India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

[amit]

The impact of hydo-carbon/coal is so overwhelming in all energy mix, and nuclear such a minuscule component, that the absence or presence of it is completely irrelevant in terms of pollution.

+1
This simple formulation tells it all. But difficult to get it into thick heads.

The thick heads are the ones that are fatalistic and say since nooklear is so little, let's discard whatever little it is instead of trying to make it more.

It's like saying we are going to die someday, so why go to the doctor, when you are ill.

BTW, personal insults like thick heads are the weapons of folks who know they have lost the argument.

[Sanku]

Sanku

Instead of resorting to useless rhetoric, why don't you back up your claims with some data, studies, links etc?

Already done, multiple times. Can do again, if some one genuinely wants to learn I will be happy to oblige. However if people continue to make claims contrary to data, despite openly being available.

And you can keep calling names, I dont expect anything else, however that does not mean that I will not call out blatant untruths when they are posted.

[Sanku]

Sanku>>
The impact of hydo-carbon/coal is so overwhelming in all energy mix, and nuclear such a minuscule component, that the absence or presence of it is completely irrelevant in terms of pollution.

+1
This simple formulation tells it all. But difficult to get it into thick heads.

The thick heads are the ones that are fatalistic and say since nooklear is so little, let's discard whatever little it is instead of trying to make it more.

It's like saying we are going to die someday, so why go to the doctor, when you are ill.

BTW, personal insults like thick heads are the weapons of folks who know they have lost the argument.

Chaankaya-ji, Amit is right, you need not call anyone a thick head or such, for one some things are obvious without saying, and name calling is not our forte, others with significant experience in that department can easily take it down to significant levels and win with experience.

Why take that path.

[chaanakya]

Well try 10% of nuclear energy or even 15% or say 20% in India. Even then it would remain on margins in the energy mix.Just how difficult it is to get it into one's head, Even in 2050 target is not beyond what is projected here in the thread. Talk of lost arguments are for those who don't care to look for numbers themselves but quote something else.

Well apology is in order though it was not meant for Amit . My apology amit if it hurt you.

[chaanakya]

Chaankaya-ji, Amit is right, you need not call anyone a thick head or such, for one some things are obvious without saying, and name calling is not our forte, others with significant experience in that department can easily take it down to significant levels and win with experience.

Why take that path.

Absolutely, my apology to you as well.

[chaanakya]

Yes.

There are some other irrelevant facts guaranteed to get anti nuclear jihadis into a tizzy, as we've seen in previous avatars of this thread. For fun let me list out a few:

Most of the facts are of the same quality as an argument based on the above line -- a person who can not make points in a civil manner without resorting to low name calling characterization of those who offer different points of view -- is clearly weak on data and facts.

Well Sanku san, this word here is what used by the poster. Should he not be called out on that. Being cautious and asking question or response on Nuclear issues does not make one Anti Nuclear Jihadi. This was plain and simple flame ignored by admin.

[chaanakya]

http://planningcommission.nic.in/report ... ntengy.pdf

Have a look at this document. Data is now somewhat dated in terms of development in Renewables .Data can easily be corrected as we have new details now. Planning Comm is already working on New draft for Energy Sector for 12th plan and we might get upto date figure soon. But it does have overall energy scenario and unit cost , demand side and supply side scenario. With Forced Projections in Nuclear (anticipating Nuclear deal) , it remains about 10% assuming India is able to import NPP. As per CO2 emiisions , Forced Nuclear and Renewable Scenario (no 11) is best option. That is what GOI is doing.

This is better document to quote rather than quoting IEA or DOE since these are worked out in Indian conditions with our projected GDP growth rates at 7% and 8% .

If you read it would become clear why COAL etc would remain major player in primary energy market as well as in Electricity (Power) sector. And that CO2 emmissions (GHG as well) is not a major factor in Indian context unless one wants to be a lackey of western world.

[Sanku]

Being cautious and asking question or response on Nuclear issues does not make one Anti Nuclear Jihadi.

Chaanakya-ji, we must and are forced to follow the standards we deem right. Let others do what they will (lessons in life after being on the receiving end of many a Hellphyrs on BRF)

[sudeepj]

Yes.

There are some other irrelevant facts guaranteed to get anti nuclear jihadis into a tizzy, as we've seen in previous avatars of this thread. For fun let me list out a few:

Most of the facts are of the same quality as an argument based on the above line -- a person who can not make points in a civil manner without resorting to low name calling characterization of those who offer different points of view -- is clearly weak on data and facts.

