India – the _

[2255] Of the Commonwealth Games disaster is good for India

A friend shared his thought about the upcoming Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, which poises to be a disaster, the other day. The Economist with its typical humor wrote:

INDIAN officials insist that the Commonwealth games, to which Delhi plays host in October, should not be compared to Beijing’s Olympic games. They are right. The 2008 Olympics were a symbol of China’s emergence as a great power. The Commonwealth ones seem to be heading for disaster. [Running into the sand. The Economist. August 12 2010]

Allegations of corruption revolving around the Games are everywhere and it is likely that these allegations are true. On top of that, New Delhi is seriously behind schedule, despite the Games being just less than two weeks away.

The friend, in addition to saying that nobody cares about the Games, states that the disaster is good for India. For the longest time, India has its own way of doing things. The way the Games is developing even before it begins, it is likely to be a very public embarrassment for the country. That embarrassment might prove to be big enough for India to buck up and encourage the country to do something about the widespread corruption, and the Indian (government’s) way in general that appears to be chaotic.

[1119] Of India to sell Malaysia 220MW nuclear reactor?

Now this is a news that we do not get to hear everything. Over at Bloomberg, there is a report that India is planning to sell a 220-MW reactor to Malaysia:

Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) — Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd. said it’s in talks to sell small nuclear reactors to Malaysia and other Asian nations once an international embargo on India’s atomic technology ends. [India Seeks to Sell Reactors to Malaysia, Indonesia, Bloomberg, Feb 27 2007]

Now, that would soften the what-the-fuck reaction I made after reading a news report that Uncle Sam would be alright with a nuclear-powered Malaysia, and even support:

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 27 (Bernama) — The United States said today that it would not oppose if Malaysia were to pursue a nuclear energy programme for peaceful purposes. [US Has No Objection To M’sia Pursuing Nuclear Energy Programme, Bernama, Feb 27 2007]

In recent times, the notion of nuclear-powered Malaysia was probably first mooted in 2006 by Dr. Jamaluddin Jarjis. Therefore, this development in some way should not come as a surprise.

As for me, I am still undecided about nuclear power. The fact that nuclear power could help reduce greenhouse gases emissions greatly attracts many greens to it. It may be an exaggeration but currently as far as the nuclear option is concerned, there is a great schism within environmentalism. I personally am slightly leaning towards acceptance of nuclear power as a piecemeal answer to anthropogenic climate change.

There are two things that still prevent me from fully embracing nuclear as energy.

One is waste management. There is technology out there that could safely store the waste but it is very expensive to say the least.

Second is production cost. On cost, it is quite confusing. Some say nuclear-derived electricity is cheaper than coal or gas. Some say otherwise; if the cost of construction is considered, the price of nuclear-derived electricity is higher than coal or gas. In the US, opponents of nuclear power often cite that nuclear power only become viable after heavy govenrment subsidy. If the deal goes through through, perhaps we could compare the planned roughly RM 1.3 billion 300MV coal power plant in Sabah with a power plant that would utilize the 220MW nuclear reactor.

Further, if the deal goes through, the location of the reactor would be of great controversy.