India Nuclear News And Discussion

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 14:02

abhishek_sharma wrote:I think there must be some way to find the probabilities of tsunamis and earthquakes, right? (I guess I should not have used the term 'back swan'.)

Well one piece of good news is that India does not sit on top of a continental faultline like Japan or California does. And so there's very little chance of an earthquake of the magnitude that was witnessed in Japan (9 on the Richter scale means it was 7,000 times more powerful than the one which flattened Christchurch some weeks ago) and very little chance of 5 meter high tsunami hitting India also, unless we decide to put a N-plant in the Andamans.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 14:17

amit wrote:
I appreciate your point but can you tell me how you would calculate cost due to climate-related problems with any degree of accuracy? For example what timeframe would you use, what tolerance levels (for pollution and potential health related problems etc) would you assign, the cost of long term supply of coal (we'll have to import it due to the high sulpher content of our coal deposits) etc. Unless you can do that doing a comparison between x and y would be subjective because while y can be calculated with a fair bit of accuracy x will fluctuate over a wide band.

I cannot do it, but surely there are many climate scientists who are working on these issues. Otherwise how would rich countries compensate the poor countries for the ill-effects of climate change? I think these issues were being discussed during the Copenhagen conference.

somnath says 'y' cannot be calculated.

. You say 'x' cannot be calculated. In that case, I guess we should not compare these sectors.

Your point about Govt should pay for clean up, however obnoxious it may seem, is the global norm, as this Japan incident is already showing. I personally don't like it either but then there are so many thing that I don't like and yet it's the global norm.

If it is obnoxious, we should change it. Why should we follow others blindly?

I can't understand your point about other sectors demanding "similar favours".

Well, during the financial crisis in 2008, we saw an example of "privatized profits and socialized losses". The banking sector was criticized for it.

Finally your point about taxing oil and coal companies to provide health care, I'm sorry I am totally lost on that point. I hope I'm wrong and please point out if I am, but it seems to me you are saying that we first create a health problem and then assure,say, a guy who might get lung cancer because his house is next to a coal fired plant that he shouldn't worry the coal company has been taxed and they'll partly pay for his hospitalization bills.

No. The basic point is that the cost of coal/nuclear energy should reflect the true cost. And the true cost includes the climate/radiation related costs. Since we don't have perfect fuels, we will use this cost to ameliorate the adverse effects of coal/nuclear energy.

The whole point of this IMO, is there is no black and white solution to the problems. Both coal as well as nuclear have their plus and minus. The only thing that is black and white is that we need more power and we need it now.

Agreed.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 14:21

And so there's very little chance of an earthquake of the magnitude that was witnessed in Japan (9 on the Richter scale means it was 7,000 times more powerful than the one which flattened Christchurch some weeks ago) and very little chance of 5 meter high tsunami hitting India also, unless we decide to put a N-plant in the Andamans.

Normally the posts have gotten so outrageous that I have stopped even reading them, however once in a while, such blatant lies are passed off as fact that there is no option but to reply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_India ... nd_tsunami

The quake itself is known by the scientific community as the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake.[3][4]

With a magnitude of between 9.1 and 9.3, it is the third largest earthquake ever recorded on a seismograph

the extreme western edge of the Ring of Fire extends into the Indian Ocean (the point where this earthquake struck),

A study in Kanyakumari region

http://tsunamisociety.org/273Pabat.pdf

On a coastline of about 4.8 km in length, the tsunami amplitudes varied
from about 1.5 m to about 9.5 m.

I know that habitual liars wont stop lying, irrespective of whether their lies will build foundation of death and misery for millions -- but I hope in my little way to try and keep the light of truth alive in dark times.

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 14:29

^^^^^^

somnath says 'y' cannot be calculated. . You say 'x' cannot be calculated. In that case, I guess we should not compare these sectors.

I think Somnath said Black Swan events can't be calculated. I agree with him. If a Black Swan event can be calculated then it does not remain a Black Swan.

Well, during the financial crisis in 2008, we saw an example of "privatized profits and socialized losses". The banking sector was criticized for it.