Now, I have seen everything

[amit]

http://planningcommission.nic.in/report ... ntengy.pdf

Have a look at this document. Data is now somewhat dated in terms of development in Renewables .Data can easily be corrected as we have new details now. Planning Comm is already working on New draft for Energy Sector for 12th plan and we might get upto date figure soon. But it does have overall energy scenario and unit cost , demand side and supply side scenario. With Forced Projections in Nuclear (anticipating Nuclear deal) , it remains about 10% assuming India is able to import NPP. As per CO2 emiisions , Forced Nuclear and Renewable Scenario (no 11) is best option. That is what GOI is doing.

This is better document to quote rather than quoting IEA or DOE since these are worked out in Indian conditions with our projected GDP growth rates at 7% and 8% .

If you read it would become clear why COAL etc would remain major player in primary energy market as well as in Electricity (Power) sector. And that CO2 emmissions (GHG as well) is not a major factor in Indian context unless one wants to be a lackey of western world.

Chaanakya,

I'm responding to your post because, despite what you may think, I have high respect for you as a poster - just as I have for Theo - despite holding different views on this subject.

My nuclear jihadis comments was, perhaps not well crafted. What I meant was not posters on this thread but comments by the real jihadis like Purefool Bidwai, Prof Busby et al who have been given more than deserved airtime on previous avatars of this thread when they went ballistic after the Fukushima tragedy. So if you think that the jihadi comment was aimed at you then my apologies for the misunderstanding.

Coming to your post which I've quoted, particularly this: "Forced Nuclear and Renewable Scenario (no 11) is best option." I'm not in disagreement at all. I think I've made it clear over multiple posts for more than a year now that I think renewable is best option going forward. If you care to look at my comments on the last page of this thread, you'll find that I've said the same thing.

However, I must add that I think the technology for renewable is not there yet - that to the extent that they can take over the burden of high baseload generation. So we are left with coal, gas and nuclear and we need a massive ramp up of our electricity generation capability.

Of the three I think nuclear is the best option. 10 per cent nuclear as per the planning commission document is quite decent and comments such as that would result in 0.000001% reduction in Co2 emissions is pure, unadulterated bawkwash. Co2 pollution may not be a big issue for us today but if we really try to build up our generation capability with coal fired plants then it can and will become a major problem very fast - I'd say within a decade. Just look at China today and say a decade ago, in terms of the level of Co2 emissions. Since power plants are long term investments and very difficult to switch from one mode to another, we need to tackle the problem today so that we don't face a nightmare tomorrow. Today's data cannot be used to decide what is going to happen a decade from now. Projections are required.

Coming back to the issue of power generation, at the moment for baseload, nuclear remains the cleanest option we've got and my point is very simple. Every megawatt we can generate via nuclear is one megawatt less by coal or gas. I'd love to see that 10% going up to 30-40%. However, thanks to the jihadis and their supporters that's virtually impossible.

As regards quoting IEA, the reason I did that is I don't think we have such detailed studied on pollution effects of various generating technologies done in India. Even though the report deals with US conditions I think the findings are applicable to India. Regarding the DOE study, no comments as I did not refer to it.

I hope I've made my position clear. And once again I'm taking this effort because I respect your position on this subject, even though I don't agree fully with it.

Cheers!

[amit]

Now, I have seen everything

Welcome to the club!

[Neela]

Maybe those with infrastructure development background can help. The timing of protests at Koodankulam - just before it went operational - does that mean anything financially?

[Sanku]

Of the three I think nuclear is the best option. 10 per cent nuclear as per the planning commission document is quite decent and comments such as that would result in 0.000001% reduction in Co2 emissions is pure, unadulterated bawkwash. Co2 pollution may not be a big issue for us today but if we really try to build up our generation capability with coal fired plants then it can and will become a major problem very fast - I'd say within a decade.

I see so after suitable downhill skiing -- that CO2 is not a issue today -- Amit goes on to predict that it will become an issue in the debate?

And why? Because he says so, never mind most of what he has said has not really been accurate and is on the back of name calling and rhetoric.

Meanwhile these "projections" have been bandied about penny a dime for a long long time, some that I remember on BRF are

1) India will have 200 Nuclear plants by 2020 (which later became 50 by 2050).
2) 123 will give access to latest nuclear technology
3) Oil will run out in next 10 years (made every year since 1971)

etc etc.

Some people just dont tired of making projections, even if it means that those projections are based on sun rising in the west after 2 days.

Fine, lets, project. For 20 years, 30 years.

And let us do all that projection in a climate where the next week is not certain still.

[Sanku]

Now, I have seen everything

Really, and I continually keep getting surprised, when I think there is no worse that I can see.

[amit]

I used to think idiocity has its limits. However, I see that it can be limitless and unbound.

The entire discussion that's been going on till now was kicked off on the basis of the report that quoted the AEC chairman's projections on electricity requirements till 2050 and beyond. It was not about what's happening today. So we're talking about whether we should start building more coal power plants or nuclear to serve electricity needs later this decade and the three decades after that. Future projections.

