India Nuclear News And Discussion

[Sanku]

Which is why I find the hysterical anti-nuclear tirades in the two threads quite disturbing/puzzling. If they succeed, the logical next step of this lobby would be to ask for winding down the weapons program on the basis of safety. I wonder what is their real agenda.

Are you seriously telling me that there is no difference between debate (which btw includes a whole host of doyens of Indian nuclear establishment, esp those for big bums) and attempts to decry nuclear at all costs?

This "with us or against us" stand is often taken by the vested intrests in nuclear power industry (TEPCO statements for ex) but is quite puzzling here.

[amit]

Rhetoric gives color to a debate. And in the hands of skilled practitioner it's a very powerful tool as we've seen.

I'll just wait for an answer from you to my previous post.

In fact I had been waiting for answers even before you asked.
It is being avoided so tellingly that I am unable to reconcile their expert knowledge with their inability to convince their masters in adopted countries after having learnt madarssa maths and fizzyics here.

This is what I wrote in my previous post, to which I wanted you to respond:

JwalaMukhi, Channakya, Abhishek and others,

<Snip>

In this context nobody in the so-called pro-nuclear (a nomenclature I don't like but never mind) lobby here have advocated an exclusivist use of nuclear power for power generation in India. The central point has been that we cannot afford to ignore nuclear as a part of the broader mix of different generation methods which should include both fossil, hydel as well as renewables. And nuclear.

I think it's time you guys clearly stated what you think should be the key takeaway from Fukushima for India. Should it abandon the nuclear option? Should it take cognizance of the failures - real and imaginary - at Fukushima and design more robust nuclear reactors?

I've asked this question before but I'll repeat, what do you guys think is the best course of action? If you think that India should not abandon nuclear power generation then it doesn't make sense to do a nod, nod, wink, wink and post reams and reams of articles/interviews with and by avowedly anti-nuclear folks - experts as well as quacks.

It would help if you guys also made your POV clear. We can then get to the next stage in this discussion which can go on till the cows - or maybe the neutrons - come home.
<Snip>

Chaanakya ji, your response to that is even more rhetoric.

Why am I not surprised?

to convince their masters in adopted countries after having learnt madarssa maths and fizzyics here

Ouch! Do I note a hint of frustration because this is totally OT to what I asked you. Do note I've made no claims of being a maths or fizzyics master!

Folks who run out of logic do resort to shouting...

[Purush]

Panel efficiency is increased to about 40% in one R&D project.

Lab demonstration is one thing, actual commercial usage is something else...many amazing things can be shown in the lab but they cannot be scaled commerically. I am not sure, but I think the 40% efficiency is for a GalliumArsenide PV cell.. quite expensive to manufacture....

The maximum efficiency of current commercially available PV modules is ~20% IIRC. And this too for the expensive single crystal Si cells.

Note that the capacity factor for a PV power station is bound to be quite low, especially if cloudy/rainy conditions prevail, and then there is the unavoidable fact of the sun not coming out at night.

Personally, I don't think solar energy is the way to go for power hungry massive populations like India...simply too unreliable. May work for small populations like the UAE, Israel etc, not for India. Only my gut feeling, not scientific fact.

[amit]

Panel efficiency is increased to about 40% in one R&D project.

Lab demonstration is one thing, actual commercial usage is something else...many amazing things can be shown in the lab but they cannot be scaled commerically. I am not sure, but I think the 40% efficiency is for a GalliumArsenide PV cell.. quite expensive to manufacture....

The maximum efficiency of current commercially available PV modules is ~20% IIRC. And this too for the expensive single crystal Si cells.

Note that the capacity factor for a PV power station is bound to be quite low, especially if cloudy/rainy conditions prevail, and then there is the unavoidable fact of the sun not coming out at night.

Personally, I don't think solar energy is the way to go for power hungry massive populations like India...simply too unreliable. May work for smallm populations like the UAE, Israel etc, not for India. Only my gut feeling, not scientific fact.

Purush,

Just to add to your point. I'd like to see solar proponents to prove something very elementary with a link. That is are there reliable estimates of the cost of producing one KwH of electricity using solar technology?

Mind you I'm not talking about build cost - that is the cost of setting up a solar farm. I'm talking about just generation cost.

Maybe the solar experts here can answer that question - and I've asked this question before.

Chaanakya you want to take a stab at this?

[Purush]

Are you seriously telling me that there is no difference between debate (which btw includes a whole host of doyens of Indian nuclear establishment, esp those for big bums) and attempts to decry nuclear at all costs?

Debate? Logic?
The onlee takeaway from the posts of the anti-nuke brigade in the 2 threads is that " Nuclear is bad onlee. We are all going to die from radiation onlee ".
No semblance of debate is visible despite attempts by several posters to provide material for debate/analysis.

Logically if a nuclear power reactor is dangerous for India, so is a weapons reactor and the nuclear warheads that are 'ready to go'.
You can't have it both ways: nuclear power = bad, nuclear weapons/reactor = good!!!

