As of today in the US hardly 10-15% of the nations power demand is met using nuclear fuel Don't you think US could have gone atleast 50% nuclear
But why is US insisting on developing nations to use nuclear power,following are the answers.
1) US has gained sufficient expertise in nuclear technology ,and see it as a new line of business to make money.No wonder it will be american companies who will build our reactors. (The Govt needs to have a clause of we build we maintain....who knows what the sardar has signed.)
2)Why hasen't US gone full nuclear,its because reactors are like ticking time bombs if they are not well looked after,and they have lot of problems with the nuclear waste (treating & dumping) it.
3) Rising oil prices will be under control if developing economies like India & China use nuclear energy.This will curb the power of the rebellious islamic nations.
Its not that US is generous and wants to help India.It does have a hidden agenda.
RE:sugar coated poison
by s b on Jul 12, 2008 03:35 AM Permalink
So what is wrong in having an agenda. You don't buy a car because the car manufacturer has an agenda? m0r0ns should learn 101 economics be4 spewing stupidity in these boards. To your specific points: 1. US is 3rd largest producer or oil and its import is only because of exhorbitant consumption. So, it is not like India which has almost zero production of crude oil. So we cannot have similar ratio of energy from oil as the US. For one US gets 25% its power from Coal and we get more than 65%. Why because we have coal and they do not..
2. Nuclear waste is insignificant compared to thermal waste - ash, pollution, green house, global warming.
3. Oil pricing impacts US but it impacts India even more. See the value of Re vs Dollar since the rise. Dollar has fallen globally, but Re decline has been sharper.
Your logic of we not using nuclear energy because it helps US is like you not controlling fire in your house hoping that your neightbors house will also catch fire. Typical commie! Gadhe hain sab.
Apne ghar mein tel hay hee nahi, let us be 3rd world country, but US should not be benefitted.
RE:RE:sugar coated poison
by Philo on Jul 12, 2008 04:52 AM Permalink
yeah.. i hope your kids live next to the nuclear plant and when there is a radiation leakage I hope they are maimed and you will die a painful death lookign at your kids who wont have eyes and then balls and then hair
RE:sugar coated poison
by Reporter on Jul 12, 2008 03:55 AM Permalink
2. Nuclear waste is insignificant compared to thermal waste - ash, pollution, green house, global warming
I dont agree with this point. Most of the people make such statements. But 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
RE:sugar coated poison
by ethnic cleanser on Jul 12, 2008 03:47 AM Permalink
reply to foul mouthed guys.....
1.Who says..nuclear waste is insignificant..I dont think you know science,It cannot be destroyed fully.Only way is to sit on it and get harmful radiation.
RE:sugar coated poison
by Raj Reddy on Jul 12, 2008 08:21 AM Permalink
And what do you think generating power using Coal will solve your problems?? What a Jackass you and that Reporter.
You pack them both along with the Nuclear waste and put it underground between 10 ft thick concrete walls laced with lead. There is no nuclear radiation, instead of spewing tons of CO2 and Sulphur into the atmosphere as these geniuses want.
RE:sugar coated poison
by huzefa hakimi on Jul 12, 2008 04:27 AM Permalink
Agree that USA is not generous as uncle Sam always see their profit first. But lets also evaluate what is our nations best interest also.
Following is bread down of electric power generation statistics using various energy resources from Energy Information Administration (Official Energy Statistics by US Government) per month as of July 10, 2008: - Coal 50.7% - Nuclear 19.7% (way above 10-15%) - Natural Gas 19.2% - Hydro Conventional 6.2% - Other Energy Sources 3.1% - Petroleum 1.2%
Of this, in last 50 years (from inception of Nuclear technology) a good chunk of the power production investment has been made to nuclear reactors via which currently USA is generating about 20% of energy from nuclear power plant. Most of the other power generation unit from other sources had been build based on thermal, hydro or petro energy sources were prior to nuclear technology.
