India Nuclear News And Discussion

Purush · Post by **Purush** » 10 Apr 2011 10:57

Sanku wrote: BRF can only have one agenda, to share knowledge.

You're 'sharing knowledge' now?

Anyway, continue with your 'knowledge sharing'

let others not get in the way.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Apr 2011 20:57

Purush wrote:
Sanku wrote: BRF can only have one agenda, to share knowledge.

You're 'sharing knowledge' now?

Anyway, continue with your 'knowledge sharing' let others not get in the way.

Excellent idea. I would be great if people stop coming in only to make "special tippani" on other posters. If folks don't have anything to say, dont say it here.

[quoteh="GuruPrabhu"]Let's say 6% of GOI budget is pocketed by Babus. Then it follows that is silly to salivate over a 6% GDP growth. [/quote]

You are beginning to get it, almost, so yes, if 6% GDP growth can be achieved by cracking down on corruption, salivating over that 6% by any means including selling Kashmir to Pakistan for it is misplaced.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 10 Apr 2011 23:51

Abhishek: Just curious, what is your guess/estimate?
wrt:

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?

Take plants which generate similar power. (Will also appreciate if could share your thought process/basis to arrive at that estimate.)

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 11 Apr 2011 05:51

Sanku wrote:You are beginning to get it, almost, so yes, if 6% GDP growth can be achieved by cracking down on corruption, salivating over that 6% by any means including selling Kashmir to Pakistan for it is misplaced.

I am getting nothing. Your "knowledge sharing" has a fatal flaw. GDP increase is an year upon year thing. If you get 6% one year from Babu crackdown on Babus, what happens the following year? Where will the additional 6% now come from? And then the following year and so on? Please look up "growth rate" and you may still get it.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Apr 2011 06:36

Amber G. wrote:Abhishek: Just curious, what is your guess/estimate?

My question was based on information which shows that the liability in the case of a nuclear accident would be huge. Why do I believe so? See here, here, here and here. Note that 3 out of 4 articles are from Nature, so we can assume that they are fair and balanced.

Regarding solar energy: A quick search of Nature and Science magazines shows that people are not much concerned about the safety aspects of CdTe. For example, in this article, this issue is not even discussed/mentioned. Technically, it could be more dangerous than nuclear. But that would be a very well-kept secret. People protest about all kinds of issues (for example: dams), but they have been remarkably silent about the ill-effects of CdTe (and solar energy). It could be a case of massive public ignorance. I am not sure.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 11 Apr 2011 06:48

^^^Not sure if accidents in "solar" are a big issue..But accidents in hydel are, and I havent seen anyone asking Tehri to take out a 10000000000000 billion dollar third party insurance...

the question of insuring against black swans are a bit of a red herring...The reason some events are classified as "black swans" is because they cannot be assigned a probability to, or an estimation of, and hence taking out an insurance against it is a bit of a non sequitor..

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 11 Apr 2011 07:10

^^^ Along these lines, why don't municipal corporations in Indian cities take out $1T liability insurance against an incidence of Plague?

The Indian state kills its citizens in a multitude of ways. And by the thousands. I had earlier posted some examples.

However, the score for nukes is still ZERO. Go figure.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 11 Apr 2011 07:28

George Monbiot is explosive - no pun intended...I had posted an earlier article by him explaining his conversion froma nuclear-neutral to a "convert", post Fukushima..

Now, he details the "vested interests" in his erstwhile grouping!

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?271231

Dr Caldicott is the world’s foremost anti-nuclear campaigner. She has received 21 honorary degrees and scores of awards, and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize(2). Like other greens, I was in awe of her. In the debate she made some striking statements about the dangers of radiation. So I did what anyone faced with questionable scientific claims should do: I asked for the sources. Caldicott’s response has profoundly shaken me.

First she sent me nine documents: newspaper articles, press releases and an advertisement. None were scientific publications; none contained sources for the claims she had made. But one of the press releases referred to a report by the US National Academy of Sciences, which she urged me to read. I have now done so – all 423 pages(3). It supports none of the statements I questioned: in fact it strongly contradicts her claims about the health effects of radiation.