I'm sorry will have to disagree with you on that. It's a massively off Apples vs Oranges comparison. Nuclear is about humanitarian disaster and the govt's response. The banks thing was a economic response to a financial disaster and much of the payment for that, at least in the US, came from printing more money.

If it is obnoxious, we should change it. Why should we follow others blindly?

I'm all for changing anything that is obnoxious - like for example the fact that China exports more than we do and when I go to the supermarket I'm more likely to find a Made in China goods rather than a Made in India product. However, the question is, do I have the power to change it? Sometimes we need to ask this question.

In the context of nuclear power, we've already seen how the Russians and the French have rallied behind the US to demand dilution to the Nuclear Liabilities Act. Of course the end game is yet to be played out. However, the pointers are that if the Big Three decide to stick together then we may have to forgo foreign nuclear power plants and their assured yellow cake supply. Which is fine we could still go for the 3 cycle which Sanku Sir has been raving about. But now tell me, if, God forbid, there's a major accident in one of those plants, who picks up the tab? And for the people who would be affected by this event, does it really matter that they were hit by Made in India radiation as opposed to Made in US or Made in Russia radiation? Would the clean up tab be any lesser?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 14:43

amit wrote: I think Somnath said Black Swan events can't be calculated. I agree with him. If a Black Swan event can be calculated then it does not remain a Black Swan.

You said: "y can be calculated with a fair bit of accuracy". I do believe that scientists know about the probabilities of earthquakes/tsunamis. In that case, it should not be a 'black swan' event. Even if we do not know them precisely, we can have rough estimates, right?

I'm sorry will have to disagree with you on that. It's a massively off Apples vs Oranges comparison. Nuclear is about humanitarian disaster and the govt's response. The banks thing was a economic response to a financial disaster and much of the payment for that, at least in the US, came from printing more money.

No one can argue that the loss of lives is equivalent to bad loans. However, in the context of liability laws, unfortunately, it reduces to money. In both cases, companies are ready to pocket the profits, and run to the government when they face losses. It should be noted that the financial sector also said that "this financial crisis can't be predicted", "this is once in a hundred year event".

I'm all for changing anything that is obnoxious

Fine. I agree. I also understand it is difficult. I guess we disagree on how we should move forward.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 15 Mar 2011 14:52

abhishek_sharma wrote:
Fair point. The views against a tough liability law should be explained analytically:

x = cost of coal-based electricity + cost due to climate-related problems

y= cost of nuclear energy + cost due to nuclear accidents (including 'black swan' events)

If x>y, we should install more nuclear reactors.

The other thing what the above equation does not consider is that it does not quantify energy security. We dont have an infinite supply of low ash content coal. IIRC we are planning to import this. What happens when the political situation changes and we dont get the coal? Do we start burning our indigenous high ash coal? What are the impacts in that case (smogs in Chinese cities come to mind) . What are the costs of moving the coal from mine to the generating plant?

amit wrote:In the context of nuclear power, we've already seen how the Russians and the French have rallied behind the US to demand dilution to the Nuclear Liabilities Act. Of course the end game is yet to be played out. However, the pointers are that if the Big Three decide to stick together then we may have to forgo foreign nuclear power plants and their assured yellow cake supply. Which is fine we could still go for the 3 cycle which Sanku Sir has been raving about. But now tell me, if, God forbid, there's a major accident in one of those plants, who picks up the tab? And for the people who would be affected by this event, does it really matter that they were hit by Made in India radiation as opposed to Made in US or Made in Russia radiation? Would the clean up tab be any lesser?

Amit bhau,

Dont even standard insurance policies that house holders buy have a rider that specifically exclude nuclear incidents (along with acts of terrorism, God etc.)? In that case, even without the deal, havent the policy owners already been "shafted"? It is expected that GoI will cover it, but I doubt if GoI covers loss of property: we have seen what compensation Bhopal victims got.

Another point: lets assume we put the liability on the suppliers as some suggest for perpetuity. Lets further assume that Tarapur goes boom, and makes South Mumbai (Colaba etc) a wasteland and inhabitable. Will the suppliers be on line to pay the market value for the property in that area? Will they even be able to? Wont it be far easier for them to say "we are bankrupt" and walk away? Pressuring someone works only to a point, after which he stops caring...

