink
IF THEY ARE SAFE WHY MOST OF THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES ARE NOT BUILDING THEM? Even people with medium knowledge in these subjects will not say it is safe. You may be the only person who says cost of electricity from nuclear plant will be lower that other sources of electricity. Please dont believe that all readers are fools and you can misguide them. You talk about fuel cell and hydrogen fuel. Can you buy one of them in India or anywhere in the world. There are so many dreams like that which will not lead us anywhere now.
RE:RE:The economics of nuclear deal
by vsn on Jul 09, 2008 10:03 PM Permalink
Joy nitin is absolutely right, the runnig cost of these reactors are very low and the energy is cheap, compared to any from of energy. the worlds most developed countries do use nuclear energy (US and Canada, 80 and 75% resp) energy is nuclear