And now I see that my comment that Co2 may not be a big issue today but could become one a decade from now if we build more coal plants is downhill skiing?

What can one say to this kind of childishness?

Even the entertainment value of such petulant behavior is past its sell by date!

Sigh!

[arnab]

The impact of the nuclear power plant shutdowns in Japan

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/world ... =1&_r=1&hp

All but two of Japan’s 54 commercial reactors have gone offline since the nuclear disaster a year ago, after the earthquake and tsunami, and it is not clear when they can be restarted. With the last operating reactor scheduled to be idled as soon as next month, Japan — once one of the world’s leaders in atomic energy — will have at least temporarily shut down an industry that once generated a third of its electricity.

With few alternatives, the prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, has called for restarting the plants as soon as possible,

Japan has so far succeeded in avoiding shortages, thanks in part to a drastic conservation program that has involved turning off air-conditioning in the summer and office lights during the day.

The loss of nuclear power has hurt in another way: economists blame the higher energy prices for causing Japan’s first annual trade deficit in more than three decades, which has weakened the yen and raised concerns about the future of the country’s export-driven economy. And as the weather warms, Japan faces a possible energy crisis, considering that last summer it still had 19 nuclear plants in operation.

“No one wants to go back to living the same way we did 50 years ago, without cellphones or TVs,” said Mitsuyoshi Kunai, a 54-year-old fisherman who tended his nets just a few miles from the Ohi plant. “Fukushima showed us that nuclear power is dangerous, but we still need

I think I am coming around to the view that the poor in India do not really need electricity. If they have survived so long without it - they can continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Better not to have it, than to have it and lose it in a Fukishima type disaster Because with coal becoming costly, solar being green house intensive (over the lifecycle) and nuclear energy being 'unhealthy' (apparently) - I think we can look forward to such a future and Uddhav Thakre's children can emigrate

[amit]

Maybe those with infrastructure development background can help. The timing of protests at Koodankulam - just before it went operational - does that mean anything financially?

Neela,

I don't have an infra development background but let me hazard a guess from an economics perspective.

It took money to build the KNPP plant and obviously that money has to be repaid even it's just a book-keeping action on the part of the GoI. And the electricity that the plant will generate is going to result in a financial stream for KNPP. This money would be used to repay the cost of construction plus daily running costs (including salaries and cost of fuel). At some point a break-even would be reached whereby the money got from selling electricity would pay for the cost of the plant.

All these financial projections are made well in advance to decide the financial viability of a project. So the six month delay I would reckon has certainly given a knock on the financial viability of the plant by pushing back the break-even and thus increasing the cost of capital. However, since it's a GoI owned plant it may not matter much. If it had been a pvt sector plant with commercial loans paying for its construction this could have been a serious financial blow.

However, having said all this, I really don't think that was/is the primary objective of the stir. It just so happened the commissioning date of the plant very nicely dovetailed with the post-Fukushima hysteria that was carefully crafted across the globe, including India. It was too juicy a target to ignore and hence was set up as a test bed to see how to take the anti nuclear jihad forward in India and stall, first of all all future nuclear power plants and then go after the strategic plants - note the nasty curiosity shown by the agitation leaders about detail on reprocessing etc. The latter IMO was the ultimate prize. It had nothing to do with the poor villagers around the plant who would "become sterile" on account of radiation.

I have a feeling the GoI let things play out for a bit in order to give the impression that the agitators were gaining ground so that they would show their hand. The tipping point, again IMO was that interest shown in reprocessing. I think that alerted the folks who matter that the masterminds were the global NPAs and the Green brigade while the local leadership were just front men.

My two cents TIFWIW!

[member_21708]

I think we can look forward to such a future and Uddhav Thakre's children can emigrate

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1253895

[amit]

Arnab,

To add to your post:

One Year After Fukushima, Japan Faces Shortages of Energy, Trust

Without any nuclear plants online, Japan faces a summer when peak electricity demand likely will exceed supply by 15 percent, observers say. Last summer, Japan weathered a shortfall of electricity with a concerted national effort to curb demand. It ramped up a campaign it has been promoting since 2005 to cut air-conditioning in offices, calling for temperatures to be set at 28°C (85°F), when summer high temperatures in Tokyo can surpass 30°C (86°F) with high humidity. Companies also shifted work to early hours or weekends, and took other steps such as deactivating elevators and reducing use of printers and copiers. Smith recalls being in Japan last summer in buildings where neon signs were dimmed, overhead fluorescent lights turned off, and people in government offices used flashlights to make their way along dark corridors.

I'm sure this is the long term solution that all the Japanese will happily accept since they have "irrevocably turned away from nuclear power".