So, I ask again, is it the long-term goal of the anti-nuclear lobby to CRE the Indian Nuclear Weapons program?

[Purush]

That is are there reliable estimates of the cost of producing one KwH of electricity using solar technology?

Amit Mian,
I haven't really looked into the cost comparison between solar and other energy sources, but one thing I did check up Wiki after I wrote the above post was the capacity factor. Don't know how accurate these figures are, but it seems to be in the range of 0.1 - 0.3 for PV power stations. Quite low I think. Also, the installed capacities are quite small ...in the range of a few 10s of MW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ph ... r_stations

Maybe workable for small villages/towns in Rajasthan and areas that constantly receive a lot of sunlight, but probably not feasible on a large scale for the rest of India.

[amit]

That is are there reliable estimates of the cost of producing one KwH of electricity using solar technology?

Amit Mian,
I haven't really looked into the cost comparison between solar and other energy sources, but one thing I did check up Wiki after I wrote the above post was the capacity factor. Don't know how accurate these figures are, but it seems to be in the range of 0.1 - 0.3 for PV power stations. Quite low I think. Also, the installed capacities are quite small ...in the range of a few 10s of MW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ph ... r_stations

Maybe workable for small villages/towns in Rajasthan and areas that constantly receive a lot of sunlight, but probably not feasible on a large scale for the rest of India.

Boss spot on. Even in Spain where, thanks to huge subisdies, they have some largescale operations, it's only good for peak load capacity and not baseload, something which nuclear and coal are good at. And unless you have good baseload, peakload is irrelevant. So IMO the real comparison should be between coal and nuclear and perhaps gas.

BTW for comparison of costing see this site. It's a treasure trove of information and provides links to further reading. Should be useful for folks who really want to learn about these things instead of just grandstanding.

[chaanakya]

Panel efficiency is increased to about 40% in one R&D project.

Lab demonstration is one thing, actual commercial usage is something else...many amazing things can be shown in the lab but they cannot be scaled commerically. I am not sure, but I think the 40% efficiency is for a GalliumArsenide PV cell.. quite expensive to manufacture....

The maximum efficiency of current commercially available PV modules is ~20% IIRC. And this too for the expensive single crystal Si cells.

Note that the capacity factor for a PV power station is bound to be quite low, especially if cloudy/rainy conditions prevail, and then there is the unavoidable fact of the sun not coming out at night.

Personally, I don't think solar energy is the way to go for power hungry massive populations like India...simply too unreliable. May work for small populations like the UAE, Israel etc, not for India. Only my gut feeling, not scientific fact.

Actually you are quite right.

1. 40% is still in demo stage.
2. 20% is actually higher ( mono crystalline as it is known) Commercially available panels are generally up to 19% efficiency and degrades over time and at the end of it life it is 80%.
3.Capacity factor is also correct as it would work for abt 8 hrs. Some parts of the country is well endowed with solar Radiation hence advantageous. We get about 300 days of clear sunshine days as opposed to many developed countries so carbon footprint would be lower, cost somewhat would be lower ( still higher than most).
4. Storage issue is a big ?? mark. Hence it could serve a peak load. Base load is something that needs to be answered
separately.
5.Whether solar could be reliable source of power is to be seen by real life examples. Its deployment is still not extensive to make that judgement. Germany is pioneer in solar while spain is in thermal solar route. They have been quite successful in many ways. But I would wait till we get it to some decent deployment.

India receives abt 5000 Trillion KWh per year with about 4-7 kwh per sqm solar raidation and 5.5 kwh /day avg. How much of it is exploitable is another question.

"expensive" word is relative.So one needs to look at what it really means.

That does not mean Nuclear is "the only" way to go.

Anyway renewables could be discussed elsewhere. I believe that each option has to be decided on its own merit independently of other. Options are not mutually exclusive like black and white.

[amit]

Debate? Logic?
The onlee takeaway from the posts of the anti-nuke brigade in the 2 threads is that " Nuclear is bad onlee. We are all going to die from radiation onlee ".
No semblance of debate is visible despite attempts by several posters to provide material for debate/analysis.

Logically if a nuclear power reactor is dangerous for India, so is a weapons reactor and the nuclear warheads that are 'ready to go'.
You can't have it both ways: nuclear power = bad, nuclear weapons/reactor = good!!!

So, I ask again, is it the long-term goal of the anti-nuclear lobby to CRE the Indian Nuclear Weapons program?

+1 to that.

I've asked a simple question (see my post a few posts above). In fact this is the fourth time I'm asking these questions. Funnily those who are the most shrill - saying things like Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl, a major nuclear accident occurs ones every 10 years, more than 800,000 people have died in Chernobyl ityadi are studiously avoiding my query.

Interesting isn't it?

[amit]

That does not mean Nuclear is "the only" way to go.

You are being too clever by half boss.

