India Nuclear News And Discussion

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 08 Apr 2011 21:47

but, but the "keeper" says that nuke is much cheaper than solar. Now what?

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 08 Apr 2011 22:07

Those are levelized costs. Not life cycle costs.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 08 Apr 2011 22:10

Marten,

ask the "keeper" -- I was just commenting on that table. The cost for fuel storage is built in. The cost for liability is also presumably built in. The cost for black swans has been discussed to death. What else can one do?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 08 Apr 2011 22:35

Marten,

The cost has to be evaluated in Indian terms. A table from US DOE is not useful for that. India has a large dependence on imported oil. The import of coal is growing. Import of natural gas is growing. On the other hand, India has thorium which should be exploited. Life cycle in India is a different beast than the US. For example, what time-frame is assumed for life cycle? Why is decommissioning being discussed without putting a time-frame on the decommissioning?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Apr 2011 22:48

Isn't the design life of a nuclear reactor somewhere around 40 years or so? I know they can be extended, but it serves as a starting point. However, decommissioning costs at first look, when compared to Hanford, 3 mile island, Chernobyl etc appears to be 8-10 times the cost of the plant itself. Almost all of these have exceeded $10 billion in clean up costs and the clean up is still not fully complete even after decades. It looks like cleanup time is a big percentage of the reactor's active life too! Do we want to make the whole area where nuclear plants one stood as uninhabitable for future generations?

While we can study each and every incident and come up with a design to prevent it, each region has its own idiosyncracies. And not to talk about radioactive waste leaking into the ground. I am not very happy with the tarapur spent reactive material still being held without being reprocessed even after forty years. The chances of something going wrong or leaking into ground/environment etc just increases. It is a problem that even the US is facing, and they are spending billions to build their yucca mountain facility to store nuclear waste.

just want to clarify that my opposition to nuclear parks is not the same as making India nuke-nood. The capacities of the plants are an order of magnitude different.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 08 Apr 2011 22:53

Decommissioning in the US means returning the site to its original pristine condition. Why is this applicable to India where fuel is reprocessed and the site will stay permanently in the nuke umbrella? If a reactor has ended its life, a new reactor can be built at the same site -- this is a much much smaller cost than those being quoted for decommissioning in the US.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 08 Apr 2011 22:59

Marten wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote:Those are levelized costs. Not life cycle costs.
Which is why I asked for life cycle costs. Am supposing we will have to replace panels at some interval, and so on...

about 10% panels get replaced over 20 year period. The problem is in Power Conditioning Unit for MW scale project. Several issues there.Routine cleaning , tracking etc are not much of an issue. Some water requirement would be there.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 09 Apr 2011 00:13

What is the cost comparison for cleaning up after a nuke reactor has its top blown off (risk % available with Vina saar) vs. a bunch of Solar panel blowing up?

My guess (actually much more than a guess) would be, per KWH, cleanup cost after a blowup , for current Solar panels would be of the order of 100 times (or more) a typical nuclear one. There is pretty toxic stuff used in current solar panels. .. (Just do some research on cadmium telluride or stuff like that)
( BTW: China regulations allow Cd products for export only - RohS EU-s worst of the worst top 6 bad stuff, Cd makes the list. )
Google gives: http://stockology.blogspot.com/2007/11/ ... death.html

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 09 Apr 2011 02:49

Marten wrote:^ Educate me.

One of the best resource, IMO is UC Berkley' couse textbook Physics and Technology for Future Presidents: An Introduction to the Essential Physics Every World Leader Needs to Know Richard A. Muller
Chapter 1.
(Energy etc)
It does not have figures and graphs or enormous details (For that you have to get other reliable sources) but, it will, more than anything else, gives enough background to understand where and what to look for and not get fooled by Jinn Thermodynamics type papers.
(Yes, I have recommended it before (a few times)

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 09 Apr 2011 05:52

Dispute in India over nuclear plants

P. Balaram, a molecular biophysicist and director of the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, and 60 others urged the moratorium in an open letter to the public, AAAS ScienceMag.org reported Friday.
"We strongly believe that India must radically review its nuclear power policy for appropriateness, safety, costs, and public acceptance, and undertake an independent, transparent safety audit of all its nuclear facilities, which involves non-Department of Atomic Energy experts and civil society organizations," the letter said.

The open letter brought an angry response from C.N.R. Rao, chairman of the prime minister's scientific advisory council, who called it "irresponsible."