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 14:56

abhishek_sharma wrote:You said: "y can be calculated with a fair bit of accuracy". I do believe that scientists know about the probabilities of earthquakes/tsunamis. In that case, it should not be a 'black swan' event. Even if we do not know them precisely, we can have rough estimates, right?

This earthquake, which some analyst claim to be 9 on the Richter scale and some say was 9.1 (Link) was the most powerful in modern times in Japan and hence it could be categorised as a Black Swan. However, if there's a future earthquake in Japan which is similar in magnitude it no longer remains a Black Swan.

When earthquake proofing is done, the way to go about it is to look at historical data and then try predict how much magnitude of maximum damage can occur. For example most large buildings in Tokyo are built to withstand a 8.0 magnitude quake. If this quake had its epicentre on the land instead of 130km out in the sea then... At the nuclear plant, as I pointed out the buildings withstood despite the quake being 7 times more powerful than design limits. It's the tsunami that caused the problems.

No one can argue that the loss of lives is equivalent to bad loans. However, in the context of liability laws, unfortunately, it reduces to money. In both cases, companies are ready to pocket the profits, and run to the government when they face losses. It should be noted that the financial sector also said that "this financial crisis can't be predicted", "this is once in a hundred year event".

I think a better comparison is between the Gulf of Mexico incident and the Three Mile incident. Do note that in the Gulf of Mexico, BP was the "operator" (well strictly not even that as the operations were sub-contracted) and not the "equipment supplier".

I guess we disagree on how we should move forward.

I don't think our "disagreement" is all that much. My only grouse is against taking maximalist positions.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 15:07

The point about energy security is, of course, correct. My broader point is that a more analytical approach should be used to argue for any particular source of energy. It is the job of GoI (and media) to discuss/explain these issues in more detail.

However, I disagree on the Tarapur example (i.e. "Wont it be far easier for them to say "we are bankrupt" and walk away? Pressuring someone works only to a point, after which he stops caring"). It just shows that nuclear power is very dangerous, and we should be more careful while arguing for it. There is no good solution in this case. (However, powerful countries can force the parent country of the company to pay.)

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 15 Mar 2011 15:16

Tanaji wrote:Dont even standard insurance policies that house holders buy have a rider that specifically exclude nuclear incidents (along with acts of terrorism, God etc.)? In that case, even without the deal, havent the policy owners already been "shafted"? It is expected that GoI will cover it, but I doubt if GoI covers loss of property: we have seen what compensation Bhopal victims got

All "standard" insurance policies, in fact all standard contracts, have force majeure clauses..The fact is that for massive force majeure events (like this earthquake) even if there are insurance policies (I doubt though) the final backstop is ALWAYS the govt, as it is a social problem...To be honest, the Union CArbide example is moot - it wasnt force majeure, it was the result of operator neglect and the operator entered into a (some sort of) out-of-court settlement with the govt..But lets not get into Union Carbide again...

Amit makes a good point - in cases of such incidents, it doesnt really matter if the reactor was NPCIL or Areva designed...The horrors of the accident remains the same, and the liability arising out of it - cleaning up and rehbilitation will need to be substantially done by the govt..Regardless of any insurance...

No insurance company take into account black swan probabilities- again by definition black swan is an event whose Pk can NOT be calculated...There are AFAIK some insurance policies that have a degree of earthquake protection, not sure if those taken out by nuke plant operators have it though...Unlikely...

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 15:27

Since this very interesting discussion is going on in the backdrop of the Nuclear Liabilities Bill, I'd like to point out that, as far as I can recall (plse correct me if I'm wrong), the whole liability clause is about equipment malfunction. In other words the 80-year liability that the Indian bill stipulates is on equipment malfunction/faulty design resulting in an accident. It's not clear that if a freak earthquake destroys a nuclear plant then the bill would kick in unless it can be clearly established that the safety equipment did not do their job.

