India Nuclear News And Discussion

[Sanku]

Brahma Chillany is not a postor on BRF. Criticizing him is not the same as ROFLing at a member.

If someone here derides MMS (which happens everyday) and then someone ROFLs at that postor, how would that be viewed?

Ok, I accept, I am removing my rofl. Will you edit the post you quoted?

[somnath]

Brahma Chillany is not a postor on BRF. Criticizing him is not the same as ROFLing at a member.

GP-ji, if you read the Reuters report, there is no reference to Brahma Chellaney at all....

Brahma Chellaney is a "connected" analyst, usually what he says deserves attention..But if he really said that regulators should not be promoting its industries, as claimed (we are yet to see the source), he is wrong...All regulators have industry promotion as a part of their JD..RBI does it for the Indian banking sector, SEBI for capital markets, TRAI for telecom, US Fed for the US financial system - so to say that NRC should not promote the US nuke industry (mind you, industry, not specific companies - which is a different issue) is utter rubbish...

[vera_k]

Jaitapur N-plant: 1 dead in police firing

[Theo_Fidel]

Somnath,

I depends on what the NRC promotes too. SEBI and TRAI promote their industries as safe and well regulated. These are the key items they need to promote. The NRC instead appears to be flogging suppliers and equipment. This is at the very least a conflict of interest. If say a product has a flaw that a NRC regulator pushed aggressively the incentive to disclose the issue will have eroded. The NRC should promote the safety and regulation of the industry. Set a world standard so to speak.

Honestly it is not a huge issue but something to be addressed in future.

WRT to CANDU as others have pointed out the Heavy water cycle is not completely safe either. There have been numerous accidents at nuclear plants around India and it is only a matter of time before a really serious one happens. Everyone talks about the Narora fire where all 4 backup coolant systems failed due to the fire. But the one that chills me the most is the Kaiga dome collapse. Barely mentioned today, but the only thing that saved us was the reactor was not functional or loaded. De-lamination failures are the one RCC failure that is unforgiving, i.e. it can happen with few warning signs and lack of progressive failure. It could so easily have happened after the reactor was operational in which case we would have had a damaged reactor, with tonnes of concrete covering it and with a compromised outer containment shell. With any sort of damage to the control rods and piping the reports of that time indicated a meltdown and fire was very much possible.

AFAIK neither Kaiga, nor Kalpakkam or even Kundankulam even have a plan to evacuate people in case of an accident.

I'm very certain that the Nuclear industry as whole is completely unable to operate without major failures along the way. This is despite their claims of back-up upon back-up. In India we have a unique opportunity to avoid going down this road.

[chaanakya]

FLASH News Coming in

One killed in Jaitapur Police Firing. Details awaited.

[putnanja]

Precisely the sort of unmitigated, uneducated balderdash that goes around as analysis in parts of the media..

ALL regulators act as salespeople for the industry that they regulate...There is no conflict of interest there, in fact it is one of the job objectives of the regulator..So SEBI works actively to promote Indian capital markets as an investment destination..TRAI works actively to propmote foreign investment in the telecom sector...

...

I don't agree with this. The regulatory boards, whether SEBI or TRAI, work to ensure good practices across the industry, which in turn promotes investment in the industry as it is well regulated. For e.g., FAA is helping the Indian DGCA set up a proper CAA. That doesn't mean FAA needs to push only Raytheon, Boeing etc for any work required. The regulatory authority defines a set of practices and operating procedures, and lays down rules & regulations for the industry.

The way you are saying is if some other country asks for TRAI help in setting up regulatory environment in their country, TRAI should be pushing for the Indian telecom operators to be given licenses in that country

[chaanakya]

From WIKI

In terms of absolute carbon emission India is ranked fifth, way behind China USA and EU.

Rank Country Annual CO2 emissions[8][9]
(in thousands of metric tonnes) Percentage of global total
World------ 29,321,302===== 100%
1 China---6,538,367.00 ====22.30%
2 United States---- 5,838,381.00==== 19.91%
- European Union==== 4,177,817.86---- 14.04%
3 India ------1,612,362.00==== 5.50%
4 Russia----- 1,537,357.00---- 5.24%
5 Japan------ 1,254,543.00---- 4.28%

India is years behind in terms of reaching that level of emission. Besides per capita carbon emission is one of the lowest in the world.
It is 23.5 for USA(7 overall and first among developed) and 1.7 for India( 120th) . ( 2005 data) Tonnes of CO2 eq.