For the past 25 years, anti-nuclear campaigners have been racking up the figures for deaths and diseases caused by the Chernobyl disaster, and parading deformed babies like a mediaevel circus. They now claim that 985,000 people have been killed by Chernobyl, and that it will continue to slaughter people for generations to come. These claims are false.

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (Unscear) is the equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
----------------------
Of the workers who tried to contain the emergency at Chernobyl, 134 suffered acute radiation syndrome; 28 died soon afterwards. Nineteen others died later, but generally not from diseases associated with radiation(6). The remaining 87 have suffered other complications, included four cases of solid cancer and two of leukaemia. In the rest of the population, there have been 6,848 cases of thyroid cancer among young children, arising “almost entirely” from the Soviet Union’s failure to prevent people from drinking milk contaminated with iodine 131(7). Otherwise, “there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure.”(8) People living in the countries affected today “need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident.”(9)

The coup de resistance..

Failing to provide sources, refuting data with anecdote, cherry-picking studies, scorning the scientific consensus, invoking a cover-up to explain it: all this is horribly familiar

Sounds familiar?!!

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 11 Apr 2011 08:38

From: World Nuclear News, 08 April, 2011
Tsunami countermeasures for Kashiwazaki Kariwa

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 11 Apr 2011 08:46

Low level radiation study at Oakridge. Older people appear at greater risk.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 11 Apr 2011 08:51

Theo_Fidel wrote:Low level radiation study at Oakridge. Older people appear at greater risk.

Is that, perhaps, because older folks indulge in unhealthy practices like health check-ups?

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Apr 2011 11:37

somnath wrote:^^^Not sure if accidents in "solar" are a big issue..But accidents in hydel are, and I havent seen anyone asking Tehri to take out a 10000000000000 billion dollar third party insurance...

the question of insuring against black swans are a bit of a red herring...The reason some events are classified as "black swans" is because they cannot be assigned a probability to, or an estimation of, and hence taking out an insurance against it is a bit of a non sequitor..

Somnath,

The Tehri example is a good point. I had earlier posted some information which showed that Tehri would not be able to withstand an earthquake higher than 8.5 in magnitude. This means that if that 9.0 had an epicentre within 130 km (why this number? Check the epicentre for the 9.0 we've discussing) from the dam, it would have burst with unimaginable consequences.

Experts say that it's unlikely there's going to be a 9.0 in that area and I hope that they are right. But then experts did not expect the 9.0 + tsunami in Japan also.

Going by the logic displayed here, shouldn't we prepare for a Black Swan even in Tehri by taking out suitable insurance? Would some folks like to guess what kind of insurance we should take out?

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Apr 2011 11:44

chaanakya wrote: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.

Chaanakya,

Sorry for a late reply to your post, was away for a few days.

Your reading is wrong. The plant would have survived if the auxiliary generators had not been knocked out after the power line went. All available information shows that the cooling rods were inserted automatically once the earthquake struck and the reactors went into automatic shutdown mode, as indeed did other reactors in Japan.

If the tsunami hadn't struck, it's pretty obvious that the chain reaction that occurred with the hydrogen explosions etc would most probably have not happened. Note that didn't happen in any of the plants in Japan which did not have their auxiliary power units taken out.

So my original contention that the basic reactor survived despite a quake 7-8 time greater than the design tolerance limits stands. The 40-year Gen I design proved remarkably rugged. I would assume today's Gen III would be even more rugged.

Presently it is at 2.5 % so I don't know what options are foregone?

Yes presently it's in that range but why do you suppose that it's going to stay at that range for all times to come?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Apr 2011 11:44

GuruPrabhu wrote:
Sanku wrote:You are beginning to get it, almost, so yes, if 6% GDP growth can be achieved by cracking down on corruption, salivating over that 6% by any means including selling Kashmir to Pakistan for it is misplaced.
I am getting nothing. Your "knowledge sharing" has a fatal flaw. GDP increase is an year upon year thing. If you get 6% one year from Babu crackdown on Babus, what happens the following year? Where will the additional 6% now come from? And then the following year and so on? Please look up "growth rate" and you may still get it.