Till now it hasn't been established that the Fukushima plant meltdown has been due to "faulty" design. All available reports so far seem to suggest that all containment procedures kicked in as expected. The problem was due to the freak accident of axillary power generators being washed away leaving the portable diesel generators to do the task. When the Japanese bought in backup diesel generators there was some problem with the plugs and hence they couldn't be connected and that's when the problems started.

Of course it's still early days and new facts could emerge.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 15:46

somnath wrote: All "standard" insurance policies, in fact all standard contracts, have force majeure clauses..The fact is that for massive force majeure events (like this earthquake) even if there are insurance policies (I doubt though) the final backstop is ALWAYS the govt, as it is a social problem...

Then we should discourage such industries. Coal-powered plants in Tarapur cannot wipe out Mumbai, right? A "force majeure event" will not increase air pollution due to coal factories in Mumbai, hai naa?

somnath wrote: No insurance company take into account black swan probabilities- again by definition black swan is an event whose Pk can NOT be calculated...There are AFAIK some insurance policies that have a degree of earthquake protection, not sure if those taken out by nuke plant operators have it though...Unlikely...

Then we should probably "encourage" them to buy those policies. (Applies to both domestic/international players). The true cost will be visible to everyone.

Again, the broader point is that all risks should be factored in. Saying that "we cannot calculate them" is not acceptable.

A value of zero (for these probabilities) is clearly wrong. Can't we find even rough estimates?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 16:03

somnath wrote:.The horrors of the accident remains the same, and the liability arising out of it - cleaning up and rehbilitation will need to be substantially done by the govt..Regardless of any insurance...

Why? The advocates of reform say that the government is inefficient and it should let the free market show its "efficiency." It appears that such a principle is only applicable when profits have to be collected. When they mess up, the government is mai-baap.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 16:06

abhishek_sharma wrote:Why? The advocates of reform say that the government is inefficient and it should let the free market show its "efficiency." It appears that such a principle is only applicable when profits have to be collected. When they mess up, the government is mai-baap.

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 16:10

abhishek_sharma wrote:Why? The advocates of reform say that the government is inefficient and it should let the free market show its "efficiency." It appears that such a principle is only applicable when profits have to be collected. When they mess up, the government is mai-baap.

Boss, sorry to say this but this sounds like a grand political statement.

When every single nuclear power plant in India will be run by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and when special legislation has been crafted to ensure that there's no private participation in nuclear power generation in India, then where does these principles of "free market" come into the picture when there's an accident?

Suppose there's an accident and it's the operator's fault and not due to equipment issues (please note the Union Carbide case was an operator fuk up not equipment supplier issue) then who should pay for clean up under the principles of free market?

Why is there an almost etched in stone kind of belief that if there's a future nuclear accident it will invariably be due to "equipment failure" and not due to "operator negligence/carelessness"?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 15 Mar 2011 16:21

amit wrote:PS: GuruPrabhu, I guess by now you have learned to ignore motherhood statements!

I have not been tempted by pointed barbs and flame-baits. I am under strike-1 of waj-a-bulb-a-kettle syndrome. Not risking it with this one to get strike-2. If Indian public does not want nuke power what goes of my father only? Cow-dung patties do not require a liability law.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 15 Mar 2011 16:32

abhishek_sharma wrote:
Why? The advocates of reform say that the government is inefficient and it should let the free market show its "efficiency." It appears that such a principle is only applicable when profits have to be collected. When they mess up, the government is mai-baap.

The real question to ask is whether the GoI and DAE is capable and has the resources to install the required number of reactors on its own. Despite posturing and plans, I dont think the GoI has the resources and technical ability to install the required number of reactors. So, if GoI cant, the only option remains is the private sector.

You can of course say, "no nuclear reactors", but then the questions of energy security, pollution and carbon emissions (another potential strategic and economic factor) are unanswered. The opponents of nuclear reactors have not answered these issues at all. And before you say solar and win, these are not base load generating technologies.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 16:36

amit wrote: Boss, sorry to say this but this sounds like a grand political statement.

When every single nuclear power plant in India will be run by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and when special legislation has been crafted to ensure that there's no private participation in nuclear power generation in India, then where does these principles of "free market" come into the picture when there's an accident?

I have not excluded govt-owned organizations. Same rules should apply to them.

In our context, my criticism is appropriate because many private companies will be involved in near future (and private sector shows this kind of behavior). As mentioned above, NPCIL should follow the same rules.

amit wrote: Suppose there's an accident and it's the operators fault and not due to equipment issues (please note the Union Carbide case was an operator fuk up not equipment supplier issue) then who should pay for clean up?

It is obvious that those who created the mess should clean it. The problem is that "blame assignment" between equipment sellers and operators will be a legal battle. Unfortunately, the richer party (read GE) will get a better lawyer and win the case. That is how life works. This is not to suggest that we Indians are saints. It is entirely possible that senior leadership of the plant will blame the entire accident on some low-level helpless SDRE.

As mentioned above, this counts as an argument against the nuclear industry. An operator mess in a coal plant will not wipe out a city. The issue is how do we collect these plus and minus points and translate them into a single price. I cannot do it. I hope GoI will hire some smart people to think about it.

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 16:36

GuruPrabhu wrote:Cow-dung patties do not require a liability law.

Another non liability law generation is gas. There's loads of free gas available everywhere, including nearby

If only we could harness it for productive purposes. It's a powerful source the thundering sound when it is generated is deafening, not speak of the smell...

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 16:39

abhishek_sharma wrote:In our context, my criticism is appropriate because many private companies will be involved in near future (and private sector shows this kind of behavior). As mentioned above, NPCIL should follow the same rules.

Can you please elaborate the bolded portion with a link/reference? Mind you we are talking about generation and not equipment supply. In the later case, as far as I can recall, already some Pvt sector Indian companies (who incidentally are too small to afford a 80-year liability) supply many critical parts in nuclear power plants that run in India.

I have not excluded govt-owned organizations. Same rules should apply to them.

When you include govt-owned companies how does it remain "free market"?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Mar 2011 16:42

somnath wrote: All "standard" insurance policies, in fact all standard contracts, have force majeure clauses..The fact is that for massive force majeure events (like this earthquake) even if there are insurance policies (I doubt though) the final backstop is ALWAYS the govt, as it is a social problem...

SNIP the rest......

AS you make good points.

In the Indian context, what I would like to point out is that the Standard fire and speacial perils policy covers an Earthquake as an add on cover at the payment of add on premium.

In the event that an individual insured has the above insurance policy with earthquake coverage, then in that case, a nuke accident which is attributed to an earthquake and Tsunami causing damage to the insured property, such as the incident being discussed above will be covered under that policy.

The health and and other coverages will still be excluded though.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 15 Mar 2011 16:42

As mentioned above, this counts as an argument against the nuclear industry. An operator mess in a coal plant will not wipe out a city.

Not immediately no... but over a period of time they will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/busin ... .html?_r=1

Do we want this future for Indian cities? The choice is between a once in a lifetime non zero, small chance of getting nuked or a 100% probability of being poisoned daily.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 16:44

Tanaji wrote: The real question to ask is whether the GoI and DAE is capable and has the resources to install the required number of reactors on its own. Despite posturing and plans, I dont think the GoI has the resources and technical ability to install the required number of reactors. So, if GoI cant, the only option remains is the private sector.

You can of course say, "no nuclear reactors", but then the questions of energy security, pollution and carbon emissions (another potential strategic and economic factor) are unanswered. The opponents of nuclear reactors have not answered these issues at all. And before you say solar and win, these are not base load generating technologies.

Your point is entirely valid. I completely agree. My point is we should get some rough estimates of different prices, which will help us to understand the relative merits of different sources of energy. It is certainly possible that the adverse effects of nuclear energy are less dangerous than climate change. But that argument has not been made mathematically. So we should be ambivalent.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 16:46

Tanaji wrote:The choice is between a once in a lifetime non zero, small chance of getting nuked or a 100% probability of being poisoned daily.

Actually it is not really that choice. The choice is between a strong chance of massive wipe out compared to a potentially fully clean coal tech.

