India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

Amber G. wrote: British businesses remain hungry for nuclear
The appetite of UK business leaders for new nuclear generating capacity has not diminished, despite the Fukushima accident, a poll conducted by the Institute of Directors (IoD) of its members shows. The IoD has published a report calling nuclear energy a "clean, cheap and safe" way of generating electricity.
And that is precisely the problem isnt it? Money at all costs? Engineering, real world data and physics all be damned.

Sad situation.

Meanwhile
http://news.yahoo.com/seismologists-war ... 31025.html

Seismologists warn Japan against nuclear restart
TOKYO (Reuters) - Two prominent seismologists said on Tuesday that Japan is ignoring the safety lessons of last year's Fukushima crisis and warned against restarting two reactors next month.

Japan has approved the restart of the two reactors at the Kansai Electric Power Ohi nuclear plant, northwest of Tokyo, despite mass public opposition.

They will be the first to come back on line after all reactors were shut following a massive earthquake and tsunami last March that caused the worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl at Tokyo Electric Power's Daiichi Fukushima plant.

Seismic modeling by Japan's nuclear regulator did not properly take into account active fault lines near the Ohi plant, Katsuhiko Ishibashi, a seismologist at Kobe University, told reporters.

"The stress tests and new safety guidelines for restarting nuclear power plants both allow for accidents at plants to occur," Ishibashi told reporters. "Instead of making standards more strict, they both represent a severe setback in safety standards."

Experts advising Japan's nuclear industry had underestimated the seismic threat, Mitsuhisa Watanabe, a tectonic geomorphology professor at Tokyo University, said at the same news conference.

"The expertise and neutrality of experts advising Japan's Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency are highly questionable," Watanabe said.

After an earthquake in 2007 caused radiation leaks at reactors north of Tokyo, Ishibashi said Japan was at risk of a nuclear disaster following a large earthquake, a warning that proved prescient after Fukushima.

While it is impossible to predict when earthquakes will happen, Ishibashi said on Tuesday the magnitude 9 quake last year made it more likely "devastating" earthquakes would follow.
Its sad how science and engineering are being massacred at the altar of greed. :(
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by vina »

Its sad how science and engineering are being massacred at the altar of greed. :(
Very sad indeed. But Maharaj Ji. Pliss to read my previous post about capacity factors and how your Rig Vedaesque Inglees on imports don't pan out.

So, I ask you again. Why Three ? Why djinn number three ? Why not two, if you can start the thorium cycle some 30 years and a lots of couple of billion dollars and massive R&D and engineering and the entire Fast Breeder Program possibly not needed.

Pliss to put your gyaan in plain Ingless onree. Thanks. Dhanyavad.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

Meanwhile, despite "tons of radioactive waste poured into the sea" at Fukushima 15 months after what do the Japanese do?

This:

Japan’s Fukushima seafood on sale for first time since last year’s nuclear disaster

Image

These Japanese folks must be nuts I tell you. They should be reading the Nuke Dhaga here first before eating their sushi and shasami.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

vina wrote:
Its sad how science and engineering are being massacred at the altar of greed. :(
Very sad indeed. But Maharaj Ji. Pliss to read my previous post about capacity factors and how your Rig Vedaesque Inglees on imports don't pan out.

So, I ask you again. Why Three ? Why djinn number three ? Why not two, if you can start the thorium cycle some 30 years and a lots of couple of billion dollars and massive R&D and engineering and the entire Fast Breeder Program possibly not needed.

Pliss to put your gyaan in plain Ingless onree. Thanks. Dhanyavad.
Stop trolling.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by vina »

Sanku wrote:Stop trolling.
No. It is an honest question. Why are YOU stuck on the 3 stage program ? What is YOUR justification for it now. I very well understand the original rationale on which it was made. But then, the 3 stage is a PLAN and every plan needs to be evaluated as you progress in light of experience.

Now experience shows that we have just about stabilized and operated the 1st stage of the 3 stage. The 2nd stage too is fraught with steep knowledge and experience learning curves that will take around 25 years or so. And then we go to the 3rd stage (though some of it is attempted in parallel with the 2nd stage).

If you look at it coldly, all the 2nd stage does is produce power and generate a lot more "neutrons" to seed the 3rd stage.

If power and neutrons is the objective , Question is when there is NOW an OPTION to import reactors and fuel and get the same power and neutrons with much lower risk and possibly cost from well proven and widely used LWR technology, why should WE beat the lonely furrow and go the FBR route (where the engineering development and operational experience is much less compared to LWR) to get to the same objective (of power and neutrons for thorium).

That was what I was hoping you to actually question and maybe other better informed and knowledgeable folks here on those matters to answer as well.

Instead we get Rig Vedaeqsue Inglees and some total cop outs. Do make an attempt to answer this point. WHY 3 and why the FBR 2nd stage at all ?

In fact, you could EXPAND the well proven PHWR program using imported fuel (and also raise the capacity factors as has been done) and generate much of the same kind of power you would have had to do with a risky and R&D intensive 2nd stage and achieve the same goals of power and neutrons for thorium stage ! In fact the LWR import/indgenous LWR complements the expansion of PHWR .

If you have a TECHNICAL answer to this, please let us know. Thanks.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by vina »

Theo_Fidel wrote:I don't think I have ever claimed efficiency rise is necessary to make it viable. If it comes well and good but present 22%-24% is more than adequate. I have said that as PV commodetizes prices will continue to drop. Right now the bean counters say there is no barrier to $0.30 per watt panels.
Actually, you do . It is just that your assumptions are implicit ! While on a KWH basis, even if solar matches nuke, with 4 times the capacity factor, Nuke will win hands down. Remember for the remaining 80% of the time Solar DOESN'T produce, some other thing must and that is extremely capital intensive.

So per watt solar panel is NOT a replacement of a per watt of coal/nuke/whatever 100% of the time, but rather only 20% of the time.