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 09 Apr 2011 05:54

AFAIK, this was the largest thermal solar plant proposed. The cost was pegged at 196 M Euros for 17 MW, or about $15/W in then $$.

http://www.solarpaces.org/Tasks/Task1/solar_tres.htm

Anybody know if this is still active? If not, that is pretty bad news for thermal solar and end of the dream of baseload solar.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Apr 2011 06:48

amit wrote: 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?

A Nature article on different sources of non-carbon intensive energy was posted here..

Data is available there. I will post the final conclusions here.

Hydropower: A cheap and mature technology, but with substantial environmental costs; roughly a terawatt of capacity could be added.

Nuclear fission: Reaching a capacity in the terawatt range is technically possible over the next few decades, but it may be difficult politically. A climate of opinion that came to accept nuclear power might well be highly vulnerable to adverse events such as another Chernobyl-scale accident or a terrorist attack.

Biomass: If a large increase in energy crops proves acceptable and sustainable, much of it may be used up in the fuel sector. However, small-scale systems may be desirable in an increasing number of settings, and the possibility of carbon-negative systems — which are plausible for electricity generation but not for biofuels — is a unique and attractive capability.

Wind: With large deployments on the plains of the United States and China, and cheaper access to offshore, a wind-power capacity of a terawatt or more is plausible.

Geothermal: Capacity might be increased by more than an order of magnitude. Without spectacular improvements, it is unlikely to outstrip hydro and wind and reach a terawatt.

Solar: In the middle to long run, the size of the resource and the potential for further technological development make it hard not to see solar power as the most promising carbon-free technology. But without significantly enhanced storage options it cannot solve the problem in its entirety.

Ocean Energy: Marginal on the global scale.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Apr 2011 06:53

^ Let me add the costs from the same article:

Hydropower: According to the International Hydropower Association (IHA), installation costs are usually in the range of US$1 million to more than $5 million per megawatt of capacity, depending on the site and size of the plant. Dams in lowlands and those with only a short drop between the water level and the turbine tend to be more expensive; large dams are cheaper per watt of capacity than small dams in similar settings. Annual operating costs are low — 0.8–2% of capital costs; electricity costs $0.03–0.10 per kilowatt-hour, which makes dams competitive with coal and gas.

Nuclear fission: Depending on the design of the reactor, the site requirements and the rate of capital depreciation, the light-water reactors that make up most of the world's nuclear capacity produce electricity at costs of between US$0.025 and $0.07 per kilowatt-hour. The technology that makes this possible has benefited from decades of expensive research, development and purchases subsidized by governments; without that boost it is hard to imagine that nuclear power would currently be in use.

Biomass: The price of biomass electricity varies widely depending on the availability and type of the fuel and the cost of transporting it. Capital costs are similar to those for fossil-fuel plants. Power costs can be as little as $0.02 per kilowatt-hour when biomass is burned with coal in a conventional power plant, but increase to $0.03–0.05 per kilowatt-hour from a dedicated biomass power plant. Costs increase to $0.04–0.09 per kilowatt-hour for a co-generation plant, but recovery and use of the waste heat makes the process much more efficient. The biggest problem for new biomass power plants is finding a reliable and concentrated feedstock that is available locally; keeping down transportation costs means keeping biomass power plants tied to locally available fuel and quite small, which increases the capital cost per megawatt.

Wind: Installation costs for wind power are around US$1.8 million per megawatt for onshore developments and between $2.4 million and $3 million for offshore projects. That translates to $0.05–0.09 per kilowatt-hour, making wind competitive with coal at the lower end of the range. With subsidies, as enjoyed in many countries, the costs come in well below those for coal — hence the boom. The main limit on wind-power installation at the moment is how fast manufacturers can make turbines.

Geothermal: The cost of a geothermal system depends on the geological setting. Jefferson Tester, a chemical engineer who was part of a team that produced an influential Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) report on geothermal technology in 2006, explains the situation as being “similar to mineral resources. There is a continuum of resource grades — from shallow, high-temperature regions of high-porosity rock, to deeper low-porosity regions that are more challenging to exploit”. That report put the cost of exploiting the best sites — those with a lot of hot water circulating close to the surface — at about US$0.05 per kilowatt-hour. Much more abundant low-grade resources are exploitable with current technology only at much higher prices.

