India Nuclear News & Discussion - 9 Sept 2007

emsin

Post by emsin »

If we are to increase power by 400 odd GW, how do people propose to do so if the nuclear route is out? I'm not buying arguments like we prefer to develop slowly or that it is not possible to add this power. Thats defeatist attitude.

Also it's incorrect to say that all 200 reactors will be imported. Where's the 3 stage plan then? How many PWHRs runnning from imported uranium will supply fuel for the 2nd stage ATBRS..and we know what happens in the 3rd stage.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Sanku wrote:
Rye wrote: You can't be lazy about restating your train of thought with links and expect others to comprehend your POV.
Well if what it takes is to keep reposting the same set of links and copy paste then very well I shall do that in future. Save my links and reuse.
All right. Post at least one link with numbers that support any contention that you make. Then interpret those numbers from that link as supporting your pov, whatever pov that may be?

Can you at least do that? I doubt it, you will come back with another bhashan. 600kwh of electricity for the average Indian appears to be perfectly OK for you?

If you think that the average Indian should live at least as well as the average Malaysian and with the corelation between per capita electricity consumption and per capita PPP GDP, how does India add about 450GW of power capacity which will ensure parity at least with the Malaysian PPP GDP? Please tell us your plan, breakdown by coal, hydro etc.


Any response or more bhashans and rhetoric?
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

ebishekcc wrote:
I was just wondering, does Philips make its MP3 players by testing each component separately, or does it put everything together to test?


That should go in the EB Museum of Nyookulear Gems.

Nooooo, Philips never tests the components in its MP3 players - they just buy whatever from wherever, buy some bunnies, put batteries in them, slap them all together and press the ON button with the thing clipped into Energizer Bunnies' rabbit ears. THAT's how reliability and performance are always tested.

Likewise, airplanes are tested by building them, putting a pilot in, and rolling the thing off a cliff.

Medicines are tested by making up a concoction, feeding them to ppl and seeing how many die.

So many other examples. So little time, but sooo many Energizer Bunnies.

Oh, and THIS is even better for the EB Museum:
I am sure nukes are such low tech devices that we wouldn't need a full test ever. We are such vedantics onlee. All theory, no practical. All gas, no solid food.


Oh, yes, it is the LOW TECH devices where you do detailed component measurements to characterize every bit of performance and take the trouble to understand any differences from first-principles simulation.

And the HiTech devices where you just slap them together, put them in shrink-wrap and send them out the door, with only a few sample tests.

This is SOOO PRACTICAL, I can see already. AWESOME!
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

enqyoob wrote: This is SOOO PRACTICAL, I can see already. AWESOME!
The strain of continuous fighting is telling on you, prof. :D :D :D

Stop jumping around like an, ahem... Energizer Bunny. :twisted:


--------------
emsin, I am sure that hydro will be able to provide about 100GW more. India's hydro elect power is est at 150GW, of which 50GW is already used/planned for. IIRC.

20GW planned by DAE from existing resources.

Coal will provide the rest of 280GW. :)

Or else we can ask Suzlon to place a few charkhas near the nuke thread discussions. The wind being generated here will be enough to transform energy scarce India to power surplus.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ldev wrote:
All right. Post at least one link with numbers that support any contention that you make. Then interpret those numbers from that link as supporting your pov, whatever pov that may be?
Okay my contention is simple (this is aside of all other discussion; purely from power perspective)
1) No imported nuclear material under the current 123 scheme since the strategic dependence of external sources is too high.
2) Over a longer course of time I intended showing how the 3 cycle thorium can live without the imported nuclear material and that is the way to go.
3) I also intend showing that the LWR is not a good way to go in long term manner.
4) Using coal for the rest is an option in the meanwhile for the interim using the import nuclear cost is too high and even if you went the 123 route the captial and man power requirement would not allow you to ramp up quickly.

Basically the right way forward is the 3 stage cycle.

To prove the above I first call BK HypE=mc2


His points are: (have to do this since folks dont read inlines)

1) Overall 16% nukes in the world.
2) No major growth in nuke energy in the world.
3) Quotes studies which say in US nuke more expensive than fuel
4) Says nukes run out in 85 years without reprocessing
5) Very strong cartelling and increase in nuclear prices.
6) Nuclear cost calculation often skips the cost to store and manage waste and underlying money.
7) Large captial costs 1Billion per GW?

What does that tell us? That the world has not been able to find LWR and other non thorium alternatives exciting enough to want large scale nuclear power generation. By and large this has not been a route which people have followed.

