Manmohan Singh blames US NGOs for anti-nuclear demonstrations

[janon]

You are clearly biased in your approach. You think you are the first person to report about the tidal research in Kerala? Sorry Buddy, it was posted on this forum a while back but not a lot of details the actual project itself. I was not aware of the Gujurat development though, if that makes you feel better. AGAIN NOBODY IS STATING GET RID OF NUCLEAR REACTORS TILL WE ESTABLISHED AN ALTERNATE, VIABLE SOURCE, GOT IT? Both technologies can be used to complement each other. By reducing the need of electricity and fossil fuels in some ways, it will allow for more energy to be used for bigger purposes. DO you know city buses in NYC are all hybrids? Im sure you are not aware of such tech and developments, thatsd why you keep on sticking to points that I have not argued about. I hate when folks ike yourself ramble about how you know this and that, but lack common sense. Anyone can read a book and gather what you dished out. YOu are confusing many points to a make your weak point, but its a point that I don;t have an issue with it. I know more nuclear reactors have to be built.

My primary concern was safety got it. The state of affairs could be a lot better. YOu never answered my question about the KI tablets? The answer to that question will the biggest cue of safety for the tamil ppl.


When China shows you how to do it, then what are going to say then. The Chinese have already stated to make their country 40-45% green .........here read up

China’s 12th Five Year Plan sets out the goals in striking detail. Green energy vehicles, environmental conservation, solar and wind power – all are to be developed, through both technology leverage and leapfrogging. It has been reported that the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) in its ‘new energy industry development’ road map foresees a situation where China would be generating 1600 GW of electric power by 2020, of which no less than 500 GW would be coming from renewable energies – 300 GW from hydro, 150 GW from wind, 30 GW from biomass and 20 GW from solar photovoltaic.
By contrast the UK generates around 110 GW in total, of which coal and gas account for 75%, and renewables for less than 10%. Wind power had reached 5.9 GW in cumulative capacity in the UK by 2010, on a par with France.
As China’s green strategies build on themselves, in cumulative S-shaped industrial dynamics, where success builds on success, no less than 30% of electric power generated by 2020 is expected by the country’s leaders to be coming from renewable sources. If nuclear is added to that (reaching probably 70-100 GW by 2020) then non-fossil sources would be generating 600 GW out of 1600 GW – building up an unstoppable industrial momentum (in terms of capital invested in technology, firms, standards, supply chains and markets). This in turn would be expected to translate into export potential, first of renewable energy components, then systems, and finally of technology itself. China is the one country in the world that is promoting both renewables and nuclear – like it or not.



China's Big Bet on Green Industry - And How it Might Green the World

Dude, I'll make it simple for you. You said the protestors are justified in stopping the nuclear plant, and you asked why tidal plants are not being built. On this thread, that can only be takn to mean that you want tidal instead of nuclear. Otherwise why bring in tidal plants at all? Later you began to say we need both, and not as alternative. As long as you agree that we need nuclear plants, that part of the justification for stopping the plant is gone.

Again, you talked about fukushima disaster and said a tsunami could occur, without knowing that our french reactors are two generations ahead of the ones used in japan, and our koodankulam reactor is one generation ahead, and both have been desigend to withstand earthquakes and tsunamis.

Just because China is investing in green energy does not mean they are not using nuclear power. They are using almost as much as we are, and plan to increase their production, just like us. In fact they are building new reactors a lot faster than we are, and plan to produce more nuclear power than we plan to. So if you want to take a lesson from what China is doing, be my guest. People who object to construction there may not even be able to express themselves on a forum like this, and very probably wont see another sunrise. In your own words, "When China shows you how to do it, then what are going to say then." So all those statistics about them planning green energy are not relevant, because you fail to notice the other side of what they are doing.

The point is simple. No matter how much you invest in green energy, there is no escaping the fact that we need nuclear power. And that the plants we are building now are safe. So there is no cause to oppose, and talking about green energy etc are bogeys.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

im well aware of how old the DAE. Can you without any bias show the reports on the safety on the Nuclear Reactors. A lot of it is still withheld from the public. So, where is this the Public oversight..

Atomic Energy Regulatory Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You think or feel the US is the best while I clearly don;t. They have made many mistakes also, and they can also learn a lot. But at least they are willing to admit mistakes and learn from it...instead of endlessly defending it to the point where they like like morons..

