Which energy source will you support for Indian economy? Nuclear, Termal, Hydro or wind and solar, and why?

ENERGY WITHOUT ANY FUEL

I am developing a Machine, which will generate Energy without any fuel. It will not require Solar, Wind or Hydro energy at all, nor it will require any kind of fuel or Nuclear Source.

1. Starting from an Atom to this Universe everything is Rotating, nothing is stationary

2. In Atoms, Electrons are moving around the Nucleus & will continue to rotate without any Fuel

3. The Moon is rotating around the Earth, The Earth is rotating around the Sun & the Sun rotating around some bigger star alongwith the whole solar system....& so on....the Galaxies moving around some bigger Galaxies ....& so on......no end at all. Plz. note that, we do not add any fuel to either Moon, Earth, Sun or Galaxies to rotate

4. CONCLUSION: Motion / Rotation is the most fundamental property of this Universe & no External Fuel is required to get motion/rotation

5. Based on the above observations, I have designed a machine which will continue to rotate without any fuel

I support Renewable sources of Energy like Solar, Wind and Nuclear. Thermal & Hydel have adverse impact on the environment. While Thermal keeps increasing the carbon footprint even if one were to use Clean Coal Technologies. Hydel brings in its wake problems of elimination of the natural flora and fauna in addition to to resettlement of displaced human habitat.Solar is space intensive so is Wind, and both are not reliable complete all-time available sources.Thus it leaves us with one alternative that has a very long period of utility. That is Nuclear. The recent earthquake and Tsunami in Fukushima, Japan does raise concerns of Safety, but Nuke plants in Earthquake free zones is one answer to this. As per Safety any Nuke plant will be designed with Safety as the highest priority. Extreme redundancies in control, several control paths for increased reliability, failsafe control system design are all ways to combat the adverse effects of failure.We had one problem of finding fuel for our Nuclear Fission based reactors which the signing of treaty with US is likely to offset.Reasearch is ON on Fast Breeder Reactors, using Thorium. If that succeeds we do have technology on hand that could be "safely" used. The real problem is of the long term effects of failure of protection systems. The damage could be irreversible.Controlled Nuclear Fusion is a better option but we do not as yet have proven technology.But one must explore this Controlled Nuclear Fusion as the technology of future.

It is quite obvious to anyone associated with the power sector to see the truth that Nuclear Power is the most potential power source of the future. Solar & wind projects are practical only for small-scale power consumers & large area availabililty. Hydro projects are the most successful ones so far, provided that sufficient water resources are available & the de-fragmentation of the eco-system can be avoided. Hydro projects are pollution free but the erection is a time-consuming process (10 years) & may involve a lot of risk (such as tunnel boring a mountain). Quite a large number of deaths occur in the erection phase of these projects, which are unfortunately, unknown to the common public. Thermal Projects advocate a middle path i.e. a certain amount of pollution is always inherent but the erection is somewhat easier (4-5 years). However, Ash Handling (by-product) in coal-based thermal power plants is a major concern inspite of use of ash in cement manufacture as well as ash bricks. Construction & maintenance of ash dykes is a somewhat tantalizing job. Pumping of ash slurry & wet ash pipelines also represent environmental hazards. In the case of LNG/naphtha/HSD based thermal projects, the pollution is less but they cannot meet the power demand in the long run due to the limited reserves available. The best available option is nuclear power. The land area requirement per MW is least for nuclear projects. They represent a tremendous source of energy. Nulcear fission can be very well controlled. The only disadvantage is the disposal of nuclear wastes generated during the process. Once, the handling procedure for handling nuclear wastes is well developed, I think nuclear power will form a major chunk of the global power production.

I advocate Nuclear energy. Basically because , it is reliable & also cost effective, comparing to other non-conventional energy. With the present Climate change scenario, Energies from, Solar, Wind & Tidal are under the purview of doubt for larger consumption of power, especially, by heavy industries that includes Agriculture also.

There are parts of the World including India, there NPP is running successfully & is not producing any adverse effects. Nature that is unpredictable & therefore , any amount of precaution will over-rule Human efforts to control devastation by any concrete measures. Be it Thermal or Hydro , when the Nature attacks, loss, in terms of material, man,environment can not be controlled whatsoever, our safe-guards are. Nuclear Energy is not a lone power generation technique that will produce adverse effect on Mass. So, the potential Risks are to identified & accordingly, safety measures to reduce effect on damage to man,material & environment is to be introduced.

There are various technique available to experts to identify, assess& evaluate Risks such as QRA, FEMA,LOP,HAZOP,HAZID, TREE ANALYSIS etc etc. as far as safety is concerned. Other criteria can equally be weighed to mitigate failures in the even that one likely to occur.

Considering the benefits to larger extent of the mass & the Industry, I feel, NPP is a possible solution.

Thanks for referral Padmaja Baskar

It is nuclear energy.  If all other sources are considering energy at 1 MW etc. (I am excluding thermal power because of obvious resources constraints), we look at nuclear plants at tens of thousands of MW.  India needs power and we should ensure that there has to be a power revolution like TV/Telecom etc.

Well, people make mistakes and learn from them.  We can not become Tenali Ramakrishna's Cat avoiding milk altogether, just because it burnt its tongue once.  

Japan, which is earthquake prone almost everywhere, keeps building earthquake proof infrastructure admirably.  True, it did not anticipate a Tsunami to create havoc the way it did.  But Japan will learn the lesson and build many more infrastructure projects and prosper.  It would take care to safeguard its nuclear plant even when a Tsunami occurs.  

Natural disasters are happening since time immemorial.  Development can not be sacrificed.   

Nuclear Energy is the best option taking into consideration the unprecedented growth in the population. According to Statistics available by 2025 India will over take China and the latest Census revealed that New Delhi and Chandigarh are the most populous city and it is shocking that 11,574 per Sq.KM in New Delhi and Approximately 9570 per SQ.KM in Chandigarh are living. I am not against Solar / Wind Energy. But the question of choosing the option lies in our Central Govt. The need of the hour is we have the resources and what is needed is proper exploitation.

Thermal and Hydro energy are safest. No need for an argument for it. We dont have the resources to meet the demand for power. Solar energy is also good but its practicability for large scale production a doubt. Nuclear power is dangerous if you see it from one angle, but it is the cheapest and better meet  power needs. A fear psychosis is being created on Nuclear power. The media is carrying these nonsense. There is a risk factor. Let us try to face the risk for the future of the generations.

There is enough material on the internet to prove that nuclear power is the safest form of power generation on a large scale.

It is obvious that solar energy and wind power are sustainable , but they cannot be used to feed the greed of a nation ! The largest wind power station or solar power station can generate less than 800 MW , while the largest nuclear station generates more than 8000 MW !

Nuclear power is dangerous , but that is more because adequate planning is not done and safeguards are not put in place.

We are more aware of the two or three major disasters that have taken place through nuclear power plants , while we conveniently forget the hundreds of accidents that take place regularly in coal based power generation , in mines and power plants.

We remember Bhopal , but the total number of dead and maimed in that horrific accident and the years after , is much less than the 100,000 who die on India's roads , in just one year !