Why is our Government so adamant (vehement!) in opting for the “dangerous” and ‘complicated” Nuclear Power, when it is Clear that we have enough Renewable Resources (RR) in our country to generate Power? It is noted that we could generate enough methane gas through simple (time tested Biogas system) processes in the 638,596 villages. The total estimated methane gas potentials through the various RR are as follows:
-
Through conversion of Food wastes = 30,670,220 T
-
Through “spoilt” grain and other food = 30,303,000 T
-
By conversion of Vegetation matter etc = 39,375,000 T
These could be converted into about 115,000 MW power (both Electricity and Heat). Additionally, there would be an advantage of producing superb Bio-Fertilizer = 34,545,445 T. These conversions would offer “full time” jobs to not less than 6 million village people, in the 638,596 villages. The average Power potential per village would be about 200 KW (24 x 365).
It is sad and strange that a very respected and senior person such as Dr APJ Abdul Kalam (Our Former President and a reputed Scientist) is coaxing the public to go for Nuclear Power! Does he not know about the potentials of RR based Power in India? If he does know that, why does not he tell the Government to go for such an environmentally superior system (a real CLEAN-TECH process) for Power generation? Or is there any hidden agenda?
We may also note that by going for RR based (bio-methanation) Power generation, we would be paving the way for simultaneously answering the Twin-problems of Global Warming and Poverty (GWP). Is it not the real answer to the UN MDG? In what way, a very costly and complicated (involving dangerous Radio-active materials disposals) Nuclear Power is considered more appropriate answer to India’s Power needs? This writer wishes to openly challenge every scientist and development economist in telling them that Bio-methanation is the answer to India’s Energy Security and it also helps in Rural Development through Job creation and cascading developments. Is there any one to challenge this statement?
