Is it wise for present Govt to make a costly nuclear deal, instead of investing in wind and solar energy?

Question

What I feel is it is very costly for a poor country like India to spend thousands of crores in US wanted nuclear deal. It would be better if the same is invested in safe and perennial resources tapping, like wind, solar and hydro energies.

Answer 1

You are absolutely right. Nuclear is never profitable (the only reason they want to build more plants is enormous state subsidies). It also never managed to provide a share of electricity big enough to really contribute to the carbon-free energy system (the only exception in the world is France).

It's also pointless to counter climate change by building more nuclear plants. The Oxford Research Group, a British
nongovernmental organization, disputes the popular perception that nuclear power is a clean energy source. It argues that while nuclear plants may not generate carbon dioxide while they operate, the other steps necessary to produce nuclear power, including the mining of uranium and the storing of waste, result in substantial amounts of carbon dioxide pollution.

And, of course, the problems associated with nuclear weapon proliferation, terrorism, and the nuclear waste which will stay radioactive for thousands years, still without having a solution for permanent storage (as of today) all make nuclear highly unattractive solution both for climate change and for meeting the nation's energy needs.

So, all in all, if the money presently being poured into support for nukes, would be invested into solar and wind installations around the country, it would benefit America and the world tremendously. But nuclear lobby is very strong (and connect to military, as it provides them with a source to build nuclear weapons), while government doesn't particularly like the idea of decentralised distributed energy system, based on solar and wind energy production.

Answer 2

You and Oleg326 are quite right. Nuclear energy is not competitive (when storing the waste is taken into account). Nor is it safe. And the CO2 emissions are heavy too when you take building, decommissioning and storage of waste into account.

Another factor to consider is that uranium is just another fossil fuel that will run short and become expensive, just like oil.

India, the USA and every other Government needs to recognise this and put every effort into developing and building more sustainable energy supplies based upon wind, wave, tide, hydro and solar power. Energy conservation is also needing more attention.

Unfortunately Governments will not do what is needed without pressure from and examples from the general public.

As a developing economy India has an opportunity to avoid the mistakes that have been made in the developed world (for example the running down of public transport and the design of cities around the car). They can instead show the way in sustainable development that the rest of the world will eventually be forced to follow as fossil fuels (including uranium) run short.

Best wishes

Answer 3

If we really want to reduce man made CO2 emissions, nuclear is the only answer. So if you are concerned about man made global warming, you should be marching in the streets demanding nuclear power now. I'm not sure U.S. technology is the best choice, however. The French have been using nuclear power to generate about 80% of the electricity for some years now and I believe their technology is better developed. They also have an excellent reprocessing capability that pretty much eliminates the waste storage problem.

Answer 4

Your point is ideally correct, but not practically. India is facing a major energy crisis and we don't have the technology yet to use wind and solar energy. And we can't afford to gamble with our energy future by waiting and spending years to develop some decent technology. Might as well get nuclear power in the meantime. And India wouldn't make such an investment if she couldn't afford it!

Answer 5

Wind energy is by far the best for Indian conditions.Our windbag politicians can be the source for turning the windmills and generate power.They can also be the source for
generating biogas,as they are so full of you know what.The heat generated in Parliament,
Rajya Sabha,State Assemblies and Councils
on non-issues and fights physical fights between members of different political parties
can be converted to electrical energy.These
three sources will not only satisfy the country's needs but probably leave some units for export
to some neighboring country.

Answer 6

Wind, and solar have not paned out to be cost effective in all regions. Hydro has such small geographic targets. I like the Idea of alternative fuels however sometimes you need to run with what works. I can't wait till we produce heating/cooling fuel cells.

Answer 7

The wind and sunlight is free, but not producing electricity from it. You need to first justify that investing in wind and solar energy is cheaper.

I think the neuclear power will be more economical compared to these options.

Answer 8

Nuclear power IS the future! It is the only real solution to energy demands of growing human populations. There is little to fear from nuclear power, unless you listen to aging hippies.

Answer 9

I agree. Nuclear waste cannot be disposed of safely, it is a terrible problem, a disaster waiting to happen.

Answer 10

You have toa ask yourself "when was the last time any government did anything smart" with the US leading the way in being far and away the most corrupt.