Nuclear waste is DEADLY WASTE, more serious than CO2 and other emissions.
If a disaster occur in a normal power plant, we can do something to make the locality habitable.
But a nuclear disaster can make that area uninhabitable until the radio active nuclear waste is inactive and it can take may be hundreds of years.
Take the exmple of Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. The city is still mostly uninhabited due to radioactivity.
In order to meet the rising demand for energy, invite private companies to build power plants based on conventional fuels and new renewable sources ....
If well designed power plants in the capacity of reliance refinery in jamnagar comes up in south north east and west of India, we can solve the demand, may be in 5 years time . Anybody there to bet ???
If u go for nuclear plants, it is 100000 % sure that private parties will not be involved, investemnt to be made by the govt. Where is the money for it ??? ( They cant even subsidise oil or fertilizers ) So it will be on loan from world bank or IMF ...... how many years for construction and commissioning ??? Safe storage of nuclear waste generated ( high level and low level wastes) and finally disposal of the same safely for hundreds of years
So which option is better ???
If a desalination plant is also set up with power plants, it can meet the water requirements of millions with a little additional cost ....
RE:Nuclear or conventional power plants ???
by CatchTwentyTwo on Jul 12, 2008 05:16 AM Permalink
That is why you need the support of powerful nuclear powers like the US, Russia, France, UK and Germany...
That is why the deal is important.
That we can, with their help, learn to avoid mistakes like Chernobyl and 3-Mile. Lets think about it that way as well...
Perhaps you still disagree... and that is fine... thanks for bringing up some good points.