Also it is in past 3 to 4 years hydrocarbon fuel prices have started sky rocketing, thanks to uncle Sam for this. Seeing this US Congress last year passed bill to build 8 more reactors for power production.
Below is list of countries currently building new nuclear power plants for power generation (source wikipedia): Brazil, Argentina, China, Russia, Ukraine, France, Iran and South Korea. Canada, Australia, Indonesia, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Turkey, and Libya are considering building new nuclear power plants (for some it will be first).
Regarding oil consumption, following are countries which consume oil in order
RE:sugar coated poison
by CatchTwentyTwo on Jul 12, 2008 05:22 AM Permalink
Thanks for those figures. One more very important thing to note is that the consumption of power is way above what India uses.
So, if you are saying 19% of it is nuclear, heck, with that 19% we could light up many many million homes over. So, there!
RE:sugar coated poison
by greatrr on Jul 12, 2008 03:41 AM Permalink
dude - japan is 99% nuclear power based, what india could do is to get out of US dependence for nuclear fuel. Calling generating nuke power as a dumb idea is actually dumb
RE:RE:sugar coated poison
by s b on Jul 12, 2008 03:44 AM Permalink
totally agree. Some of these duffers will read some article without context and start padoing here.
RE:sugar coated poison
by huzefa hakimi on Jul 12, 2008 04:28 AM Permalink
cont ...Regarding oil consumption, following are countries which consume oil in order (top ten): United States(20,730,000 bbl/day), China(6,534,000 bbl/day), Japan(5,578,000 bbl/day), Germany (2,650,000 bbl/day), Russia(500,000 bbl/day), India(2,450,000 bbl/day - sixth position), Canada(2,294,000 bbl/day), South Korea(2,149,000 bbl/day), Brazil(2,100,000 bbl/day), France(1,970,000 bbl/day). If you see all the top ten oil consuming are building new nuclear reactors.
So after knowing this does it make sense for India to go for nuclear technology? The biggest obstacle for India for nuclear energy generation is the nuclear fuel and so as to get that approval from NSG is important.
I will say India has taken a good move and in 10-15 years from now we will start seeing full benefits of treaty by when most of the nuclear power in India under this treaty will become operational again.
RE:sugar coated poison
by ravdeepak cheema on Jul 12, 2008 03:22 AM Permalink
US is not charity nation as u wrote. but India need energy and Nuclear energy is the best alternate.India recently consumes oil less than japan and at par with Korea.Matter of the fact is ,India need much more energy to retain the momentum of growth.so this deal is also in Indiaz favour
RE:sugar coated poison
by ethnic cleanser on Jul 12, 2008 03:29 AM Permalink
Yes,I do agree that we need it,and US is smart enough to dangle the carrot in front of us at the right moment.It totally depends on the leadership on how we negotiate the deal and tip the odds in India's favour.
My only fear is that we should not get excessively reliant on US technology and should inherently build it and maintain it.(We don't want the US Marines to guard our nuclear installations..)
RE:RE:sugar coated poison
by s b on Jul 12, 2008 03:43 AM Permalink
Ama gadhey, Don't we dangle the carrrot of cheap software to US? This is globalization, you buy things from geographies which are good in that area. Obviously national security needs to be taken care of. Thats why manufacturing in China, cars in Japan, IP in US etc. Now, India is one of 15 nuclear capable countries (if including civil nuclear tech). It has all the reasons to take leadership in this area. In fact India has made big strides in this, but has been stymied in some areas like centrifuges (in nukes) and cryogenics (in misslies). So signing this agreement will give us a channel at least in civic areas.
Please note that this agreement is MORE about fuel and less about technology. Please tell me where in agreement it is written that we HAVe to buy technology from US? In fact Australians are drooling at the idea of selling us technology, but they are waiting for this deal also.
Isiliye partner, do not talk without sufficient data. Pahle research fir bakbak