What makes you think that? Where did I say or suggest anything like that? Please explain.

In fact this whole post doesn't make sense, as I didn't say anything about the US or DAE so far.

 

[trinity]

Dude, I'll make it simple for you. You said the protestors are justified in stopping the nuclear plant, and you asked why tidal plants are not being built. On this thread, that can only be takn to mean that you want tidal instead of nuclear. Otherwise why bring in tidal plants at all? Later you began to say we need both, and not as alternative. As long as you agree that we need nuclear plants, that part of the justification for stopping the plant is gone.

Again, you talked about fukushima disaster and said a tsunami could occur, without knowing that our french reactors are two generations ahead of the ones used in japan, and our koodankulam reactor is one generation ahead, and both have been desigend to withstand earthquakes and tsunamis.

Just because China is investing in green energy does not mean they are not using nuclear power. They are using almost as much as we are, and plan to increase their production, just like us. In fact they are building new reactors a lot faster than we are, and plan to produce more nuclear power than we plan to. So if you want to take a lesson from what China is doing, be my guest. People who object to construction there may not even be able to express themselves on a forum like this, and very probably wont see another sunrise. In your own words, "When China shows you how to do it, then what are going to say then." So all those statistics about them planning green energy are not relevant, because you fail to notice the other side of what they are doing.

The point is simple. No matter how much you invest in green energy, there is no escaping the fact that we need nuclear power. And tahat the plants we are building now are safe. So there is no cause to oppose, and talking about green energy etc are bogeeymen.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------



What makes you think that? Where did I say or suggest anything like that? Please explain.

Dude let me make it more simple for you.....I understood the points I made. You don;t comprehend English properly because I stated the link above would you give you an idea on who to incorporate both green tech and Nuclear reactors. Yes, I have made that point abundantly clear and like you agree how India needs more energy for development, well goes to show how China will accomplish that by using a variety of sources to achieve that.

A poster noted solar and wind, and I pointed the use of "wave tech." I just gave a mere suggestion that more options should belooked at, not overlooked. Maybe, it should be utilized also. You said otherwise with once documented source. I said one project shold not be used to come to that conclusion. You said cost factor and I say this can be overcomed.

Here is a link:

Wave and Tidal Energy - Market Potential, Technology, Cost, Investments, Companies


Tidal Wave Energy

Read how the cons you mentioned are being solved...

Tidal power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You took the first post and are still sticking to that. I posted numerous posts to give a clear thought about what I really think. Now read all of it and tell me what does it say. This is what I always felt so get off the topic and stop rambling nonsense when you dont have a point. YOu complain of CHina doing it in their way where folks have no opinion, well the protesters are making their point clear lets see how India reacts. I can already see with the like of you.



i really think you like to read what you wrote and hear what you speak. You are taking bits and pieces and using that to justify a very simplistic arguement. I have told you many times, you need both. I have also told there are dangers with nuclear tech that need to be addessed. IS that not clear enough?


Only someone with your IQ could take my inference of Tidal tech as my sole alternative to Nuclear energy and on that note, Im done....I provided numerous links to justify my stand of using tech from any and every source.....
india is becoming dangerously polluted in the name of development but even our ancestors understood that development comes at a price.....do it right or don;t do it all.

Let readers come what conclusion they may...

 

[trinity]

Janon, maybe what you need is basic understanding of the differences between both tidal and wave technology

Here you go:

http://www.solar783.com/tidal.pdf



Understand again, we need both green tech and Nuclear reactors till green tech can do the job of nuclear reactors or till another source like fusion is viable. My only issue is the safety issue, which I have pointed out to you.....

So i backed my claims enough....provide some links for your opinions....as for the Gujurat Plant you mentioned...You were stating a fib when you stated largest in the world...South Asia is not the world....hahaha




You speak of the nuclear reactors being built in TN with French reactors? Aren;t the reactors Russian? Also, being advanced in what features specifically regarding safety or is just the tech, compters, buiding material,etc?


Here is a some debate on that issue, read up how the first thing mentioned is the relgion of the protestors which explains why NGO's were targetted in the first place. My, my , I thought Congress did not partake in communal stuff?