With no domestic fossil fuel sources to take the place of nuclear, Japan is relying ever more heavily on expensive imports of oil and liquefied natural gas. But that has left the island nation vulnerable to still another energy risk: Nearly 70 percent of Japan's oil imports last year traveled by tanker through the Strait of Hormuz. If Iran's conflict with the West over its nuclear program escalates to disrupt Middle East oil shipments, it would be yet another blow to the struggling Japanese economy.

So Japan's national government and private electric power companies are working to boost protections at nuclear power plants in a bid to win back public confidence, to pave the way for the reopening of the facilities. In many ways, the steps being taken in Japan are similar to those under way at other nuclear plants around the world, with a new focus on robust and multiple systems to withstand an extended outage of power from all units at a site.{Well, well, the Japanese have not irrevocably walked away from nuclear? Damn stupid guys!}

“That has probably been the largest change in the industry's approach, to think about events that can impact more than one unit," says Neil Wilmshurst, vice president of the nuclear sector at the U.S. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

But weighing against anxiety about the safety of the nuclear power plants is the economic incentive to reopen them. Tax revenues from the plants bolster local governments. And the operation and maintenance of the facilities provides jobs."It's a major employment driver," says Jane Nakano, a fellow in the Center for Strategic and International Studies' energy and national security program."You can't overlook the communities that are not anti-restart. And even the local communities that are apprehensive, they still need jobs."

Electricity shortages also increase the threat that even more manufacturing will flee to China, increasing an exodus well under way before the earthquake, Nakano said."It will be interesting to look back in 10 or 15 years, to see what the studies say about Fukushima and its impact on Japan's efforts to stay competitive," she says.

[Sanku]

I used to think idiocity has its limits. However, I see that it can be limitless and unbound.

Indeed, we are quite surprised.

The entire discussion that's been going on till now was kicked off on the basis of the report that quoted the AEC chairman's projections on electricity requirements till 2050 and beyond.

No it was not, the entire discussion is long standing debate that "where goes nuclear policy" -- it is a old debate and has been on at least till Man mohan attempted to reset Indian policy by changing the direction of Indian nuclear sector.

While some might want to wave every bit of information they come across as a "breaking news" soundbite, many of us remember, the beginning, the middle and have a good idea of who things will turn out as well.

It was not about what's happening today. So we're talking about whether we should start building more coal power plants or nuclear to serve electricity needs later this decade and the three decades after that. Future projections.

Yes, and we have been talking about it for about 60 years. Yeah.

And now I see that my comment that Co2 may not be a big issue today but could become one a decade from now if we build more coal plants is downhill skiing?

Yes it is, since so far it was "run run sky is falling we are choking on CO2 argghhhh....." which turned to "we will choke on CO2 is 10 years arrrggg....", which when pushed is already turning to "we will choke on CO2 in next 50 years arghhhh"

The basic fact remains,

"AT THE CURRENT LEVELS OF LWR TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER ENERGY TECH, THE ENERGY MIX WILL HAVE 0.0000001% OF NUCLEAR IN THE OVERALL PICTURE, FOR NEXT 10 YEARS, 20 YEARS AND 50 YEARS (AFTER 50 IT WILL DROP AS URANIUM IS PROJECTED TO RUN OUT"

The above is the BEST CASE secanrio. So if some one is peddling magical tonic water made of heavy isotopes as a solution, the person has to be looked at with extreme distrust.

Nuclear can not fix the pollution problem -- simple -- it may or may not have advantages, but it can do some thing, and somethings it can not. Fixing pollution is one of those.

What can one say to this kind of childishness?

Good question, we must all think how do we deal with untruths of childish variety.

Even the entertainment value of such petulant behavior is past its sell by date!

Sigh!

It was never entertaining, it is actually quite pitiful how people come and say "the sun rises in the west" every now and then.

[Sanku]

Arnab,

To add to your post:

One Year After Fukushima, Japan Faces Shortages of Energy, Trust

Well yeah, had Japanese not taken the fairly obviously poor decision to base their power mix over heavily on nuclear, particularly in a seismic zone, and that too poor LWR based tech, they would not be left in a lurch today.

Poor Japanese, any Karma is a female dog, as you sow, so you reap.

[chaanakya]

Chaanakya,

I'm responding to your post because, despite what you may think, I have high respect for you as a poster - just as I have for Theo - despite holding different views on this subject.

My nuclear jihadis comments was, perhaps not well crafted. What I meant was not posters on this thread

Well I did not assume that it was meant for me or anyone else on this board and though I quoted Sanku while making that comment it wasn't directed at you either. Though I agree with Sanku with the line under quote, that phrase might have sounded like name calling in the context , as I realised in next post immediately after that. It was for those who show little understanding of Energy Policy of which power is but one component and there are many where Nuclear Power can not help much like POL and transport etc.