The assumptions you are making are two. 1) Solar generates excess power than demanded (for that the efficiencies have to improve, if you want to keep capital and other costs in check) AND 2) Storage dramatically drops in costs and leaps ahead in capability, so that you can store the excess and pump it back when solar is NOT generating.

That is when Solar CAN replace coal /nuke/whatever.

So really , you are asking for solar to produce 20%* 5 6 times the demanded power , while 20% gets used as generated the remaining 20% * 5 gets stored and gets used when it isn't generating!

That fundamentally means, that what you are asking is not replace 1kwh of nuke/coal/gas with 1 kwh of solar, but rather 6 kwh of solar , massive storage of 5 kwh for it to be a replacement. Do the math in that case and it is obvious that Solar can be at best a very small part in very niche areas , but never the basic and primary source of energy.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

vina wrote:
Sanku wrote:Stop trolling.
No. It is an honest question.
I don't think so. You have simply side stepped some very basic issue and are trying to act smart by asking the same question again rephrased in different language, first pinglish and then now once again English since Pinglish was shot down.

So to be quite honest, I do not think that the questions are honest. If you were a newbie, sure I would have given a benifiet of doubt -- but being around here forever -- you come back and make a statement like "Did Sita had a role in Ramayana, not sure, just how many pages does Sita have?"

If after eons, you can blandly say that we will use imported uranium in breeders etc -- quite easiley side stepping that breeders are not in civyy domain.

I really doubt that you are talking this discussion seriously. Neither your past few posts nor this one gives me any hope that if the same material was presented once more -- you will not reply to it in you characteritic comic pinglish approach.

So I will wait and see whether you have even considered even of the previous posts before I post any more gyan on this -- right now it seems that you are singing a constant same tune irrespective of any facts on the ground.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by vina »

Sanku wrote:If after eons, you can blandly say that we will use imported uranium in breeders etc -- quite easiley side stepping that breeders are not in civyy domain.
I am not saying anything of that sort. All I am asking is why the Fast Breeders at ALL ? Again I ask you , why 3 ?

Surely you don't mean to say that the entire 2nd stage is to build a humongous amount of material for military use !
any facts on the ground.
I hear noise. No facts. I asked you for a Technical reason. And then you go off on a wild goose of putting imported uranium in military reactors, when the separation between civil and military is now a done deal (I think it is right we did that and delinked the power and military programs).
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4133
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Neela »

When was the last time Sanku added anything worthwhile to this thread.
Banal whining .
Trite remarks.
Cliches.
If all else fails, cry "personal attack" or "MMS sellout" - lather , rinse , repeat.

Good luck getting sane responses from him!
Last edited by Neela on 27 Jun 2012 13:08, edited 2 times in total.
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4133
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Neela »

Oh and desperate , desperate attempts to find backing for his arguments here:
Sanku wrote:
Varoon Shekhar wrote:http://flonnet.com/stories/20120713291303800.htm
Good article, with info, as well as upbeat sounding attitude! BTW, What is this indigenous LWR in Kalpakkam?
Excellent interview, I especially liked the very very non-committal tone about imported LWR and their sites and significant focus on domestic programs.
Sanku infers that RK-Sinha-ji is very non-committal about imported LWRs


What RK Sinha-ji was asked:
Is India's 123 agreement with the United States dead? The Jaitapur project, where reactors from France will be built, is yet to take off. The West Bengal Chief Minister says she will not allow any [Russian] reactor to come up at Haripur. Nothing has been heard of the American reactors to be built at Kovvada in Andhra Pradesh or Chaya Mithi Verdi in Gujarat. So, is the exemption India has got from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines and its emergence from 36 years of international isolation only a pyrrhic victory for the Manmohan Singh government and the DAE?
What RK Sinha-ji answered:
I don't think we have been standing still. A lot of work has been done in the area of establishing the framework that will help in completing the contracts at an early date. Indian industry has been gearing up for the opportunity that will come its way [once these contracts for building the Russian, American and French reactors are signed].

At the same time, for both vendors and buyers [in our country], such an exercise has been a first-of-its-kind type.

India, as a democratic country that has a well-established legal system along with a lot of experience in building and operating nuclear power plants, stands in a somewhat different bracket compared with some of the buyers that vendors could have encountered in the past. It has, therefore, taken some time to arrive at a mutually acceptable framework before initiating projects on the ground. We have, however, made excellent progress and I hope these projects will be realised soon enough.
How is a "lot of work done in establishing he framework" and hoping for quick realisation of project "non-committal".

Does that make you a deceiver?
What now?
Or I have misquoted you?
Eh?
Or is it personal attack?
archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6823
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by archan »

How about you guys take a break for a week or so? If you cannot put forward your views without resorting to personal attacks then what is the point?
We have tried not to interfere much but you guys are not helping. This applies to both sides of the debate, to Sanku, to Neela, to vina among others. Kindly self moderate unless you want us in. Thanks.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

vina wrote: when the separation between civil and military is now a done deal (I think it is right we did that and delinked the power and military programs).
Really ? Done deal?

I am sorry the 3 cycle and still not been junked under catch phrases of oh "civil and mil are different onlee" -- the civil and military distinction is only a euphemism for "IAEA can snoop here and these are parts we did not let them get into" -- it is not really a civil use and military use division.

And please dont ask why is that. All that ram kahani has been done and you are asking "why are you painting Ravana as villian"

If you havent got the very basic above right, you wont get anything else.
alexis
BRFite
Posts: 469
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by alexis »

vina wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote:I don't think I have ever claimed efficiency rise is necessary to make it viable. If it comes well and good but present 22%-24% is more than adequate. I have said that as PV commodetizes prices will continue to drop. Right now the bean counters say there is no barrier to $0.30 per watt panels.
Actually, you do . It is just that your assumptions are implicit ! While on a KWH basis, even if solar matches nuke, with 4 times the capacity factor, Nuke will win hands down. Remember for the remaining 80% of the time Solar DOESN'T produce, some other thing must and that is extremely capital intensive.