Anyhow, at the very end, read closely:
As of October 2011, More than 120 Catholic fishermen in living around the Koodankulam nuclear plant in the southern Tamil Nadu state, blocked highways and staged hunger strikes, preventing further construction work, and demanding its closure siting fear of the disasters like the Environmental impact of nuclear power, Radioactive waste, nuclear accident similar to the radiation leak in March at Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster.[17]
The protesters have clearly stated few specific reasons for opposing the Koodankulam NPP project.[18]
According to S P Udayakumar, of the voluntary People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy, "the nuclear plant is unsafe" and "the safety analysis report and the site evaluation study have not been made public. No public hearing was held. It's an authoritarian project that has been imposed on the people." Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalitha that "all precautions would be taken at the Koodankulam nuclear plant to maintain the highest safety standards".[19]
Gopal Gandhi, Grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, former West Bengal governor also said that "Indian Fukushima cannot be ruled out and government needs to convince people about safety aspects of the project" in a lecture on 'India 2021- Hazarding Guesses, Guessing Hazards' in New Delhi)[20]
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has also been filed against the government’s civil nuclear program at the apex Supreme Court. The PIL specifically asks for the "staying of all proposed nuclear power plants till satisfactory safety measures and cost-benefit analyses are completed by independent agencies".[21][22]
Renowned aeronautical scientist and former President of India A. P. J. Abdul Kalam after a personal visit to the plant said that Koodankulam Nuclear Plant is safe and the plant was essential for "power hungry" India.[23][24] However People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy leader Mr.Pushparayan recollected that Former Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission of India Dr Homi Sethna had suggested to A. P. J. Abdul Kalam in the past not to comment on nuclear engineering since he was a missile engineer.[25][26]
Regarding people's fears Former chairman of Atomic Energy Commission of India Srinivasan said that one should never compare the Fukushima plant with Kudankulam and added "The Fukushima plant was built on a beachfront, but the Kudankulam was constructed on a solid terrain and that too keeping all the safety aspects in mind. Also, we are not in a tsunami prone area. The plants in Kudankulam have a double contaminant system which can withstand high pressure. At least Rs 14,000 crore has been spent. If we don't operate the plant immediately, it will affect the economic stability of our country".[27]
A center panel constituted by the Government of India, which did a survey of the safety features in the plant, said the Koodankulam reactors are the safest and fears of the people are not based on scientific principles. Dr. Muthunayagam,panel's convener,also added that the protesters have asked for some documents which are not related to the safety of the reactor hence he suspects the very nature of their questions.[16]
In response to the center panel report, protesters wrote an open letter to the chief minister Jayalalithaa that the center panel's report is "ill-baked and incomplete eyewash report" and also said that the report has "ignored our question on liability, and has given no specific or scientific information on nuclear waste, and vague information on the fresh water needs of the KKNPP".[28]
[edit]See also


Wouldn;t it be wise to wait and read the report on the shortcomings in Japan. The reactor is built to withstand a quake of what magnitude.....5-6? Thats it? What if the Tsunami is bigger than expected and travels inland further.



So, next time you pass judgement on me, realize I may know a bit more than you

 

[janon]

Janon, maybe what you need is basic understanding of the differences between both tidal and wave technology

Here you go:

http://www.solar783.com/tidal.pdf



Understand again, we need both green tech and Nuclear reactors till green tech can do the job of nuclear reactors or till another source like fusion is viable. My only issue is the safety issue, which I have pointed out to you.....

So i backed my claims enough....provide some links for your opinions....as for the Gujurat Plant you mentioned...You were stating a fib when you stated largest in the world...South Asia is not the world....hahaha

I said one of the largest in the world. Not the largest. The propsed plant is of 200 MW, and the largest plant (in france) is 240 megawatts. I wasn't taking a fib, you just have difficulty reading...hahaha

Also..if your point is that we need both green and nuclear, you knwo nobody disputes that. Did anybody ever suggest green energy shuoldn';t be invested into? By bringing in the topic of green energy to support your original claim that a few people are justified in opposing the nuclear plant, you are only making it sound like you are proposing an alternative. Otherwise why mention it at all, what is the relevance of mentioning green energy in your response?

