India Nuclear News And Discussion

[Tanaji]

Sanku saab,

Your statements on nuclear energy apply to both Indian and WEstern ones. Are you then saying we should give up nuclear energy and burn coal in our plants, especially given that "clean coal" implementations do not really exist right now? And, GoI/DAE has failed on delivering working 3 step cycle thorium reactors (actually even in that case we can have a radiation incident!)

[Sanku]

Sanku saab,

Your statements on nuclear energy apply to both Indian and WEstern ones.

Not really Sir, US is pulling back substantially. Japan we have seen what good it has done to them (and this is at best only a trailer of days to come) France is not on LWR. The current event seem to waking Germany up as well as Europe and they may actually spin away from Nuclear power shortly (based on current noises)

So really speaking west has been rather careful with nuclear in general and LWR in particular. My grouse if you see has been for particular LWR form more than others.

Are you then saying we should give up nuclear energy and burn coal in our plants, especially given that "clean coal" implementations do not really exist right now?

To an extent yes, but not ONLY that no, more in reply to next point.

And, GoI/DAE has failed on delivering working 3 step cycle thorium reactors (actually even in that case we can have a radiation incident!)

The chances of radiation incident in 3 cycle are uniformly agreed to be of lesser possible complications. Further, 3 cycle is up and tested in all but mass deployment.

If GoI has failed in taking the right path, I am afraid I do not support shortcuts to amend the situation. Small 3 cycle plants (PWHR/AWHR) is what I would support whole heartedly.

I would also support natural gas based electrical plants.

I would strong support mini electricity generation unit spread across the countryside, based on gas/diesel etc, with local power distribution. We don't necessarily need everything on THE grid.

I am only particularly averse to imported LWR which is I think completely unsuitable for us.

[Lalmohan]

there is nothing quite like nuclear to generate very cheap base load in massive quantities
gas, micro, etc. - the marginal cost economics don't stack up very well

[Sanku]

This is the exact type of problem that worries me about the current (and largest) scam being perpetuated by UPA

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MC17Df02.html

"Indian reactors are inherently safer as they use natural uranium as fuel as against enriched uranium that the Japanese reactors use," says Pallava Bagla, a science journalist with NDTV. They also "use a double containment as against the single containment used in Japan". Besides, the reactor design "allows for cooling using convection currents even in a state of station blackout - when all power and backups fail," points out Om Pal Singh, an expert on nuclear design safety at the Indian Institute of Technology at Kanpur.

Officials point out that 18 of India's 20 reactors are indigenously built, pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs) and only two - those at Tarapur - use boiling water reactors (BWRs) as did those in Fukushima. They admit that like the facility at Fukushima, the Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) is an old plant. But TAPS was renovated and additional safety features consistent with latest safety standards were added, they argue.

Questions have also been raised over the safety of Jaitapur's reactors. India plans to purchase six European Power Reactors (EPRs) from the French company Areva for Jaitapur. The EPR is of unproven design and the first unit has already run into trouble with British and Finnish nuclear regulators drawing attention to serious design deficiencies in its control and safety systems.

Instead of well proven tested and work horse nuclear reactors in India, we are going for very questionable Firang tech.

I think the writing is on the wall "THIS IS A SCAM"

[Sanku]

there is nothing quite like nuclear to generate very cheap base load in massive quantities
gas, micro, etc. - the marginal cost economics don't stack up very well

Yes but we do not need base load in massive quantities for all elec needs. Micro will do quite well for most requirements such as agriculture and domestic consumption.

Demand is not to run Fabs onlee.

[Lalmohan]

not sure i agree with you on that
micro only goes so far

[Sanku]

not sure i agree with you on that
micro only goes so far

Boss if you came from where I do, micro goes that so far as to make it more than enough. That is what people want

Instead ulta mega giga projects are being done in the name of electricity for "us" which is nothing but a sheer scam.

[Lalmohan]

micro has its place, i know that very well
but mega is also needed

[Tanaji]

Umm, isnt the issue with Japanese reactors right now that the backup generators were washed away that led to the problems rather than a fundamental design issue? Granted, the backup generator design comes under nuclear plant design, but is likely that it is not a part of the main reactor design. The reactor is already shutdown, it is an issue of residual energy not being cleared out fast enough.

So even if we use a sub critical design for the reactors, a similar case can still happen with AWHR/PWHR no? After all, the basic principle is the same: fission leads to radioactivity and heat which drives the turbines. There is still radioactivity, and there is still heat. That must be cleared out. An AWHR/PWHR with a failed cooling system will still suffer the same issues.