Solar: The manufacturing cost of solar cells is currently US$1.50–2.50 for a watt's worth of generating capacity, and prices are in the $2.50–3.50 per watt range. Installation costs are extra; the price of a full system is normally about twice the price of the cells. What this means in terms of cost per kilowatt-hour over the life of an installation varies according to the location, but it comes out at around $0.25–0.40. Manufacturing costs are dropping, and installation costs will also fall as photovoltaic cells integrated into building materials replace free-standing panels for domestic applications. Current technologies should be manufacturing at less than $1 per watt within a few years (see Nature 454, 558–559; 2008).

The cost per kilowatt-hour of concentrated solar thermal power is estimated by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, at about $0.17.

Ocean Energy: Barrage costs differ markedly from site to site, but are broadly comparable to costs for hydropower. At an estimated cost of £15 billion (US$30 billion) or more, the capital costs of the Severn Barrage would be about $4 million per megawatt. A 2006 report from the British Carbon Trust, which spurs investment in non-carbon energy, puts the costs of tidal-stream electricity in the $0.20–0.40 per kilowatt-hour range, with wave systems running up to $0.90 per kilowatt-hour. Neither technology is anywhere close to the large-scale production needed to significantly drive such costs down.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 09 Apr 2011 08:14

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... bbf200.5c1

India -- both a civilian and a military nuclear power -- currently has 20 reactors. It plans to spend an estimated $175 billion to buy an additional 21 foreign reactors to reach a nuclear power capacity of 63,000 megawatts by 2032, from the current level of 4,560 megawatts.

Pending the review, there should be a moratorium on all further nuclear activity, and revocation of recent clearances for nuclear projects," said P. Balaram, head of the Indian Institute of Science. Meanwhile, a survey of nearly 10,000 people by pollsters Chanakya, part of New Delhi's RNB Research, showed 77 percent of Indians were worried about atomic safety. And 69 percent did not believe India could handle a nuclear disaster on the scale of that in Japan, which saw reactor cooling systems knocked out by the March 11 tsunami, sparking partial meltdowns and chemical explosions. Premier Manmohan Singh has pledged India will make the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board more independent and increase transparency in operating nuclear plants.

And India's current atomic energy regulator Srikumar Banerjee recently said driving or walking on New Delhi's notoriously lethal streets posed more of a threat than the country's reactors.

This quote baffles one.

India's fast-growing economy has no choice but to tap all sources of energy, Prime Minister Singh said last week. "Nuclear energy has the potential of playing an increasingly important role in giving our country energy independence"," he added.

In reply...

http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/repor ... ao_1527326

The ripple effect of the Fukushima crisis in Japan has reached Indian shores as well with the prime minister’s scientific advisory council chairman and distinguished scientist, Prof CNR Rao on Friday severely criticising a demand for nuclear moratorium made on Thursday by fellow council member and director of Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Prof P Balaram.

Terming Balaram’s statement for nuclear moratorium (a temporary halt to nuclear power production) as ‘irresponsible’, Rao said that he was totally against nuclear moratorium.

“How can we opt for nuclear moratorium? It is an irresponsible statement,” a visibly angry Rao said while speaking to reporters on Friday. “Nobody can avoid a tsunami which is a natural phenomenon; if has to occur, it will. If some people in Bangalore drive recklessly on the roads, can one order stoppage of all traffic?” asked Rao.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 09 Apr 2011 08:27

Good to SB Saar and CNR Saar come out with rational statements to counter hysteria!

And India's current atomic energy regulator Srikumar Banerjee recently said driving or walking on New Delhi's notoriously lethal streets posed more of a threat than the country's reactors.

“How can we opt for nuclear moratorium? It is an irresponsible statement,” a visibly angry Rao said while speaking to reporters on Friday. “Nobody can avoid a tsunami which is a natural phenomenon; if has to occur, it will. If some people in Bangalore drive recklessly on the roads, can one order stoppage of all traffic?” asked Rao.

Indeed. Why not a Moratorium on Indian Railways?

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 09 Apr 2011 08:34

OT but...
I'm peripherally involved with this project on the engineering side. The photo is from last week, not by me. Installed capacity ~ 400 MW x 3 plants for eventual total of 1200 MW. There are several other projects underway globally many much larger. This is the one I have some knowledge off. There is no salt storage as it mainly provides peaking power for the Bay area. Makes it a bit cheaper.

http://ivanpahsolar.com/

Solar thermal is really coming on strong. It is in the same take off stage wind reached when 1 MW turbines hit the commercial market. Just to point out total wind generation currently provides just a little less power than all our nuclear plants combined. Once the 6000 MW of new capacity being installed comes on line, wind will probably generate more power than all the nuclear plants we have.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 09 Apr 2011 08:44

Theo_Fidel wrote:Solar thermal is really coming on strong.

