article by Rameshwhor Khanal in Nagarik

July 8, 2011

Paras Kharel
Kathmandu


Subject: RE: My article on constituent assembly


Paras jee

Yes, I did read it and am extremely disappointed to learn of his highly superficial views. I have already used that piece to explain how superficially people think to EMBA students of Ace Institute of Management (I was invited to deliver a guest lecture). I have been invited to make a presentation on upper Karnanli project on coming Sunday and there too I will cite this example.
He is way off mark about Nepal’s energy need. Even at the currently obtaining suppressed growth scenario, in five years peak demand will reach 1500 MW, which can only be met with an installed capacity of 4500 MW, if Nepal is to depend on RoR projects only (all sizable storage projects have been dedicated for export). Similarly, if Nepal is to aim to grow at normal growth rate, in five years peak demand will easily reach 3,000 MW and will require installed capacity of 9,000 MW. We need to achieve accelerated growth rate to have Nepali youth who have voted with their feet to return home for which we could easily use a lot more than 10,000 MW in next five years. However, for lack of vision and due to superficial understanding of the sector by these people, Nepal is condemned to languish in backwardness. Very soon people will learn of this and these people will be held accountable by their own family and friends.


With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
www.RatnaSansar.com



From: paras kharel [mailto:kharelparas@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 12:56
To: rsansar@mos.com.np; ratna.sansar@gmail.com
Subject: Re: My article on constituent assembly


Ratna Sansar jee,

My reply got bounced back, so I am sending it again. Thanks for the alerts. By the way, did you read an article by Rameshwhor Khanal in Nagarik daily a few weeks ago where he came down against those opposing export-oriented hydropower projects? If yes, then you might have also been struck by a rather simplistic or naive argument that those projects should be allowed to be developed because if Nepal (or NEA) can buy and utilize power from the projects, then the project developers would be more than happy to sell power to Nepal rather than export it to India, and that we are going to get those projects back in 20-25 years in any case! But he does not answer the question why such choice projects were awarded for export purpose in the first place. The underlying suggestion seemed to be that Nepal CANNOT consume the 4,000-odd MW of power.

Pity, many a reader must have been misguided.

Best

Paras