So Who has obligation to reduce should do more. Sales talk would not help much.

Same way to look at it. Data points may differ.

http://timeforchange.org/CO2-emissions-by-country

[somnath]

I don't agree with this. The regulatory boards, whether SEBI or TRAI, work to ensure good practices across the industry, which in turn promotes investment in the industry as it is well regulated. For e.g., FAA is helping the Indian DGCA set up a proper CAA. That doesn't mean FAA needs to push only Raytheon, Boeing etc for any work required. The regulatory authority defines a set of practices and operating procedures, and lays down rules & regulations for the industry

Promoting individual companies is a different issue - thats not a regulator's job...But promoting Indian market, and Indian standards in that market, is absolutely up its alley..

For example, SEBI does numerous sessions for foreign investors looking to invest in India, or set-up shop in India..For those sessions, very often market participants - fund managers, bankers etc are invited to give a perspective..That does not mean SEBI is marketing the specific bank/fund...Its a nuanced position, but good regulators manage it well...

I'm very certain that the Nuclear industry as whole is completely unable to operate without major failures along the way. This is despite their claims of back-up upon back-up

?? On what basis? Three major accidents over 60 years? Out of which the worst was a result of gross negligence? And one the result of a black swan event? Theo-ji, by that logic, we should not be building any dams either...We should not be erecting any chemical plant..We should not be drilling for deep offshore oil...All of these have had many more cases of "major failures"...

[JwalaMukhi]

Please stay India specific, not some Gora estimate. In Indian terms, NPPs will have *two* outputs: energy and neutrons (for everyone's favorite "3-cycle"). So, how do you calculate "break even"?

Thanks for highlighting that. But when one is buying and pitching to import gora plants and technology, there should be no problem in using the gora estimate. OTOH, if India is building, developing, and enhancing its technology base, the cost will not be the primary objection. The results will be more important. But when "Import today" is pitched, which btw happens to be standard forte of sheikhs of saudi arabia, then break even and other factors will have to be justified.

[amit]

From WIKI

In terms of absolute carbon emission India is ranked fifth, way behind China USA and EU.

Rank Country Annual CO2 emissions[8][9]
(in thousands of metric tonnes) Percentage of global total
World------ 29,321,302===== 100%
1 China---6,538,367.00 ====22.30%
2 United States---- 5,838,381.00==== 19.91%
- European Union==== 4,177,817.86---- 14.04%
3 India ------1,612,362.00==== 5.50%
4 Russia----- 1,537,357.00---- 5.24%
5 Japan------ 1,254,543.00---- 4.28%

India is years behind in terms of reaching that level of emission. Besides per capita carbon emission is one of the lowest in the world.
It is 23.5 for USA(7 overall and first among developed) and 1.7 for India( 120th) . ( 2005 data) Tonnes of CO2 eq.

So Who has obligation to reduce should do more. Sales talk would not help much.

Same way to look at it. Data points may differ.

http://timeforchange.org/CO2-emissions-by-country

Chaanakya,

All those numbers are great if you're concerned about the melting ice cap and saving cuddly little polar bears.

However, for the average Indian who lives under the shadow of a dirty coal fired power plant in India it matters diddlysquat that India is fifth on the list polluting countries or it has the lowest per capita pollution. I was hoping you’d understand something like that, but choro.

Added later: Here's one that I'm quite familiar with, the Bandel Thermal Power Plant in West Bengal. And believe you me this is an almost everyday affair.



I suggest you do some reading about the actual impact of pollution India due to coal based thermal power plants.

Here’s a nice place to start.

