India Nuclear News And Discussion

amit · Post by **amit** » 07 May 2011 12:39

Theo_Fidel wrote:This is a strawman conjecture. You are unable to defend nuclear power on its merits so you drag another topic in that you think can defend nuclear better. This a constant nuclear industry talking point. Very weak.

Straw man huh?

Your opposition to nuclear is because - I assuming here based on your previous posts - it is inherently dangerous. Your opposition to Kudankulam nuclear power project and to the proposed Jaitapur nuclear project is presumably due the danger to the lives of folks living near these plants especially those within the 20 km radius. So can you tell how deaths due to pollution caused by coal fired power plants is another topic which supposed has no relevance to this danger? I hope you don't deny folks die due to pollution caused by high ash coal burning?

I'm sorry your argument is the one which seems increasingly weak.

Also as far as I know no one is advocating eliminating the nuclear program. It is the out of control expansion that I oppose. Esp. with technologies and designs we don't understand.

I see you've effected a stuble change in your position. Earlier you were advocating eliminating the nuclear program and going for solar.

I'm sorry but your out of control expansion is the real strawman. Can you qualify how and why you think its "out of control?" As far as India's nuclear expansion is concerned they seem to have a very clear view of how to go about it there is certainly nothing "out of control". And just becuase you, me and probably most of us guys in BRF don't understand the the technology, what makes you think that folks who really matter and do the decision making don't understand the technology? Sorry that sounds too supercilious.

WRT coal remember whether we like it or not all of it is going to be burnt anyway. Nuclear can not stop this process.

Solar, Wind and other renewable are extremely challenging as a power source but are the only long term viable options. We have to make them work. All this futzing about, is to try and avoid this brutally hard task as long as we can. IMHO fairly silly. We need to start now with all the resources we can muster.

Sure coal will be burnt but the idea is to make sure that no more than necessary is burnt. Every single MW produced by nuclear power is that MW less produced by coal and thus that much less pollution. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Sure solar, wind and other renewables need to be pursued vigourously, nobody is denying that. What is being said time and again that nuclear doesn't mean to the exclusion of everything else. What is being said is nuclear should be part of the mix.

In a way China understand this very well. That is why it is in the forefront of both nuclear power investment and renewables. India could and should have been the same.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 07 May 2011 12:56

amit wrote:In a way China understand this very well. That is why it is in the forefront of both nuclear power investment and renewables. India could and should have been the same.

This whole business of tech X versus tech Y is a trait of the argumentative Indian, who doesn't realize that both X and Y are needed. Somehow, he imagines that by doing "neti neti" he will arrive at the perfect source of electricity.

All sources of electricity have downsides (yes, solar is highly polluting, wind less so). The real evil is the human *need* for electricity -- the secondary evil is how the human obtains that electricity.

Here is an old tale:

King: "Professor Maxwell, this electricity thing of yours is interesting and amusing, but pray what is the use of it?"

Maxwell: "Sire, the only use for you that I can imagine is that one day you will find a way to tax it."

I am impressed at how coal gets a free pass. It is akin to the human tendency to overlook incest in the family and go to the town square and cry "Rape!" at the first chance at someone else's misery.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 07 May 2011 17:17

GuruPrabhu wrote:Clearly, he is pretending to be unaware of the details of the nuke deal which included the construction of a new reprocessing facility by India

Yeah, India spent a huge (with a capital H) amount of political capital on getting reprocessing rghts and tech trade into the 123/NSG framework..At one stage, even threatened to walk out if that was not given..

amit wrote:As far as India's nuclear expansion is concerned they seem to have a very clear view of how to go about it there is certainly nothing "out of control"

This "control" bit is a big red herring...somewhat similar to the erstwhile argument "Indian PHWRs safe, imported LWRs unsafe"...One just has to look at the plans - they arent even secret..We are talking of 20k MW by 2020...Half of the incremental capacity will be from Indian PHWRs, rest from LWRs...We would struggle to see what is "uncontrolled" here...

One can have a certain amount of understanding for people for whom the "evil" nature of nuclear power is an article of faith..People like Vandana Shiva fall in that bracket...For them, its basically ideology...One can also understand the stance of chaps like Krepon (and by derivation, Ramana) - they are looking to emasculate "non club" nuke capabilities...What one can surely not understand is the stance of our so-called "uber nationalists" - their arguments become so contradictory that one doesnt even know where to start from! In the process, they join hands with Vandana Shiva on one hand and Krepon on the other!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 May 2011 17:36

So no faults found in the technical arguments of MV Ramana, yet his arguments have to be adjusted for his supposed "NPA proclivities"? Once again the tendency to shoot personal barbs to try and delegitimize arguments of people hated for questioing the agenda of the pontiffs? So now technical details or arguments are subject to twisting for ideological excuses by interpreters as and when it suits them? The personal childish ego that can never accept being intellectually challenged - impersonally, and hence the never-ending sarcasm and personal barbs? These pontiffs almost make me wonder whether the Dalit radicals are perhaps "right" after all!

Another curious thing, suddenly "those who argue with smileys" are welcome if they support the agenda! Gratuitous smileys used to support MVR bashing do not draw flaks from pontiffs apparently! Or it could be a case of a mutual back-scratching society of pontiffs sharing the same agenda.