Tchh, it seems that basic maths including concept of % is also missing.

When you say corruption reduces 6% of GDP, obviously it means it does so every year, year after year, so for every % growth of GDP 6% is lost to corruption.

So first year 6%, next year, GDP growth rate * 6%.

Did you really have to ask that?

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Apr 2011 12:06

Sanatanan wrote:[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?

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:[/quote]

Hi Sanatanan ji,

Again apologies for a late reply. My question/statement was not rhetorical at all. It was a genuine attempt to steer the discussion to a more relevant direction. I'm glad that you posted what you did as IMHO that's the kind of thing we should discuss.

Now some comments on the points you detailed.

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.

Fully agree with you on this point.

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.

IMO, the nuclear deal was as much to get access to uranium as it was to get access to LWRs. I posted this report a few days ago. Assuming it's true then our nuclear power plants are running at 100 per cent capacity thanks to imports.

In the financial year ending March 31 — the first full year of renewed uranium imports — power generation through nuclear energy was in excess of 26.4 billion units, an increase of over 40 per cent compared to the previous year, and more than the target for this year.

Every one of the country’s nine nuclear plants that are under IAEA safeguards — and thus eligible to use imported fuel — is now running at 100 per cent capacity.

Some others, like unit 4 in Kaiga, are also operating at full capacity. On an average, reactors outside of IAEA safeguards — and running only on domestic fuel — are operating at 75-80 per cent capacity.

The other idea behind the Nook deal, IMHO, was getting access to foreign technology. Do note if everything goes according to plan, then we'll be importing reactors from the US, France and the Russians. Surely there's a lot learn from that?

Finally I think the idea behind the nook deal and imports is not to kill our 3-stage plan and PHWRs, AHWRs and FBRs. On the contrary I think the whole idea is to take pressure off them so that the difficult technology can be mastered.

Remember at the end of the day the 3-stage is not a scientific experiment. The idea is to generate electricity. But we've seen efficient generation will take time. If we just depended on indigenously developed reactors we'd remain dependent on fossil fuels and would not get the benefits of nuclear. Parallel import of 1,000MW LWRs, which would operate under international safeguards and fuel, gives more electricity from nuclear and at the same time frees up the pressure to deliver at all cost on our design efforts.

I don't anyone has talked about abandoning the 3-stage and just depending on imported LWRs.

JMT and all that.

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Apr 2011 12:09

***Deleted after reading JEM's post ***

Yes let's stick to facts.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 11 Apr 2011 12:14

There's a risk of things getting seriously personal and overboard. I recommend a step back and breather for all concerned. Highly.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 11 Apr 2011 12:15

^^ amit answer in relevant thread

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Apr 2011 12:22

chaanakya wrote:Well I think in its present status it is as good as gone. That's what I meant by "survived".

Yes it could have survived Tsunami had it been prepared for it. Clearly it wasn't. Few other plants seem to have done better.

Not being prepared for the Tsunami is correct, if you looked at my previous post I had said essentially the same thing. But that's because, IMO, the civil engineering of the plant was faulty. Surely they could have put those generators at higher ground or built higher walls? Either way this has nothing to do with the basic reactor design, the point I made.

I don't know where I presupposed that it would remain at 2.5%?

Your exact words were: "Presently it is at 2.5% so I don't know what options are forgone?"

Doesn't that mean you think that 2.5% will be the range in future as well because here the only option available is future growth that would occur if all those 1000 MW plants are actually imported and run? If that's not what you meant then I have to say you were not very clear on what you really meant.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 11 Apr 2011 13:01

^^^The point on "share of energy" is completely moot...What was the share of wind 10 years back? To be sure, what is the "actual" share of energy (in terms of produced power, not installed)? Its 1.6%...

http://southasia.oneworld.net/todayshea ... ind-energy

So is it worth spending so much time (and yes, thousands of crores of tax subsidies) on wind? Or is it just hot air!?