Coal is the only natural resource and fossil fuel available in abundance in India. Consequently, it is used widely as a thermal energy source and also as fuel for thermal power plants producing electricity. India has about 90,000 MW installed capacity for electricity generation, of which more than 70% is produced by coal-based thermal power plants. Hydro-electricity contributes about 25%, and the remaining is mostly from nuclear power plants (NPPs). The problems associated with the use of coal are low calorific value and very high ash content. The ash content is as high as 55-60%, with an average value of about 35-40%. Further, most of the coal is located in the eastern parts of the country and requires transportation over long distances, mostly by trains, which run on diesel. About 70% oil is imported and is a big drain on India's hard currency. In the foreseeable future, there is no other option likely to be available, as the nuclear power programme envisages installing 20,000 MWe by the year 2020, when it will still be around 5% of the installed capacity. Hence, attempts are being made to reduce the adverse environmental and ecological impact of coal-fired power plants. The installed electricity generating capacity has to increase very rapidly (at present around 8-10% per annum), as India has one of the lowest per capita electricity consumptions. Therefore, the problems for the future are formidable from ecological, radio-ecological and pollution viewpoints.

So you see the reason why India is fifth on the list and has such a low per capital carbon emission is due to the low per capita electricity consumption. So unless you advocate, like Medha Pathkar for e.g., that India should live in its villages in a traditional way life and there’s no need for industry, infrastructure etc, then you’ll agree low per capita pollution is just a passing phase.

Since this discussion started with a comparison between nuclear and coal we are talking about a 20-year time frame at least. If we just discount nuclear for coal then pollution will be that much more and India will be right up on the list at No2 behind China.

Here’s some more interesting reading material, even though it’s a bit dated in terms of the numbers:

India is the world’s fourth largest economy and has a fast growing energy market. India’s current
power capacity is 30% short of demand. Coal and petroleum are the primary sources of energy. High
ash content in Indian coal and inefficient combustion technologies contribute to India’s emission of air
particulate matter and other trace gases, including gases that are responsible for the greenhouse
effect.

Energy consumption in India has
grown 7,000% from 1950 to 1998. The present annual growth rate of energy consumption in India is
4%. Per capita energy consumption in India in 1997 was 19 million BTU (British Thermal Units),
compared to 323 million BTU in the United States and a world average of 65 million BTU. By the year
2010, per capita energy usage in India is expected to increase to almost 40 million BTU, a two-fold
increase in 13 years.

These numbers will keep growing, na?

Again dated, but these are the some of the nasty things that get out in the atmosphere:

The main emissions from coal combustion at thermal power plants are carbon dioxide (CO), nitrogen
oxides (NO), sulfur oxides (SO), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and air- borne inorganic particles such
as fly ash, soot, and other trace gas species. Carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons are
greenhouse gases. These emissions are considered to be responsible for heating up the atmosphere,
producing a harmful global environment. Oxides of nitrogen and sulfur play an important role in
atmospheric chemistry and are largely responsible for atmospheric acidity. Particulates and black
carbon (soot) are of concern, in addition to possible lung tissue irritation resulting from inhalation of
soot particles and various organic chemicals that are known carcinogens.
CO2, SO2, NO, and soot emissions from each of the power plants have been computed. Emissions
from combustion of the supplementary fuels such as high-speed diesel (HSD) and furnace oil used in
small quantities (<1%) are not counted in the present calculations.

Total CO emissions for 1997
from all the power plants in India are estimated at 1.1 Teragrams (Tg) per day or 397 Tg per year.
Average CO emission per unit of electricity is 1.04 Gig grams (Gg). Technological improvements in
efficient combustion of coal can lead to greater production of electricity per unit of coal that will
effectively reduce CO emission per unit of electricity. Although the current per capita carbon dioxide
(CO) emission in India is only one quarter of the world average and about twenty times less than
United State’s averages, the growth rate of emissions is very high. Because of this growth, the region
is expected to soon become a major contributor of greenhouse gases, such as CO and other air
pollutants.

Another report more current.

The World Health Organization estimates that about two million people die prematurely every year as a result of air pollution, while many more suffer from breathing ailments, heart disease, lung infections and even cancer. Fine particles or microscopic dust from coal or wood fires and unfiltered diesel engines are rated as one of the most lethal forms or air pollution caused by industry, transport, household heating, cooking and ageing coal or oil-fired power stations.

How many people die annually due to radiation leakages at nuclear power plants?

India’s environmental problems are exacerbated by its heavy reliance on coal for power generation. "More than 80 per cent of energy is produced from coal, a fuel that emits a high amount of carbon and greenhouse gases." said Bikash.. According to him, coal pollution kills more than 300,000 people every year.

