Nuclear Generation has improved by 41% and it has contributed 32455 MU compared to 26473 MU previous years. This is due to improved availability of imported fuels/ The total generation of electricity from all sources was 811 BU. AT&C losses could be pegged at 15% approx. ( varies from region to region) and that means 120 BU lost. Under Energy conservation effort you could save anywhere between 10-25% electricity with proper measures. Compare all this to Nuclear power generation in total generation scenario. What % is that?
The bolded portion is a very disingenuous argument which takes the discussion to a dead end. Proper energy conservation can improve total electricity available in India, that's a given, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. But then two questions arise:
a) Is the amount saved (assuming 100 per cent saving, that is zero loss) be sufficient to wipe out our existing energy deficit?
b) Would just energy conservation be sufficient to provide for the rapid growth in energy requirement that we will be requiring over the next 20-30 years?
It's pretty obvious the answer to both questions is a big NO (if you think otherwise I'd certainly be interested in hearing your reasons).
So we're left with the requirement for new builds. Here the majority POV - of those who advocate that India should not abandon nuclear - is that new electricity generation should come from all available sources, renewables (including hydel), coal, gas and nuclear.
Now the point here is that renewables (that is solar, wind, tide etc) have vast potential. However, that potential is yet to be reached and I think it would take at least another decade. Another point, often overlooked, is it's not just a question of setting up large solar farms and wind mills. To fully harness renewable power generation you need to develop a very complicated eco system which India does not have now.
Look at this
previous post of mine on just how complicated it could be, particularly read the article linked there: Germany’s new energy policy a complex puzzle
Even in Germany's case, they'd still be relying on coal fired plants for base load generation. Even then it's highly doubtful if Germany will be able to reach 45 per cent renewables by 2022, which they have to if they are going to permanently close down their nuclear plants and still not suffer from loadshedding. (Incidentally there's nothing like a good old fashioned loadshedding, particularly during winter, to shake some sense into Green jihadis).
So at the end of the day you're left with coal, gas or nuclear for baseload generation. And here lifecycle pollution cost for nuclear is far lower than the other two. Incidentally, in case you need some corroboration on this please check out my post here
and one directly below it.
I hope now you understand why I've been saying all along, that it's a nuclear vs fossil fuel debate and not a nuclear vs renewables which the coal lobby would love. Every MW generated via nuclear is one MW less generated by dirty fossil fuel.
There's also the small matter of fuel supply. I've found it very interesting as to how there's not been a peep from coal champions**
such as you and Theo on the mess that we're in particularly with regard to our UMPP strategy. I wonder what you're take is about that, particularly RBI's decision to suspend all funding for new UMPPs due to the hike in pithead prices which have made ongoing UMPPs virtually unviable. Regarding gas just where exactly will we be getting it all for the kind of builds we need? Surely fuel supply is a factor that should be considered when discussing if we can afford to either junk or downgrade nuclear generation?
Incidentally your comment: "Nuclear Generation has improved by 41% and it has contributed 32455 MU compared to 26473 MU previous years. This is due to improved availability of imported fuels/
... was made possible by the Civil Nuclear deal which you and some other folks here think of as a scam. It's not a coincidence that imported yellow cake is freely available and has contributed to PLFs going north of 90 per cent - for the first time in history - in our existing nuclear plants.**
Note: I confess "coal champions" is a bit of deductive reasoning on my part. You favor renewables, you're against nuclear. Yet even you folks admit that renewables cannot be 100 per cent. So that leaves fossil fuel. Of course you are a generous person at heart so you're will to have "some nuclear" in the mix. The difference is I think some of us think we should have "some fossil fuel" in the mix and "more nuclear" as the target that we should aim for.
Improvement is due to availability of fuel due to 123. There are many questions about the deal but that is besides the point. fuel import is one thing and reactor import is another. Whether I agree with any of the above or not is immaterial. Scam on national interest is what characterizes Civil Nuclear Deal. But this debate is already going on in some thread , please follow there.
As regards your other points.
Answer to first question is yes.
How so.? AT&C losses ranges from 14-62%. Dont be surprised. There are several factors leading to this.
SOKO has 5% or less . Think how much electricity is being wasted by us.
So existing energy deficit could easily be met just by reducing AT&C losses to 5%. How much investment would be needed. Certainly less than what would be required to set up NPP for 120GW.
As regards Energy Conservation 25% is easily achievable at current consumption rate. This would again free up 200GW power at a fraction of its cost of setting up NPP for 200GW. This investment could easily be recovered within 5-7 years.
However this would only increase the energy efficiency of GDP. It would not meet the demand for more energy as GDP grows. For that we need more power. But just think how much power for NPP is planned in best case scenario. It is 20% of 920 GW required by 2032 in upper limit. that is 184GW. Even if you make it 250GW that would require huge investment and would still not cross the achievable savings of 320GW as noted above.
Neither I am coal champion nor Renewable champion or for that matter NPP champion. Such labeling is your forte, unfortunate though it may be.
Most of our coal plant operate at 29-35% efficiency and 70% PLF. Think hard, if it is improved to 45% efficiency and PLF of 90% more electricity could be generated. This would require selective improvements in existing TPPs.
In terms of Energy Mix for power, if coal remains predominant source ( with gas competing) then it would make sense to go for CCT/Super critical tech etc.
Regarding RBI decision, I am not aware of it and surely RBI has nothing to do with financing any project let alone UMPP. May be you could post a link. India is setting up or planning to set up Ultra Super Critical Power Plants which mean improved efficiency and more generation.
I don't know if there is a ban on import of coal. I think there is none. Prices may vary. But they don't come with conditionality on storage and reprocessing or waste storage management etc.
Could you support your claim how TPPs have become financially unviable or should we take your word for it. This is important since India is planning to set up 400 to 500 GW TPPs.
Also you should look at post by Theo on Nuclear fuel import and its costing and impact on viability of NPP esp if Life cycle costs are factored in.