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Apr 2011 13:11

somnath wrote:^^^The point on "share of energy" is completely moot...What was the share of wind 10 years back? To be sure, what is the "actual" share of energy (in terms of produced power, not installed)? Its 1.6%...

http://southasia.oneworld.net/todayshea ... ind-energy

So is it worth spending so much time (and yes, thousands of crores of tax subsidies) on wind? Or is it just hot air!?

The whole issue boils to the point that's being repeatedly hammered. That is if we want to do anything about our energy deficit and we continue to grow (with its attendant spike in energy needs) we have to look at all forms of energy be it fossil, hydel, renewable and nuclear.

We cannot argue with any conviction that let's forgo nuclear because wind, solar etc can take the slack.

Just to reiterate, only nuclear and coal and to some extent gas can assure us of long-term high baseload generation. Wind, solar and even hydel cannot do that all the year round.

Peakload is only useful if it sits on top of highly reliable baseload.

All the arguments against nuclear has not been able to answer the question of what can substitute nuclear for high baseload generation? More dirty coal-fired plants than are necessary, anyone?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 11 Apr 2011 13:23

Some estimates of the cost of nuke power in the US, as well as PLFs...

http://mageep.wustl.edu/Program2010/Pre ... eserve.pdf

The only source that is comparable as a baseload source today is coal....Should we give up the only viable alternative to coal just like that? For fear of the known unknowns?

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Apr 2011 14:04

somnath wrote:Some estimates of the cost of nuke power in the US, as well as PLFs...

http://mageep.wustl.edu/Program2010/Pre ... eserve.pdf

The only source that is comparable as a baseload source today is coal....Should we give up the only viable alternative to coal just like that? For fear of the known unknowns?

As the Monbiot article you quoted earlier shows, such small details don't interest Green warriors.

Incidentally, IMO, Green warriors who are on constant jehad against nuclear are not laughed out of the room and, in fact, tolerated because they serve a useful purpose as a side show to their belligerence. And that is they serve as useful, even if unaware, foot soilders for the non proliferation Ayatollahs.

Note: Helen Caldicott, whom Monbiot mentioned as the world's foremost Green campaigner, happens to a very prominent NPA. Coincidence?

Purush Mian's simple question enraged one of our Green warriors but it's very pertinent to the discussion. If we don't go the nuclear way because they are unsafe itadyi then under what rationale can we run the plants which produce the maal for our nuclear weapons?

Hypothetically, for example, let's say we abandon Kudankulam, as Theo wants, citing safety concerns, nuclear is bad etc. Isn't it the next logical step for the Green warrior idols like Suzzane, Medha Pathkar, Sandeep (what's his name?), etc to launch a new agitation demanding the closure of the weapons grade maal producing plants? After all they are also technically nook power plants which can suffer from the dreaded meltdown.

Are you going to tell people living in the 20 km radius or whatever of these plants that they're expendable while folks living in the 20 km of Kudankulam are not?

Sorry all the hoo haa by the wannabe Green warriors on this forum is not only based on dodgy science, it's also based on ignorance that happens when things are not thought through to the logical conclusion.

JMT and all that.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 11 Apr 2011 15:48

amit wrote: Doesn't that mean you think that 2.5% will be the range in future as well because here the only option available is future growth that would occur if all those 1000 MW plants are actually imported and run? If that's not what you meant then I have to say you were not very clear on what you really meant.

I don't know how can you say that Nuclear is the ONLY available option. But if that is what you think well I have nothing to add.

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Apr 2011 15:52

chaanakya wrote:
amit wrote: Doesn't that mean you think that 2.5% will be the range in future as well because here the only option available is future growth that would occur if all those 1000 MW plants are actually imported and run? If that's not what you meant then I have to say you were not very clear on what you really meant.

I don't know how can you say that Nuclear is the ONLY available option. But if that is what you think well I have nothing to add.

Chaanakya,

You are twisting what I wrote. I've been crying myself hoarse that energy deficit India has to avail of all available options in the energy mix and that includes, among others, nuclear.