Frontline article on the nuclear energy
Going critical
The three-stage Indian nuclear programme is based on the premise that exploitable uranium reserves in the country can generate only 10,000 to12,000 MWe through the PHWRs but the plutonium derived from the spent fuel of the PHWRs is sufficient to drive the second stage of the programme, which is based on fast breeder reactors (FBRs). The programme has already entered its second stage with the upcoming 500 MWe Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam, which should become operational by 2011. Besides “breedingâ€
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Who better to say it rather than AK Energy in India for the Coming Decades

In full since not all like word :-)

[quote]Energy in India for the Coming Decades

Anil Kakodkar

Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, India

chmn@dae.gov.in

The reforms initiated in India since the beginning of the nineties have led to rapid economic progress and better growth rates. In the first decade of this century the growth rates seem to be still better. Studies by several academics and consultants forecast continued high growth rate for the next several decades. I’ll quote two such studies, one by Dominic Wilson and Roopa Purushothaman of Goldmann Sachs [1] and the other by Dani Rodrik and Arvind Subramanian of the International Monetary Fund [2].

Wilson and Purushothaman write, “India has the potential to show the fastest growth over the next 30 to 50 years. Growth rate could be higher than 5 percent over the next 30 years and close to 5 percent as late as 2050 if development proceeds successfully.â€
Last edited by Sanku on 10 Sep 2007 18:43, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

The complete document part of which Idev posted (while ignoring the rest)Its conclusion is self explantory (even to Idev I hope)

A strategy for growth
To meet increasing energy requirements, policy decisions to speedily develop and utilize all types of energy resources at our command need to be taken and implemented. Full potential of the hydro and non-conventional renewable resources should be exploited at the earliest. In the coming five decades, though coal based thermal power plants will continue to be the mainstay of electricity generation, share of nuclear power has to be significantly expanded. For the nuclear power to play this role, the ongoing PHWR, LWR and FBR programmes should be completed. The development of U-Pu metal based FBRs of requisite breeding characteristics and associated fuel reprocessing technologies should be completed in the next 15-20 years. Fast breeder reactors have the potential to ensure that generation by nuclear power by the middle of the present century is about a quarter of the total electricity generation and this would enable to limit the primary energy import to about 30%.

Thorium based thermal and/or fast breeder technology as well as ADS, should be developed so as to provide required fissile material beyond the year 2052. All efforts should be made to develop and deploy advanced technologies in a shorter time frame so as to ensure still higher contribution by nuclear energy thereby reducing the energy import.
Intensive R&D efforts need to be mobilized towards exploration of hydrocarbons and coal and better utilization of existing resource base, development of efficient fuel cycle technologies for nuclear power and for exploitation of new fuel resources such as gas hydrates.

Acknowledgement
Authors would like to thank Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, AEC for fruitful discussions throughout the course of the study. Authors also thankfully acknowledge the comments received from BARC, IGCAR and NPCIL.
Again reposting this since people will come buy and ask the same again.
Last edited by Sanku on 10 Sep 2007 20:11, edited 1 time in total.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Calvin wrote:
the Hyde Act does not waive the need for India to seek and obtain US permission every time we wish to reprocess the irradiated imported fuel from our reactors
The Hyde act governs what the US may do, under 123. Can someone point me in the direction of the language that has stimulated this claim above?
Do not know about permission every time, we wish to process but ALL foreign source fuel will have to go through this new "state of the art" reprocessing facility.

This is not in the Hyde act (which is silent on the issue) but a condition for, in principle consent to reprocessing, in the 123.

Hyde does make demands of not just, how the US conducts its policy, but also seeks to ensure, how India conducts its international agreements. Such as, the the type of safeguards agreements with the IAEA.
ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Post by ShibaPJ »

Ldev and N^3 (& many others) have already done a great job of explaining the future power requirements & how N-power contributes to the mix. I find the scenarios & numbers very, very sensible and achievable. Hats off to you folks.

IMHO, the major hinderance for a closed loop cycle has been the lack of Uranium to get the closed loop cycle kick-started, at the same time addressing a major part of the short- to medium-term power requirements of Indian economy. The deal also allows India to continue R&D to work out the kinks in the 2nd and 3rd stage reactors as well as crucial spent fuel reprocessing, which would be the cornerstone to operationalise a self-sustained closed loop cycle. In the long term, I expect N-power and gas-based plants (in addition to hydro; I expect coal- %ge to diminish unless clean coal tech is available or developed) to address most part of Indian power generation mix.

Folks crying hoarse over the deal seem to be put off by the way MMS & his coterie tried to ramrod the deal thru without a parliament discussion. This is a very arrogant way of behaving, I-know-what-is-best-for-India. I have my own reservations on the UPA and how they have handled terrorism, internal security, Siachen issues etc. The deal is certainly a part of over-arching FP realignment that is taking place. Though OT, I don't see anything wrong so far, as long as India benefits and progresses.

So to get better quality and clarity of discussion, please differentiate between the UPA govt and it's shenanighans and the technical merits of the deal for India's betterment.