We will see. It is another Bechtel boondoggle -- the same company that built the Dagget plant that went nowhere. So far, not a single heliostat has been constructed. Far from "coming on strong". After 3-4 years of construction and 3-4 years of operation, we will check to see how they are doing and how strong they are coming on. Hopefully, they have learned lessons from Dagget. Some here say that "cleaning and tracking are not an issue". Dagget folks would like to hear from them. Ivanpah should consider hiring Chanakya-ji as a consultant on cleaning and tracking.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Apr 2011 08:55

So people are supposed to get taken by his anger? The old man wont live to see the consequences of an accident. Nor are people his students whom he can threaten.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 09 Apr 2011 09:08

Yes, CNR does have an overbearing presence. I was glad that he was speaking out, not glad that he was angry. He has done a lot for Indian science and has my utmost respect. But yes, I agree that he should not get angry in public.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 09 Apr 2011 09:21

Yes heliostat damage is a significant concern. From what I understand the idea is to raise the heliostats off the ground to minimize this issue. Apparently that also helped ecologically by leaving the vegetation in place to hold soil. Also the heliostats surfaces are 'hardened' and segmented. I'm sure there will be other complications. There is the issue of not being allowed to level the site. The terrain has to modeled to allow each individual heliostat to be of a different pole size.

FWIW, Bechtel also builds Nuclear plants, in fact the vast majority in the US. Including being involved in Shoreham which shut without really producing any electricity, mostly because there had never been a proper evacuation plan drawn up and evacuation was found to be impossible due to the creeks and streams. The owners and contractors then got a $6 Billion payout which AFAIK the residents of NY/NJ are still paying for. Don't kid yourself, without government feeding troughs there would be no nuclear anywhere in the world. It is too expensive and risky for the private sector and really has been that way always.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Apr 2011 09:41

Amber G. wrote: My guess (actually much more than a guess) would be, per KWH, cleanup cost after a blowup , for current Solar panels would be of the order of 100 times (or more) a typical nuclear one.

Any reference for this ratio of 100? I did google but could not get much. There was one paper from Science magazine:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/285/5428/692.full.pdf

An issue that has caused a considerable amount of debate is the toxicity of cadmium (53). On one hand, CdTe is, as a compound, very stable and probably nontoxic. There are, however, definite environmental hazards and safety issues related to the production of CdTe modules: the release of cadmium into the atmosphere in the case of fire, and the recycling of CdTe modules. Although these issues seem, in principle, manageable for a well-organized and politically stable industrialized country, this may not be the case for developing countries

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Apr 2011 09:59

Marten wrote:How's China managing to handle this? Any lessons from them that could be useful? Nukewise, they are of course the largest market, but they're planning Solar installed capacity of 30GW by 2018. That is eye-popping.

Marten, my answer in RE Thread.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Apr 2011 10:17

Theo_Fidel wrote: Solar thermal is really coming on strong. It is in the same take off stage wind reached when 1 MW turbines hit the commercial market. Just to point out total wind generation currently provides just a little less power than all our nuclear plants combined. Once the 6000 MW of new capacity being installed comes on line, wind will probably generate more power than all the nuclear plants we have.

Wind Power installed capacity in India is 13065 MW ( grid connected) in comparison to Nuclear Power of 4780 MW.
TN and Guj lead the way. Even in Solar they are expected to lead. IIT , Mumbai is setting up Pilot Solar thermal Plant to study it further. 1 MW capacity.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Apr 2011 10:24

Theo_Fidel wrote:, mostly because there had never been a proper evacuation plan drawn up and evacuation was found to be impossible due to the creeks and streams. The owners and contractors then got a $6 Billion payout which AFAIK the residents of NY/NJ are still paying for. Don't kid yourself, without government feeding troughs there would be no nuclear anywhere in the world. It is too expensive and risky for the private sector and really has been that way always.

Power evacuation is an issue. People have recognised it. So now there is talk of Grid strengthening and Grid tie up infrastructure to ensure that power is properly evacuated. Since most of the renewables requiring large areas are built on fallow land away from populated centre and probably away from any Grid this was the cause of concern. Like Rajasthan. But then this is being addressed.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 09 Apr 2011 10:38

Theo_Fidel wrote:Don't kid yourself, without government feeding troughs there would be no nuclear anywhere in the world. It is too expensive and risky for the private sector and really has been that way always.