You are taking my statement made in the context of your statement about the 2.5 % mix and twisting it.

If that's the best you can do...

I understand there may be a comprehension issue. Not surprising. Let me point out that my sentence started with:

Doesn't that mean you think...

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 11 Apr 2011 16:12

Existing nuclear plants are fully amortized and hence produce very cheap power. We have very few existing plants. That 2 cents number is simply not realistic for new plants. Due to Fukushima the cost of Nuclear is only going to go up.

Take the case of the FBR in Kalpakkam. It has cost ~ Rs 6000 crore for a 500 MW reactor. The cost for Kudankulam is a closely guarded secret but is estimated to be in the Rs 20,000 +/- crore range for 2000 MW. On top of that we have to pay the Russians for the fuel. The 6 new reactors here will cost even more at $15 Billion+. At say 10% interest + 4% principle the total outgo is ind the range of Rs 3,000 crore just from capital cost. If you do the math, this in itself is 2.5 cents.

This is by far the cheapest foreign reactor around. The AP1000's are in a cost range of $4 Billion+ per 1000 MW just for the plant before cost escalations. Of course we have already endlessly beaten to death the decommissioning costs which right now are about 1/2 the total cost of the plant. And you can't just build another plant in the site without total decommissioning not just Safestore as is likely to be India's option.

This is not cheap power. Coal and gas are by far cheaper. Hydel is way way cheaper which is why we grin and bear it. Though insurance for a Hydel disaster absolutely should be carried by Tehri. I have argued before that there should be a decommissioning charge for Hydel as well but it is still vastly cheaper as fuel is free and clean.

No one is talking about abandoning Kudankulam. Merely questioning the wisdom of the plant. It doesn't help that my residence is in the 25 km evacuation zone. Focuses the mind wonderfully.

India does not really have economically mine-able resources of Uranium. Even Jaduguda ore at 0.06% is marginal. Any uranium ore 0.03% and below starts to costs so much in energy to produce than it is not worth it i.e Net Energy suffers. At Jaduguda for instance ~ 500,000 tonnes for rock are processed crushed and deposited in tailings. This is the same as the amount of coal that would be needed for a 200 MW coal plant. Reports are that the Uranium in AP is in the 0.04% range making the total energy payoff even more marginal. The only way these new plants payoff is if we import Uranium. The last time we faced Western sanctions we could shrug it off. After these plants are built without imported Uranium they would all have to shut down in less than 6 months. Coal is available from a far wider base and not so sanction prone. And reprocessing is not that easy to achieve on such a massive scale. Esp. when the energy economics come into play. We mostly produce uranium in India for the bomb program.

Right now the world needs ~ 70,000 tonnes of Uranium annually to feed its plants right now. There is an economical reserve of 4 million tonnes. Almost all other marginal reserves, the energy payout is not worth it. This is about 50 years for the existing plants. Within 20 years the best mines will be exhausted. And yet the output will have to increase to 100,000 tonnes to feed India & China. We will face severe shortages well before we hit the 4 million ton mark. This is exactly when our reactors will come online needing enriched fuel from abroad. It is one thing to buy 200 tonnes of Uranium to increase the PLF of our existing plants, quite another to have to import 10,000 tonnes annually. In such a scenario it is wise to be skeptical of the 'plenty of Uranium' reports. After all the oil industry says there is plenty of oil as it keeps raising prices.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 11 Apr 2011 17:50

Theo_Fidel wrote:Existing nuclear plants are fully amortized and hence produce very cheap power. We have very few existing plants. That 2 cents number is simply not realistic for new plants

Bulk of the coal-fired power plants too have amortised capital costs...While costs of reactors built in India do not take into account upfront costs, the same is not true for pvt sector reactors elsewhere..Hence, all the nuke power cost estimates are on the basis of actual capital costs...

Theo_Fidel wrote:The cost for Kudankulam is a closely guarded secret but is estimated to be in the Rs 20,000 +/- crore range for 2000 MW. On top of that we have to pay the Russians for the fuel. The 6 new reactors here will cost even more at $15 Billion+. At say 10% interest + 4% principle the total outgo is ind the range of Rs 3,000 crore just from capital cost

Lots of issues with the calcs...One, not every rupee invested will be debt - never is for any project, nuke or not...30-40% would be in the form of equity...Second, debt raised will be typically long term - over the life of the plant (say 40 years), say a debt of 14k crores is raised for 30 years @ 11% - which is around the long term G-Sec yields in India...that would mean, assuming a straight line amortisation, a debt servicing outgo of ~1400-1500 crores...You can do the rest of the maths (interest burden/unit of power)...

As for the other "heads" of expenses - decommissioning, fuel etc - a lot of references have been given on them in this thread earlier...

Theo_Fidel wrote:This is not cheap power. Coal and gas are by far cheaper

Coal is..But gas? Not really, not unless you have g'teed supply of gas at a predetermined price...Not to mention that gas supplies are very very limited...

Theo_Fidel wrote:ndia does not really have economically mine-able resources of Uranium

We dont need to have any uranium, if it comes to that...there is enough availabel in the market and we can import (thanks to the nuke deal!) - and there are studies on peak uranium already referenced earlier that show that the "shortage" is far from being near....

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 11 Apr 2011 17:56

Sanku wrote:
GuruPrabhu wrote: I am getting nothing. Your "knowledge sharing" has a fatal flaw. GDP increase is an year upon year thing. If you get 6% one year from Babu crackdown on Babus, what happens the following year? Where will the additional 6% now come from? And then the following year and so on? Please look up "growth rate" and you may still get it.

Tchh, it seems that basic maths including concept of % is also missing.

When you say corruption reduces 6% of GDP, obviously it means it does so every year, year after year, so for every % growth of GDP 6% is lost to corruption.

So first year 6%, next year, GDP growth rate * 6%.

Did you really have to ask that?

Yes, unfortunately, I had to ask that because, as is evident, you still don't get it. I will try with numbers.

Let us say, you make Rs 100 this year. Babu takes Rs 6, so you are left with Rs 94.

Then, there is crackdown and Babu is eliminated, so next year you make Rs 100. So, yes, you got your "growth" for this year.

The following year, you need to make Rs 106 to show growth. But, Babu or no Babu, you are still making Rs 100. Where will the "growth" come from?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 11 Apr 2011 18:21

^^^ babu will give it back no?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 11 Apr 2011 18:22

amit wrote: Doesn't that mean you think that 2.5% will be the range in future as well because here the only option available is future growth that would occur if all those 1000 MW plants are actually imported and run? If that's not what you meant then I have to say you were not very clear on what you really meant.

chaanakya wrote: I don't know how can you say that Nuclear is the ONLY available option. But if that is what you think well I have nothing to add.

amit wrote: Chaanakya,

You are twisting what I wrote. I've been crying myself hoarse that energy deficit India has to avail of all available options in the energy mix and that includes, among others, nuclear.

You are taking my statement made in the context of your statement about the 2.5 % mix and twisting it.

If that's the best you can do...

I understand there may be a comprehension issue. Not surprising. Let me point out that my sentence started with:

Doesn't that mean you think...

No I don't think that nuke is the only option if that is what you want me to imply. You need to read all posts before you comment and twist my statement. If you can't reply in civil manner, please don't. Thanks.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Apr 2011 19:06

GuruPrabhu wrote: The following year, you need to make Rs 106 to show growth. But, Babu or no Babu, you are still making Rs 100. Where will the "growth" come from?

Obviously there is some other growth also no? Or is selling Kashmir only way to get growth ?

Then be happy be 6% one year you got since there is no other growth possible in any case.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 11 Apr 2011 21:21

abhishek_sharma wrote:
Amber G. wrote:Abhishek: Just curious, what is your guess/estimate?
My question was based on information which shows .

Abhishek, IMO your question was a good one:

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?

I gave my estimate, and asking you what is your estimate.
For a leader or a citizen, these questions are not just academic, but are necessary to get intuitive and fact based judgement to decided on such things.

We should know about these things as familiar as questions like "what is more expensive onion or salt" or what is healthy "shahad based diet or badam based diet" what has more energy per gram TNT or ADG /smile/

So I ask again and wait for your response?

(It is reasonable and proper to think, how costly cleanup of a dead elephant on a beach zoo will be (if you are seriously opening a zoo), and it will be fair to ask the cost comparison between dead elephant and say a dead whale /smile/ .. (you may not get the answer directly from wiki, but you can still make some educated guess... I hope you get my point)

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 11 Apr 2011 22:34

Sanku wrote:
GuruPrabhu wrote: The following year, you need to make Rs 106 to show growth. But, Babu or no Babu, you are still making Rs 100. Where will the "growth" come from?
Obviously there is some other growth also no? Or is selling Kashmir only way to get growth ?

Then be happy be 6% one year you got since there is no other growth possible in any case.

I expected you to change the topic and bring in Kashmir and what not.

No problem. Hope you now understand percentages. No need to salivate, na?

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 11 Apr 2011 22:43

Not an expert on economics, but isn't it possible that lack of corruption reduces "friction" in the economy (i.e., fewer costs associated with any business activity) and therefore gives a sustained growth incremental? I.e., if I grow by 10% every year but have to give 2% to the babus to keep them happy, my effective growth is 8%. If the babus go away, my growth is 10% - not just for one year, but as the normal order of things.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Apr 2011 23:10

GuruPrabhu wrote: I expected you to change the topic and bring in Kashmir and what not.

No problem. Hope you now understand percentages. No need to salivate, na?

Bringing in babu corruption example pulled from martian atmosphere when energy losses was being discussed was not changing topic of course, but hey when people are salivating about Indian "growth" what to do.

Let me remind you what the original context was.

NTPC wastes 6% of its energy produced due to simple grid issues (not transmission losses, theft or other such things) pure waste at plant because energy can not be put on the right grid.

In this context, plugging for Nuclear energy is very difficult to consider anything else as vested interest.

Lets see GoI fix the basics first.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Apr 2011 23:58

Brahma Chellany gets quoted in CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/04 ... index.html

Analysis: Fukushima and the 'nuclear renaissance' that wasn't

"This doesn't indicate there is a nuclear revival," said Brahma Chellaney, one of the architects of India's atomic strategy and a fellow at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi. "Had Fukushima happened two years later, the renaissance may have been underway. But if (the nuclear industry) was hoping for a real revival, you can safely say this won't happen now."

"In the next 10 years, nuclear power will face enormous public pressure in large democracies like the U.S. and India," said Chellaney, a nuclear energy proponent.

I personally think its good that a Nuclear renaissance (as in big big boom in growth) shouldn't happen, we need a Green energy invention and Nuclear can keep growing at existing levels. The current trends for Nuclear energy do not require pumping up to great levels

Alternative energy production is faster and cheaper, Schneider said. "In the U.S. in 2004, 2% of all new power produced that year came from alternative energy sources ... by 2009, 55% of all new power was from alternatives," Schneider said. "There's no way nuclear could add that much, that fast."

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 12 Apr 2011 00:52

^^^^Addressing two topics raised above…

Asking what would be the relative impact of an exploding nuclear plant versus exploding PV arrays; overlooks the fact that one has the inherent potential to explode and the other certainly does not. In this respect, this comparison does not make sense. (I guess, one might postulate about terrorists planting bombs in PV parks, so I’ll play along anyway.)

Leaving aside the fact that PVs cannot by themselves explode (and looking past the fact that PVs aren’t even the best way to get energy from the sun, just Google ‘Solar Tres’); I guess the question then becomes one which asks about the relative dangers of each kind of contamination – a ‘hot particle’ and an equivalent dose of CdTe (or HgCdTe). From what I understand, mercury/cadmium/tellurium are heavy metals, and so they can be removed from the human body by way of ‘chelation therapy’, and presumably this is how one would treat such exposures. Now if someone inhales a ‘hot particle’ of plutonium, I believe the only treatment is removal of the lung.