[amit]

Please stay India specific, not some Gora estimate. In Indian terms, NPPs will have *two* outputs: energy and neutrons (for everyone's favorite "3-cycle"). So, how do you calculate "break even"?

Thanks for highlighting that. But when one is buying and pitching to import gora plants and technology, there should be no problem in using the gora estimate. OTOH, if India is building, developing, and enhancing its technology base, the cost will not be the primary objection. The results will be more important. But when "Import today" is pitched, which btw happens to be standard forte of sheikhs of saudi arabia, then break even and other factors will have to be justified.

JwalalMukhi,

Do you think the nuclear deal was/is just about importing power plants from the goras?

[Sanku]

From a Gora perspective -- Nuclear deal was primarily to impose CRE. The fact that we would be sold NPPs which really dont make sense for us at exhoribtant costs was added advantage.

Now Ramana says that KS Garu et al knew the above and still thought that they can outplay the Goras.

I am not sure if our champion in the game can be trusted with the needed qualities to pull off KS Garu's expectation. Sure the champions back-up team outside the ring (Babu's et al) made sure that the any person could Champion us irrespective of the person (institutional strength) and we have our own Jekyll act, I remain less than convinced if that gamble worked as expected.

The fight is still on.

[amit]

From a Gora perspective -- Nuclear deal was primarily to impose CRE. The fact that we would be sold NPPs which really dont make sense for us at exhoribtant costs was added advantage.

Now Ramana says that KS Garu et al knew the above and still thought that they can outplay the Goras.

I am not sure if our champion in the game can be trusted with the needed qualities to pull off KS Garu's expectation. Sure the champions back-up team outside the ring (Babu's et al) made sure that the any person could Champion us irrespective of the person (institutional strength) and we have our own Jekyll act, I remain less than convinced if that gamble worked as expected.

The fight is still on.

And so it was not about uranium as well? I suppose we'll be importing reactors from Kazakhstan after the nuclear deal we signed with them. Also you seemed to have missed that Indian Express report I posted twice which shows that after a long time Indian nuclear power plants which are on the civilan side (and hence can use imported uranium) are running at 100 per cent capacity thanks to this uranium.

The bolded part is a tall claim to make and one would associate such claims (that is the credibility of such claims) with proven track record. But I guess it's par for the course here...

[arnab]

From a Gora perspective -- Nuclear deal was primarily to impose CRE. The fact that we would be sold NPPs which really dont make sense for us at exhoribtant costs was added advantage.

Saar but on this forum, the only one who has been screaming for CRE and quoting NPAs has been, well you

[amit]

From a Gora perspective -- Nuclear deal was primarily to impose CRE. The fact that we would be sold NPPs which really dont make sense for us at exhoribtant costs was added advantage.

Saar but on this forum, the only one who has been screaming for CRE and quoting NPAs has been, well you

Arnab,

Nuclear deal was primarily to impose CRE.

This is a postulate that has been completed dicredited during the great debate on the civilan nuclear deal. And subsequent events have shown that it was and is a complete fallacious postulate.

I would suggest you ignore such posts, its just a waste of bandwidth.

JMT.

[Sanku]

http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/ ... 1_prel.pdf

Just-released World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010–2011

Nuclear power as total generation has remained constant/slight decline world wide. (Page 55)

[arnab]

Nuclear deal was primarily to impose CRE.

This is a postulate that has been completed dicredited during the great debate on the civilan nuclear deal. And subsequent events have shown that it was and is a complete fallacious postulate.

I would suggest you ignore such posts, its just a waste of bandwidth.

JMT.

I know, if that was the case the NPAs should have been the most ardent supporters of the deal ! but hey - China was 'concerned' and Pakis want the very same deal !! go figure.

[Sanku]

As I promised, I will point out the streling skills you have at complete blatant and total deliberate representation of what people said. Repeatedly.

Here.

From a Gora perspective -- Nuclear deal was primarily to impose CRE. The fact that we would be sold NPPs which really dont make sense for us at exhoribtant costs was added advantage.

Arnab,

Nuclear deal was primarily to impose CRE.
.

I suppose it is too much to expect that some people can exhibit a modicum of honesty in interactions.