Saar, I don't kid myself or anyone else. And, I am no fan of Bechtel regardless of what they build -- they are in the Haliburton league. As for subsidies, I don't deny those at all. Governments are in the business of bijli, sadak, paani all over the world. Some do it well and others have Babudoms. However, thermal solar at the large scale is not in the ballpark of being commercial even with government subsidies. What is the cost of the Baker project in $/W? You would know cause you are in the engineering team. Dagget plant spent $200M on a 10 MW demonstrator, or $20/W. Solar Tres, as I posted, was still pegged at $15/W, roughly an order of magnitude too high.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 09 Apr 2011 11:29

chaanakya wrote:Wind Power installed capacity in India is 13065 MW ( grid connected) in comparison to Nuclear Power of 4780 MW.

Sir-ji, why not post the entire story? I will help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_India

Despite the high installed capacity, the actual utilization of wind power in India is low because policy incentives are geared towards installation rather than operation of the plants. This is why only 1.6% of actual power production in India comes from wind although the installed capacity is 6%. The government is considering the addition of incentives for ongoing operation of installed wind power plants.

So, the wind industry is looking for a Babu bail-out with subsidies? A mere 1.6% for wind compared to 3-4% for nuclear. Please google with care.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Apr 2011 12:17

Should be careful with that.That quote refers to a dead link.

I referred to MOP site. capacity utilisation depends on factors
such as power Evacuation scheduling , PPA and local regulatory issues, lower capacity turbines ,variable winds at lower heights etc. But is it you point that it can not be improved or looked into.
Or that Coal, fossil or nuclear are running at 100 CUF in India?
Do wind turbines cause 30 km evacuation zone in case of terminal failure?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 09 Apr 2011 12:28

chaanakya wrote:Should be careful with that.That quote refers to a dead link.

I referred to MOP site.

Feel free to look at as many sites as you like. Max PLF for wind is usually taken as 20%. Typical operational numbers are closer to 15%.

Or that Coal, fossil or nuclear are running at 100 CUF in India?

Yup, nuke is closer to 100 than to 20. The nook deal made our reactors get their PLF into the 60s in 2010. I believe that it has improved further since then.

http://dst.gov.in/whats_new/press-relea ... 2010_4.htm

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 09 Apr 2011 17:24

^^^On wind power, besides PLF, which is in the 15-20% range, the extent of govt subsidies is HUGE...It is no surprise that the Suzlon and the wind power sector in India took off the year an extensive package of tax breaks were announced for the wind sector (forget which yeats, sometime in the late '90s/early '00s)....Last, and I dont see any answer to this question, for either solar or wind, it is NOT a base load source! Not yet, even with 13000 MW capacity...If anything, importantly very soon, we will run out of a requirement for wind power, as the peak load economics will not be good enough for real peak load demand..Which means? More subsidies!

On our nuke planst, Guruprabhu-ji, the impact of the nuke deal is laready being felt..PLFs are upto 70% this year!
http://www.npcil.nic.in/main/AllProject ... splay.aspx

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 09 Apr 2011 18:29

Wonder how this got missed out in the discussions...R Rajaraman on the dangers of panic...

http://www.hindu.com/2011/04/09/stories ... 981600.htm

In the Fukushima case, the radiation measured even as near as 50 km from the plant was 0.1 to 0.7 micro-seiverts/ hour. Continued exposure to that dosage even for a whole year would be less radiation than one CT scan.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 09 Apr 2011 22:19

abhishek_sharma wrote:
Amber G. wrote: My guess (actually much more than a guess) would be, per KWH, cleanup cost after a blowup , for current Solar panels would be of the order of 100 times (or more) a typical nuclear one.
Any reference for this ratio of 100? I did google but could not get much. There was one paper from Science magazine:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/285/5428/692.full.pdf

An issue that has caused a considerable amount of debate is the toxicity of cadmium (53). On one hand, CdTe is, as a compound, very stable and probably nontoxic. There are, however, definite environmental hazards and safety issues related to the production of CdTe modules: the release of cadmium into the atmosphere in the case of fire, and the recycling of CdTe modules. Although these issues seem, in principle, manageable for a well-organized and politically stable industrialized country, this may not be the case for developing countries

Abhishek - ratio of 100 was my guess, based mainly upon discussion I had with my son (who, when he was in MIT, took a course with the hotshot energy guy - and IIRC had worked on some kind of device for his Masters's thesis ). The ratio of 100, from my guess, and rough calculation is on the low side.

