What's new

Indian government does not want me : Japanese activist.

Notice that every developed nation has greater than 10% Nuclear share of electricity production

Nuclear power by country

it is easy fpor countries like Japan, Germany etc. to reduce their dependence on nuclear energy.

Simply because their have a tiny population as compared to the giants like India, China.

We are different from them in terms of our needs and hence their solutions cannot apply to our problems.

If they can do it there in kerala why not in tamil nadu ?! We have more resources, bigger infrastructure and a huge workforce.

Man, you're really making me work hard on a Sunday morning, you know. Please apply your mind also.

Ok let's suppose you embark on a grand project to fit solar power panels on every home, school, college, hospital, industry etc. that is practically every building in India visited by humans.

Now

Calculate how many solar panels etc would you require in total?

Now

Calculate the cost of financing the factories to build these solar panels.

Now

Calculate the nos. of factories you will require to reach that production level, and mind you, these factories themselves will be powered by solar panels (as an extrapolation of your 'logic').

Now

tell me if what you are saying really works out to be anything other than being fantastic?
 
Green tech.

Green Tech....

This is the problem with people who just learn few key words and keep saying that.Do those who suggest "green tech" (whatever that means) have any idea about the feasibility, capital cost, long term running cost, the raw material availability and the efficiency of such modes ? If they do, then they will not say Green Tech will/can replace nuclear power, atleast in a country as large as India.

Why Nuclear Power - Comparisons of Various Energy Sources
 
Green Tech....

This is the problem with people who just learn few key words and keep saying that.Do those who suggest "green tech" (whatever that means) have any idea about the feasibility, capital cost, long term running cost, the raw material availability and the efficiency of such modes ? If they do, then they will not say Green Tech will/can replace nuclear power, atleast in a country as large as India.

Why Nuclear Power - Comparisons of Various Energy Sources

You know that's what I find really funny.

People talk about things they have not an iota of idea about.

They think bhagwan jee will present himself from the sky and gift them with solar panels. :laugh:
 
no enery can replace nuclear power, its the future. learn it or die off hunger in a protest.
 
10 MW from 10,000 solar panels which will also not be available year around due to monsoons.

Nice intiative.

Solar energy can complement other forms of power...can't replace it.

There is a difference, rather huge one, between complement and replacement.

As a Malayalee I agree with you 100%. Solar, Wind etc can only complement, not replace the conventional forms of energy production. In Kerala we are not going to shut down our dams for the sake of solar. As for the Japanese protestor is concerned she should first convince her Govt to shut down all the n-power plants in Japan (which is about 50+) before teaching India.
 
A foreigner have no right to protest in alien country, we Should deport her back to the country where she came from. Even West/Middle East do the same thing.
 
You know that's what I find really funny.

People talk about things they have not an iota of idea about.

They think bhagwan jee will present himself from the sky and gift them with solar panels. :laugh:

It's actually a mistake to think that nuclear energy is the type of energy green tech is aimed to replace, because the biggest energy producers are not nuclear power plants, but coal or gas power plants. Nuclear power in most countries has only a small part, the advantage is it is cheaper (often subsidised) and can offer constant engergy, which is important for growing countries like India and China. However, it is wrong to think that they are the only solution and Japan shows us how costly a single disaster can be, be it in terms of money, in terms of not useable land, major hits for the industry but mainly the loss of human life currently and in the long term!

India has to invest in green energy, to replace coal and other energy source that are limited and makes us dependent on other countries. Solar, wind and water powerplants can easily be build and effectively used in India, the problem will be to build the necessary pathways, because they are different from those available now, but the earlier to start, the less has to be replaced later.
Also, nuclear energy is only cheaper in the short term! The long term costs including the costs to handle the nuclear waste, for that no country in the world has a solution are much higher. Also Japanese powerplants has some of the highest security standards in the world and still couldn't handle the problems last year and it's not that it didn't happened in other countries as well. In the US and Sweden there were major issues in power plants and they were close to a disaster as well, so if these modern countries have trouble handling these technology and has no solution for the waste, India should think 2 or even 3 times on how secure this tech is and how to push alternatives for the mid and long term as well!

Germany stopped the nuclear powerplants one year ago and although many people said it is not possible will need years till the nuclear energy can be replaced and will increase the costs dramatically, the facts are different. Within a year the ammount of green energy was increased from 14% to 40% and they highly invest in new green tech solutions. India should take this as a chance and invest in these fields as well and limit the nuclear power plants to a minimum that is required to keep the growth.
 