So per watt solar panel is NOT a replacement of a per watt of coal/nuke/whatever 100% of the time, but rather only 20% of the time.

The assumptions you are making are two. 1) Solar generates excess power than demanded (for that the efficiencies have to improve, if you want to keep capital and other costs in check) AND 2) Storage dramatically drops in costs and leaps ahead in capability, so that you can store the excess and pump it back when solar is NOT generating.

That is when Solar CAN replace coal /nuke/whatever.

So really , you are asking for solar to produce 20%* 5 6 times the demanded power , while 20% gets used as generated the remaining 20% * 5 gets stored and gets used when it isn't generating!

That fundamentally means, that what you are asking is not replace 1kwh of nuke/coal/gas with 1 kwh of solar, but rather 6 kwh of solar , massive storage of 5 kwh for it to be a replacement. Do the math in that case and it is obvious that Solar can be at best a very small part in very niche areas , but never the basic and primary source of energy.
The capacity factor is an important dimension which prevents renewable energy (solar/wind) from being a major source of energy for the grid. Storage is inefficient and impractical with current technologies. However if you have a judicious mix of various sources, this problem is manageable. Open cycle gas plants and hydel plants (storage type) can be stood down when wind/solar energy is contributing to the grid. But this precisely limits the quantum of renewable energy that the grid can manage efficiently.

As pointed out earlier, there is a limit to which we can exploit coal because of social and environmental issue. Coal India Ltd is not efficient as it can be, but the incremental coal production is not going to be much each year. Private companies have been allotted coal blocks; most of which are not operating even after years due to environmental approvals /social unrest. This allocation itself is in danger of being scrapped due allegations of favoritism/nepotism -so called "coalgate" scam.

TIll new methods of electricity storage are developed or huge shale gas discoveries are made, i see no alternative to nuclear energy for India.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:
vina wrote: when the separation between civil and military is now a done deal (I think it is right we did that and delinked the power and military programs).
Really ? Done deal?

I am sorry the 3 cycle and still not been junked under catch phrases of oh "civil and mil are different onlee" -- the civil and military distinction is only a euphemism for "IAEA can snoop here and these are parts we did not let them get into" -- it is not really a civil use and military use division.

And please dont ask why is that. All that ram kahani has been done and you are asking "why are you painting Ravana as villian"

If you havent got the very basic above right, you wont get anything else.
The problem is when folks respond to posts like this then the thread starts to unravel.

IAEA experts eh? Like Gerard said many moons ago, by now we should have had IAEA inspectors crawling all over India. Pray how many of them are around? And what exactly is the harm if an IAEA inspector visits, say the KNPP plant? It's another bogeyman used to hammer a discredited argument. Net, net is the nuclear deal was as much about getting imported uranium for nuclear power (so that our indigenous maal could be kept, if required, for military use) as it is about importing nuclear power plants.

I know you are in denial on this one but the fact remains that plant load factors have improved dramatically at most nuclear power generating plants after the import of uranium. Please feel free to provide a link which shows my assertion to be incorrect/false. If you can't then don't start another denial post, it gets irritating, nobody is going to take your word on this unless you back it up.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

alexis wrote:
The capacity factor is an important dimension which prevents renewable energy (solar/wind) from being a major source of energy for the grid. Storage is inefficient and impractical with current technologies. However if you have a judicious mix of various sources, this problem is manageable. Open cycle gas plants and hydel plants (storage type) can be stood down when wind/solar energy is contributing to the grid. But this precisely limits the quantum of renewable energy that the grid can manage efficiently.

As pointed out earlier, there is a limit to which we can exploit coal because of social and environmental issue. Coal India Ltd is not efficient as it can be, but the incremental coal production is not going to be much each year. Private companies have been allotted coal blocks; most of which are not operating even after years due to environmental approvals /social unrest. This allocation itself is in danger of being scrapped due allegations of favoritism/nepotism -so called "coalgate" scam.

TIll new methods of electricity storage are developed or huge shale gas discoveries are made, i see no alternative to nuclear energy for India.
Boss,

Thanks for a series of very good posts. There's another aspect to solar and wind which nobody is talking about, that is transmission. Sometime ago I posted a detailed link about what they are attempting to do in Germany, unfortunately I did not back up the link and I just can't seem to find it on the forum. To whit what the link described in great detail was how Germany was developing a huge and intricate power distribution network because solar panels or wind turbines had to be placed in places where there is either sun or wind, one can't just plonk it where it is needed the most like nuclear power.

Net result was a series of storage and transmission facilities. Think of the challenges of reproducing that in India. Even before the KNPP plant started generation there was row between Tamil Nadu and Kerala over which state would get what share of the power. We'd have this all over India. For example we could put, say, wind turbines on the Western Ghats but would be able to transport that power to say Bangalore?

The solar and wind champions here are, unfortunately suffering from a massive bout of brochuritist. They don't consider the practical difficulties of fitting on those fancy and TFTA models into the Indian context.

As of now solar and wind can only be localised solutions for the areas where they come up. They cannot be the mainstay of the national grid. It has to either coal, gas or nuclear. To me the choice in this is clear.
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4133
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Neela »

Amit,

Indian context - to be fair, most are in agreement that we need our local solutions.

Regarding WInd: Wind energy and UK will always be an interesting case as they have quite steady,exploitable wind patterns. One study reports that for un-interruupted supply, 1p per (end consumer) unit must be added to the cost if wind contributes to 30% of energy needs in UK. That is a lot of money. But they have taken the bold step and are exploiting it to the maximum. But since last year there has been a steady trickle of not-so-fabourable news for wind.
Tolerance for wind power is falling. It is only after you install and let them run for some time does one exeperience the full range of problems. The keys issues are compensation, the constant hum and plain transformation of landscape. Once people learn and problems reach other towns and cities, resistance starts to creep.
Most recent news is that Vestas has abandoned plans for new turbine plant.

All this in the UK where wind is still not fully exploited.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

Neela wrote:Amit,

Indian context - to be fair, most are in agreement that we need our local solutions.

Regarding WInd: Wind energy and UK will always be an interesting case as they have quite steady,exploitable wind patterns. One study reports that for un-interruupted supply, 1p per (end consumer) unit must be added to the cost if wind contributes to 30% of energy needs in UK. That is a lot of money. But they have taken the bold step and are exploiting it to the maximum. But since last year there has been a steady trickle of not-so-fabourable news for wind.
Tolerance for wind power is falling. It is only after you install and let them run for some time does one exeperience the full range of problems. The keys issues are compensation, the constant hum and plain transformation of landscape. Once people learn and problems reach other towns and cities, resistance starts to creep.
Most recent news is that Vestas has abandoned plans for new turbine plant.

All this in the UK where wind is still not fully exploited.
Neela,

Fully agree we need local solutions to local problems.

Now regarding the actual challenges with Wind (and solar for the matter). The negatives of nuclear and coal are well known and have been discounted in most planning scenarios. Heck they've build KNPP to withstand a plane ramming into it. But for Solar and Wind we are only starting to realise the downsides.

Apart from the points you mentioned there's the transmission challenges I mentioned. I remember some years ago I was flying into Copenhagen on my way to Helsinki, I could see wind turbines at least 5 km into the sea as the plane approached the airport. There was a whole battery of them stretching as far as I could see out of the plane window.

Why were the placed there? It's because that's where the wind is. Now think of the challenges of transmission from there to not only Copenhagen but also to other parts of the country. It's easy to overcome such challenges in relatively small and highly developed countries with a homogeneous population. However, replicating that in India will be the real challenge when you have such high transmission losses, states fighting over their share of the power from the national grid etc. On top of that we have growing economy which is hugely power deficit and urgently needs more capacity.

I feel these challenges are not fully appreciated by those championing renewables at the expense of nuclear. I agree renewables is the way to go in the future and I would welcome the day when they can replace all coal and even nuclear but that day is not yet on us. And so right now the choice is between coal and nuclear. I know coal would be a overwhelming part of the mix for foreseeable future but one point I've stressed before, 1 MW from nuclear energy is 1 MW less from coal.

Finally as Fukushima has shown the doomsday predictions were overstated. Heck they are even eating fish from the waters adjacent to the plants. Either the fears were unfounded or the there's something wrong with the Japanese. I think the former is a more reasonable assumption.

JMT
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:
quote="vina">>
when the separation between civil and military is now a done deal (I think it is right we did that and delinked the power and military programs)

Really ? Done deal?

I am sorry the 3 cycle and still not been junked under catch phrases of oh "civil and mil are different onlee" -- the civil and military distinction is only a euphemism for "IAEA can snoop here and these are parts we did not let them get into" -- it is not really a civil use and military use division.

And please dont ask why is that. All that ram kahani has been done and you are asking "why are you painting Ravana as villian"

If you havent got the very basic above right, you wont get anything else.
The problem is when folks respond to posts like this then the thread starts to unravel.
Main problem is those whose only contribution to the thread is personal attacks and silly paraphrasing.

Vina made a erronous statement, (of many statements which are similarly plain wrong -- at the very basics) -- now instead of accepting or acknowledging that wrong statements have been given, rhetorical grandstanding is done

Such as below examples
......And what exactly is the harm if an IAEA inspector visits, say the KNPP plant?........
Well Amit, I can not speak for you, what you you think is good or not good, because you see, in the end everything comes down to what a person sees as right and wrong and at a most fundamental level, there could be disagreement to what is good. Heck some people think Pakis overseeing peace park in Siachen is also "no harm". So that level of rhetoric can not be answered.

However, the claim that civilian and mil have a clean separation is incorrect -- and with some help from God -- will remain to be so.

Let us see.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

alexis wrote:i see no alternative to nuclear energy for India.
In which case we better be prepared for no power, because that alternative is not really a practically scalable alternative in India.

Simply -- not going to happen beyond 5% (best case) of the mix. The multitude of issues prevent scaling.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:Vina made a erronous statement, (of many statements which are similarly plain wrong -- at the very basics) -- now instead of accepting or acknowledging that wrong statements have been given, rhetorical grandstanding is done

Such as below examples
I'll let Vina answer if he so chooses.

However when you talk about rhetorical grandstanding then I suppose you'd agree that this comment of yours which started the series of posts between you, me and Arnab was also "rhetorical grandstanding", particularly since you were empirically proven wrong with inputs from the very link you provided? You could have chosen to ignore my comment since it wasn't even directed towards you. If you didn't then you'd have to face the responses, you can't put up your hands and claim that all that is trolling just because you've been found out to be wrong.
Sanku wrote:
amit wrote: It seems the reports of the death of nuclear industry in the US of A are highly premature.
Sigh,,,, no problem; once more

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/exe ... ummary.cfm

Best case projection of electricity growth considering recovery 0.8% per year (in real life probably declining considering that there is no recovery)

Nuclear share in fuel mix for electricity declining from 20% to 18%. Best case.

Those are best case numbers. In reality probably both will drop sharply.{Says who?}
Sanku wrote:However, the claim that civilian and mil have a clean separation is incorrect -- and with some help from God -- will remain to be so.
You better explain this. Are you asking, nay praying for God's help to ensure that the current separation between the civil and military sides does not remain in force?

One final point not only for you but for all folks who read this thread. There have been heated exchanges and differences of opinion on this emotionally charged subject between various posters. Why is that it's only with you that there seems to be so much problem? For example I've disagreed vehemently with Theo and Channakya as have others but never have the exchanges gone out of bounds of a modicum of decency and civility? Surely the problem doesn't lie with everyone else? Why is it always Sanku vs Amit, Sanku vs Arnab, Sanku vs Vina, Sanku vs Neela, Sanku vs Amber...?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote:
However when you talk about rhetorical grandstanding then I suppose you'd agree that this comment of yours which started the series of posts between you, me and Arnab was also "rhetorical grandstanding", particularly since you were empirically proven wrong with inputs from the very link you provided?
What is "empirically proven wrong?" :lol:

A special way of saying "though its obvious you are right since I am not going to agree let me couch it in some vague manner to mean that you can be considered wrong without my saying it."

You have not proved anything wrong. You made a bunch of claims on present using projections of future, that got called out as being projections rather than fact. And the assumptions of the projection questioned as being shaky.

Can you tell me what is the one thing that I have said which is proven wrong (you cant say my prediction for 2035 is proven wrong) since quite clearly it can be proven right or wrong only in 2035.

(I do hope you have managed to figure out the difference between projection and something that has already happened)
You could have chosen to ignore my comment. If you don't then you'd have to face the responses, you can't put up your hands and claim that all that is trolling just because you've been found out to be wrong.
Yes, ignoring is indeed the best option, but some one has to add the correct data points in all the projections being passed off as fact.
amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:However, the claim that civilian and mil have a clean separation is incorrect -- and with some help from God -- will remain to be so.
You better explain this. Are you asking, nay praying for God's help to ensure that the current separation between the civil and military sides does not remain in force?
Why should I better explain this? :lol:

I am actually quite clearly saying multiple things here, as clearly said above and copy pasted
1) the civil and military distinction is only a euphemism for "IAEA can snoop here and these are parts we did not let them get into" -- it is not really a civil use and military use division.
2) there are many programs which have a non military implication but are not in mil domain (breeders)
3) there are progams in pure civvy space which others are not treating as being civvy by others although ostensibly they should (reproc tech)
4) the obvious answer is that we dont want the world to see what we are doing, all efforts of strategic nature are not necessary military. -- similarly the world is a loathe to do anything that can help our program in anyway.

Now having said that -- which is "civilian and mil categories are merely categories for purposes of jumping through the 123 hoops, and not really civilian and mil in terms of real use of facility". Just because this on a document blessed by uncle sam does not make it one and only truth for most of us. Its a only legalese.

Let me say some things more:
1) I hope no more facility come under the civil category of 123.
2) I hope that India does a "up yours" and quitely removes the facilities form IAEA inspection
3) Hopefully india tests a full megaton TN device as well.


That should be amply clear by now?
Why is that it's only with you that there seems to be so much problems.
I have no problems with any poster, I do not see most posters having problem with me.

You need to ask yourself why do you think that there is a problem when there is none -- probably a artifact of your thinking. Why attribute it to others?
archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6823
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by archan »

There are still personal comments added at the end of some of the posts even after my post. If this continues, the results will be unpleasant. Two people involved are skating on verrrry thin ice, one use of warning and off they go, one for a month and one for three.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11168
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

amit wrote:Meanwhile, despite "tons of radioactive waste poured into the sea" at Fukushima 15 months after what do the Japanese do?
<snip>
These Japanese folks must be nuts I tell you. They should be reading the Nuke Dhaga here first before eating their sushi and shasami.
Seriously, after about an year after Fukushima, we have huge amount of data about health effects. This is combined with other data (including TMI, Chernobyl and labs). Recently there have been many scholarly article about health effects, specially for low level radiation. A few are recommending to take a re-look at evacuation criteria.

Earlier I posted, for example, this MIT study (Link - Please do read it if you have not
where they found NO detectable DNA Damage in Mice after Continuous Irradiation at ~400-fold Natural Background Radiation!

Now, for your handy use, I am x-posting an article from physics dhaga, because it is very relevant and thought provoking here The article was published in Forbes a few months ago, and generated many comments. The author's response to those comments is also worth reading (the link of that is in the link given below)..

The author is a Caltech PhD.
It contains no reference to banana..:) (but it does talk about potato chips..:) )
(Edited later, there is just one reference to banana)

Fukushima's Refugees Are Victims Of Irrational Fear, Not Radiation
Every time I eat a bag of potato chips I think of Fukushima. This 12-ounce bag of chips has 3500 picoCuries of gamma radiation in it, and the number of bags I eat a year gives me a dose as high as what I would receive living in much of the evacuated zones around Fukushima. But unlike the Fukushima refugees, I get to stay in my home. We live in a nuanced world of degree. Eating a scoop of ice cream is fine, eating a gallon at one time is bad. Jumping off a chair is no big deal; jumping off a cliff is really stupid. The numbers matter. It’s the dose that makes the poison. There is a threshold to everything.

The radiation in those potato chips isn’t going to kill me. Likewise, no one is going to die from Fukushima radiation. Cancer rates are not going to increase in Japan. The disaster wasn’t hidden like the Soviets did, so that people unknowingly ate iodine-131 for two months before it decayed away to nothing. No one threw workers into the fire like lemmings because they didn’t know what to do.

Where do I get off downplaying the effects of the Fukushima disaster? I’ve been studying the environmental effects of radioactive contamination for three decades, working at America’s national labs and nuclear waste repositories. My enduring frustration: the extreme supposition that all radiation is deadly and that there is no dose below which harmful effects will not occur.

This idea, known as the Linear No-Threshold Dose hypothesis (LNT), was adopted in 1959 as the global regulating philosophy and remains entrenched against all scientific evidence. It is an ethical nightmare. And it will destroy Japan’s economy.

It‘s keeping 100,000 Japanese citizens as refugees, as it did almost a million Ukrainians. It will waste $100 billion that’s needed to rebuild the devastation from the tsunami, not protect against a large intake of potato chips. It will cause more injury to Japan’s already beleaguered population and damaged economy, for no benefit.

We set thresholds to protect people against harm, and we’ve done a good job. The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, seat belts, coal flue scrubbers, all have saved millions of lives and made the quality of life better for everyone. But thresholds need to be set with reason. We don’t stop driving just because 50,000 people still die on the roadways each year, or stop heating our homes because 1,000 people die every month from coal particle inhalation. We try to make it safer and we deal with things as they occur.

For radiation this philosophy has failed. The LNT theory has been long since disproven.
<snip>
As a scientist, this is disturbing. Fukushima’s a mess but it’s an economic mess, not a fatal one. There are areas around Fukushima that need to be cleaned up and they will, with technologies we’ve developed just for this purpose. In this new global economy, Japan’s response will not only affect Japan. Amid the Fukushima hysteria Germany has decided to shut down its nuclear reactors and import more natural gas from Putin and more nuclear energy from France and the Czechs. This does not make sense, either economically, politically or with respect to safety. If Germans or Japanese are that worried about radiation then a more sensible course of action would be to stop eating potato chips, beets, brazil nuts and bananas, all of which are relatively high but ultimately harmless sources of radiation.

Japan shouldn’t sacrifice the lives of the 63,000 evacuees from Fukushima Province to this ideology. ..
<snip - please read the original link>
.
The followup (response to many comments) is at:
here
..Seriously? LNT is not established science, it’s established policy. Ideology and policy are not science. I love Google and Wikipedia, but they don’t take the place of actual research. You need to go back and read the primary documents, review the actual data, read Hermann Mueller’s letters from 1946 and why he chose to ignore certain studies, understand the math of risk analysis, understand the Cold War environment under which LNT was adopted. The job of science is to understand. The job of ideology is to coerce. The people of Japan are not being hysterical, they’re being afraid because we told them to be. Without caring about the consequences. We know better, but sound bites don’t capture the subtleties of this problem..
<snip>.
Last edited by Amber G. on 27 Jun 2012 17:56, edited 1 time in total.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:What is "empirically proven wrong?" :lol:

A special way of saying "though its obvious you are right since I am not going to agree let me couch it in some vague manner to mean that you can be considered wrong without my saying it."

You have not proved anything wrong. You made a bunch of claims on present using projections of future, that got called out as being projections rather than fact. And the assumptions of the projection questioned as being shaky.
Fair enough. Let's go back to the begining. Do you or don't you agree to this statement:
Reports of the death of the US nuclear industry are highly premature
Simple give you response if you so desire and some evidence as to why you think so.

To make it simpler, I'll give you my response.

I find it staggering that anyone can call an industry which produces 806 billion KwH of electricity - far more than any other country in the globe dead.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

archan wrote:We have tried not to interfere much but you guys are not helping. This applies to both sides of the debate, to Sanku, to Neela, to vina among others. Kindly self moderate unless you want us in. Thanks.
Thanks for the verbal warning archan (as opposed to formal ones) -- point taken, and I shall not be doing anything to make things worse. I have no interest in going for a vacation right now.

====================================================================

Amit, lets go back a little further.
amit wrote:
Reports of the death of the US nuclear industry are highly premature
Can you please tell me who said that US nuclear industry was dead? I do not think that anyone has said that US nuclear industry is dead. I have not and I do not think Theo did either. If he did perhaps you can take it up with him.

However what I said, and I will say again, is that US nuclear industry has "stalled" -- it is currently moving only from the momentum of the past, i.e. the sunk costs into NPP industry pre 1970s. (Momentum == money put into various projects, constructions etc) -- Since 70s it has not moved, but has been overtaken by gas etc.

Everyone agrees that this was the case; and 2000s were supposed to have a nuclear Renaissance -- a renewed interest seen on the ground as new construction.

However that never happened. Now we have a situation of ageing nuclear reactors -- 62 of whose whose life extension has been done in very questionable ad hoc manner -- and even then they have 20 years. best case. + 20 which have no life extension.

Compared to that we have only 4 potential reactors with 2 being given a go ahead just last month, and already under a cloud since the economic viability without massive govt subsidy is questionable.

So net net are looking at 82 - 4 reactors lesser by 2035.

This together with the fact that even Nuclear utilities are shying away from creating new ones -- over next 20 years -- the stall will turn to a decline.

I do not think US will ever allow Nuclear sector to die, but a decline is very much on the cards -- inevitably so.

OTOH -- I do think that Japan and Germany will finally completely move away from Nuclear energy in next 10-20 years time frame (if not earlier)

So net net -- death -- no I explicit said that NPP sector will be supported for reasons of legacy etc. -- decline, certainly yes.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11168
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

For those interested ...
NSSC Summer School in Nuclear Analytical Techniques

(Talks will be posted as they go.. some may be interested in lectures in Basic nuclear physics,.. Reactors and security topics - see above)

Some speakers may look familiar :!: (with a slight :()
Theo_Fidel

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Theo_Fidel »

vina wrote:The assumptions you are making are two. 1) Solar generates excess power than demanded (for that the efficiencies have to improve, if you want to keep capital and other costs in check) AND 2) Storage dramatically drops in costs and leaps ahead in capability, so that you can store the excess and pump it back when solar is NOT generating.
This does not have anything to do with efficiency at all. What your are talking about is wheeling system with storage. Again it has nothing to do with the actual efficiency of the system panel and all. The panel efficiency does NOT have to improve to make this work. Yes I think it is self evident that solar will have to produce more during the day so it can feed at night. Salt storage adds 0.5 cents to the cost of CSP in the USA. I think we can do a lot lot better in India. Pumped storage problem too is not insurmountable. India has the Western Ghats, unavailable to the rest of the world. Just converting the Koyna dam alone for daily pumped storage would take care of ALL of India for daily needs into something like 2035, I have to check my notes. Though we will need more regularly spaced plants across the western Ghats, Vindhas, NE & Himalaya's. I suspect Tehri dam converted for daily pumping would take care of the Entire North. BTW the Pykara dam alone converted to daily pumping would be adequate for most of TN. Though the transmission profile would have to change which is what Germany is in the process of doing. But we have the opportunity, since we are still building our transmission to do this upfront for much lower cost. The question is longer term pumping. I suspect some form of natural gas/compressed air/battery/synthetic fuel storage will be necessary for long term storage. Nuclear in particular is a horrible match to this load profile, it is, as you regularly point out base load, meaning it has to flogged at 80%, on all the time to pay the bills.
---------------------------------------------------

WRT USA nuclear the commercial power production using Gen plants (you know the Fukushima brand) is currently viable. Now since everyone here claims that Gen 2 is so much safer it is head scratcher to understand this logic. Gen 2 plants are not viable in USA market but less safe Gen 1 plants are viable because of full depreciation hence Nuclear power is alive and dominating the land. What! :-?

In any case all are set for sunset by 2050!
alexis
BRFite
Posts: 469
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by alexis »

Sanku wrote:
alexis wrote:i see no alternative to nuclear energy for India.
In which case we better be prepared for no power, because that alternative is not really a practically scalable alternative in India.

Simply -- not going to happen beyond 5% (best case) of the mix. The multitude of issues prevent scaling.
I concur there are multitude of issues; i hope they are resolved so that the nuclear scales upto 15-20% of the power mix; else India would continue to be an energy deficient country - directly affecting growth (studies estimate loss of GDP due to power shortage at 1.5-2%).
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by SaiK »

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by vishvak »

Theo_Fidel wrote:In any case all are set for sunset by 2050!
We should perhaps be more sure of putting any question mark over any mechanism in any phase, if at all only if that happens in 2050, which is way far. Till then we should keep on finding answers.

As also we can have better encouragement and information/ideas from any lines of research within and outside so that the nuclear industry will have significant indigenous component in design, process phases and equipments with time.

I am not sure that when research and development did occur, and ongoing, in USA on the way to the current tech prowess, there were be any significant weight-age on when the same nuclear plants were to be decommissioned anyways some decades down the line. That time will come anyways, if not after decades then after centuries.
Theo_Fidel

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Theo_Fidel »

vishvak wrote:We should be sure of putting any question mark over any mechanism in any phase, if at all only if that happens in 2050, which is way far.
I believe about half will be shut by 2030. Is that close enough. In any case this is a hard neutron embrittlement inflexible physical law. There is no wishy washy play room here.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by vishvak »

Theo_Fidel wrote:
vishvak wrote:We should be sure of putting any question mark over any mechanism in any phase, if at all only if that happens in 2050, which is way far.
I believe about half will be shut by 2030. Is that close enough. In any case this is a hard neutron embrittlement inflexible physical law. There is no wishy washy play room here.
There are many changes that have occurred over period of time for a sector like power. Such as reduction of loss/wastage over distance, or in nuclear sector such as better utilization of fuel, etc. So there exist such examples of improvement overall.

One can not discount anything new, better, stronger for future, optimism is the best approach.

If nuke tech does not pick up in the West and we have to import obsolete tech/machines, how is it any better than indigenous research. In future benefits of nuke tech - continuous power for railways. grid etc will definitely be needed, one can not discount that either. As also, in future, can one guarantee that after 2050 the current cost per unit of all fuels won't change and remain stable for all its varied affecting factors? It will change too. There is no point wondering 25 years down the line that nuke phases could have been developed with indigenous efforts.

In fact, the affects could be other way around. For all its costly imports, indigenous tech could lower prices considerably. There could be such examples as well. So better to plan for future with our own efforts.
Theo_Fidel

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Theo_Fidel »

I disagree. Need to plan for future using what we have at hand. Realism is my operating philosophy, optimism is cute... :)
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by chaanakya »

alexis wrote:
I concur there are multitude of issues; i hope they are resolved so that the nuclear scales upto 15-20% of the power mix; else India would continue to be an energy deficient country - directly affecting growth (studies estimate loss of GDP due to power shortage at 1.5-2%).
Alexis , after all fire and brimstone from usual posters , the best nuclear energy comes up to 15-20% mix. Incidentally I pointed to similar mix though difficult to achieve. The question is then how can it claim to be saviour of India or panacea for energy ills of India. And that itself requires addition of abt 200 GWe capacity of NPP. Don't know even this much is planned by 2050. IEP does hint to the extent achievable. And RE is already 35% counting hydro.

And issues are rather hard to easily resolve given the intractable nature of them. Energy planners don't work on hope.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by vina »

Theo Fidel wrote:The panel efficiency does NOT have to improve to make this work. Yes I think it is self evident that solar will have to produce more during the day so it can feed at night.


That is precisely why it HAS to achieve very high efficiencies, even beyond what it does now. If you just increase the number of modules, you will have a very high overall capital costs and make it even more unviable. Increasing efficiency is vital to do it with any level of sanity. Just increasing the number of panels (remember, you need to produce 6 times the energy being used while generating and store 5 times in even Arizona)

Think of it this way, rather crudely. It is like saying, instead of putting a 5000 hp loco to haul a train, I will put 50 * 100 hp loco to do the same job. The 50*100 hp solution will be lot more wasteful and inefficient.
Salt storage adds 0.5 cents to the cost of CSP in the USA. I think we can do a lot lot better in India. Pumped storage problem too is not insurmountable. India has the Western Ghats, unavailable to the rest of the world. Just converting the Koyna dam alone for daily pumped storage would take care of ALL of India for daily needs into something like 2035, I have to check my notes
How ? The US has the rockise, appalachians, sierra nevada and a whole host of such things possible. That is like saying, if you convert the Hoover dam into pumped storage, you can take care of the peaking needs of the entire US!

This entire trying to "inventory power" thing is so not optimal! The best "inventory" is in the form of fuel or PE of water in a dam! Turn that into electricity as and when needed. Trying to inventory power is ridiculously expensive and simply foolhardy. Why, storage technologies have not advanced enough to give around 300miles range in a regular family sedan in the form factor of regular gasoline tank with anywhere near acceptable economics.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by vishvak »

Theo_Fidel wrote:I disagree. Need to plan for future using what we have at hand. Realism is my operating philosophy, optimism is cute... :)
Sorry to be non-technical here, so my last on this.