To summarize, the benefits of the deal would be to:

- Get the closed loop cycle kick-started on a commercial basis as a significant chunk of Indian power mix
- Address a major chunk of short- and medium-term power requirements and in the long-term, create a self-sustained closed-loop cycle
- Allow India to continue the N-weapons and deterrence program
- Allow India to be an improtant part of NSG (both as a buyer and supplier). People seem to overlook the supplier part, where India can potentially supply cost-efficient Th-based reactors and the Th-fuel
- Be a leader in the reproc technology and commercialize it, when eventually closed-loop cycle becomes a part of global N-scenario

Any supporting as well as divergent views (I am sure there are many), most welcome.
Last edited by ShibaPJ on 10 Sep 2007 18:53, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ShauryaT wrote: The Hyde act governs what the US may do, under 123. Can someone point me in the direction of the language that has stimulated this claim above?
Do not know about permission every time, we wish to process but ALL foreign source fuel will have to go through this new "state of the art" reprocessing facility.

This is not in the Hyde act (which is silent on the issue) but a condition for, in principle consent to reprocessing, in the 123.

.[/quote]

This seems pretty clear that this means each shipment at a time or something. Otherwise what does 6 month to a year mean? For the entire facility Once?
To bring
these rights into effect, India will establish a new national reprocessing facility dedicated
to reprocessing safeguarded nuclear material under IAEA safeguards and the Parties will
agree on arrangements and procedures under which such reprocessing or other alteration
in form or content will take place in this new facility. Consultations on arrangements and
procedures will begin within six months of a request by either Party and will be
concluded within one year.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ShibaPJ wrote: IMHO, the major hinderance for a closed loop cycle has been the lack of Uranium to get the closed loop cycle kick-started, at the same time addressing a major part of the short- to medium-term power requirements of Indian economy. .
I am sorry to say but you have probably not understood half of what the anti deal lobby is trying to say.

Further your assumption that indegenous 3 cycle programs main need is imported Uranium is plain wrong. Please refer to the links I posted above.
Arun_S has also confirmed that.

For a correct summary read this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


No Kanson that is not the correct summary; what we who sees issues are saying is thus:

1) What we think Dr Singh promised to parilament is not what we are getting; how did the game change from J18 to 123. Why did it change? Will the govt. accept that there is a change and debate the reasons why changes were required? In the current scenario; we have Kapil Sibal telling us on the behalf of the govt that Hyde act does not exist and 123 has all the promises fulfiled. Where as the gaps have clearly been outlined for all to see.

2) If we dont possess the necessary werewithal to get a good deal on paper; does it not sound logical that practice will be no different. After all if we cant get a promise; how magically do we expect fulfilment of a promise which has never been made. It is a case of

"hamne wo sun liya; jo usne kaha bhee nahi..." remember the song

US can get out of the deal without even having to renege on the deal.

3) What exact good are we getting from the deal; will the Govt or pro-deal people please make that statement in a broad policy term.

4) What is the basis that we will get more clout; from what the anti-deal folks see and have pointed out (in painstaking detail) is how we stand to lose clout.

5) Please refer to pages 1-3 of this thread on discussion of reneging on agreements etc. The "renge on agreement" thus the agreement does not matter is a strawman at best and sheer inanity at best. If you provoke me I can copy paste those again but why do you want me to do that?

The issues are quite clear; unfortunately the pro-deal people are trivializing and generalizing arguments and resort to homilies instead of sticking
ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Post by ShibaPJ »

Sanku,

Even before you joined BRF, I had clarified this with Arun_S. You can refer to a couple of threads back to get a better perspective on the discussion for the 3-stage cycle.

As for my assumptions on kick-starting the 3-stage program being wrong, care to elucidate what your assumptions are and how did you get there? (No "MMS said this as '123' in parliament and how 123 <> J18 soundbytes please..)
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

There is anopther reason why the promotion of nuclear power is in the interests of the west, and it has nothing to do with controlling the world.

It has everything to do with preventing another ice age from descending on Oirope.

From what I have gathered, environmental research says that Europe is not heated by the Sun. Sun rays do not provide enought energy to heat that wasteland. Europe is in fact heated by the Gulf Stream, originating in the Gulf of Mexico.

Now, the water of the GS is pulled in when the water in the North Sea is super cooled, and sinks. Now, if global warming takes place, the great fear in the west is that the water in the North Sea will not sink, and the warm waters from the Gulf of Mexico will not be pulled in, and therefore Europe will descend into a new Ice Age.


Interesting isn;t it? That global warming will actually cause an ice age in Europe. Those sitting ducks NEED this deal just to live in their homes. :P
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Sanku wrote: Okay my contention is simple (this is aside of all other discussion; purely from power perspective)
1) No imported nuclear material under the current 123 scheme since the strategic dependence of external sources is too high.
Is the strategic dependence on oil too high today? So what difference does that make? Or do you want to become a "self sufficient" economy like the 1950s which led to disaster?
2) Over a longer course of time I intended showing how the 3 cycle thorium can live without the imported nuclear material and that is the way to go.
I am waiting for you to show.
3) I also intend showing that the LWR is not a good way to go in long term manner.
What about the short term? And how do you define long term?
4) Using coal for the rest is an option in the meanwhile for the interim using the import nuclear cost is too high and even if you went the 123 route the captial and man power requirement would not allow you to ramp up quickly.
If coal is an option, why does India have power shortages today? Why is capital relevant if the private sector is allowed to participate? All that the private sector will look at will be ROI and risk to determine if it wants to invest. It will find the money.
Basically the right way forward is the 3 stage cycle.