Of course, even if someone was to use high explosives to destroy a large number of PVs, virtually none of the toxic stuff would remain airborne for long, because these materials are always in a matrix of silicon and mylar plastics, making them very difficult to disburse, even with high explosives. (Moreover, it is doubtful that a single particle of HgCdTe would harm human health, but this is beside the point.) On the other hand, a reactor in meltdown is very definitely going to disburse nuclear material far and wide.

Don’t get me wrong – I am not inherently against nuclear power – I just don’t see the sense in making these kinds of comparisons.

WRT the economic costs of corruption, the drag cannot be equated to the percentage of baksheesh. You also have to factor-in the delays and uncertainty penalties of corruption, and also the costs of incompetence owing to nepotism/discrimination, and worse of all, the costs of discouraged innovation, which may prove to be the single greatest economic cost of corruption.

JMT

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 12 Apr 2011 01:11

Sanku wrote: Let me remind you what the original context was.

NTPC wastes 6% of its energy produced due to simple grid issues (not transmission losses, theft or other such things) pure waste at plant because energy can not be put on the right grid.

In this context, plugging for Nuclear energy is very difficult to consider anything else as vested interest.

I remember the context all too well and also recognize your propensity to stick in the vested interest commentary. My insertion of Babu-giri was to level the playing field of vested interests.

The loss of energy by NTPC has nothing to do with need for nuclear energy, except in clouded minds that only see vested interest.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Apr 2011 01:17

GuruPrabhu wrote: I remember the context all too well and also recognize your propensity to stick in the vested interest commentary. My insertion of Babu-giri was to level the playing field of vested interests.

I see, so you admit to trolling

The loss of energy by NTPC has nothing to do with need for nuclear energy, except in clouded minds that only see vested interest.

No

in a country where 6% of energy is just wasted (not to mention thermal efficiencies are less than other nations, and transmission losses) -- the energy output can easily be raised by 10% merely by fixing easy to fix low hanging fruits.

If these issues are not fixed even the Nuclear plants would lose energy generated.

So yes, it has everything to do with ALL forms of energy.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 12 Apr 2011 01:27

..looks the fact that one has the inherent potential to explode and the other certainly does not. In this respect, this comparison does not make sense. (I guess, one might postulate about terrorists planting bombs in PV parks, so I’ll play along anyway.)

I hope we all know here, that NPP is not a nuclear bomb and does not have potential to explode (inherently or otherwise).. The H2 explosion (or burning graphite) (or any other kind of explosive) will throw core or PV parks with equal ease.

And you don't even need terrorists..Tropical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes happens all the time, I actually know people whose solar roof went up in the wind (after a tornado).

Also just for perspective botulism toxin (the active ingredient in Botox) is a thousand times toxic than Pu.
Ld50 dose of caffeine is actually less than Pu... And 'hot particle' theory, BTW, to put it mildly, a myth.

But coming back to the point:

Of course, even if someone was to use high explosives to destroy a large number of PVs, virtually none of the toxic stuff would remain airborne for long, because these materials are always in a matrix of silicon and mylar plastics, making them very difficult to disburse, even with high explosives. (Moreover, it is doubtful that a single particle of HgCdTe would harm human health, but this is beside the point.) On the other hand, a reactor in meltdown is very definitely going to disburse nuclear material far and wide.

.. This is precisely I want you to think about, in qualitative terms, when everything is taken into account..what the comparison will be? (Instead of 'virtually none' give a figure.. and give a number for 'far and wide' too, for nuclear material melt down.. then estimate, etc...)

And, of course, giving realistic probabilities for disaster (eg meltdown, storm etc which may destroy core/PV etc..) .. how long the toxic stuff would remain airborne..how HgCdTe toxicity and half-life (biological) compares with I-131 etc..

Would be interesting and helpful. Would you take a stab at it?

Added later: A story from Washington post: (Worth reading to get some back ground)

Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste
For reference: Hand Book for reference