Can you show one post where anyone has said Nuclear is "the only" way to go. Everybody is saying that nuclear has to be in the mix of option for electricity generation and you are very cleverly twisting this.

Do you think not going nuclear or abjuring the nuclear power generation option is "the only" way to go?

Please answer that.

[chaanakya]

Chaanakya you want to take a stab at this?

In fact I am waiting your answer to my question asked earlier before I attempt even though I do know the answer and in appropriate thread I would certainly provide it provided you are not one of those banana experts who says if you take radiation worth 20000 km of banana of any variety in one hour then you partake of the goodness equivalent of the same banana quantity taken in one hour.
In fact such experts find answers to their question about heat , heat capacity , internal energy, specific heat and latent heat by jumping into fireplace or diving in hot water at 100 deg Centigrade and say Eureka and think that they "only " know better.

[amit]

Chaanakya you want to take a stab at this?

In fact I am waiting your answer to my question asked earlier before I attempt even though I do know the answer and in appropriate thread I would certainly provide it provided you are not one of those banana experts who says if you take radiation worth 20000 km of banana of any variety in one hour then you partake of the goodness equivalent of the same banana quantity taken in one hour.
In fact such experts find answers to their question about heat , heat capacity , internal energy, specific heat and latent heat by jumping into fireplace or diving in hot water at 100 deg Centigrade and say Eureka and think that they "only " know better.

More rhetoric to avoid answering.

What question are you talking about?

I'm not interested in your discussion with Amber, Vina and others, you can take your frustrations over that to them. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to answer any doubts that you may still have. They may even give you a banana to eat as a bonus.

If your questions to me is about what course India should take post Fukushima I can answer rightaway since I'll only be repeating myself.

I think the key takeaway from Fukushima is:

1) Nuclear plant designs are inherently. A 40 year old plant survived a earthquake which was 7 to 8 times greater than the design limitations.

2) The bad part was the layout of the plant. It was stupid to have the axillary generators exposed as they were.

3) India should learn from this disaster as to how to better design nuclear power plants - note nuclear power plants and not just nuclear reactors.

4) Any GenIII reactor we buy or design ourselves should come with passive cooling systems.

5) Under no circumstances should we forgo the nuclear generation option from our energy mix.

I think that should be clear enough even for you?

[chaanakya]

That does not mean Nuclear is "the only" way to go.

You are being too clever by half boss.

Can you show one post where anyone has said Nuclear is "the only" way to go. Everybody is saying that nuclear has to be in the mix of option for electricity generation and you are very cleverly twisting this.

Do you think not going nuclear or abjuring the nuclear power generation option is "the only" way to go?

Please answer that.

So obviously you did not read my first post in the other thread and may be not followed the discussions there. Nuclear is already in Indian energy mix whether one like it or not , presently at 2.5 %. I have given this data if you care to read.

So your question is misconceived and misdirected.

There are many things bad in the life people tolerate or forced to accept like a bad teacher or a disease that does not mean it becomes good by its presence. If one takes x-ray or CT one exposes to radiation, though risky, yet he willingly does that since he is informed that benefits outweighs rewards and believes that.

[chaanakya]

What question are you talking about?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1065673

[amit]

So obviously you did not read my first post in the other thread and may be not followed the discussions there. Nuclear is already in Indian energy mix whether one like it or not , presently at 2.5 %. I have given this data if you care to read.

So your question is misconceived and misdirected.

There are many things bad in the life people tolerate or forced to accept like a bad teacher or a disease that does not mean it becomes good by its presence. If one takes x-ray or CT one exposes to radiation, though risky, yet he willingly does that since he is informed that benefits outweighs rewards and believes that.

Aha finally. Then can you tell me what's the point in peddling the snake oil that many in the anti-nuclear lobby is producing post Fukushima? If you agree that nuclear needs to be in the mix what's the point of endless harping on Chernobyl, which everybody agrees was a major disaster and resulted from faulty plant design?

Isn't it better served to discuss what are the things that one can learn in designing better and safer nuclear power plants in India?

[amit]

What question are you talking about?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1065673

OK this question!

I'm afraid you'll have to ask Paul Genoa to answer that. I can't answer for him. I think what he said that nuclear has to be in the mix is true and I stick with that and have already answered why. The politics behind US nuclear power industry is not my concern, neither am I interested to answer on it. I'm only interested in India.

Man this is dredging the absolute bottom of the reactor for neutrons.

[chaanakya]

If your questions to me is about what course India should take post Fukushima I can answer rightaway since I'll only be repeating myself.

I think the key takeaway from Fukushima is:

1) Nuclear plant designs are inherently. A 40 year old plant survived a earthquake which was 7 to 8 times greater than the design limitations.

2) The bad part was the layout of the plant. It was stupid to have the axillary generators exposed as they were.

3) India should learn from this disaster as to how to better design nuclear power plants - note nuclear power plants and not just nuclear reactors.