Also earlier you had said

I dont think the GoI has the resources and technical ability to install the required number of reactors. So, if GoI cant, the only option remains is the private sector.

The issue here is that while Pvt sectors finish their job and "get rich quick" and move out, the potential effects remain with GoI and general public at large for a much much longer time.

Quite seriously loaded against GoI and general public.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 16:50

Tanaji wrote:
Do we want this future for Indian cities? The choice is between a once in a lifetime non zero, small chance of getting nuked or a 100% probability of being poisoned daily.

Fair point. I guess we can work on technologies which could clean the air we breathe. We don't have to be poisoned daily. Similarly, we can make our reactors safer. The relative utilities will be compared, I guess.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 16:54

amit wrote: Can you please elaborate the bolded portion with a link/reference? Mind you we are talking about generation and not equipment supply.

...

When you include govt-owned companies how does it remain "free market"?

I was talking about equipment supplied by private companies.

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 16:55

abhishek_sharma wrote:My point is we should get some rough estimates of different prices, which will help us to understand the relative merits of different sources of energy. It is certainly possible that the adverse effects of nuclear energy are less dangerous than climate change. But that argument has not been made mathematically. So we should be ambivalent.

Boss you make very valid points and I must say I've enjoyed this conversation with you as you bring an interesting perspective to this topic.

However, I would like to ask why are you looking at it from a either/or perspective vis a vis nuclear and coal.

Even if we build nuclear power plants with gusto, for the next 30 years (at least) we'll have to keep building coal plants as well because the gestation period of N-plants are so high that we'd never be able to catch up on the energy deficit which plagues us.

In fact we need to explore every possible electricity generation means, be it nuclear, coal, hydel, wind etc. We need to move equally in all fronts.

The whole discussion, at least for me is, can we totally discard nuclear and move to coal, hydel and others? I think we can't. We need to look at nuclear and as the technology matures - as does our expertise - we'll have to wean ourselves away from coal and concentrate on non polluting sources of electricity: nuclear, hydel, solar and wind.

JMT

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 15 Mar 2011 16:57

Saar, not loaded, as far as I see there is not really a choice.

How many clean tech coal plants have been installed currently, and/or are private players ready to install them at the scales required by GoI? More importantly how do they compare with the cost per MW with nuclear tech? Also, what type of coal do they require and how much do we have of it? No one is providing the answers to these relevant questions in their opposition to nuclear tech.

Way I see it, the whole issue flows from GoI/DAE inability to fulfill the required demand in terms of technology and resources. Had DAE delivered on the 3 step cycle or designs for conventional 1000 MW plants, we would not be in this position. They havent so here we are, and as a result our choices are limited.

the potential effects remain with GoI and general public at large for a much much longer time.

Why is it okay for coal plants to pass on the effects to general public at large but not okay for a small probability for nuclear reactors?

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 16:58

abhishek_sharma wrote:I was talking about equipment supplied by private companies.

But then the point is, you'll have to first establish beyond any reasonable doubt that any "future accident" was caused due to "equipment failure" and not due to "operator negligence". Why is there this assumption that any future accident will always be due to equipment, supplied by private companies (read US companies) failing?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Mar 2011 16:59

^ Absolutely. As I said before, this will a legal battle. And they are not always fair.

amit · Post by **amit** » 15 Mar 2011 17:04

abhishek_sharma wrote: And they are not always fair.

Very little in this world is fair. However, might is right as we saw in the case of Gulf of Mexico incident.

A nuclear plant sanctioned today may be up and running by 2015-17 or so. Assuming that it will not breakdown immediately (DAE and NPCIL aren't that incompetent) let's say it has a major accident in 2030.

Now wouldn't the India of then be a tad more "powerful" than it is today. And please don't fall for the trap that we SDREs are corrupt and easily bullied by the Goras etc. I don't think the generation in power then will be like what we are today.

I personally think we lack the self confidence to be able to tell ourselves that we can deal with any kind of sh!t. That's why we are forever agonizing and see the glass half empty instead of half full.

JMT

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 17:15

Tanaji wrote:Saar, not loaded, as far as I see there is not really a choice.