[chaanakya]

Coming to your post which I've quoted, particularly this: "Forced Nuclear and Renewable Scenario (no 11) is best option." I'm not in disagreement at all. I think I've made it clear over multiple posts for more than a year now that I think renewable is best option going forward. If you care to look at my comments on the last page of this thread, you'll find that I've said the same thing.

Then we are in agreement to that extent.

However, I must add that I think the technology for renewable is not there yet - that to the extent that they can take over the burden of high baseload generation. So we are left with coal, gas and nuclear and we need a massive ramp up of our electricity generation capability.

Of the three I think nuclear is the best option. 10 per cent nuclear as per the planning commission document is quite decent

I respect your thinking. If you see my writings I have always said about 5-10% for Nuclear but Targets are hard to reach for a variety of factors and track record does not inspire that confidence . So what shape NPP would take in India is only time would tell. Be certainly GOI does not want to go beyond that for some reasons.

and comments such as that would result in 0.000001% reduction in Co2 emissions is pure, unadulterated bawkwash. Co2 pollution may not be a big issue for us today but if we really try to build up our generation capability with coal fired plants then it can and will become a major problem very fast - I'd say within a decade. Just look at China today and say a decade ago, in terms of the level of Co2 emissions. Since power plants are long term investments and very difficult to switch from one mode to another, we need to tackle the problem today so that we don't face a nightmare tomorrow. Today's data cannot be used to decide what is going to happen a decade from now. Projections are required.

I am not sure about CO 2 because if there is no CO2 there is no life, no greenery . Anyway, emissions by India is far below compared to USA or other countries in developed world. Even per capita consumption of power is far less and not going to go up anytime soon. This Co2 business is part of Developed world's strategy to keep growth under check and push their high cost technology and not to pay for their disproportionate share in Co2 emissions which is still continuing. I think data was there in IEP. If you see Option 11 that is with lowest CO2 emiisions and oer GDP emiision factor would be still less than developed world. CO2 argumrnts are given by Greens as well and if you see India has voluntarily committed to reductions and that ill be all notwithstanding any pulls pressures or arguments. We have to improve energy efficiency of GDP not because of emiisions but to get more bang for the buck.

Coming back to the issue of power generation, at the moment for baseload, nuclear remains the cleanest option we've got and my point is very simple. Every megawatt we can generate via nuclear is one megawatt less by coal or gas. I'd love to see that 10% going up to 30-40%. However, thanks to the jihadis and their supporters that's virtually impossible.

That is only chimera or your wish. Will not happen.

As regards quoting IEA, the reason I did that is I don't think we have such detailed studied on pollution effects of various generating technologies done in India. Even though the report deals with US conditions I think the findings are applicable to India. Regarding the DOE study, no comments as I did not refer to it.

I hope I've made my position clear. And once again I'm taking this effort because I respect your position on this subject, even though I don't agree fully with it.

Cheers!

If you read IEP things would be more clear. We might be looking from the same side.

[chaanakya]

, solar being green house intensive (over the lifecycle) )

Not sure what you mean by that.

[chaanakya]

OT though , Payback time of Solar panels has been studies and found that they give more energy then used for producing them.
Just quoting from one review of such studies

Of course standard conditions are assumed. Still 20-25 years warranty is enough to recovermuch more energy then put in. Hence "Solar being Green House intensive over life cycle " is nothing but ignorant comment.

http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-hand ... ayback.htm

In choosing for their analysis a figure of 20 kWh/kg Palz and Zibetta argued that solar grade silicon had been produced elsewhere with energy content of less than 50 kWh/kg and that a reduction towards 20 kWh/kg was expected. The resulting payback times for the 12 per cent efficient polycrystalline modules was calculated to be in the range of 1.6 to 2.7 years, depending on the choice of European location in which they were used. The corresponding payback times for 6 per cent efficient amorphous modules was estimated to be 0.9 to 1.6 years.

The above summary shows that energy payback times for modules incorporating thick silicon cells are, at worst, of the order of six to seven years and possibly less than three years. Since warranty periods of 20 years are routinely offered on such modules[ ] it is clear that the embodied energy should be easily recovered.

.

If one uses Hydro energy for solar panel then it would still be more green or less GHG emitting. This comment should rank on par with exploding solar panels comment by one poster or perhaps poisning by solar panel power.

[Amber G.]

Arnab,

To add to your post:

One Year After Fukushima, Japan Faces Shortages of Energy, Trust

Amit: A typical other head lines about "one year after Fukushima" ...
A Year After Fukushima Disaster, China Resumes Nuclear Energy Projects

BTW for Japan.. (per some one in the know) it still had 19 nuclear plants in operation.

One interesting tidbit ...

Prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, has called for restarting the plants as soon as possible, ........ Yet, fearing public opposition, he has said he will not restart the reactors without the approval of local community leaders.