 

[trinity]

Haha....I do some difficulty reading

i brought it up becasue debate is important.....like you said one project and they came to one conclusion....I felt it was a good opportunity to plug that in. Nuclear energy is without a doubt the best option in terms of amoutn of enegy produced but it is one of the worst in terms of safety. There are issues that have to be rectified and clarified

 

[janon]

Dude let me make it more simple for you.....I understood the points I made. You don;t comprehend English properly because I stated the link above would you give you an idea on who to incorporate both green tech and Nuclear reactors. Yes, I have made that point abundantly clear and like you agree how India needs more energy for development, well goes to show how China will accomplish that by using a variety of sources to achieve that.

A poster noted solar and wind, and I pointed the use of "wave tech." I just gave a mere suggestion that more options should belooked at, not overlooked. Maybe, it should be utilized also. You said otherwise with once documented source. I said one project shold not be used to come to that conclusion. You said cost factor and I say this can be overcomed.
Here is a link:

Wave and Tidal Energy - Market Potential, Technology, Cost, Investments, Companies


Tidal Wave Energy

Read how the cons you mentioned are being solved...

Tidal power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You took the first post and are still sticking to that. I posted numerous posts to give a clear thought about what I really think. Now read all of it and tell me what does it say. This is what I always felt so get off the topic and stop rambling nonsense when you dont have a point. YOu complain of CHina doing it in their way where folks have no opinion, well the protesters are making their point clear lets see how India reacts. I can already see with the like of you.



i really think you like to read what you wrote and hear what you speak. You are taking bits and pieces and using that to justify a very simplistic arguement. I have told you many times, you need both. I have also told there are dangers with nuclear tech that need to be addessed. IS that not clear enough?


Only someone with your IQ could take my inference of Tidal tech as my sole alternative to Nuclear energy and on that note, Im done....I provided numerous links to justify my stand of using tech from any and every source.....
india is becoming dangerously polluted in the name of development but even our ancestors understood that development comes at a price.....do it right or don;t do it all.

Let readers come what conclusion they may...

Now you are saying India is dangerously polluted. You know what is one way to reduce that trend? BY replacing coal with nuclear power. Replacing all our energy needs by green is not possible, but replacing coal with nuclear is, and that will be the biggest possible step we can take. Because coal still accounts for more than 80 percent of our energy.

Also...what was the point of bringing in China's investment in green energy into the discussion, if you arent suggesting that as an alternative to nuclear? Otherwise what is the relevance here? Again, when I showed you China is investing a lot more in nuclear, you turned around and said you were just advocating for both. I didn;t complain of china doing it in any way - you brough China into the discussion, not me. And realised that you didn't think about what else china is doing.

To the bolded part - I said that one experiment was not used to come to any conclusion, and that development in the field continued to take place. It is a fantasy you created in your mind, that they made one try and then gave up. That's not what happened, as I explained several times. There was research done before and after that, in India and elsewhere, and is still being done. But nobody beleives it can produce a fraction of what nuclear power can. That was my point, not that they gave up because of one failed attempt. That's a fiction you conjured up. In the next sentence, you are putting words into my mouth. I didn't mention cost factor anywhere. You said that I said about cost factor and that you replied to it, but as far as I'm aware, that discussion only took place in your imagination.

 

[trinity]

You mentioned the tidal plant determined it was not cost effective to produce electricity But you fail to realize the plant was built in 1991 YOu do realize tech has changed right? When was the sudy concluded?

Yes I have always stated India is dangerously polluted. Yes I know thats why I advocate the use of both green and nuclear tech. The link on China was to show you how it could be done. You said green tech could not help. China and the Chinese prove my point, once again.

You mention why did I bring green tech into the topic well, like you stated Nuclear reactors are btter than coal right? So, nuke tech can be seen as a green tech but its not 100%safe.



The problem here is that you took the first post and built your entire arguement on that, while I built on that. The first post was in reply to another poster like I mentioned. You clearly are the one who is imagining a pointless debate when you still use only piece to make your false arguement. Read up carefully, i mentioned everything.


Secondly, I said wave tech not tidal but both can be used for all I care. So I guess you too are having difficulty reading lol

 

[janon]

You mentioned the tidal plant determined it was not cost effective to produce electricity But you fail to realize the plant was built in 1991 YOu do realize tech has changed right? When was the sudy concluded?

