amit wrote:arnab wrote:Further assuming of course our own 'strategic properties' would have run at more than 90% efficiency rates (as is currently happening thanks to imported uranium).
Arnab,
Now, now boss why bring up embarrassing little factoids and spoil the party?
Didn't reply to this earlier since this was a fundamentally incorrect factoid so I did not think that a post with India == Pakistan and other such material would be actually discussed, however since this is being done, it is important to put the record straight.
Fundamentally incorrect factoid. Strategic reactors do not use imported nuclear material in the first place.
In the second place, the little uranium that has been obtained, could have easily been supplemented with better management of internal resources, as has been discussed earlier. In any case fuel from Russian sources for Russian reactors was under grandfather clauses and would continue.
Overall, there is hardly a noticeable difference in energy generation due to the deal, and this was fully expected.
On a more serious note, in all this discussion on strategic properties, there two things that are just being ignored.
One is the fact that one of the major objectives of the civil nuclear deal was to open up uranium supplies, so that we could conserve our domestic supply for the three-stage, which now, it seems, will not come online in any meaningful way till after 2020.
Those points are not ignored, they are seen and are not of any significant consequence.
Also the fact that "will not come online in any meaningful way till after 2020" is the most significant contribution of the Nuclear policy as pursued by Man mohan and UPA.
The cause and the effect are all mixed up, the cause of nuclear policy is not that the Indian tech was delayed, the nuclear policy has ensured that the focus on Indian tech has been diluted in favor of looking at imports.
The second point is the sky-rocketing increase in coal prices at pitheads which have effectively tossed out of the window
And has been shown many times, this argument is moot, since Nuclear energy is not going to meaningful substitute coal requirements in any manner whatsoever.
Therefore Nuclear because it saves coal was/is and will continue to be a false argument.
I'll leave you with another thought! :-0
I believe Afghanistan and Sudan are two of the most strategic energy secure countries in the world. You know why?
Because they hardly have any energy demand.

Clearly the repeated flippancy on serious matters leads one to believe that the only goal of the discussion is to some how create a market of shoddy imported goods by spreading FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) by repeatedly raising discredited and incorrect arguments.
============================
The real outcome of imports
1) Plans for mega setups with periods of 30 years.
2) Massive land and capital locked up for HUGE gestation periods of 30 years without any productive output.
3) Reduction of focus from important critical areas in energy sector towards questionable long term policy
4) A dependence on imports
5) Loss of tech independence.
Basically a mess where the "unobtainum" after 30 years is used as a goal to sell all the family silver today.
"Give me all your money today and I will make your grandson a King if all goes well" -- type of deal.