[Theo_Fidel]

However, I must add that I think the technology for renewable is not there yet - that to the extent that they can take over the burden of high baseload generation. So we are left with coal, gas and nuclear and we need a massive ramp up of our electricity generation capability.

Of the three I think nuclear is the best option. 10 per cent nuclear as per the planning commission document is quite decent and comments such as that would result in 0.000001% reduction in Co2 emissions is pure, unadulterated bawkwash. Co2 pollution may not be a big issue for us today but if we really try to build up our generation capability with coal fired plants then it can and will become a major problem very fast - I'd say within a decade. Just look at China today and say a decade ago, in terms of the level of Co2 emissions. Since power plants are long term investments and very difficult to switch from one mode to another, we need to tackle the problem today so that we don't face a nightmare tomorrow. Today's data cannot be used to decide what is going to happen a decade from now. Projections are required.

Coming back to the issue of power generation, at the moment for baseload, nuclear remains the cleanest option we've got and my point is very simple. Every megawatt we can generate via nuclear is one megawatt less by coal or gas. I'd love to see that 10% going up to 30-40%. However, thanks to the jihadis and their supporters that's virtually impossible.

Amit,

You lost me at this point.

Nothing Nuclear U-235 cycle does will reduce our dependence on coal. It is a physical impossibility. As Sanku points out some of us have been hearing this 50,000 MW of Nuclear in 20 years drone for 60+ years. If I was less than charitable I would say it is job security for the GOI Nuclear Power Complex that is being pushed. Others have made a case for that as well.

Long term only 2 technologies have the scale to do something about our power needs and deal with the scale of fossil fuels including coal and oil.

- Nuclear breeder
- Solar/Wind

The truth is fossil fuels are like Champagne. They are packed with energy, easily transported and burnt. It is a fact that we are addicted to them. Compared to that Champagne even Nuclear power is like cheap spoiled beer. No amount of DAE spinning will change that. Even the U-235 cycle can not compete.

Breeder technology is simply too immature and not ready despite a century of research and effort. I fear it may be permanently efficient beyond human capability. On the same road as fusion.

That leaves Solar/Wind. Not Champagne, not even cheap beer. More like dilute sugar water. But it is all we have and the sooner we adapt and transition the better of we will be.

[Amber G.]

Meanwhile ... here in USA, US energy secretary Chu, a noble prize winner in Physics, said this to Vogtle workers...

(For those who don't know - At Vogtle site in Georgia, construction of two new reactors is due to start soon, first time in decades in US)

The resurgence of America's nuclear energy industry starts here in Goergia, where you just got approval for the first time in three decades to build new reactors.

In no uncertain terms, Obama administration tells the workers that "US committed to nuclear"

BTW, Obama administration's $8 billion in loan guarantee (to support the construction of two Westinghouse AP1000), $770 million for fiscal year 2012 for its nuclear energy program and his $10 million for "innovative, cross-cutting research" for the plant .. some may find interesting.

U.S. Energy Secretary Tours Plant Vogtle, Makes Policy Change Announcement

or
OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Chu to tout nuclear in Georgia

Amit, Arnab... BTW, the figures for "clean" energy contribution, according to Chu, of nuclear in US is about 70% (Total energy due to nuclear in US is only about 20%).. something to think about.

[chaanakya]

Amit, Arnab... BTW, the figures for "clean" energy contribution, according to Chu, of nuclear in US is about 70% (Total energy due to nuclear in US is only about 20%).. something to think about.

yes , that means abt 70% is unclean energy.

[Sanatanan]

. . .
It took money to build the KNPP plant and obviously that money has to be repaid even it's just a book-keeping action on the part of the GoI. And the electricity that the plant will generate is going to result in a financial stream for KNPP. This money would be used to repay the cost of construction plus daily running costs (including salaries and cost of fuel). At some point a break-even would be reached whereby the money got from selling electricity would pay for the cost of the plant.
. . .

Amit-ji,

Kindly permit me a small diversion (from the thought processes going on in this thread just now), expressed in jest.

As far as I know, at present, possibly due to various reasons associated with mis[s]-governance, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is "bondi" (meaning bankrupt) and has been, as I remember to have read in some news report or the other, defaulting in its payments for the electricity it obtains from NPCIL and probably other generators too. I wonder whether they will be able to pay for the electricity supplied to the TN Grid when 900 odd MWe begins to flow from Koodangulam, whatever may be the price. Ms JJ may in fact be playing this hostage game to ensure that all of the 900 MWe is supplied to her free of charge! So if NPCIL is depending on revenue from KKNP electricity sale to repay the cost of construction, they may be in for a shock (pun intended!).

JMT

[Theo_Fidel]

Just a note.