To prove the above I first call BK HypE=mc2


His points are: (have to do this since folks dont read inlines)

1) Overall 16% nukes in the world.
Why do you keep on harping about the world. The west is power surplus, already using 12,000kwh-16,000kwh per capita. The problems of the west and India are completely different. India needs more power, the west is looking at optimizing sources.
2) No major growth in nuke energy in the world.
Again, you and BC are looking at the west. Irrelevant as pointed out above.
3) Quotes studies which say in US nuke more expensive than fuel
What is the cost per kwh in the US. Quote that number.
4) Says nukes run out in 85 years without reprocessing
That is why the closed cycle is the way to go. I have already stated that.
5) Very strong cartelling and increase in nuclear prices.
What does increase in prices mean in terms of the cost per kwh. Do you know that? Also what will be the impact of a closed cycle vis a vis the open cycle which will be impacted more with an increase in prices? Do you know that?
6) Nuclear cost calculation often skips the cost to store and manage waste and underlying money.
So where do you think the waste from the last 50 years is being stored? Free of cost in somebody's backyard?
7) Large captial costs 1Billion per GW?
1 billion per GW is 1 million per MW. That is very cheap!!! That is in fact Rs 4 crores per MW. That is what it costs NTPC to erect coal thermal plants in India. Sanku, as usual your lack of comprehension of anything to do with numbers is showing through!!!.

And by the way, do you know what 1 billion per GW will translate into in terms of Rs per kwh/unit? Or what 2 billion per GW will translate into? And what will be the cost of fuel in terms of kwh? By the way, if you go through archives you will discover that I have already worked those numbers out. Happy reading.
What does that tell us? That the world has not been able to find LWR and other non thorium alternatives exciting enough to want large scale nuclear power generation. By and large this has not been a route which people have followed.
It tells us no such thing. It tells us that the west is looking at optimizing its sources of energy. It also tells us that in those instances where countries did not have domestic fossil fuels such as Japan and France, that they did go in for large scale use of nuclear power.

Frontline article on the nuclear energy quoted by sanku.
Going critical
The three-stage Indian nuclear programme is based on the premise that exploitable uranium reserves in the country can generate only 10,000 to12,000 MWe through the PHWRs but the plutonium derived from the spent fuel of the PHWRs is sufficient to drive the second stage of the programme, which is based on fast breeder reactors (FBRs).
Writing this kind of garbage!! Anyway, I should not be surprised. Ofcourse the 2nd stage is possible. The question is at what level of activity? Does India need one or two or even 4 FBRs? How much plutonium will they generate and over what period of time? How many AHWRs will that plutonium support? And will that be sufficient for India?

Sanku, in case you have still not got it, the issue is the scale of India's requirement? 2-4 FBRs and 5-8 AHWRs is just not going to be enough, that is barely enough for one city with a medium size population to live the way the average Malaysian lives. How many more decades do you want Indians to live sub optimal lives?
But, more pertinently, is it feasible at all? Notwithstanding the shorter gestation periods and the creditable performance and profitable operations in recent years of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL), it is unlikely to be able to install 20,000 MWe in a 12 to 15-year time frame.
And that is why it is important to open this up to the private sector. Because NPCIL has its limitations.

Let us look at how much importing 20,000 MWe of nuclear power will cost. At a high capital cost (of nearly $2 million/MWe without the interest during construction on the borrowed amount), importing would be much costlier than the capital cost of indigenous PHWRs at about Rs.7 crore/MWe. The price of processed and fabricated uranium fuel, is, in fact, a very high $1,625/kg. A 1,000 MWe LWR requires nearly 1,000 tonnes of uranium fuel over its lifetime, which means an additional $1,625 million over the $2,000 million capital cost, if fuel is to be stockpiled for a lifetime to avoid disruptions in supply as envisaged in the 123 Agreemdent.
If the private sector participates, import cost etc. is immaterial. Even if India adds 20,000 MW of imported nuclear power, the capital cost will be 30B USD at 1.5 Million dollars/MW. As far as stockpiling up lifetime fuel is concerned, this is like saying, I am buying a car and I want to buy upfront all the gasoline/petrol, I need for the lifetime of the car of 10 years on the day I buy that car!! So you want to buy say 25,000 liters of petrol/gasoline alongwith the car. Insanity knows no bounds.
Even assuming that such large resources can be raised through the market, the money would be better spent in implementing a wider base of the PHWRs
If the private sector participates, they will decide whether it is better or not to spend the money. Why this hankering to have the government control every aspect of your life?
Now perhaps you can tell us what your assertion is and how do you expect it to get fulfilled?
In my previous posts I have already shown you my assertion. In this post, I see no alternative way forward. Only an unconvincing attempt to rationalize as to why 123 is bad.
ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Post by ShibaPJ »

abhischekcc,

Who cares what happens to Oirope, as long as it doesn't impact India? Unfortunately, it does. Before global warming leads to an European ice age, it would flood half of Mumbai and other low-lying Indian coastland. Global warming is a global monster that impacts all.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

abhischekcc wrote:Interesting isn;t it? That global warming will actually cause an ice age in Europe. Those sitting ducks NEED this deal just to live in their homes. :P
The Day After Tomorrow :!:

Regardless, of the validity of the above, it is indeed a part of their reasoning. They know that they have raped mother earth - big time - and want to limit any further damage, which will be unsustainable.

Who better to push the idea with than the self righteous, earth loving, timid Yindoos.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

ldev wrote:
How many more decades do you want Indians to live sub optimal lives?
This is a very important point --- India has the youngest population at this time, and that also means that in the absence of economic oppurtunity, focussing their creative energies is going to be a problem.....do we want these young people to go around holding red flags during hartals or sitting in the their offices doing something productive. This question needs to be answered honestly by people who are recommending slow growth for a few more decades.

India is falling apart at the seams in the NE, the BIMARU states, and the youth in those states crave for jobs just like anyone else. Economic oppurtunity and greed can be a cohesive factor if everyone understands that they stand to gain by supporting the idea of India, but that can only happen with immense economic activity all over India, and economic activity for such a large group of people needs immense amounts of energy.
Last edited by Rye on 10 Sep 2007 19:30, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Idev plain nonsense and not looking at facts; simple I will not see philosphy


Let us take what you say oil == nuke material. Are you serious? Anway BC again; your comparison is one of a person truely in la la land. All your points are downhill from there.
Seventh, a tiny nuclear cartel made up of a few State-guided firms controls the global reactor and fuel supplies. This constitutes the most politically regulated commerce in the world, with little sanctity of contract, as the cases of Tarapur, Brushehr and others epitomise. That is why many countries today view the idea of an international nuclear fuel bank as institutionalising discrimination because it would allow a handful of advanced countries to preserve their supply monopoly.
Second Pvt sector has all cures again BC says it best
And eighth, nuclear power involves significant external costs that industry does not bear on its own, including on accident-liability cover, anti-terrorist safeguards, radioactive-waste storage, decommissioning of old reactors, and international monitoring. State subsidies are not factored into the generating costs and remain hidden.
In any case TODAY the energy sector is not sufficently open to get private players in energy even in case of non nuclear energy. What to say of nuclear energy.

AK and DAE have said that 15-20 year the 3 cycle program should be mature. In that time frame how many imported nuclear plants can you put up?

When you say Coal is an option why do we have shortages :eek: not because of lack of coal. It is beacuse of poor management of India's power sector about which reams have been written.

I keep harping on the west since that is where the reality of current nuclear power generation is. What else should I use to model. The maritans??

And what have you proved in the past:: How will have 200 plants in 0 time? Please tell again.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Rye wrote:This is a very important point --- India has the youngest population at this time,
Rye; as Idev would say; this is Bhashan. Can some one demonstrate that post 123 indeed 200 plants will be set up? How? Where has it been done before. Or all past history does not matter?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ShibaPJ wrote: As for my assumptions on kick-starting the 3-stage program being wrong, care to elucidate what your assumptions are and how did you get there? (No "MMS said this as '123' in parliament and how 123 <> J18 soundbytes please..)
Ah the usual age trap; how would you like it if I say I have been on BRF forever?

IF YOU READ; I have posted 3 articles by AK and DAE. They show why you are wrong. PS I also asked in the last thread for this the same question to Arun_S: categorical answer no trouble for 3 cycle without 123; in fact 123 can hurt by diverting funds but not help much. At least before it is mature.
Last edited by Sanku on 10 Sep 2007 19:41, edited 1 time in total.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

There should be some ground rules for debate:

1) Logic in the posts should be self contained.

BC says X, BK says Y, and therefore I am allowed to say Z, just does not cut it.
It seems like an evasive tactic to hide the chain of reasoning, or maybe there is none...hard for third parties to tell.

2) People are pointing to BC, BK and others but they are not willing to answer the concrete scientific questions such as the ones ShibaPJ has presented, specifically the important one, which is "what are the options to jumpstart energy production within the decade in the absence of imported uranium?"
Have not seen any convincing answers to this yet.

sanku wrote:
IF YOU READ; I have posted 3 articles by AK and DAE. They show why you are wrong.
Perhaps you should quit your hyperbole and speak what you know instead of pointing fingers to large articles that have many points to make. What is YOUR point? you need to explain that -- you cannot outsource your explanation to others, mainly because if you have a chain of reasoning to support your point of view, and it is based on articles by BC, BK, and AK, you will be able to state it in simple terms.

Do the math, like ldev has done, and spell it out here.
Last edited by Rye on 10 Sep 2007 19:38, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Rye wrote:Have not seen any convincing answers to this yet.
How about the DAE report above? Or is that moonshine too? DAE never planned for imports; it has a plan for sustainable power from 3 cycle program. What does that tell you?
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Sanku,

I dont think you read the links that you post. Given below is an excerpt from the Kakodkar article you posted above. I have highlighted certain sections:

Based on the CMIE data [5], the average value of the Electricity-GDP elasticity during 1991-2000 has been calculated to be 1.213 and that of the primary energy- GDP elasticity to be 0.907. Estimating the future GDP growth rates of India from the projections made by Dominic Wilson and Roopa Prushothaman [1], taking the primary energy intensity fall to be 1.2 percent per year [6], extrapolating the electricity intensity fall from past data till 2022 and subsequently a constant fall of 1.2 percent year, the growth rates of the primary energy and electrical energy have been estimated as follows.

Period Primary Energy
Percent Annual Growth Electricity
Percent Annual Growth
2002-2022 4.6 6.3
2022-2032 4.5 4.9
2032-2042 4.5 4.5
2042-2052 3.9 3.9


These rates are the basis of the projections reported [3]. It may be recalled that historical primary energy and electricity growth rates during 1981- 2000 were 6 percent per year and 7.8 percent per year respectively.

Based on the growth rates given in the above table, per capita electricity generation would reach about 5300 kWh per year in the year 2052 and total about 8000 TWh. This would correspond to an installed capacity of around 1300 GWe.
So, Dr. Kakodkar, states that by 2052 India is going to need an installed capacity of 1300 GW. Today's capacity is 125GW. An additional 1175GW is needed. How many reactors is that sanku? Can you calculate? Is that less than 200, or more than 200? Of what capacity each?

Furthermore, the basis of the projections, India's achievable GDP growth numbers have already been exceeded which means that if anything over the next 10-20 years, the growth in demand will be more than projected by Dr. Kakodkar.

What Dr. Kakodkar has stated is what India's needs are. Nowhere has he said that either he or DAE has all the answers or solutions. He has stated that when it comes to full fruition, the thorium reactors will be able to support a capacity of 500GW, but he himself has admitted that India will need 1300GW by 2052. Unless India goes in for "out of the box" options like the ones I mentioned in one of my earlier posts by building either mountains or mines of spent fuel via imports, it could still face a shortfall.
Last edited by ldev on 10 Sep 2007 19:46, edited 1 time in total.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Sanku wrote:
How about the DAE report above? Or is that moonshine too? DAE never planned for imports; it has a plan for sustainable power from 3 cycle program. What does that tell you?
Think a little please. Like most people, you forget the important dimension called time.

Time for sustainable power via a completely independent three stage program is ~50 years (when India's surplus of young population will be purchasing false teeth and buying walking sticks, if they are alive.)

So you need to address the time frames and the rate of power generation in the short term, medium term, and long term, as the opposing POV has already done.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ldev wrote:
Furthermore, the basis of the projections, India's achievable GDP growth numbers have already been exceeded which means that if anything over the next 10-20 years, the growth in demand will be more than projected by Dr. Kakodkar.

Well sir I am getting tired of your obtuseness. You keep looking at the wrong thing. What am I saying? For realistic growth figures look here!!

What you are saying is we can create 200 plants in 20 years. I am saying that wrong estimates not possible. Even GoI does not claim this; and it is them who have to do the deals etc. Just not practical. Even waving the pvt sector magic wand.

Second I am saying by 2050 there is a plan to meet a certain portion through Nukes; the rest can come through other sources. DAE says that. The total requirement is thus met.

You are deliberately mixing the two. Please spare me more of your total inane bait and switch games.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Rye wrote:
So you need to address the time frames and the rate of power generation in the short term, medium term, and long term, as the opposing POV has already done.
If you look at DAE article; what they support is a mixed Hydel; wind; coal and Nuclear energy. 2050 is a goal by which the mix is supposed to be achieved. 40 years. Does not sound far fetched.

How many plants can be set up each year anyway. There are many constraints other than materials. It is manpower; land; captial GoI inertia; power sector reform.

To look at only a mathmatical model for one variable i.e. nuke cost is a fuitile exercise.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Sanku wrote: If you look at DAE article; what they support is a mixed Hydel; wind; coal and Nuclear energy. 2050 is a goal by which the mix is supposed to be achieved. 40 years........

......To look at only a mathmatical model for one variable i.e. nuke cost is a fuitile exercise.
Precisely. India's power needs are so huge that it cannot afford to be selective. It has to access every avenue of power available, domestic coal, imported coal, hydro, domestic nuclear and imported nuclear. And therefore since the 123 agreement will give access to imported nuclear power via fuel as well as reactors, India needs it.
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

In the Lok Sabha, a visibly perturbed Speaker Somnath Chatterjee said it was "extremely disturbing that the highest public forum in this country has almost come to a standstill which has raised questions about the utility of our system of Parliamentary democracy and about its future."
Thats right.. Its time to put the parliamentary system away. Minorities in India would always crash any party and hold the whole country for ransom. Its time to put this system to sleep!
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

sanku wrote:Second I am saying by 2050 there is a plan to meet a certain portion through Nukes; the rest can come through other sources. DAE says that. The total requirement is thus met.
Just tell me how India will meet its requirment of 1300GW of installed capacity by 2052 as stated by Dr.Kakodkar?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ldev wrote:Precisely. India's power needs are so huge that it cannot afford to be selective. It has to access every avenue of power available, domestic coal, imported coal, hydro, domestic nuclear and imported nuclear. And therefore since the 123 agreement will give access to imported nuclear power via fuel as well as reactors, India needs it.
Ah back to square one kindergarten class

1) Imported nukes have strings
2) Imported nukes will not solve the problem they will have enough contribution to be a nuisance and no more. Plus the import cost thing is pain.
3) The domestic plans have a sound basis and there is a strong fall back plans without imported nukes. GO DOMESTIC WITH A VENGENACE.
4) In future we are more likely to get a 123. If not screw it we will not die if we have to.

In 65 at one point of time; we had to decide between foodgrains and control. Today that choice is even easier.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ldev wrote:
sanku wrote:Second I am saying by 2050 there is a plan to meet a certain portion through Nukes; the rest can come through other sources. DAE says that. The total requirement is thus met.
Just tell me how India will meet its requirment of 1300GW of installed capacity by 2052 as stated by Dr.Kakodkar?
BHY DONT YOU TELL ME HOW MAGIC MUSHROOMS OF PLANTS WILL SPOUT?

I have answered enough time for you to make some meaningful data points based in reality.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Sanku wrote: Ah back to square one kindergarten class

1) Imported nukes have strings
2) Imported nukes will not solve the problem they will have enough contribution to be a nuisance and no more. Plus the import cost thing is pain.
3) The domestic plans have a sound basis and there is a strong fall back plans without imported nukes. GO DOMESTIC WITH A VENGENACE.
4) In future we are more likely to get a 123. If not screw it we will not die if we have to.

In 65 at one point of time; we had to decide between foodgrains and control. Today that choice is even easier.
I have said this 1001 times so far. But I am sure someone will come by and ask what is your point.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Sanku wrote: 1) Imported nukes have strings
Imported gas has strings. Just ask Iran. The question is whether over time you can pull the strings? Or you have no faith at all that India will ever pull any strings? You believe that India will always be bullied by other nations? What lack of faith and hope?
2) Imported nukes will not solve the problem they will have enough contribution to be a nuisance and no more. Plus the import cost thing is pain.
They will not solve the problem on their own, but supplement the solutions. Unless the market pays for the cost, nobody will buy and hence nobody will build.
3) The domestic plans have a sound basis and there is a strong fall back plans without imported nukes. GO DOMESTIC WITH A VENGENACE.
Ofcourse, ofcourse!!!. You can go anywhere you want to, so long as you produce electricity. You can go domestic, international or intergalactic!!!. They can all produce electricity including zero point electricity available at Intergalactic.
4) In future we are more likely to get a 123. If not screw it we will not die if we have to.
Sorry, you lost me. What is this screw and nut business?
In 65 at one point of time; we had to decide between foodgrains and control. Today that choice is even easier.
Listen, by the time I am 65, if I have to decide between foodgrains and control, I know which way I will jump!!!.
Last edited by ldev on 10 Sep 2007 20:15, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Rye wrote:
IF YOU READ; I have posted 3 articles by AK and DAE. They show why you are wrong.
Perhaps you should quit your hyperbole and speak what you know instead of pointing fingers to large articles that have many points to make. What is YOUR point? .
Boss this was not for you; this was for ShibaPJ who was saying we need the deal because without it we can not fuel the 3 cycle program.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Sanku wrote:
ldev wrote: Just tell me how India will meet its requirment of 1300GW of installed capacity by 2052 as stated by Dr.Kakodkar?
BHY DONT YOU TELL ME HOW MAGIC MUSHROOMS OF PLANTS WILL SPOUT?

I have answered enough time for you to make some meaningful data points based in reality.
No, you have not answered. You have just posted an article by Anil Kakodkar, without reading or understanding what he has written. So, if you have understood what he has written, please respond as to how India will meets its 1300GW projected requirement as stated by him. Just linking articles will not earn you bonus points in this debate.