Yes I have always stated India is dangerously polluted. Yes I know thats why I advocate the use of both green and nuclear tech. The link on China was to show you how it could be done. You said green tech could not help. China and the Chinese prove my point, once again.

You mention why did I bring green tech into the topic well, like you stated Nuclear reactors are btter than coal right? So, nuke tech can be seen as a green tech but its not 100%safe.



The problem here is that you took the first post and built your entire arguement on that, while I built on that. The first post was in reply to another poster like I mentioned. You clearly are the one who is imagining a pointless debate when you still use only piece to make your false arguement. Read up carefully, i mentioned everything.


Secondly, I said wave tech not tidal but both can be used for all I care. So I guess you too are having difficulty reading lol

No, I did not say anything about the cost effectiveness of the plant. I said the plant only produced 150 kilowatts of power, whereas we need several gigawatts.

Also, it is not just me who was confusing wave and tidal. In all your subsequent posts, you too assumed we were talking about tidal, since you said you are aware of the TVM project. So from then on I was discussing tidal power. Even if it is about wave power, the same argument holds, that it cant in any way replace our need for nuclear.

China doesn't prove your point, it proves mine. China is building nuclear power plants, faster than us. The whole debate started when you said protesting the nuclear power plant was justified. It was under this context that you brought in green energy. If now you are saying we need both, then we are agreed that work at the koodankulam plant must go on, and new nuclear power plants have to be built. Do you agree? Yes or no?

 

[Hulk]

I am with MMS on this one, these NGO's are big chuttiyas and should be dealt with, they are obstruction for progress.

 

[trinity]

No, I did not say anything about the cost effectiveness of the plant. I said the plant only produced 150 kilowatts of power, whereas we need several gigawatts.

Also, it is not just me who was confusing wave and tidal. In all your subsequent posts, you too assumed we were talking about tidal, since you said you are aware of the TVM project. So from then on I was discussing tidal power. Even if it is about wave power, the same argument holds, that it cant in any way replace our need for nuclear.

China doesn't prove your point, it proves mine. China is building nuclear power plants, faster than us. The whole debate started when you said protesting the nuclear power plant was justified. It was under this context that you brought in green energy. If now you are saying we need both, then we are agreed that work at the koodankulam plant must go on, and new nuclear power plants have to be built. Do you agree? Yes or no?

No it proves my point, that China is building Nuclear and greent tech. The whole debate started when I stated that the safety concerns need ot be addressed. Yeah, you brought up TVM not me so don;t confuse me for your mistake. I clearly stated "Wave" and I didn;t assume anything. I spelt it out clearly. I pointed out that I am aware of the project when you tried to belittle me for not knowing about it which I pointed out I did. So, if you are going to pick a debate then read properly and don;t fib and don;t assume anything. You can refer to the post, its in ENGLISH. If you read the report CHina is going to use up renewable energy to supply 500 GW of 1500 GW of energy. My point still holds that we can suitablely replace some of the nuclear energy with green tech. You made up the arguement, so its your careless mistake that overlooked what I wrote.


Again you conveniently omit the facts. Whatever buddy, I win the arguement hands down. I proved my points while you still hold one point that has no relevance. You never addressed the safety issue.

Your post makes it seem like I just switched up now. That is FAR FAR from the truth. I made it a point in the first coule of posts. i wrote not more than 3 lines, yet you write a story and expect me to defend my point with 3 line while you write a book. If you read the post with the China link, it proves in detail what my point is. Then you are in agreement with me. The End.


I pointed out the building of nuclear tech should occur only when safety is completely taken into consideration. Got it?

Yet no answer or points about that right?
How about the issue of Tidal or Wave energy, whatevcer you want? You said TVM project right? I pointed out it was built and conceptaualized back in 1991, so you think tech 20 yrs old can compare today's technology? So, the data that was concluded from this project was ued to establish that nuclear energy was better. Great points (sarcasm)


Hope you realize why CHina runs lap around India with folks like yourself....

 

[trinity]

I am with MMS on this one, these NGO's are big chuttiyas and should be dealt with, they are obstruction for progress.

Easy to blame NGO's. Who are you going to blame when anti corruption measures are stalled in Parliament? NGO's seem to be the new boogeyman. Its pretty common theme to blame foreigners for india's problems.