The Cost of KKNP was financed largely by the Russian government in commercial debt terms. Right now it is running at about Rs 18,000 crores but no one really knows as it is classified a state secret. This probably means it has grown much larger in time. Originally the interest terms were very concessional. But after break up of CCCP the rates were changed to commercial.

Russia only gets paid after plants starts up. In 17 equal installments IIRC. Hence the kujli from their end and firing of stinky missiles at the locals. It is guaranteed by GOI hence will be paid irrespective of electricity income. Hence the Kujli by MMS.
---------------------------------------------
Chu is being a little economical with the truth.

There is no way Nuclear construction can keep up with the decommissioning schedule of plants likely to start shutting down. Even the Vogtle plants in Georgia are not a done deal. Dozens of organisations have sued the operators as very little design review was done post Fukushima. The design will be subjected to a painstaking legal and technical analysis. Already the plants are estimated to cost $8.8 Billion a piece. The Federal government has forked over $8 Billion in loans and about $3 Billion has already been spent. There is a non trivial chance that these too will remain holes in the swamp.

[Amber G.]

yes , that means abt 70% is unclean energy.

No, that is not what I meant.

Others - More important and interesting things are there in the links I posted.

BTW, for those who may be interested in "clean" energy or costs of CO2 abatement .. may like to see, for example: costs of CO2 abatement

(A little dated, but easy to understand, there are many current articles)

(Obama's target of reducing US greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and reducing them by a further 80% by 2050, relies mainly with nuclear energy - (alongside other clean energies, no doubt, but nuclear remains the main focus)

Let me put a famous (distributed recently by Noble Prize winner Chu who is US Energy secretory) chart, without comments:

[Sanku]

(Obama's target of reducing US greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and reducing them by a further 80% by 2050, relies mainly with nuclear energy - (alongside other clean energies, no doubt, but nuclear remains the main focus)

Let me put a famous (distributed recently by Noble Prize winner Chu who is US Energy secretory) chart, without comments:

You do realize that the char that you posted and the statement that you made are fundamentally incompatible dont you?

Unless of course you meant quite something else altogether (since you have chosen to not make a comment about the chart, it is not clear why you posted it)

[Amber G.]

^^^ No. (statements are not incompatible).
The statement which were quoted and hi-lighted, BTW are Obama's administration's, not mine... and to most thinking people, makes perfect sense.

The chart is self explanatory, and requires no comments, but I understand that to some nothing is clear, but then I am not responsible for other peoples's puerility.

[Amber G.]

Seriously, if any one wants context of the above chart I posted, here is the caption of the chart, in Chu's own words:

As you'll see, we need nuclear power as part of a comprehensive solution: investing in energy efficiency, wind, solar, geothermal, carbon capture, energy storage, electric vehicles, and more. In doing so, we are sparking a new industrial revolution that will create millions of new jobs here in the United States and lay the foundation for America's long-term economic prosperity.

Here is more from more context...

Why We Need More Nuclear Power
by Steven Chu on Monday, February 22, 2010 at 10:26am ·

There has been a vigorous discussion here on Facebook since my last post about President Obama's announcement of a loan guarantee for what will become the first nuclear power plant to break ground in nearly three decades. I'd like to make a few points to continue the discussion.

Some of you expressed a preference for solar and wind power over nuclear energy. I share your enthusiasm for these renewable sources of energy, and, because of the success of the Recovery Act, we are on pace to double our renewable energy capacity by 2012.

But no single technology will provide all of the answers. Wind and solar now provide about 3 percent of our electricity, compared to 20 percent for nuclear. While we are working at hard as we can to promote energy efficiency in every part sector of America, it is likely that our energy demand will continue to rise. In fact, the Energy Information Administration projects an almost 20 percent increase in overall energy demand and over 30 percent increase in electricity demand over the next 25 years under current laws. If we want to make a serious dent in carbon dioxide emissions -- not to mention having cleaner air and cleaner water -- then nuclear power has to be on the table.

Also remember that wind and solar are intermittent energy sources. The sun isn't always shining, and the wind isn't always blowing. Without technological breakthroughs in efficient, large scale energy storage, it will be difficult to rely on intermittent renewables for much more than 20-30 percent of our electricity. To overcome this problem, we are pursuing breakthrough approaches to grid-scale energy storage as well as stimulating the wide-spread adoption of known technologies such as pumped hydro energy storage. But nuclear power can provide large amounts of carbon-free power that is always available.

Link (for example)
https://www.facebook.com/notes/steven-c ... 6162546856

[Amber G.]

Arnab,

To add to your post:

One Year After Fukushima, Japan Faces Shortages of Energy, Trust

Amit, Arnab, also WEC's (World Energy Council)'s document and its perspective on " Nuclear Energy One Year After Fukushima." is worth reading.. some quotes...