[Sanku]

Saar but on this forum, the only one who has been screaming for CRE and quoting NPAs has been, well you

That is a malicious lie, and needs to be called as such.

Cheers...

[amit]

http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/ ... 1_prel.pdf

Just-released World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010–2011

Nuclear power as total generation has remained constant/slight decline world wide. (Page 55)

That is correct. But you should read that with this.

Note the number of new plants that are on the anvil. Incidentally all this is old stuff already been posted here by many posters.

Also see Annexure 3 of the report which you posted.

[amit]

As I promised, I will point out the streling skills you have at complete blatant and total deliberate representation of what people said. Repeatedly.

Here.

From a Gora perspective -- Nuclear deal was primarily to impose CRE. The fact that we would be sold NPPs which really dont make sense for us at exhoribtant costs was added advantage.

Arnab,

Nuclear deal was primarily to impose CRE.
.

I suppose it is too much to expect that some people can exhibit a modicum of honesty in interactions.

I wonder if this post is worth reporting to the Admins as it questions my honesty, especially since the actual content of my report was erased? Also it was not even directed towards you. Ramana Guru's advice is good only when others follow it and give you a free pass, I suppose.

Fortunately I have better things to do than report your posts.

Added later: Even a high school student would understand that the statement was and is from the Gora perspective and not from the perspective of Indian negotiators who hammered the deal. Having to emphasize on that I guess shows somethigng that is obvious to many here.

[chaanakya]

Amit , nice set of reports speaking in generalities.. Do you know what would be India's power requirement in , say 2020, and what would be the share of Nuclear power in that and how much environmental mitigation it would cause vis a vis corresponding increase in additional thermal power plants to meet the gap? Are you saying that we are closing down all coal power plants or that we are not going to construct any new ones?

Leave that aside, what is our power consumption profile and how it fits into generation system and transmission system? When one talks about base load and peak load these are very much important. I agree with DRoy that SLDC needs assured generation and can't work on ad hoc basis an on intermittent source of power such as wind power. TN indeed had issues. But to trash coal power to support Nuclear power on the strength of environmental issue one needs to be clear what it is all about. A global myth created by vested interest in Western countries and they want us to bear the burden of their follies. We will do what is best in our interest but not to mitigate follies of developed countries.

If fact you should have talked about energy intensity of GDP to counter that which is what is put forth by western countries including Japan from Asia. I am not in the least convinced by these arguments. Read about Kyoto protocol and how it came about. What is the current stand of developed countries and why USA has not so far ratified it. Set to expire in 2012 , what are they going to do about it. Are they going to give us Bushlogic that we eat more rice due to development hence price is going up? Oh I remember, long time ago there was some report which mentioned that India contributes maximum to CH4 one of the GHGs because we grow rice more and have more cattle. Later such arguments died its natural death.

IPCC report on Himalayan glacier melting was thoroughly discredited by Indian researchers and they had to eat their words notwithstanding Nobel etc. So reserve these arguments for others.


Also just to correct the data ( even though it is posted in some thread earlier)

Total capacity is 1,73,626.40 MW
Thermal is 1,12,824.48 MW (64.98%)
and Coal is 93,918.38MW (54.09%)

How much nuclear (current 2.75%) would be added to this and what would be investment and who is going to meet that and from where we get all these. Besides how much mitigation would be there?

10% would be only 14000+ additional capacity addition. See the mitigation, do you?

[GuruPrabhu]

Please stay India specific, not some Gora estimate. In Indian terms, NPPs will have *two* outputs: energy and neutrons (for everyone's favorite "3-cycle"). So, how do you calculate "break even"?

Thanks for highlighting that. But when one is buying and pitching to import gora plants and technology, there should be no problem in using the gora estimate. OTOH, if India is building, developing, and enhancing its technology base, the cost will not be the primary objection. The results will be more important. But when "Import today" is pitched, which btw happens to be standard forte of sheikhs of saudi arabia, then break even and other factors will have to be justified.

Your point is invalid even without bringing in Sheikhs of Arabia into it. "Break even" depends on the the country of operation and not on the country of manufacture. Stop and think about it for a moment.

[somnath]

I know, if that was the case the NPAs should have been the most ardent supporters of the deal ! but hey - China was 'concerned' and Pakis want the very same deal !! go figure

Arnab, round and round the mulberry bush ...No amount of data, reasoning, analysis can trump ideological positions of certain people..