Plus, what is the point of comparing a Gen 1 reactor design, with a Gen III/III+ design that India will import? 40 years ago, your chances of walking away unhurt from a 50 mph collision in a car were next to zero. Now with airbags, crumple zones and other systems there is a good probability you will. Does that mean the current car is as dangerous as the old one, just because it has 4 wheels?

[Sanku]

So even if we use a sub critical design for the reactors, a similar case can still happen with AWHR/PWHR no?

Plus, what is the point of comparing a Gen 1 reactor design, with a Gen III/III+ design that India will import?

Apparently there is a difference between the two as documented in previous links posted by vera_k (and similar links posted over time by others in the debate)

Also if you look at what I posted it says

Given that India built on its own 18 PHWRs, three generations of Indian engineers and scientists are familiar with PHWR technology. "The safest route is to consolidate and expand on our PHWR experience, import natural uranium and build more PHWRs," Gopalakrishnan said. Instead the government is purchasing French EPRs in Jaitapur, of which neither Indians nor the French, know much about.

"If a major accident occurs in a PHWR, we have Indian engineers and scientists who are totally familiar with the technology, who can jump in and rapidly bring the situation to normal. For Indian engineering teams to react in a similar timely and effective manner against an accident in one of the planned imported reactors will be next to impossible for at least few decades to come," Gopalakrishnan said.

It is a open and shut case really.

[Tanaji]

Instead of well proven tested and work horse nuclear reactors in India, we are going for very questionable Firang tech.

I think the writing is on the wall "THIS IS A SCAM"

DAE/GoI has no designs for 1000 MW plants and has failed to scale up its proven technology to higher levels. Given the unavoidable opposition (due to dubious NGOs) that accompanies any new site for a NPP, it makes sense to increase the capacity per reactor in the Indian context.

The other thing is you point out that we are going to use "unproven" tech in the imported reactors. By that logic, isnt AHWR unproven since we dont have any commercial AHWR reactors implemented...

[Sanku]

DAE/GoI has no designs for 1000 MW plants and has failed to scale up its proven technology to higher levels. Given the unavoidable opposition (due to dubious NGOs) that accompanies any new site for a NPP, it makes sense to increase the capacity per reactor in the Indian context.

That's easy.

Well why not have more reactors at the same site rather than ONE big reactor?

The other thing is you point out that we are going to use "unproven" tech in the imported reactors. By that logic, isnt AHWR unproven since we dont have any commercial AHWR reactors implemented...

Yes but we are PROVING AHWR in house today, and its almost ready, this we are doing ourselves, so in addition to having a fundamentally safer tech, we will have home proven product.

Clearly logic and economics do not dictate the purchase of LWRs from outside, the considerations are external.

[somnath]

not sure i agree with you on that
micro only goes so far

Lalmohan-ji, you are right instinctively...Problem is people start making random comments without understanding either electricity economics or nuclear reactor tech...

First up, nuclear power, of any type - BWR, LWR, PHWR, FBTR, whatever - can only be used for what is called "base load" requirements...Base load power is that level of power demand that remains unvarying througout the day...Peak load power demadn on the other hand comes from sources that shut off at specific periods, esp at night - hence supply for it can coem from sources that can vary their output easily during the day....Given the high capital cost of nuke power and the fact that it is mighty difficult and expensive to vary their output during the day, they can be run only as base load units...Now, base load, as the term implies also means that it is power being used by everyone, in other words, hoi polloi, and hence needs to be priced competitively...(Peak load power is typically demand generated by "elite" users - industries, malls, commercial establishments etc)...An NPP, for that matter any power plant can be price-competitive given two conditions - 1) high PLF and 2) high capacity....Which is precisely why thermal power plants today are getting commissioned at unit sizes of 1000-1500 MW, compared to 400-500 MW some years back..

which is precisely the reason why LWRs are used extensively around the world - they are commissioned at high unit capacities...Our PHWRs come at a standard rating of 220, and only recently we have started making 540 MW units...Our quest for LWRs stem from that..We started with the Kudunkulum project of 1000 MW...

A short point on the EPR (with caveats etc as I am not a nuke engineer by a long shot)..The EPR is an LWR, and the reactor is housed inside two walls (not 1, as some people seem to think is standard for all LWRs)...The cooling systems and back-up generators are housed in separate blocks..Above all, EPR incorporates passive safety measures that do not require active controls...Substantial reason for the delay and cost escalation in the EPR project in Europe is because the safety features are far more stringent than what have been attempted before...