4) Any GenIII reactor we buy or design ourselves should come with passive cooling systems.

5) Under no circumstances should we forgo the nuclear generation option from our energy mix.

I think that should be clear enough even for you?

No that was not my question.
Now to your points here

1. I am not quite sure if plant survived in the sense it could be worked again. But that depends what you meant by "survival". There was partial meltdown, but then it is not the end of the world story as we all know. Japanese have done well despite all odds.
2. Here I will agree with you and I think it needs more detailed autopsy of Fukushima NPP event to get fuller picture. My posts give some idea about the plant. But full picture is yet to emerge.
3. No doubt about that Indian engineers would draw key lessons from this, I have said as much in many of the posts. The question of LWR and PHWR GE vs Indigenous are not much relevant here.
4. I am sure Fukushima would have its mark on Nuclear trade. People need to be assured that what is needed is being done.
5. I think policy review would decide all that and much more. Presently it is at 2.5 % so I don't know what options are foregone?

[chaanakya]

But the point is in the next 10 years or so we'd be having 500 or so nuclear reactors globally, that would mean, according to the MIT estimate, 100 years of assured supply and this does not take into account new sources that may be found. And it's quite obvious much before that 100 years is up new technology will make it possible to use other stuff like thorium for power generation.

Bottomline nuclear generation is not going stop on account of lack of fuel anytime soon.
.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, at least after Fukushima. See , after Cherbobly, Nuclear Industry was in cold storage. Now only they were talking about nuclear renaissance. This so called Black Swan Event has , probably, put paid to all their hopes for some time at least till reviews by various govt are over.

That is why I asked how many reactors are built by USA in last 20 years or so. None. Naturally they have to find someone buying their reactor if they can't sell it to domestic audience. Who better than China and India, two fastest growing economy with "huge" energy demand ( which is far lower than USA either in terms of per capita or absolute figures) with surplus money to splurge on 50 year old technology which nobody wants in the west.

[chaanakya]

Man this is dredging the absolute bottom of the reactor for neutrons.

You need to be in the Fukushima NPP for that. You will get plenty.

[somnath]

Its amusing to see so much defence of "solar energy" in the Indian nuclear thread

So far, all data posted here show that a) it is horrendously expensive and b) it has a huge carbon footprint...

To be honest, even keeping the above aside, the discussion is literally in the "air"..We can have a better quality discussion the day there is a 500 MW base load solar station set up, or someone takes up a concession to do so...Till then, all talk of solar is as a viable large scale alterantive is, well, gas....

BTW, one question to all those born again Greenpeace activists (I have nothing against the original Greenpeace types)...In case India were to junk all nuke power, what happens to our nuclear weapons capability? How do we propose to maintain, in fact increse that? I mean, short of the type of divine invocations that render Indian PHWRs safer than imported LWRs?

[chaanakya]

So obviously you did not read my first post in the other thread and may be not followed the discussions there. Nuclear is already in Indian energy mix whether one like it or not , presently at 2.5 %. I have given this data if you care to read.

So your question is misconceived and misdirected.

There are many things bad in the life people tolerate or forced to accept like a bad teacher or a disease that does not mean it becomes good by its presence. If one takes x-ray or CT one exposes to radiation, though risky, yet he willingly does that since he is informed that benefits outweighs rewards and believes that.

Aha finally. Then can you tell me what's the point in peddling the snake oil that many in the anti-nuclear lobby is producing post Fukushima? If you agree that nuclear needs to be in the mix what's the point of endless harping on Chernobyl, which everybody agrees was a major disaster and resulted from faulty plant design?

Isn't it better served to discuss what are the things that one can learn in designing better and safer nuclear power plants in India?

I think its the other way round. Actually, post Fukushima we are all hearing from Expert is that Radiation is Good onlee and that it is safer than so and so, and that design and engineering etc was all good onlee and that tis was Devine event which could not be anticipated or protected against and hence no defense were built etc etc. If you tell news from Fukushima , actual reporting which is read by Japanese people and world over they you are attacked. Hand wringing in frustration is so obvious from experts that sometimes it is pathetic and sometimes it is hilarious.

This was heard after TML and then Chernobyl and now again after Fukushima. They never learn, as we see.

[Sanatanan]

[quote="In page 85, amit-ji"]

I think it's time you guys clearly stated what you think should be the key takeaway from Fukushima for India. Should it abandon the nuclear option? Should it take cognizance of the failures - real and imaginary - at Fukushima and design more robust nuclear reactors?
[/quote]

In the context of the discussions taking place now in this thread, I am not quite sure whether the above question was meant to be rhetorical or not. Here I have assumed that it is not.