BTW, here is NPCIL's debt raising programme for this year..
http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... rest-rates

The debt would be used to part finance a capital expenditure of 3,000 crore in 2011-12 on its upcoming units of 1,400 megawatts (MW) each in Haryana and Madhya Pradesh

These are the new 700 MW PHWR design, most likely to be fired by imported Uranium...I guess in absence of the nuke deal, divine mox fuel would have sufficed

[somnath]

Your point is invalid even without bringing in Sheikhs of Arabia into it. "Break even" depends on the the country of operation and not on the country of manufacture. Stop and think about it for a moment.

Thats true..The big elephant is construction costs, which is far lower in India compared to (say) Finland...Though initially JwalaMukhi was referring not to costs, but to "fossil fuel" break-even..

Amit , nice set of reports speaking in generalities.. Do you know what would be India's power requirement in , say 2020, and what would be the share of Nuclear power in that and how much environmental mitigation it would cause vis a vis corresponding increase in additional thermal power plants to meet the gap? Are you saying that we are closing down all coal power plants or that we are not going to construct any new ones?

Chanakya-ji, Amit can surely answer, but my 2 cents...The issue isnt about coal versus nuke...It is about junking the only potential alternate base load source to coal..On grounds that have got more to do with the fear of unknown knowns rather than on data or science...

Carbon emmissions, energy intensity of GDP - these are opportunities for India, rather than grounds to play "demanding child - "you did it, I will do so as well"....By going up the "clean" value chain, India has an opportunity to drive the agenda and the economics behind climate change...Nuclear is an integral part fo that equation...

[amit]

Amit , nice set of reports speaking in generalities..

Boss, you post a bland table from WiKi and then chide me for posting reports which speak of generalities?

I know very well that by 2020, nuclear's share of the total power mix in India will still be small. But having said that nuclear and coal will comprise a lion's share of the high base load generation capacity.

It seems that you've totally missed the central point of what I've been trying to say on this thread and in the Fukushima one. But I guess that would be understandable given the high volume traffic in both threads.

To cut the chase my point is that an energy deficit country like India which needs to build up generation capacity at a fast rate while also keeping an eye on the environment (the one over India and not over the Artic Circle) nuclear cannot be discounted from the mix.

Sure more mega coal-fired power plants will be built over the nex 10-20 years. But that should be side by side with Gen III 1,000 MW nuclear power plants and indegenous PHWRs and their follow-ons. If you think money is a problem for building plants then I'm afraid you've go it wrong.

And this leads to the other point I've been crying hoarse about. If we agree that nuclear needs to be in the mix, then what's the purpose of all these doom and gloom articles trawled from the internet - stuff like 983,000 people died because of Chernobyl etc - being posted here.

If one is out and out against nuclear like Theo, then that's a very valid POV. But to say no we are not against nuclear and then coming out with arguments of how dangerous nuclear is a waste of time.

One of the article I posted has an estimate. It say's 300,000 people die each year in India due to pollution emanating from coal-fired plants. Now I can't vouch for how authentic that figure is but I can cenrtainly say the actually figure will be several orders of magintude greater than the number of people that are likely to die due to the Fukushima accident.

Hence to me it's a nobraineer to say that India's nuclear power ambitions should stay on track while at the same time all efforts need to be made to learn from Fukushima and build even more safer plants.

IMHO everything else is just hot air, like the postulate that the nuclear deal was to impose CRE. If that were the case then it has been a spectacular failure on the part of the NPAs.

The rest of it just technical details. While I won't be able to discuss the physics of it with you as it ain't my subject, I'm more than willing to discuss the economics of power generation if you so want.

[amit]

Chanakya-ji, Amit can surely answer, but my 2 cents...The issue isnt about coal versus nuke...It is about junking the only potential alternate base load source to coal..On grounds that have got more to do with the fear of unknown knowns rather than on data or science...

Carbon emmissions, energy intensity of GDP - these are opportunities for India, rather than grounds to play "demanding child - "you did it, I will do so as well"....By going up the "clean" value chain, India has an opportunity to drive the agenda and the economics behind climate change...Nuclear is an integral part fo that equation...