You know that's what I find really funny.

People talk about things they have not an iota of idea about.

They think bhagwan jee will present himself from the sky and gift them with solar panels. :laugh:




Listen I can revive a previous thread that shows you what you and others are stating is not completely true. Look at China. They are opening more nuclear plants to meet their energy demands but they are also pushing to incorporate 40% from green energy.

It's actually a mistake to think that nuclear energy is the type of energy green tech is aimed to replace, because the biggest energy producers are not nuclear power plants, but coal or gas power plants. Nuclear power in most countries has only a small part, the advantage is it is cheaper (often subsidised) and can offer constant engergy, which is important for growing countries like India and China. However, it is wrong to think that they are the only solution and Japan shows us how costly a single disaster can be, be it in terms of money, in terms of not useable land, major hits for the industry but mainly the loss of human life currently and in the long term!

India has to invest in green energy, to replace coal and other energy source that are limited and makes us dependent on other countries. Solar, wind and water powerplants can easily be build and effectively used in India, the problem will be to build the necessary pathways, because they are different from those available now, but the earlier to start, the less has to be replaced later.
Also, nuclear energy is only cheaper in the short term! The long term costs including the costs to handle the nuclear waste, for that no country in the world has a solution are much higher. Also Japanese powerplants has some of the highest security standards in the world and still couldn't handle the problems last year and it's not that it didn't happened in other countries as well. In the US and Sweden there were major issues in power plants and they were close to a disaster as well, so if these modern countries have trouble handling these technology and has no solution for the waste, India should think 2 or even 3 times on how secure this tech is and how to push alternatives for the mid and long term as well!

Germany stopped the nuclear powerplants one year ago and although many people said it is not possible will need years till the nuclear energy can be replaced and will increase the costs dramatically, the facts are different. Within a year the ammount of green energy was increased from 14% to 40% and they highly invest in new green tech solutions. India should take this as a chance and invest in these fields as well and limit the nuclear power plants to a minimum that is required to keep the growth.



Well said. This is the reality that you pointed out. Its sad to see many folks have no clue no idea what they are talking about. At least this is a forum where folks can learn. But in a previous thread, the hostility I faced was tremendous from many close minded individuals....some folks who think a dam can last a 1000 bloody years.

10 MW from 10,000 solar panels which will also not be available year around due to monsoons.

Nice intiative.

Solar energy can complement other forms of power...can't replace it.

There is a difference, rather huge one, between complement and replacement.



No one can replace Nuclear energy as of now. But we can definitely complement. There are more sources of energy than just solar my friend. We should tap any and everything as the tech improves

What makes you think it isn't already happening?


...and I think you meant 'with more precautions...' there.



Good for you.





I have shown how the INdian govt was hiding information. You cannot improve safety if you do admit anything is wrong.
 
No one can replace Nuclear energy as of now. But we can definitely complement. There are more sources of energy than just solar my friend. We should tap any and everything as the tech improves

So why the protest against Kudankulam if you understand "no one can replace Nuclear energy" ?

And it is not "as of now"...Unless we reach the West European standards of living we can think about anything other than nuclear energy for large scale generation.

Here and there, some renewable sources can be installed...but that will be just "here and there".
 
So why the protest against Kudankulam if you understand "no one can replace Nuclear energy" ?

And it is not "as of now"...Unless we reach the West European standards of living we can think about anything other than nuclear energy for large scale generation.

Here and there, some renewable sources can be installed...but that will be just "here and there".

So just like the most parts of the world ignored the risks of nuclear energy or the nuclear waste till Tschernobyl or Fukushima happend, we should close our eyes and ears as well, just because we want a good living standard? The point is, although we need this type of energy now, we should look further and plan for just a minimum of nuclear power, while we already should start to build up alternatives.
India in comparison to Germany has actually a big advantage now! In Germany they have to completely re-build the power supply lines to make them work with green energy, while in India in many places still not even normal power supply lines are available, which means we can already start to do it right, instead of doing it all again later. Lets not make the same mistakes they did and take the chances now to make it better!
 
Most of the people are not even aware of what went wrong at Fukushima Daiichi ?
Nuclear power plants are the best alternate to Coal fired plants we have.Why is the government wasting our tax money by not commissioning the first reactor
smiley-angry009.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom