Sugat Kansakar said following:
QUOTE
Strange, just wondering how come there is so much difference between one relatively simple engineering calculation done by two different experts! Of course, I don't know the data as well as formula or principle behind those two diametrically opposite conclusions.
UNQUOTE
It is not a matter of engineering calculation, whether simple or otherwise. It is selection of an option from two mutually exclusive choices: export or use internally not only to dispel darkness, but also to industrialize to generate employment (also mitigate balance of trade and payment deficit).
Basically it is matter of common sense: harness Nepal’s water resource to mitigate power crisis in Nepal or India. The harebrained scheme that has been put forth is to give away electricity from projects like this to India, at dirt cheap rate (around Rs 2) and import power to mitigate load shedding in Nepal, at commercial rate (we are paying Rs 10.72 now). It is simple (as you have used the word) matter of common sense.
It is not that no power should be exported. But Nepal should export only after saturating Nepal’s need for power not only for conventional purpose but even to electrification of transportation to reduce import of petroleum products.
Specifically in the case of Upper Karnali, it is also the issue of multidimensional use of water resources for irrigation, navigation etc. By fixing the capacity at 900 MW, India and its stooges in Nepal are trying to preempt Nepal from using the water for consumptive purposes in districts like, Surkhet, Dang, Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, etc. which will lead to food security in the area. It is a part of grand design to keep Nepal dependent on India from food to electricity.
No comments:
Post a Comment