To me the question above was thought provoking, and so I have tried to cast my vote as follows:

Evolution and consequent detailed design, manufacture, construction and operation of NPPs should be (and as far as I am concerned, is) a continuing process, even without any reference to Fukushima. If it were not so, Dr. AK et al would not have come up, a few years ago, with the AHWR concept that uses passive heat removal even during normal full power operation. (That I think implementation of this particular idea may be found unviable and that at some point of time in future they may re-introduce pumps for circulating the coolant through the reactor core, might be irrelevant to the concept of continual evolution of NPP designs that I am discussing here). Therefore, taking the appropriate lessons from Fukushima and not only incorporating them in future designs, but also straining as much as possible to back-fit them in existing designs is the way forward. Such exercises were carried out in the wake of Chernobyl and TMI, and must have been done after the Narora fire and other similar incidents.

As far as India is concerned, for reasons I have been attempting to articulate in this thread so far, I vote for continuing the line of PHWRs that we have developed and proceed forward with the steps we are taking in relation to indigenous FBRs and Thorium fuelled FBRs / PHWRs / AHWRs. For me, import of NPPs must be shunned, because I firmly believe that (i) such imports will inhibit indigenous technology development and, (ii) LWRs are not neutron economical. I note that India has already developed LWR technology at a much more difficult level - namely, compact LWR, suitable for incorporation inside the confines of a submarine. Again, I am not a believer in the new-found need (post nuclear deal), for 40,000 MWe of nuclear capacity addition sought to be justified by Dr. AK as mere "additionality" thereby implying that we can very well afford to do without. However, DAE may have to go quite a distance yet on some other issues -- to me, the implementation of a "sterilised zone" around a reactor site is anathema and impinges on societal aspirations. I understand no other country in the world has it.

Finally, risk assessment and its mitigation as well as balancing it with economic or other gains needs to be realistic -- unfortunately achieving consensus on "what is safe" is difficult particularly in a Democracy such as ours; which is why we are having so many heated arguments and written bytes generated in the environment. I have heard that the NPPs at Kaiga are located at such an elevation so as to cater for a "deterministically" postulated scenario that envisages the dam (called Supa dam ?) at the upstream reservoir to have an instantaneous, complete, full-flow break caused by incessant torrential rains in the catchment areas and near by rain forests, lasting several days. (I do not know whether similar scenarios were also imposed on the dam designers and builders. Why they would not gradually and progressively open the sluice gates as soon as torrential rains begin, is not quite known to me; perhaps there is a conservative assumption of goof-up by the dam authorities.) To me this scenario is a bit extreme, but possibly the NPP designers could comply with this diktat without incurring too much extra cost. I am not sure whether they did take into account what will happen to the homes of the NPP operators in the colony located, may be a few kilometers, down stream - will the colony get subsumed in the "pralayam"? I hope not!! (It all depends on the topology of the area, since the water stored in the reservoir is not infinite as in a sea).

Just My Thoughts.

[somnath]

^^^Sanatanan-ji, points well taken..Especially the assumptions on Kaiga!

The only disconnect is -where is our FBR? Where indeed is our AHWR? Beyond paper that is? In fact, where is our 1000 MW (or even 700 MW) PHWR design? We are circumspect, rightly so, about EPR safety, how confident are we about the safety of our FBRs? Given that, how much time will it take for the whole "3 stage programme" to achieve economic fruition?

Given the above, do we envisage our nuke programme to be a simple technology learning exercise till we complete all the 3 stages? Or something that contributes meaningfully to base load power supply in India?

Sorry, I guess too many "????" in the post!

[Amber G.]

Bade,

The Thorium itself is not very radioactive. Half life ~ 15 Billion years. Far more than Uranium. Mining and processing Monazite is not a very radiation prone process.

Uranium or Thorium both give about million alpha-particles per second (per mol)..

[GuruPrabhu]

Bade,

The Thorium itself is not very radioactive. Half life ~ 15 Billion years. Far more than Uranium. Mining and processing Monazite is not a very radiation prone process.

Uranium or Thorium both give about million alpha-particles per second (per mol)..

Alpha-shalpha. You should respect people's right to use half-life and activity interchangeably as per convenience. Now, 15 billion versus 5 billion (for U-238) is a new mantra for unspecified reasons. This is factually correct. Just like it is factually correct that the price of eggplant in the US has seen a 49.45% increase in the last one year. If you think hard enough it is relevant to the discussion.

[GuruPrabhu]

For me, import of NPPs must be shunned, because I firmly believe that (i) such imports will inhibit indigenous technology development and, (ii) LWRs are not neutron economical. I note that India has already developed LWR technology at a much more difficult level - namely, compact LWR, suitable for incorporation inside the confines of a submarine. Again, I am not a believer in the new-found need (post nuclear deal), for 40,000 MWe of nuclear capacity addition sought to be justified by Dr. AK as mere "additionality" thereby implying that we can very well afford to do without.

Sanatanan,

I suppose that you support the thorium program. Since you have studied the issues, can you also comment on the neutron economics of the 3rd stage? A simple way to think of this is to plot India's neutron reserves for the next 10 or 50 years. Then plot the same thing with the imported LWRs adding to the neutron bank. The difference would be clear.