 

[Sashan]

If NGOs are manipulating the people, kick them out - MMS would not blurt out something like this without solid evidence.

 

[Bang Galore]

Do you even know where the station is being built? Who says a natural disaster cannot happen again? A Tsunami has happened before and can happan again.

Tsunamis are not common in that area & earthquakes of the magnitude that happened in Japan are never heard of. If an earthquake of that magnitude hit TN, the nuclear plant is the last thing that anyone needs to be worried about. No building in India will survive that earthquake. There won't be many people living to worry themselves about the nuclear plant. The arguments against this plant that base it w.r.t what happened in Japan are pretty much stupid. India is not in a similar seismic zone as Japan & faces no similar threat. In any case what exactly did happen in Fukushima? Even with such an old plant the Japanese were able to contain it with almost no major fallout. In India, chemical factories could be far more dangerous than a nuclear plant. An earthquake could possibly destroy dams & kill millions living downstream. Does that mean that all dams must be scrapped so that people can start dying now without access to water?

The arguments against this plant are not based on facts. An NGO & a bunch of fishermen & women protesting does not make them experts on the matter. Yesterday I watched one of the guys from the NGO on TV & he was suggesting that this "nuclear plant" be converted into a thermal plant. Yeah, brilliant expert that!

 

[Abingdonboy]

After the incident in Japan, it doesn;t take a genius to realize that there are some serious safety concerns with such designs. Tamilians are pretty smart ppl, and they also know the Indian gov;t cannot also be trusted everytime in what they say or promise. I don;t think it should be stopped but much more research should be poured into it for safety. NGO's almost alwasy receive foreign funding and like others pointed out there can be nefarious purposes for the funding. Tamil Nadu already suffered from a Tsunami and its coastal areas were affected. Could be the reason for such "protests." Its easy to blame foreign this, foreign that but let's also analyze the situation from a balanced, and fair approach.


My biggest issue with these politicans in India is that they operate with very little checks and balances. Whatever happened to Anna Hazare? He made some pretty remarkable points about the state of corruption and why it goes unchecked in the gov;t level. Sonia Ji refuses to part with her income taxes which was filed by a Tamil RTI activist. Kickbacks, corruption and cronyism are very serious matters yet the gov't is bloody quiet about that. How come they cannot pass and implement some those laws at least

---------- Post added at 11:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 AM ----------





They don;t mind they care more about their lives and land than power? YOu cannot harvest food in a land contaminated by Nuclear waste. You forgot how folks used to live in India not too long ago?

I'm sorry but the Japanese diaster point is a non-starter only used by ignorant people (not you, in general). The Fikushima incident has been blown so out of proportion all around the world. This incident needs to be looked at and properly understood, the proximity of the plant to a active tectonic zone was a real concern which India does not need to have. What happened at Fukushima was tragic but a culmination of unique circumstances. Every single Nuclear power plant in India is more technologically advanced with more safety and back up systems than the Fukushima plant. Because of VERY strict rules by the Indian atomic agency all nuclear power plants are made with more back-up systems than the industry norm (including present at Fukushima) so a repeat of what happened at Fukushima- all back up generators failing leading to the stopping of water pumps is almost impossible in any Indian nuclear power plant. Additionally according to rules from the India atomic agency all nuclear power plants must also have passive cooling systems free from all electrical input, so if power did go down the reactor could still be cooled. All the measures would prevent an Indian Fukushima-FACT. Not to mention post Fukushima, MMS ordered a review of all nuclear power plants regarding a similar incident in India and all power plants were found to have easily passed the tests because they are all state of the art and more technologically advanced than Fukushima.


It is no exaggeration to say, because of the rules imposed by the Indian atomic agency, the Indian atomic energy sector is the most advanced and safe in the world, bar NONE.

 

[janon]

No it proves my point, that China is building Nuclear and greent tech with an almost 50-50 ratio. The whole debate started when I stated that the safety concerns need ot be addressed. Yeah, you brought up TVM not me so don;t confuse me for your mistake. I clearly stated "Wave" and I didn;t assume anything. I spelt it out clearly. I pointed out that I am aware of the project when you tried to belittle me for not knowing about it which I pointed out I did. So, if you are going to pick a debate then read properly and don;t fib and don;t assume anything. You can refer to the post, its in ENGLISH. If you read the report CHina is going to use the green tech to supply >1500 G of energy. My point still holds that we can suitablely replace some of the nuclear energy with green tech. You made up the arguement, so its your careless mistake that overlooked what I wrote.