Just saw this after posting. Somnath, thanks for putting things in such a concise manner. Agree with you 400 per cent.

[amit]

Your point is invalid even without bringing in Sheikhs of Arabia into it. "Break even" depends on the the country of operation and not on the country of manufacture. Stop and think about it for a moment.

So true. I'll bet a dollar with anyone that the cost of setting up a Gen III Aveya nuclear power plant in say Western Europe would bre much more than an identical plant set up in India. Any takers?

[Tanaji]

One of the article I posted has an estimate. It say's 300,000 people die each year in India due to pollution emanating from coal-fired plants. Now I can't vouch for how authentic that figure is but I can cenrtainly say the actually figure will be several orders of magintude greater than the number of people that are likely to die due to the Fukushima accident.

Speaking of deaths, slightly OT but, I was reading a Marathi news paper the other day and it had a break down of total deaths on the Central line in Mumbai everyday. In 2010 , the Central line *alone* had about 3000 deaths, due to people getting hit while crossing trains, hit by poles, falling into gaps between platform and train etc etc. A significant majority of these could have been prevented had aid been given in time. But Railways in their wisdom insist on transporting the casualty to a sarkari hospital and not a private one in spite of instructions to the contrary. So we have ridiculous cases of an injured from Mulund being waited to transport to Sion hospital...

So, here is a case of a government body, causing callous neglect that kills 3000 people every year. This over the last 60 years. Even if we halve the number to account for population in the past, we have 90,000 deaths by Railways on *one* line in Mumbai alone. We have not even included the Western line yet.

How is that for perspective? How many people have the existing nuclear plants killed yet in India in their last 40 years of operation?

[somnath]

So true. I'll bet a dollar with anyone that the cost of setting up a Gen III Aveya nuclear power plant in say Western Europe would bre much more than an identical plant set up in India. Any takers?

Construction costs are a big component of the u/f costs of construction - that itself skews the economics in India's favour - given same project management skills...

Not sure if this was discussed before, but the ability of Gen III reactors to be "load following", in other words, be able to operate as both peak load as well as base load sources is unique...Not too many sources can do that with assurance, ceretainyl not any of the "alterantives"...Here is a good study...

http://www.cessa.eu.com/sd_papers/wp/wp ... uttall.pdf

[GuruPrabhu]

Your point is invalid even without bringing in Sheikhs of Arabia into it. "Break even" depends on the the country of operation and not on the country of manufacture. Stop and think about it for a moment.

So true. I'll bet a dollar with anyone that the cost of setting up a Gen III Aveya nuclear power plant in say Western Europe would bre much more than an identical plant set up in India. Any takers?

Yes, costs of construction and operation will both be lower. [cost of liability insurance is another matter, yet to be determined]

However, the most important point that makes the "break even" calculation very different in India's case is the neutron economics of the 3-phase program. The spent fuel from the LWRs will be used to power the breeders, so that "cost saving" should be factored into the break even calculations. There are some such calculations available from the BARC website if anyone feels like doing a search.

[GuruPrabhu]

How is that for perspective? How many people have the existing nuclear plants killed yet in India in their last 40 years of operation?

On a related note, how come such a *proven* violator of public safety gets away without having to carry $10 trillion in liability insurance? How come IR pays a paltry Rs1-4 lakhs to those it murders?

[amit]

...I guess in absence of the nuke deal, divine mox fuel would have sufficed

Hey don't you know. We signed the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Khazakhstan (made possible by the original deal whose purpose was, ahem!, CRE) to import reactors from them, because what other purpose is there for such deals?

However, the good news is that these reactors are so good - Gen X I believe - that they don't need uranium or any fuel. They can run on hot air, including the type generated on the Internet! So cool!

[amit]

However, the most important point that makes the "break even" calculation very different in India's case is the neutron economics of the 3-phase program. The spent fuel from the LWRs will be used to power the breeders, so that "cost saving" should be factored into the break even calculations. There are some such calculations available from the BARC website if anyone feels like doing a search.

Interesting insight, thanks GP. Gotta think this over, didn't realise it.

[amit]

How is that for perspective? How many people have the existing nuclear plants killed yet in India in their last 40 years of operation?

Very good perspective Tanaji. However, who's listening?