[GuruPrabhu]

It says clearly that the high cost of solar was just the building cost. There is no reliable estimates of operating cost of solar - that is the cost incurred in generating one khW of electricity. Can you beat it? Nobody's got an estimate of how costly it is to generate electricity with solar.

Amit,

you are right. There is no good estimate of operating cost because no one has operated a large plant yet. Past experience indicates that the main maintenance cost has to do with cleaning the surfaces, be it PV or mirrors. In a country like India with a lot of dust, a small army will need to be deployed to clean on a weekly basis. A secondary cost has to do with orientation of the PV or mirrors. This can be automated, but that adds to build-up cost. Otherwise, as the sun moves in polar angle, re-orientation has to be done. This is also labor intensive. Beyond that, the running costs are mainly maintenance costs. So, it is possible that running costs in India will be cheaper than the west because labor is cheaper.

[vina]

I vote for continuing the line of PHWRs that we have developed and proceed forward with the steps we are taking in relation to indigenous FBRs and Thorium fuelled FBRs / PHWRs / AHWRs

Ok . I asked this before. Since you seem to know, can you take a stab at this ?

Why do you need the 2nd stage now at all ? In the 3 stage program the 2nd stage was to breed Pu that could be used in the 3rd stage, and that was because, we had limited uranium in the first place.

With the nuke agreements, why not think of other possibilities. The world is awash in Pu in reactor fuel that no one really wants, they prefer not to use Mox if possible. Why dont we just import the spent fuel from the So Ko, Japanese, French, Russians, Americans and everyone who has mountains of this stuff and dont know what to do with it, reprocess /get it reprocess under IAEA safeguards and then go straight to the 3rd stage, without going through the trouble and expense of going through the 2nd stage at all ?

We want Pu (Poo is waste anyways).. The world has mountains of waste Poo, so lets trade. It is like the "art from waste" kind of thing in kindergarten. We import Poo, generate power, world gets rid of Poo , problem solved, everyone happy , no need to experiment with the FBR and generate Poo with unknown economics and best of all, more Poo is going to get generated in the all the uranium based reactors around the world in the next 30 years or so. So ample Poo to start the 3rd stage without any problems I think!

[sivab]

^^^

Here is from my limited understanding. Stage 2 is most critical of all 3 stages. With stage 1, only ~2-2.5% of potential energy is extracted from fuel. IOW, with stage 2 you can extract 40 times more energy from same fuel. Stage 3 just provides additional fuel since thorium is more abundant. In stage 3 thorium gets converted to U/PU from which maximum energy extraction is possible with stage 2 technologies. Plus because of stage 2 tech. amount of waste produced is very very less. All of these make stage 2 make very very important.

[GuruPrabhu]

Vina's idea has a lot of merit. If we can import spent fuel, the need for imported LWRs is eliminated. However, it may have to be coupled with some import of reprocessing technology because it is not clear that Indian version of PUREX will work equally well with other fuel mixtures.

sivab, yes, regardless of some minor errors in your statements in your post, stage 2 is still needed.

But, all this is irrelevant if the green brigade shuts down DAE. Hopefully, there are some smart Babus remaining in India who can advise the Neta-jis to ignore the hysteria.

[Mort Walker]

Solar power discussion in this thread? Lets do some madrassa math here:

1. We want solar to be 10% of the total electric power produced by 2030. Lets just say that's 30 GW out of 300 GW. Current production is about 175 GW.
2. Solar power densities for India are at best 300 W/m^2 on most days that are clear.
3. Practical efficiency of PV are 30%

So now lets calculate how much power comes from 1 square meter:

250 * (0.5 for daylight hours or 12/24) * (10/12 hours that are not at dawn and dusk - that is low elevation of sun)* (0.95 for the percentage of clear days) * (0.40 Lets be generous and say PV efficiency is 40%) = 42 w/m^2

To get 30 GW the area needed would be 30 x 10^9 W / 42 w/m^2 = 714 million square meters = 714 square kilometers.
Yes, it can be done, but solar power is probably better if done with thermal plants instead of photo-voltaics.

[JwalaMukhi]

In this context nobody in the so-called pro-nuclear (a nomenclature I don't like but never mind) lobby here have advocated an exclusivist use of nuclear power for power generation in India. The central point has been that we cannot afford to ignore nuclear as a part of the broader mix of different generation methods which should include both fossil, hydel as well as renewables. And nuclear.

I think it's time you guys clearly stated what you think should be the key takeaway from Fukushima for India. Should it abandon the nuclear option? Should it take cognizance of the failures - real and imaginary - at Fukushima and design more robust nuclear reactors?