Again you conveniently omit the facts. Whatever buddy, I win the arguement hands down. I proved my points while you still hold one point that has no relevance. You never addressed the safety issue.

Your post makes it seem like I just switched up now. That is FAR FAR from the truth. I made it a point in the first coule of posts. i wrote not more than 3 lines, yet you write a story and expect me to defend my point with 3 line while you write a book. If you read the post with the China link, it proves in detail what my point is. Then you are in agreement with me. The End.


I pointed out the building of nuclear tech should occur only when safety is completely taken into consideration. Got it?

Yet no answer or points about that right?
How about the issue of Tidal or Wave energy, whatevcer you want? You said TVM project right? I pointed out it was built and conceptaualized back in 1991, so you think tech 20 yrs old can compare today's technology? So, the data that was concluded from this project was ued to establish that nuclear energy was better. Great points (sarcasm)


Hope you realize why CHina runs lap around India with folks like yourself....

Answer for green in green.

Dude I don't know how many times I can repeat this. I really think you are pretending to be blind now. I told you I never made the point that the data from TVM power plant was used to conclude in favour of nuclear power. WHen you made that point, I told you it was a simplistic misunderstanding on your part, and not the reality. And you still continue to accuse me of saying that, in your supposedly sarcastic sentence. I cannot keep repeating this. For the last time. Data from that plant was NOT used to favour nuclear power. The only point I made by bringing that was to say it can only produce 150 kilowatts, and not gigawatts of energy. The rest is - and I'm telling you for the fifth and last time - your own misunderstanding of the point.


Also - you keep saying that it was built in 1991, and accuse me of foolishness for thinking that the samw will apply today. Can you tell me what has changed between 1991 and 2012, that changes things now? What new developments have come in that field now to make it orders of magnitude more productive?

I answered your point about safety several times. You are going on asking. I told you these reactors are a generation ahead on safety issues from the ones in fukushima. If you want to know, here is why. First of all, do you know what caused the safety concerns at Fukushima? Because the flooding wiped out the power supply for cooling the reactor core. The design at koodankulam has FOUR REDUNDANT AND INDEPENDENT emergency cooling systems, for such an eventuality. Unless four tusnamis from four different sides wipe them all out, power will not be lost.

This newspaper report gives you the number of institutions that have inspected the reactors and declared them to be safe. These include the atomic energy commission of India, the International atomic energy agency (IAEA), the Bhaba atomic reseach center (BARC), and IITs.

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article2612339.ece

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article2475443.ece

http://www.siasat.com/english/news/kudankulam-plant-very-well-protected-aerb

In addition, here is APJ Abdul Kalam saying it too:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...safe-APJ-Abdul-Kalam/articleshow/10737594.cms



And again you are accusing me of fibbing. I'm sure you remember that I did not fib, you had misread the sentence. I said "one of the largest" and you thought I said "largest". You admitted it yourself then. It shows a certain fundamental dishonesty that after a few posts you again say I fibbed, because it may go unnoticed. Underhanded tricks.

You said that you "read in a report" that China is going to make 1500 GW of green energy. Could you please tell us which "report" that was? Because the reality is that they are aiming for something like one by thousandth of that. Maybe you might want to stop exaggerating by a factor of thousand to prove a wild claim.

So here is the long and short of it. You brought up two points only as far as I can see. One, safety. I have explained several times, including in this post. Two, you brought up green energy. As I said several times, green energy can never produce anywhere near what we want. So both these points don't hold water, and I don't think you have made any other arguments.

It is kind of sad that you have to self declare yourself as the "winner". Usually participants let the viewers judge that for themselves. In this case, the readers can see who is making cogent arguments, and when you have to tell everyone that you won, it kind of sets one thinking, doesn't it? On the internet, this is called Danth's law or Parker's law. It says that:

If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Danth's_Law
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...s-and-laws-the-top-10-from-Godwin-to-Poe.html
(See number 6).