[Sanku]

How is that for perspective? How many people have the existing nuclear plants killed yet in India in their last 40 years of operation?

On a related note, how come such a *proven* violator of public safety gets away without having to carry $10 trillion in liability insurance? How come IR pays a paltry Rs1-4 lakhs to those it murders?

Not 1-4 Lakhs. 4 Lakhs each for death. 1-4 Lakhs for injury. This is in addition to any additional insurance a person may buy.

The one critical difference is that a person who dies on the lines does so due to HIS/HER OWN action. DESPITE Railway warning.

No one is asking NPPs to take liabilities for people who decide to go swimming in spent fuel pools despite the do not swim board for health benefits of radiation and die of drowning for example.

So there are many differences here

1) Railways does pay 4 Lakhs per death if railways at fault -- This appears to be the standard compensation amount. NPP compensation will be on the same lines.
2) Many cases are not of Railway issue but people's mistake with Railway.
3) Railway can pay the ENTIRE liability it has to pay out of its own pocket without needing insurance. If the NPPs can do so as well, not a problem.

[GuruPrabhu]

3) Railway can pay the ENTIRE liability it has to pay out of its own pocket without needing insurance. If the NPPs can do so as well, not a problem.

That is because the rates have been set by the railways themselves! Let us set the rates reasonably and see how deep the pockets are.

The per capita income in India is about $1,000. So, 4 lakhs does not even cover 10 years of the earning potential of the person killed. This is for an average citizen.

Suppose, an executive who makes Rs 10 lakhs/year is killed by the Railways and his wife and kids get Rs 4 lakh. What kind of justice is that? Where is the Jholawallah brigade arguing for the rights of this citizen? A just reward for this person would be something like Rs 3 crores (30 years of earning potential).

GOI should amend the law so that every citizen who gets killed, his family should be able to sue the government for $1 million type of lawsuits.

Now, the railways' liability will start reaching levels where they would need to take out insurance.

That would be justice. Opposing nukes is just posturing.

[GuruPrabhu]

1) Railways does pay 4 Lakhs per death if railways at fault -- This appears to be the standard compensation amount. NPP compensation will be on the same lines.

So, why don't you take this calculation further and tell us how you reach the sum of $400 million from Rs 4 lakhs per death?

If you are going to bring in environmental damage issues, bring those in for railways as well.

[Sanku]

Suppose, an executive who makes Rs 10 lakhs/year is killed by the Railways and his wife and kids get Rs 4 lakh. What kind of justice is that? Where is the Jholawallah brigade arguing for the rights of this citizen? A just reward for this person would be something like Rs 3 crores (30 years of earning potential).

He can get insurance from various sources to protect himself against such incidents.

He cant do that for nuclear.

There in lies the rub no.

GOI should amend the law so that every citizen who gets killed, his family should be able to sue the government for $1 million type of lawsuits.

You should think in terms of Rupees, not $, I find your thinking in terms of $ funny.

Again you miss a big difference, some one using Railways property has a choice of using or not using Railways. Some one getting effected by a Nuclear plant is not a willing participant.

Big difference.

How much is the liability of a private airline to a passenger in case of crash?

AFAIK there is NO LIABILITY CAP, for damages by railways on non railway/rail property users.

If you are going to bring in environmental damage issues, bring those in for railways as well.

Sure Railways should take care of any environmental issues due to accidents (I am assuming that creation/running enviornmental costs of both are factored in their setup/running costs) -- You tell me what was the last time Railway accident had a environmental issue.

[Tanaji]

The one critical difference is that a person who dies on the lines does so due to HIS/HER OWN action. DESPITE Railway warning

It is the responsibility of the railways to ensure that they are offering a service that has a safe environment for the users. That is the corner stone of any liability and tort. The railways simply do not do this, at least not to the same standard that is being demanded of the NPP operators. Loading of carriages 2x - 3x times their designed capacity, utter failure to provide basic first aid or even the courtesy to transport to nearest hospital (*not* nearest sarkari one) are clear pointers that railways do not provide a safe working condition and hence they should be liable .

This is of course, if one is using the same yardstick as NPP. I completely agree that for Indian conditions by and large, such yardsticks are too high a bar for railways (except for the transport of injured). But to claim that user is to blame for his own death in railways is ridiculous.