1. About power sector in India- cannot provide even 80 per cent of the promised fuel before 2015., will be "disastrous" for the sector. - this after overspending to garner votes. Any more nuke power available for grid, railways, etc will have that much power available for states. Also note, there are reports of states unable to buy power because of lack of funds. state distribution utilities are in such a financial mess that companies have a power surplus while consumers face long blackouts.

2. some regions without electricity for 8-16 hours daily - this after reserves of coal within India. It is therefore much better to have more nuke power in energy mix.

3. Ill wind for China's turbines industry
This is industry level outlook even after local manufacturing. Add global greed/competition (hypothetical negative projection on renewable sources to discourage its appeal) and I am not sure of nascent renewable energy sectors will have consistent long term push. I hope some Indian company buys off struggling renewable tech and adopts it to Indian conditions. Still better to have nuke techs developed in hand then two renewable tech in future while calculations and projections.

4. Some more: power shortage affects India’s current account deficit, price of crude oil has dipped below $80 a barrel - See the yearly graph (graph) but does that have any impact on inflation, mismanagement? Do we even know that price of oil has come down from 110$ to 80$? This after India`s crude oil import bill jumps 40% to USD 140 bn in FY12, and The question is whether the country would be in position to import 170 million tonnes. Even with coal available in India and oil price drop if the costing of fossil fuel does not drop down, what is the guarantee of costing of the same in future?

5. Lack of power and mismanagement of coal in India can only mean more import of oil at prices that point of time as people will use diesel generators everywhere. Nuke tech will lower this too. From power shortage affects India’s current account deficit
Therefore, it would suggest that many industrial and commercial consumers of electricity would have used diesel generators to power their factories and offices. Indeed, a look at the March quarter sales of Cummins India Ltd, a genset maker, shows that volumes in the south almost equalled the combined numbers of the north and the west.

The petroleum planning and analysis cell in its April review suggests that the power deficit is one reason for the spurt in diesel sales. For example, the report states, “Tamil Nadu recorded very high (sales) growth of 28.3% in HSD (high-speed diesel) in April, which can partly be attributed to high power deficit.”
..
switching to crude oil is costly indeed. Back of the envelope calculations show that a dollar of the typical grade of coal Indian companies import yields four times as much energy as a dollar’s worth of crude oil.

But the infrastructure index shows growth in coal production was -0.20% in 2010-11, and 1.2% in 2011-12. The problem with coal production—largely due to faulty policy—therefore lies at the heart of the increased demand for diesel. This, of course, leads to higher imports of coal and diesel, thus affecting the country’s balance of trade.
Theo_Fidel

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Theo_Fidel »

vina wrote:That is precisely why it HAS to achieve very high efficiencies, even beyond what it does now. If you just increase the number of modules, you will have a very high overall capital costs and make it even more unviable. Increasing efficiency is vital to do it with any level of sanity....

.....How ? The US has the rockise, appalachians, sierra nevada and a whole host of such things possible. That is like saying, if you convert the Hoover dam into pumped storage, you can take care of the peaking needs of the entire US!

This entire trying to "inventory power" thing is so not optimal! The best "inventory" is in the form of fuel or PE of water in a dam!
You are right that increasing efficiency will make the costs lower. But it is not necessary at the moment to make it work, at least on a daily basis. Did I mention that the average manufacturing cost is set to decline from 95 cents per watt at present to 30 cents per watt in 5-10 years. Already the California bid power came in at 7 cents a kw. This is Rs 3.50 per kw for India. Cost of money in India accounts for the rest. When the manufacturing costs are 30 cents per watt you will see 3-4 cent bid prices for Solar power in US.

And India too has Thar Gujarat, Deccan plateau, wastelands of Ramnad and Nellai. Not only that, India's insolation is stronger and more even than the seasonal USA profile.

Picking up 70% of demand is possible with Solar and wind. Our existing fleet of coal and gas can then run like intermediate/peaker plants, supplying when they can to pick up the rest. Nuclear can not do this.

I don't disagree that best storage is fuel storage. This is Champagne/Cadillac energy and we are addicted to champagne fuel for a reason. It is very much a druggie/dope dealer relationship. It is other problems with the champagne of fuels that is causing us to cast around for options. Only one presents itself.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by SaiK »

We should modularize energy use sectors.. just like under defence, we could focus nuclear energy use for 3 for main forces or divisions, service sectors like railways need dedicated nuke power. similarly:

dedicated energy grids for the following is required:
- transportation
--- railways
--- airports
--- bus stations
- health care - hospital
- water and sewage management
- gov and public institution


and the rest should be privitized.
- cities - for aam consumption
- industrial - for kaam consumption

.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11168
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

amit wrote:
Reports of the death of the US nuclear industry are highly premature
Simple give you response if you so desire and some evidence as to why you think so.

To make it simpler, I'll give you my response.

I find it staggering that anyone can call an industry which produces 806 billion KwH of electricity - far more than any other country in the globe dead.
There is NO shortage... scores of claims made by a few posters here about "decline of US nuclear power" in incredibly silly language.. ... Heck typical random statements like this gets doled out routinely ...
...This is what killed American Nuclear power....
(Meaning the Nuclear power is already dead...)..

FWIW here is that "decline"
Image

(Hint: And no, US production did not fall to zero even in 2010 or 2011 or 2012 :-o ..)

And ad absurdum some are claiming it as a "fact" that nuclear power in US is declining.. :eek:
Last edited by Amber G. on 28 Jun 2012 01:26, edited 1 time in total.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11168
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

Here is another news of that "decline", this time in Russia ...

(Recent .. just some random news item .. just to balance scores of silly, fear mongering, absurd, non-scientific articles like "Fukushima radiation seen in tuna off California".... or ideology like "..science and engineering are being massacred at the altar of greed" comment after such stories...)

1200 Megawatt fast reactor approved for Beloyarsk

I think it is helpful to pay more attention to these kind of events.
Post Reply