List of solar power plants in India.

How are social activist going to produce electricity if involved in politics as they are against dams, nuclear power plants and solar power plants?

• Social activists often oppose the construction of both dams, nuclear power plants and solar power plants, as the government has to occupy land for heir construction. In India there is so much opposition to the construction of all three kinds of power plants by social activists. I cannot understand how they would produce electricity if involved in politics themselves. I can understand if they oppose the minimum price given to farmers,  but most of them are against dams and nuclear power plants. In Tamil Nadu there is so much opposition to nuclear power plants. In Japan, nuclear power plants caused so much destruction yet they are still dependent on them for electricity.

• Answer:

  They do not think that far. You have to understand that just like with religion, the most prominent spokespersons for a movement are the most vocal ones, and the most vocal ones are usually the most fanatic ones. Fanatics are not expected to be reasonable people. Thus while environmentalists as a whole support wind power, there will be a small but vocal minority who will complain how the wind pattern was getting changed and some birds were dying. Valid concerns, but maybe we should focus on the good a little more, learn from the mistakes and provide more constructive feedback for the next project? The more rational environmentalists understand that moving away from fossil fuel power is not a sprint, but a super-marathon. Thus they support wind, solar and nuclear power plants. So part of the problem is the fanaticism the movement generates. When you are a fanatic for the environment, anything short of perfection is insufficient. Think of how Salafist groups like the Taliban want to take everyone to the middle ages, because they believe that is how God has commanded us to live. Yet they do not want to give up their modern weapons and fight with swords, and nor do they see the irony in doing that. The other part of it is ignorance. Take Fukushima for instance. If they had not evacuated anyone from the area around the plant, no one would have died of radiation poisoning yet. The level of radiation is so low, that it increases the chances that you will have a serious health issue about 30 years from now. So its fair enough that people were evacuated. However, already more people have died from the stress created by the hype, than would have died if they had not evacuated at all! And what about coal? People work in horrific conditions in the mines, they die in the mines, and thousands die every year because of diseases caused by coal burning. All those lives can be saved by nuclear power! Moreover, Fukushima was hit by a giant earthquake and a giant tsunami on the same day. What are the chances of that ever happening again? And even if it does, there is still be virtually no way a modern reactor would be at risk the way Fukushima was, just because reactor designs have progressed so much since then. And finally, even rational and progressive environmentalists do take extreme positions sometimes. This is driven mainly by the politics of the situation. For one, sometimes you have to ask for much more than you expect to get, so you at least get something. For example if you oppose a project altogether, chances are you will at least get some concessions from an environmental perspective. The other is peer pressure from the fanatic groups. If one fanatic group is yelling that a power plant will reduce the length of a "river" from 90m to 65m, and they yell loud and long enough, even the more sane groups will be pressured into lending their voices, lest they be accused of having "sold out".