I've asked this question before but I'll repeat, what do you guys think is the best course of action?

amit this has been already answered to you, but will be a repetition. But let me quote your own post for reference.http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1057566

[JwalaMukhi]

As far as India is concerned, for reasons I have been attempting to articulate in this thread so far, I vote for continuing the line of PHWRs that we have developed and proceed forward with the steps we are taking in relation to indigenous FBRs and Thorium fuelled FBRs / PHWRs / AHWRs. For me, import of NPPs must be shunned, because I firmly believe that (i) such imports will inhibit indigenous technology development and, (ii) LWRs are not neutron economical. I note that India has already developed LWR technology at a much more difficult level - namely, compact LWR, suitable for incorporation inside the confines of a submarine. Again, I am not a believer in the new-found need (post nuclear deal), for 40,000 MWe of nuclear capacity addition sought to be justified by Dr. AK as mere "additionality" thereby implying that we can very well afford to do without. However, DAE may have to go quite a distance yet on some other issues -- to me, the implementation of a "sterilised zone" around a reactor site is anathema and impinges on societal aspirations. I understand no other country in the world has it.

Finally, risk assessment and its mitigation as well as balancing it with economic or other gains needs to be realistic -- unfortunately achieving consensus on "what is safe" is difficult particularly in a Democracy such as ours; which is why we are having so many heated arguments and written bytes generated in the environment. I have heard that the NPPs at Kaiga are located at such an elevation so as to cater for a "deterministically" postulated scenario that envisages the dam (called Supa dam ?) at the upstream reservoir to have an instantaneous, complete, full-flow break caused by incessant torrential rains in the catchment areas and near by rain forests, lasting several days. (I do not know whether similar scenarios were also imposed on the dam designers and builders. Why they would not gradually and progressively open the sluice gates as soon as torrential rains begin, is not quite known to me; perhaps there is a conservative assumption of goof-up by the dam authorities.) To me this scenario is a bit extreme, but possibly the NPP designers could comply with this diktat without incurring too much extra cost. I am not sure whether they did take into account what will happen to the homes of the NPP operators in the colony located, may be a few kilometers, down stream - will the colony get subsumed in the "pralayam"? I hope not!! (It all depends on the topology of the area, since the water stored in the reservoir is not infinite as in a sea).

Just My Thoughts.

+10. Thanks for driving the discussion to where it should have veneered. That's has been the main contention.
Let me say that again. But is proportional investment being done so India plays to its natural strength of what is in its control.
The thrust of India's energy mix should be reflection of its strategic resources. Any deviation from that in short or long term is going to diminish strategic economic and security interests accordingly.
Has India enough design flexibility in its energy mix, to allow it to disengage from investing in imported technology if situation warrants? (either due to other technological advancements or for strategic purposes). Making huge investments that doesn't allow disengagement needs stronger review. Mantra of importing needs to be carefully scrutinized. That's all.

[GuruPrabhu]

... solar power is probably better if done with thermal plants instead of photo-voltaics.

yes, and that is the only way (so far) to get 24/7 power and hence be a part of base load.

However, 30 GW of thermal is a dream considering that the largest plant to operate (test mode) was 10 MW.

[Theo_Fidel]

Until recently India just did not have the uranium to experiment with the larger designs. As recently as 10-15 years ago, a single 1000 MW reactor would have consumed our entire years production, or pretty close to it. Kudankulam came about only because the Russians are providing the fuel and will be taking back the waste as well. In case of fuel produced in India, such as Thorium we are on our own.

Solar is no Panacea. As many have pointed out it has its own challenges. The point is that if Nuclear is only going to be 10 %, even after expansion then that 10% is what we need to try and fill.

And this technology is most definitely being foisted on us by the western companies, since they can't build back home. They do this by publishing terrifying reports on electricity shortages and doomsday reports that then softens us up for the big boys. Every one of the designs being brought in is brand spanking new. Un-built and untested elsewhere. Tell's us the level of confidence they have in their older designs. Note that we are now power surplus in many parts. In fact Gujarat has power no one will buy. The black outs we see are due to poor transmission and system inflexibility. Also utilities do it to minimize their loses as residential and agricultural power is a heavy loss make for them.

As far as PV/Solar Thermal there is extensive experience in the costs of maintenance and running plants long terms. Heres what the DOE has to say.



I'm very certain that India can be really competitive in pricing. The test case would be wind, where we have the lowest cost manufacturing and production of wind power in the world. This has come after 25 years of experience and innovation. Once we start building solar, esp. solar thermal which is relatively low tech and malleable, I'm certain we will get very very good at it.

The California SEGS parabolic trough solar thermal has been producing electricity with a installed capacity of ~ 500MW for 20+ years now. The operating fluid is a organic oil. They use gas to even out the day/night cycle at very low cost as it uses the same turbines. The NREL estimates their base production cost as 13 cents+kwh and falling as they get better at it and their capital costs are fully amoratized. They think a 1000 MW facility would drop prices to 9 cents / kw.

If we can drop our T&D losses from an estimated 30% to a developed world 5% we will free up about 40,000 MW. More than all the nuclear plans combined. The $150 Billion we plan to spend on nuclear should be more than enough.