But the key point for EPR over and above all of the above is this - it can be used flexibly as both base load and peak load plant...Apparently it is designed to got from an output of 25% to 100% in 30 min....Which suddenly gives nuclear power in general a new level economic attractiveness, espeialyl after you add to that the never-before capacity (upto 4500 MW) rating possible...

The Jap reactor is a 40 year old design - to use that as a base to trash all LWRs (btw, the Jap reactor was a BWR, wasnt it?) as "unsafe" is rank illiteracy...

As for other sources of power, like diesel, they are so prohibitevely expensive (and polluting aditionally) that no one advises them as viable peak load generators either...They are ideally meant to only be "emergency" sources...Which is why even captive power plants in India (a substantial source of peak load power), that used to be primarily diesel earlier, have moved to other "mainstream" sources of fuel now....

[Sanku]

Lalmohan-ji, you are right instinctively...Problem is people start making random comments without understanding either electricity economics or nuclear reactor tech...

Oh no "people" understand very well, and they call out BS when they see it, at which point the sellers of oil of disreputable provenance go into "oh they dont understand"

Sorry boss, the problem is that we the people, do understand.

[Sanku]

And the "people" who do not understand what EPRs and LWRs etc include

Gopalakrishnan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

and such.

[Lalmohan]

in fact there is a cost differential of ~1:10 per unit of electricity produced between nuclear and gas

[Tanaji]

in fact there is a cost differential of ~1:10 per unit of electricity produced between nuclear and gas

Well the other point to consider is energy derived per kg of fuel. A shipload of UOxide pellets will keep the plant going for far longer than a super tanker load of imported gas.

[Sanku]

in fact there is a cost differential of ~1:10 per unit of electricity produced between nuclear and gas

I thought we debated extensively and decided that since nuclear energy is really susceptible to so called "black swan" incidents (which as it turns out are not really that much of black swans) it is impossible to factor those costs in and hence such comparisons could not be made?


No the 1:10 differential is a very questionable figure, and even if true (only assuming, not saying it is, because it is not) -- it STILL does not explain the reluctance to go for PWHR/AHWRs as opposed to eagerness to import questionable LWRs.

[Lalmohan]

figures are true for marginal cost, not for capex and safety costs

one can argue that a well blow out like deepwater has caused more damage than the sum total of nuclear incidents and accidents and much more...

there are plenty of black swans out there - we must not be afraid of them, but understand them and make rational choices

[Sanku]

figures are true for marginal cost, not for capex and safety costs

True but it is important to highlight the full input/output cost of the project and not merely the operating cost.

one can argue that a well blow out like deepwater has caused more damage than the sum total of nuclear incidents and accidents and much more...

And that cost should be considered and spread around ALL use of petroleum products, however for nuclear case we are merely using plant input output method, not the cost of events needed for mining uranium, however we can if needed included both mining costs too.

there are plenty of black swans out there - we must not be afraid of them, but understand them and make rational choices

Sure and that is precisely what I am saying, that the rational choices in this case do not in any sense support the installation of LWR in India.

[Tanaji]

So I take it that even Russian VVERs should not be installed as per you?

[Sanku]

So I take it that even Russian VVERs should not be installed as per you?

My vote as has been for PWHR/AWHR hasnt it?

[arnab]

So I take it that even Russian VVERs should not be installed as per you?

My vote as has been for PWHR/AWHR hasnt it?

Hmm - so why is the LWR an american /MMS scam when we are buying the same 'crappy' technology from Russians with far more restrictive liability clauses (where India bears all risks)? Is it because this was agreed in 2001 before a nuke liability clause came into existence (much like the DPP post T-90?)

[Sanku]

Hmm - so why is the LWR an american /MMS scam when we are buying the same 'crappy' technology from Russians with far more restrictive liability clauses (where India bears all risks)? Is it because this was agreed in 2001 before a nuke liability clause came into existence (much like the DPP post T-90?)

In 2G scam Raja's cronies made money too, but the scam was not being run for their primary benifiet.



Behti ganga hai, sab haat dho rahe hain (its flowing Ganga, everyone is washing their hands)

[arnab]

In 2G scam Raja's cronies made money too, but the scam was not being run for their primary benifiet.



Behti ganga hai, sab haat dho rahe hain (its flowing Ganga, everyone is washing their hands)

OK as long as you are consistent in your opposition to LWR technologies (both Russian and US), I have no problem with that. I don't agree with your views because IMO the scalability advantages offered by LWRs far outweigh any risks or any other comparable technology available today. And these cannot be replicated by any other energy 'cottage industry' - solar, gobar gas what have you. However you are entitled to your opinion.