How many clean tech coal plants have been installed currently, and/or are private players ready to install them at the scales required by GoI? More importantly how do they compare with the cost per MW with nuclear tech? Also, what type of coal do they require and how much do we have of it? No one is providing the answers to these relevant questions in their opposition to nuclear tech.

Actually the way I see it is
1) No real answers exist for these questions on Nuke side as well. We dont know the nuclear plant costs if real liablities are included, how much trust we have of imported nuclear material etc etc.
2) GoI has criminally omitted to pursue the clean coal tech.

Way I see it, the whole issue flows from GoI/DAE inability to fulfill the required demand in terms of technology and resources. Had DAE delivered on the 3 step cycle or designs for conventional 1000 MW plants, we would not be in this position. They havent so here we are, and as a result our choices are limited.

I would say that the GoI has proven designs in 3 Cycle space for 6 years or so now. It is being deliberately neglected by GoI.

Why is it okay for coal plants to pass on the effects to general public at large but not okay for a small probability for nuclear reactors?

1) It is not a small probability, it is a large one, including the continuing environmental aspect (even apart from raditaion hazards, there are tons of documented issues with nuclear plants of LWR variety, in terms of waste storage, water requirements etc etc)

2) The coal plants should also pay. No free rides for anyone.

Overall, GoI under this dispensation is rushing along to buy imported nuclear plants while neglecting
1) 3 cycle
2) clean coal/natural gas based plants
3) Continuing env issues due to Nuke plants (the continuing env issues due to coal are not brushed under the carpet)
4) Possibility of long term issues

I would say that the "No option but nuclear at xyz terms" is a false and a foisted choice. Not real.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 15 Mar 2011 17:30

Pratyush wrote:In the Indian context, what I would like to point out is that the Standard fire and speacial perils policy covers an Earthquake as an add on cover at the payment of add on premium.

Pratyush-ji, you are perhaps referring to individual insurance...The question here is of third party insurance for nuke plant operators...Do they cover events like earthquakes, tsunamis and terror attacks? Frankly, I dont know...

In this specific case, seems that Fukushima's nuke insurance DID NOT cover earthquakes...
http://www.businessinsurance.com/apps/p ... /110319961

Chaucer said the syndicate did not expect large losses stemming from damage caused from the earthquake.

It said that for two of the plants affected, Fukushima Dai-ichi and Fukushima Daini, it did not provide coverage for property damage or business interruption coverage.

For the third plant in the area, Onagawa, which is owned by Tohuku Electric Power Co., Chaucer does provide coverage for property damage, but the perils of earthquake and tsunami specifically are excluded from that coverage, it said.

Under the Japanese Nuclear Act 1961, nuclear operators are not liable for any damage arising from a “grave natural disaster of an exceptional nature,” Chaucer added.

This is true for India as well, force majeure events like natural disasters, war etc are specifically excluded from the ambit of operator liability...

Plus, and you might want to note Abhishek-ji, all liabilities (operator included) in nuke arena is capped in amount terms...In The Indian Act for example, the operator liability is capped at 500 crores, and above that govt liability is capped at 300 million SDRs..

Some details about the Indian law here..
http://www.prsindia.org/index.php?name= ... category=1

Net net, "acts of God" are seldom covered under contracts, and also in normal third party insurance of the type we are talking about here...Such disasters need to be necessarily tackled by the society at large...

A point about nuclear v/s everything else debate...There will be a lot of it in the near future...But the point is this - this is the third big nuke accident in reported history....Human casualties (and we dont know whether there have been any till now on account of radiation in Fukushima) as a % of MW produced for nuclear power will still perhaps be lower than that of coal...I dont know, havent seen any data, but clearly the pollution impact and impact on huan health of coal has been widely storied...So knee-jerk analyses serves no purpose...And public sector good private sector bad (or domestic good imported bad) serves even less - God forbid, if a tsunami struck Tarapur, the impact will not be any less just becasue the reactor is indigeneous (ah well, almost indigeneous!).....

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 15 Mar 2011 18:33

Sanku wrote: I would say that the GoI has proven designs in 3 Cycle space for 6 years or so now. It is being deliberately neglected by GoI.