And no, I will not ask you how magic mushroom plants sprout.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ldev wrote:
Imported gas has strings. Just ask Iran. The question is whether over time you can pull the strings? Or you have no faith at all that India will ever pull any strings? You believe that India will always be bullied by other nations? What lack of faith and hope?
My god you ARE dense. So you mean to say the chances of oil and gas and nuclear inputs falling under sanction and cartelling are same? Really; this is a "faith and hope" issue?

If so "pranam"; I can discuss things with people who have half a mind but any less and I give up.

Why are you after Iran BTW you sound like a State Dep insert here.
They will not solve the problem on their own, but supplement the solutions. Unless the market pays for the cost, nobody will buy and hence nobody will build.
Again dense; this point is to be viewed in congugation with first point. The cost vs benifiet. I mean all costs.
Ofcourse, ofcourse!!!. You can go anywhere you want to, so long as you produce electricity. You can go domestic, international or intergalactic!!!. They can all produce electricity including zero point electricity available at Intergalactic.
As expected; a lack of support for domestic why?
Sorry, you lost me. What is this screw and nut business?
The one missing in your gear.
In 65 at one point of time; we had to decide between foodgrains and control. Today that choice is even easier.
Listen, by the time I am 65, if I have to decide between foodgrains and control, I know which way I will jump!!!.
Okay birather; my father who is 65+ does not think so. And you have jsut proved where your loyalites lie with that statement.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Sanku wrote:
Boss this was not for you; this was for ShibaPJ who was saying we need the deal because without it we can not fuel the 3 cycle program.
Actually, that is not what he has said -- let me repost it for your benefit.

ShibaPJ wrote:
IMHO, the major hinderance for a closed loop cycle has been the lack of Uranium to get the closed loop cycle kick-started at the same time addressing a major part of the short- to medium-term power requirements of Indian economy. The deal also allows India to continue R&D to work out the kinks in the 2nd and 3rd stage reactors as well as crucial spent fuel reprocessing, which would be the cornerstone to operationalise a self-sustained closed loop cycle. In the long term, I expect N-power and gas-based plants (in addition to hydro; I expect coal- %ge to diminish unless clean coal tech is available or developed) to address most part of Indian power generation mix.

The benefits are "kick-starting" the program -- he has not said that the 3-stage program will die without the deal. You should be careful to not misrepresent what is being said in order to keep the debate on track....else it is a recipe for a flamefest.

Note the way time has been factored into the above explanation by ShibaPJ.

Assuming that future govts. do not fail to fund and support the 3-stage program, and given that India still has more R&D to do before getting the techonology commercial -- this deal gives the people working on the local program space to focus on fixing the closed-fuel cycle and bringing it to fruition.

Also, the "clean coal tech" is not currently available to India and it is not considered dual-use tech -- so India may stand to gain in other areas of energy too, potentially.

You are resorting to flaming instead of defending your POV...I suspect you will be banned soon enough if you continue derailing the discussion by inducing flamefests.
Last edited by Rye on 10 Sep 2007 20:24, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Like parliament I think this thread needs to be adjourned sine die.

It used to be mildly boring - but now it excels.

My views as always.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ldev wrote: No, you have not answered.
.
I knew you were incapable of reading so once again---
(let me know if you want me to copy paste the other pages and poke you in the eye with highlights)

Indian plans for energy

Introduction
Pop Projections
Primary enrgy
Elec deman projection
Meeting projection
Conclusions
To meet increasing energy requirements, policy decisions to speedily develop and utilize all types of energy resources at our command need to be taken and implemented. Full potential of the hydro and non-conventional renewable resources should be exploited at the earliest. In the coming five decades, though coal based thermal power plants will continue to be the mainstay of electricity generation, share of nuclear power has to be significantly expanded. For the nuclear power to play this role, the ongoing PHWR, LWR and FBR programmes should be completed. The development of U-Pu metal based FBRs of requisite breeding characteristics and associated fuel reprocessing technologies should be completed in the next 15-20 years. Fast breeder reactors have the potential to ensure that generation by nuclear power by the middle of the present century is about a quarter of the total electricity generation and this would enable to limit the primary energy import to about 30%.

Thorium based thermal and/or fast breeder technology as well as ADS, should be developed so as to provide required fissile material beyond the year 2052. All efforts should be made to develop and deploy advanced technologies in a shorter time frame so as to ensure still higher contribution by nuclear energy thereby reducing the energy import.
Intensive R&D efforts need to be mobilized towards exploration of hydrocarbons and coal and better utilization of existing resource base, development of efficient fuel cycle technologies for nuclear power and for exploitation of new fuel resources such as gas hydrates.

Acknowledgement
Authors would like to thank Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, AEC for fruitful discussions throughout the course of the study. Authors also thankfully acknowledge the comments received from BARC, IGCAR and NPCIL.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Sanku wrote:
I knew you were incapable of reading so once again---
(let me know if you want me to copy paste the other pages and poke you in the eye with highlights)
I have had enough of this bickering and I am going to give this thread a three finger salute.

..until tempers cool and a million two way arguments are called off. The views counter says it all.
Locked