You may wish to contact MIT professor (or any other expert) in addition to goggling. Cadmium in toys is most hazard we have seen recently (much much more toxic that lead) and cleanup is pretty hard.

You may also run up your own calculations from open sources (like how much cadmium needed per KWH) and see if your calculations give figure close to me or not.

This may be a good starting point:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoHS

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 Apr 2011 22:52

Purush wrote:
Sanku wrote: 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.

A take away eventually depends on the person taking away so, what can I do about that.

Logically if a nuclear power reactor is dangerous for India, so is a weapons reactor and the nuclear warheads that are 'ready to go'.

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

BRF can only have one agenda, to share knowledge. That at best. Often fails.

Lets take a reality check here.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 Apr 2011 23:05

6%+ of all power generate by NTPC is wasted because of Grid management issues.

Considering that salivating over Nuclear power sounds something only some one with a very vested interest would do.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 10 Apr 2011 00:18

Let's say 6% of GOI budget is pocketed by Babus. Then it follows that is silly to salivate over a 6% GDP growth.

Similarly, salivating over 1.6% share of wind energy must please the Babu brigade doling out the subsidies. Much much vested interest moolah to be made there.

Since DAE comes directly under the PM and the head is a non-Babu, it must really irk the Babu brigade. What a loss of moolah making potential in Nuke sector. What a waste!

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 10 Apr 2011 01:06

Okay, how about using bio-mass generated by NPP. Fungus from Fukushima?
(Without comments)
Dark Power: Fungus seems to put radiation to good use

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Apr 2011 07:21

Amber G. wrote:[
Abhishek - ratio of 100 was my guess, based mainly upon discussion I had with my son (who, when he was in MIT, took a course with the hotshot energy guy - and IIRC had worked on some kind of device for his Masters's thesis ). The ratio of 100, from my guess, and rough calculation is on the low side.

You may wish to contact MIT professor (or any other expert) in addition to goggling. Cadmium in toys is most hazard we have seen recently (much much more toxic that lead) and cleanup is pretty hard.

You may also run up your own calculations from open sources (like how much cadmium needed per KWH) and see if your calculations give figure close to me or not.

This may be a good starting point:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoHS

No books/papers? Just wiki and personal communication? Okay. Thanks.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 10 Apr 2011 07:30

Green energy project poses threat to wildlife in Maharashtra

[quote]
Activists allege that over 3 lakh trees have been cut to construct a 20 km-long road

Development projects in the ecologically sensitive region of Western Ghats in Maharashtra have been under the green activists' scanner for long. Activists allege that this time the culprit is a seemingly innocent wind power project.

. . .

Blasting is being carried out in the Kharpud region, by contract labourers. They say work has been going on for the last three months, and roads are being built through the mountains. Enercon does not have the permission to carry out blasting in the region, as clarified in a letter by the Pune Collector

. . .

Madhav Gadgil, noted ecologist and the chairman of the WGEEP is aware of this debate. The site inspection, scheduled on April 14, will clarify the issues to the panel. “The panel will look at the environmental issues and the broader policy issues concerning windmills. The large scale implications of such projects will be studied,” Mr. Gadgil says.

[/quote]

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 10 Apr 2011 08:50

abhishek_sharma wrote:
Amber G. wrote:[
Abhishek - ratio of 100 was my guess, based mainly upon discussion ...<snip>
No books/papers? Just wiki and personal communication? Okay. Thanks.

You are welcome. Indeed, as said before it was my guess to the question you posed. Minor corrections a) No wiki is involved. (Wiki link was, as said, may be something you may be interested to get your own answer) b) I am responsible for my guess (if there is an error it is not personal communication's fault). And no, I have not written any paper or book regarding this, neither I have seen or read any book or figures.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Apr 2011 08:52

Got it.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 10 Apr 2011 10:03

GuruPrabhu wrote:Let's say 6% of GOI budget is pocketed by Babus. Then it follows that is silly to salivate over a 6% GDP growth.

Guruprabhu-ji, question is, where does the magic "6%" number come from? And why is it only for NTPC generation?

and the issues around "% of power" is a bit strange...Till 7-8 years back, the same "%" was quite small for wind, almost non-existant for gas..