Sanatanan wrote:[quote="In page 85, amit-ji"]
I think it's time you guys clearly stated what you think should be the key takeaway from Fukushima for India. Should it abandon the nuclear option? Should it take cognizance of the failures - real and imaginary - at Fukushima and design more robust nuclear reactors?
In the context of the discussions taking place now in this thread, I am not quite sure whether the above question was meant to be rhetorical or not. Here I have assumed that it is not.
To me the question above was thought provoking, and so I have tried to cast my vote as follows:[/quote]
Hi Sanatanan ji,
Again apologies for a late reply. My question/statement was not rhetorical at all. It was a genuine attempt to steer the discussion to a more relevant direction. I'm glad that you posted what you did as IMHO that's the kind of thing we should discuss.
Now some comments on the points you detailed.
Evolution and consequent detailed design, manufacture, construction and operation of NPPs should be (and as far as I am concerned,
is) a continuing process, even without any reference to Fukushima. If it were not so, Dr. AK et al would not have come up, a few years ago, with the AHWR concept that uses passive heat removal even during normal full power operation. (That I think implementation of this particular idea may be found unviable and that at some point of time in future they may re-introduce pumps for circulating the coolant through the reactor core, might be irrelevant to the concept of continual evolution of NPP designs that I am discussing here). Therefore, taking the appropriate lessons from Fukushima and not only incorporating them in future designs, but also straining as much as possible to back-fit them in existing designs is the way forward. Such exercises
were carried out in the wake of Chernobyl and TMI, and must have been done after the Narora fire and other similar incidents.
As far as India is concerned, for reasons I have been attempting to articulate in this thread so far, I vote for continuing the line of PHWRs that we have developed and proceed forward with the steps we are taking in relation to indigenous FBRs and Thorium fuelled FBRs / PHWRs / AHWRs.
Fully agree with you on this point.
For me, import of NPPs must be shunned, because I firmly believe that (i) such imports will inhibit indigenous technology development and, (ii) LWRs are not neutron economical. I note that India has already developed LWR technology at a much more difficult level - namely, compact LWR, suitable for incorporation inside the confines of a submarine. Again, I am not a believer in the new-found need (post nuclear deal), for 40,000 MWe of nuclear capacity addition sought to be justified by Dr. AK as mere "additionality" thereby implying that we can very well afford to do without. However, DAE may have to go quite a distance yet on some other issues -- to me, the implementation of a "sterilised zone" around a reactor site is anathema and impinges on societal aspirations. I understand no other country in the world has it.
IMO, the nuclear deal was as much to get access to uranium as it was to get access to LWRs. I posted
this report a few days ago. Assuming it's true then our nuclear power plants are running at 100 per cent capacity thanks to imports.
In the financial year ending March 31 — the first full year of renewed uranium imports — power generation through nuclear energy was in excess of 26.4 billion units, an increase of over 40 per cent compared to the previous year, and more than the target for this year.
Every one of the country’s nine nuclear plants that are under IAEA safeguards — and thus eligible to use imported fuel — is now running at 100 per cent capacity.
Some others, like unit 4 in Kaiga, are also operating at full capacity. On an average, reactors outside of IAEA safeguards — and running only on domestic fuel — are operating at 75-80 per cent capacity.
The other idea behind the Nook deal, IMHO, was getting access to foreign technology. Do note if everything goes according to plan, then we'll be importing reactors from the US, France and the Russians. Surely there's a lot learn from that?
Finally I think the idea behind the nook deal and imports is not to kill our 3-stage plan and PHWRs, AHWRs and FBRs. On the contrary I think the whole idea is to take pressure off them so that the difficult technology can be mastered.
Remember at the end of the day the 3-stage is not a scientific experiment. The idea is to generate electricity. But we've seen efficient generation will take time. If we just depended on indigenously developed reactors we'd remain dependent on fossil fuels and would not get the benefits of nuclear. Parallel import of 1,000MW LWRs, which would operate under international safeguards and fuel, gives more electricity from nuclear and at the same time frees up the pressure to deliver at all cost on our design efforts.
I don't anyone has talked about abandoning the 3-stage and just depending on imported LWRs.
JMT and all that.
BRF can only have one agenda, to share knowledge. That at best. Often fails.