Countries like Germany will soon demonstrate the economic and environmental irresponsibility of allowing politicians to set important national policies in the middle of a panic attack...

Industry leaders remain bullish on nuclear power's prospects in coming decades, ....
..Very little has changed... in respect of the future utilisation of nuclear in the energy mix,.... After surveying its members in 94 countries, WEC found that "The Fukushima accident has not led to any significant retraction in nuclear energy programs in countries outside Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Japan," said senior project manager Ayed Al-Qatani. Progress in some countries' programs has been delayed, but "there is no indication that their pursuit of nuclear power has declined in response to Fukushima.
...people can draw confidence from the absence of any health harm even from this extreme, highly unusual event,
...In contrast [to Germany], many national leaders who soberly reviewed their energy strategies have reaffirmed the conclusion they reached before Fukushima: that nuclear power is a uniquely reliable and expandable source of low-carbon energy that can be safely used to meet clean-energy need."
"

For full context etc... see for example:
Optimism from industry on Fukushima anniversary

[Sanku]

^^^ No. (statements are not incompatible).
The statement which were quoted and hi-lighted, BTW are Obama's administration's, not mine... and to most thinking people, makes perfect sense.

The chart is self explanatory, and requires no comments, but I understand that to some nothing is clear, but then I am not responsible for other peoples's puerility.

I would say there is no correlation between your post and the material you ostensibly use to quote to back those up.

Making statements about "right thinking people" or such other gibberish will not change that.

For example the report that you yourself quote says

Seriously, if any one wants context of the above chart I posted, here is the caption of the chart, in Chu's own words:
Quote:
As you'll see, we need nuclear power as part of a comprehensive solution: investing in energy efficiency, wind, solar, geothermal, carbon capture, energy storage, electric vehicles, and more. In doing so, we are sparking a new industrial revolution that will create millions of new jobs here in the United States and lay the foundation for America's long-term economic prosperity.

and what you said was

(Obama's target of reducing US greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and reducing them by a further 80% by 2050, relies mainly with nuclear energy - (alongside other clean energies, no doubt, but nuclear remains the main focus)

So from statements like
"also on the table"
and
"as part of a comprehensive solution"

the slight of hand in restatement makes it

"mainly on nuclear power"

This is a old trick, some posters always "restate" others point to say "this is a white cat" to be "you are against rats"

Sorry, Amber G, I would suggest that you restate your original statement as not not incorrectly state the report.

Also note that your chart itself does not have numbers but clearly the nuclear component is a minor one, best case 20%.

In any case Om-baba and his cohorts can make their projections, but wake my up after 4 years if they make a dent in the situation. It is trivial to yakk and make grandiose statements, but much more difficult to make real changes. And no the has been US is not going to be able to make these changes, unless of course a net drop in GDP lowers overall energy use.

[Sanku]

It is telling that even strongest pushers for Nuclear (in other countries of course so that American junk reactors can be bought) dont say that in US Nuke power will be a main source.

Mean while, far away from rarefied high circles where people sit and use non nuclear power for heating and other requirements while projecting about the world, in "reality"

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-new ... 23120.aspx

Japan’s nuclear energy industry nears shutdown, at least for now

All but two of Japan’s 54 commercial reactors have gone offline since the nuclear disaster a year ago, after the earthquake and tsunami, and it is not clear when they can be restarted.

With the last operating reactor scheduled to be idled as soon as next month, Japan — once one of the world’s leaders in atomic energy — will have at least temporarily shut down an industry that once generated a third of its electricity.

It is good to just take a teeny weeny look at the real world before pulling numbers of out the Musharaff for publishing papers which are designed to win claps from similar fellows in industry and press conferences but not good for anything else.

[chetak]

Shades of Kundankulam!

U.S. adds Vatican to money-laundering 'concern' list

VATICAN CITY | Thu Mar 8, 2012 2:05pm EST

(Reuters) - The Vatican has for the first time appeared on the State Department's list of money-laundering centers but the tiny city-state is not rated as a high-risk country.

The 2012 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report was made public on Wednesday and Washington's list of 190 countries classifies them in three categories: of primary concern, of concern and monitored.

The Vatican is in the second category, grouped with 67 other nations including Poland, Egypt, Ireland, Hungary and Chile.

It was added to the list because it was considered vulnerable to money-laundering and had recently established programs to prevent it, a State Department official said.

[amit]

Amber,

Thanks for the links, particularly Chu's comment. However, I hope you do realize that he would be classified as an idiot - Nobel Prize be damned - by "experts" on this thread? Afterall as per the bolded portions of the article he is saying essentially the same thing as certified "idiots" such as me have been saying, which is if one wants to make a serious dent to green house gases then nuclear is the way to go.

Now wait for the 0.0000001% percent comment from the most pre-eminent of the "experts".