Beyond the near shortterm that Its any ones guess weather solar would work for electric, It may it may not….The data is inconclusive.
and i am not some one who is inclined to make longass predictions on insufficient data particularly when theres a moral smugness from one party doing the demanding.

The reason are India has coal, as well as thorium.

Yes coal dirty but its getting cleaner.
BTW dont rule out petroleum yet.
Any one who knows laws of thermodynamics knows that we still can squeeze more energy out of it. One promising technology is ceramic engines not metal but ceramic engine burning fuel at a better temprature profile than metal….

And india has thorium and for the most part all the basic science and hard engineering is done, so why sit on it and not deploy it….It may turn out if its unsucessful b/c of any number of factor,
but the data there at present looks more promising to me.

PS If you are of technical orientation
check out ciarcias analysis of solar power
that was published in circuitcellar magazine.
He(ciarcia) installed the panel b/c he got subsidy and no other reason.
In fact he had to cut down trees to make sure he gets ample sunlight on the panel.
Also check out don lancasters work at tinaja.com in this. It may be some one like don who actually may contribute to solar energy based on his work on efficient inverters rather than a wanking environmentalist.

The bottom line, where solar makes sense with all the longterm market forces it gets deployed,
where it doesnt it relies on subsidies it depends on the mood of the politicians and that one day when the decision was made.

In indias case solar electricity has some pluses and many other issues as well.
One issue tbeing you cant mine anything be it minerals needed for solar,coal,thorium without an enviromnental cost.
Which one has lower cost?
That should be discussed, no one discusses which minerals and how are they mined.
Is solar photovoltaic better than solar bio stuff like algaes=>biofuel?
How much land is needed for it?
How far away it is from population area?

There are huge questions surrounding this.
The best way to resolve is to reduce barrier to entry for competing ideas but not necessarily huge subsidies to 1 industry or the other…..

So I say do whats known at present, Explore other options with more dilligence than in the past and let the market work.

Faar too many doogooders have F’ed up usuualy government money on their dreams or in some sinister cases its the pump and dump crowd that comes in for any bubble?
Theres a crowd that wants the green bubble so that they make a fast buck….

Your post has a very misleading title : There is no question of “solar vs nuclear” before us. It is rather “coal/oil vs nuclear”. Solar energy cannot replace the entire energy needs of the world. “More solar energy strikes the surface of the earth in one hour than is provided by all of the fossil energy consumed globally in a year. ” It is plain silly to think like this. So what ? How do we propose to capture all this miraculous solar energy hitting the surface of the earth ? Should we cover up the surface with photovoltaic cells ? Do we have enough copper and minerals to produce so many cells ? Do we have enough free land to release for this solar energy production ? How much time does it take for this much investment to pay off, in terms of produced energy ?

Nuclear energy is billion times more concentrated and thus it qualifies for being termed a fuel. Solar energy is great, but it cannot replace coal/oil. If nuclear is batman, solar would be robin. You cannot expect a sidekick to take on the evil villain (coal/oil) all by himself.

Neither can wind power produce an equal amount of electricity as coal. Firstly, we don’t have wind everywhere and secondly, we can’t let precious land go off for these wind farms. Hydel power can indeed replace a substantial chunk of coal, but as you know, large dams would inundate immense swathes of fertile land forests. We have enough agitations against large dams already.

But the most important reason for supporting nuclear, is “now”. It is the only energy that can deliver right now. It is the only energy that has clearly defined potential to satisfy our energy needs for several million years to come. In the meanwhile, scientific research would produce several great breakthroughs.

The costs of not shifting to a nuclear power driven economy, would be continued dependence on imported fossil fuels, whose prices are escalating exponentially on the global market. This cost will fall directly upon the poorest of the people in terms of extraordinary inflation. Wait a minute, it is already happening.. 7.52 % as it stands now.

Being a tropical country, we should use solar energy for all that it has to offer. We should use it for nice pocket applications .. water purification,air conditioning in summer time etc. Solar energy is a valuable sidekick in the fight against fossil fuels.

Nobody is criticizing solar energy or investment in research. This has to be done. But as a question of ” now” , we have to adapt nuclear energy with the maximum speed possible. Responsible scientists are already working out the details in India. Our country is considered one of the stars in nuclear power research. Probably, it will be our scientists who will first construct breeder reactors, and it will be our scientists who will first realize the Thorium cycle of nuclear power production. Along with space industry, nuclear power is already a matter of national pride for us. We are not importing technology any more. In fact, with the US-India nuclear deal, all we would be getting is world wide recognition that has been eluding us since 1972.

Recently there was a news about Indian private sector investing several thousand crores in Solar power sector.

Mosear Bear, Reliance and others have announced big plans to produce solar panels that could produce over 1500 MW / annum. (URL given below. However I am not suure if these announcements are to garner 25% subsidy provided by government.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Hardware/Reliance_5_others_commit_Rs_65000_cr_for_fab_units/articleshow/2924255.cms

It could take 15+ years of R&D to make it anywhere closer to coal based power. However Nuclear is not so expensive as it is made out to be.
Technologies have reasonably matured. But i do not think it will meet more than 25% power needs of India.
States like Tamil Nadu produce over 15% power from wind energy for six months in a year.
India has potential to tap over 50000MW from Hydel power.

Finally, sustenance should be our way of life. While thinking about producing more clean energy, we must rigorously work on energy efficiency and conservation in all possible ways.

We see solar breakthrough news everyday, sooner or later one of them is going to work out.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/04/solar-power-breakthroughs-sunrgi-7.html

Israeli’s are doing R&D not only in solar energy, but also areas that are directly dependent on it, eg, Shai Agassi’s electric car venture in collaboration with Carlos Ghosn and massive support from Israeli govt.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_05/b4069042006924.htm