[Sanku]

scalability advantages offered by LWRs far outweigh any risks or any other comparable technology available today. And these cannot be replicated by any other energy 'cottage industry' - solar, gobar gas what have you. However you are entitled to your opinion.

You left out (as fully expected) the real scalability options, PWHRs, mega coal, et al.


But thats ok. The important thing is to stop the latest scam first.

[somnath]

OK as long as you are consistent in your opposition to LWR technologies (both Russian and US), I have no problem with that. I don't agree with your views because IMO the scalability advantages offered by LWRs far outweigh any risks or any other comparable technology available today.

Arnab-ji, unfortunately that is a very wrong conclusion to be driving towards...The Fukushima affair has given no data till now that somehow suggests that LWRs are RISKIER than PHWRs in terms of basic design....In fact no such statement can be made generically at all - there are PHWRs of '60s design and LWRs of the EPR-type...To make blanket statements like that makes no sense...

A last byte on the issue of electricity economics...If EPR does what it claims on ramping up of PLF, it is truly revolutionary and will change the face of electricity economics...Barring hydropower, no other source of mainstream electricity can alternate between being base load and peak load suppliers in quick time..Not on a consistent basis...giving up on the options on the basis of sloganeering therefore makes no sense - actually policymakers are not talking anything like that either...

[merlin]

DAE/GoI has no designs for 1000 MW plants and has failed to scale up its proven technology to higher levels.

220 MWe to 540 MWe (already implemented) to 700 MWe (from my readings should be achievable) is scale up in any book. Scaling up higher, I don't know.

[GuruPrabhu]

so much has been written about coal versus nukes. I may have missed it, but has any one addressed what happens when coal runs out in ~50 years?

[Lalmohan]

^^^ sanku will pedal harder on micro generator to provide bijli for our BRF fix

[Tanaji]

Merlin saab

I am aware. My point is that the 750 MWe is not implemented yet, and so does not meet Sanku saab's criteria of "proven".

[Tanaji]

so much has been written about coal versus nukes. I may have missed it, but has any one addressed what happens when coal runs out in ~50 years?

IT wont run out, see, the carbon sequestering done deep underground from "clean coal" will cause new coal to be produced, and hence an infinite loop...

Seriously, I think Sanku is betting on AHWR to be available.

BTW, are 1000 MWe type AHWR designs available?

[somnath]

^^^How are AHWRs "safer" than LWRs?

[Tanaji]

Ask Sanku, I posed the same question earlier.

[GuruPrabhu]

Has the AERB cleared the AHWR safety review?

[GuruPrabhu]

BTW, are 1000 MWe type AHWR designs available?

as far as I know, AHWR is 300 MWe.

[Tanaji]

Well, the argument is that "it is being deliberately ignored". So make of that what you will ....

[GuruPrabhu]

Well, the argument is that "it is being deliberately ignored". So make of that what you will ....

I located a status report which addresses safety also:

http://aris.iaea.org/ARIS/download.cgi? ... output=pdf

3.1. Safety concept and design philosophy and licensing approach

The emphasis in design has been to incorporate inherent and passive safety features to the maximum extent, as a part
of the defence in depth strategy. The main objective has been to establish a case for elimination of a need for planning
for evacuation following any credible accident scenario in the plant. Another major objective has been to provide a
grace period of at least 72 hours for absence of any operator or powered actions in the event of any credible accident
scenario.

[joshvajohn]

Japan's nuclear disaster spooks India
By Sudha Ramachandran
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MC17Df02.html


It is better to build a huge wall (15 metre) around the nulcear reactors which are near to seashore so that in case of Tsunami the water may not go into the reactors or generators. This is a good way to protect the reactors from any Tsunami effect.

'Kudankulam reactors are safe'
http://www.sify.com/news/kudankulam-rea ... adaih.html

Top scientists brief PM on nuclear safety
http://www.sify.com/news/top-scientists ... jefig.html

[vera_k]

Kaiga plant located at perfect spot

Jha says in Fukushima type of an incident when the back up diesel generators fail, in PHWR type reactors the water in the steam generator can be made to fall on the reactor core to cool it. "Suppose there is a loss of coolant and you cannot pump water into the core because of generator failure, this passive cooling system can be used to cool the reactor," observes the author of "The Upside Down Book of Nuclear Power."

Advanced Nuclear Plant Design Options to Cope with External Events