....

Overall, GoI under this dispensation is rushing along to buy imported nuclear plants while neglecting
1) 3 cycle

Sanku-ji,

As you say my rozi-roti is at stake and my head is in the sand, so could you please elaborate on how exactly is GOI neglecting the 3 cycle? Any evidence based on budgetary details or some official memo would suffice.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 15 Mar 2011 18:47

GuruPrabhu wrote:As you say my rozi-roti is at stake and my head is in the sand, so could you please elaborate on how exactly is GOI neglecting the 3 cycle? Any evidence based on budgetary details or some official memo would suffice

Guruprabhu-ji, I am sure you know - the allocations for DAE has gone up by 13-14%, and plan outly of NPCIL is up nearly 30%......Sloganeering can alway trump data, at least on internet blogs

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 15 Mar 2011 19:10

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 15 Mar 2011 20:49

I am puzzled by the inability to shutdown the reactors in Japan. Is the need for active cooling in a shutdown scenario an inherent shortcoming of light water reactor technology?

What is remember from my secondary school text is that the control rods are lowered, and finally poison elements are introduced to shutdown the reactor. I wonder if this describes the PHWR shutdown case and LWRs need more than this to shutdown because the fuel is more reactive.

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 15 Mar 2011 20:58

vera_k wrote:I am puzzled by the inability to shutdown the reactors in Japan. Is the need for active cooling in a shutdown scenario an inherent shortcoming of light water reactor technology?

The reactor was shut down immediately after the earthquake. The problem is with decay heat and the loss of cooling after the tsunami knocked out the power (batteries ran out after a while).

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1047092

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 15 Mar 2011 21:11

Okay, the reactor was shutdown. I found something that suggests that the PHWR design does not need active cooling when shutdown, while the LWR designs obviously need it.

[url=http://www.iaea.org%2FOurWork%2FST%2FNE%2FNENP%2FNPTDS%2FDownloads%2FTECDOC_NC_WM%2FAnnexes%2FAnnex_16.doc]IAEA workshop - EXAMPLES OF NATURAL CIRCULATION IN PHWR[/url]

The Indian Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) are dependent on thermosyphon in the primary coolant loop for decay heat removal from core following power failure and reactor trip.

After Three Mile Island, and now this incident, the question is has the nuclear industry been pushing the wrong kind of design?

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 15 Mar 2011 21:28

Somnathji,

It looks like all objections to the LWRs finally arise out of one reason : there is a nagging suspicion that the price paid by GOI for nuke commerce with the outside world has been a steep on the strategic front. While the deal does not explicitly prevent us from taking steps needed to bolster our deterrent, there is a suspicion that GOI has gone slow on this front (probably to please the west).

These suspicions gain credibility when reports of TSP having more nukes than GOI are becoming common. If such a situation holds, it is nothing short of treason by the powers that be in GOI. More so, if the gap, as Jaswant Singh suggests,is 50-60 on our side vs 100-110 and growing on theirs.

A rapid buildup of the deterrent arsenal must be a primary national goal. This should supercede all civilian goals of the nuclear program till we achieve some semblance of nuclear parity with PRC and a massive nuclear superiority over TSP. The edge over TSP ought to be quantitative as well as qualitative. The buildup should be explicit to the outside world that there is a buildup on a more rapid scale than TSP (though the exact scope and full extent should be secret). A qualitative improvement in the deterrent can onlybe achieved by Thermonuclear tests. Even K Sub was skeptical about R. Chidamrabarams claims of TN success in 1998. In short, a lot of work remains on the strategic front, and there is a valid fear that this matter is being deliberately neglected by the current GOI.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 21:46

vera_k wrote:Okay, the reactor was shutdown. I found something that suggests that the PHWR design does not need active cooling when shutdown, while the LWR designs obviously need it.

After Three Mile Island, and now this incident, the question is has the nuclear industry been pushing the wrong kind of design?

Yes Sir; and that is a large part of angst about 123 deal, that as a part of it, we are pushing an inferior tech by outsiders when we have a better design in house.