As far as wind, the capacity factor at 80m turbine in the US has been a revelation. Some on the great plans are at 45%+. There one I know of that peaked at 54% for a year before dropping back to 48%. AFAIK a 80m map has not been created for India. We too will be pleasantly surprised at just how much resource there is.

[GuruPrabhu]

The thrust of India's energy mix should be reflection of its strategic resources. Any deviation from that in short or long term is going to diminish strategic economic and security interests accordingly.

You do realize that India imports coal, oil and natural gas? India's competitive strategic reserve is only in Thorium.

[JwalaMukhi]

And this technology is most definitely being foisted on us by the western companies, since they can't build back home. They do this by publishing terrifying reports on electricity shortages and doomsday reports that then softens us up for the big boys. Every one of the designs being brought in is brand spanking new. Un-built and untested elsewhere. Tell's us the level of confidence they have in their older designs.

Thanks for putting it succintly. The contention is not between nuclear lobby and others(call them green, vedic etc). The contention is between the import new clear technology lobby and others. Buy today and get 10 free or else India will be reduced to using cow dung patties is the main issue. However, there is sleight of hand and morphing that discussion to between nuclear lobby (conveniently dropping import today shrill brigade) and others.

[GuruPrabhu]

ok, so now the objection is not to nukes but to import. So, what are we doing about our large oil dependence? Neutrons are not any different -- they have to be imported if they don't grow on trees.

[chaanakya]

And this technology is most definitely being foisted on us by the western companies, since they can't build back home. They do this by publishing terrifying reports on electricity shortages and doomsday reports that then softens us up for the big boys. Every one of the designs being brought in is brand spanking new. Un-built and untested elsewhere. Tell's us the level of confidence they have in their older designs.

Thanks for putting it succintly. The contention is not between nuclear lobby and others(call them green, vedic etc). The contention is between the import new clear technology lobby and others. Buy today and get 10 free or else India will be reduced to using cow dung patties is the main issue. However, there is sleight of hand and morphing that discussion to between nuclear lobby (conveniently dropping import today shrill brigade) and others.

and add to that the job of decommissioning it EOL.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ ... 409a3.html

Toshiba filed the proposal with Tokyo Electric Power Co. and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, after compiling it with U.S. nuclear energy firms, including its Westinghouse Electric Co. subsidiary, according to the sources.

Toshiba believes it can rely on the U.S. firms' experience of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident to decommission Tepco's Fukushima reactors.

According to the proposal, it will take about 10 years to remove the fuel rods in the containers and the spent nuclear fuel rods in the storage pools from the four reactors, as well as demolish various on-site facilities and improve the soil condition.

Japan's other reactor maker, Hitachi Ltd., which is in a tieup with General Electric Co. of the United States, is expected to file its own proposal, the sources said.

[chaanakya]

Until recently India just did not have the uranium to experiment with the larger designs. As recently as 10-15 years ago, a single 1000 MW reactor would have consumed our entire years production, or pretty close to it. Kudankulam came about only because the Russians are providing the fuel and will be taking back the waste as well. In case of fuel produced in India, such as Thorium we are on our own.

Solar is no Panacea. As many have pointed out it has its own challenges. The point is that if Nuclear is only going to be 10 %, even after expansion then that 10% is what we need to try and fill.

And this technology is most definitely being foisted on us by the western companies, since they can't build back home. They do this by publishing terrifying reports on electricity shortages and doomsday reports that then softens us up for the big boys. Every one of the designs being brought in is brand spanking new. Un-built and untested elsewhere. Tell's us the level of confidence they have in their older designs. Note that we are now power surplus in many parts. In fact Gujarat has power no one will buy. The black outs we see are due to poor transmission and system inflexibility. Also utilities do it to minimize their loses as residential and agricultural power is a heavy loss make for them.

As far as PV/Solar Thermal there is extensive experience in the costs of maintenance and running plants long terms. Heres what the DOE has to say.



I'm very certain that India can be really competitive in pricing. The test case would be wind, where we have the lowest cost manufacturing and production of wind power in the world. This has come after 25 years of experience and innovation. Once we start building solar, esp. solar thermal which is relatively low tech and malleable, I'm certain we will get very very good at it.

The California SEGS parabolic trough solar thermal has been producing electricity with a installed capacity of ~ 500MW for 20+ years now. The operating fluid is a organic oil. They use gas to even out the day/night cycle at very low cost as it uses the same turbines. The NREL estimates their base production cost as 13 cents+kwh and falling as they get better at it and their capital costs are fully amoratized. They think a 1000 MW facility would drop prices to 9 cents / kw.

If we can drop our T&D losses from an estimated 30% to a developed world 5% we will free up about 40,000 MW. More than all the nuclear plans combined. The $150 Billion we plan to spend on nuclear should be more than enough.

Thanks Theo , its a keeper.