Basically he is projecting on the future based on data he has already from past observations, and not merely speculating based on supposed future guaranteed breakthroughs, supposed future continued unobstructed fuel imports, supposed future large addition of non-FBR capacities - all of which are loud claims by pontiffs here, and even they are not in a position to guarantee those outcomes. The latter are not speculations, but apparently MVR's are! Good show of reasoing capabilities folks! He is questioning the capability projections by the DAE, which are after all the only projections on which the future growth capacities are being claimed too.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 May 2011 17:50

"chaps" "like Krepon (and by derivation, Ramana)" - what infinite arrogance uses "chaps" for such people? Where did this poster learn his abominable "civility" tongue? In his own family perhaps, because my own experience of "English medium" "missionary schools" says that such language would be frowned upon severly. "uber nationalists" is not relevant for this discussion. Use of such terms automatically bring in responses that this is being pushed from "uber pseudo-secular pseudo-nationalists".

Good to know that technical arguments are covers for ideological agenda. This should be remembered then when similar "technical arguments/details" are pushed to support various aspects of the centre-leftist regime agenda or propaganda.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 07 May 2011 20:17

How does one discuss with people who a) dont want to understand the issue at hand (besides having about zero understanding themselves), and b) impute words ("ideological point"!) and above all c) stoop down to invectives...

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 07 May 2011 20:22

one detects early and declines.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 07 May 2011 21:33

amit wrote:Sure coal will be burnt but the idea is to make sure that no more than necessary is burnt.

Coal will all be burnt. Nothing can stop that. This is a nuclear industry talking point and a lie. So will all the Uranium that is economically feasible. The question is we should also get involved in this feeding trough behavior with something that is as brittle as Nuclear energy. This is not the demon you want to get greedy over.

The west is trapped with its existing plants. It can't go forward with renewables without writing off the cheap depreciated yet worryingly brittle nuclear power. Dilemma. We should avoid getting our nuts caught in the same vice.

Esp. as we don't have a lot of Uranium of our own.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 07 May 2011 23:05

Brihaspati, GP, et al:

brihaspati wrote:So no faults found in the technical arguments of MV Ramana, yet his arguments have to be adjusted for his supposed "NPA proclivities"? Once again the tendency to shoot personal barbs to try and delegitimize arguments of people hated for questioing the agenda of the pontiffs? So now technical details or arguments are subject to twisting for ideological excuses by interpreters as and when it suits them?
<snip>.

First, it is rather an odd phrase "no faults found ." in this context. ( my take on "found "= no one discussed that here in details). After all there have "no been technical faults "found" in that way for Jinn thermodynamics either. No I am not equating anything to Jinn dynamics, it just means that, just because no one has taken time to dissect Ramana's article does not equate to that his article is faultless (in technical sense).

But still, Brihaspati, you should really have checked out this post (in this very thread) before saying "no faults found", if you are really interested in technical aspect..

Link:http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... s#p1033591
Here is critique for Ramana's following paper:http://www.reocities.com/m_v_ramana/nuc ... svol15.pdf

I will take those numbers with, to put it mildly, grain of salt and skepticism...

First, trust me, if one presented a formula like the link presents on pp89 (APPROXIMATE ANALYTICAL ESTIMAT ) even in an undergrad physics home work, one would flunk; if for nothing else, for absurd inconsistency in presenting the result wrt to significant figures. On one hand it uses 6 sig digits value for e (1.6022 x 10^(−19)) on the other hand it uses "200 MeV" (which could be off as much as 10%) and other figures (eg 75%, 90%, 1250 MW per year etc) which are gross estimates. And then it presents a result to 3 sig digits..

You may like to see the fine print printed at the beginning there - it says "a ﬁrst-order estimate of the magnitude of the net plutonium production".. BTW order of magnitude in physics roughly means number of digits . (IOW 10, 11, 20 or 30 for that matter have same order of magnitude - you can't distinguish between 6 or 9 .. they have the same order of magnitude)

... No, obviously I can not show that everything there is wrong but I will not take those estimates as "accurate"

So far from "no faults found" ..his paper contains such errors that, any right thinking technical person, will not take it seriously.

Let me repeat, if you missed the technical part:

if one presented a formula like the link presents on pp89 (APPROXIMATE ANALYTICAL ESTIMAT ) even in an undergrad physics home work, one would flunk; if for nothing else, for absurd inconsistency in presenting the result wrt to significant figures.

Hope this helps.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 07 May 2011 23:14

brihaspati wrote: <snip>
Good to know that technical arguments are covers for ideological agenda. This should be remembered then when similar "technical arguments/details" are pushed to support various aspects of the centre-leftist regime agenda or propaganda.

Agree with that. With that in mind, can you please use "technical arguments/details" to justify 3 significant figures given in the paper which you claim as "no faults found" which has NO technical basis. Why are you spreading/pushing to support numbers which are clearly have no merit?

For this discussion, please stick, just to pp89 (APPROXIMATE ANALYTICAL ESTIMATE) of the paper whose link is given above.

Waiting to hear your analysis.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 07 May 2011 23:33

somnath wrote:
Amber G. wrote: Somnath - Simply because spent fuel rods are known to be "interesting" to terrorists. In USA, before 9/11 almost anyone can walk or take a tour of a reactor. and fuel rods did not have enough security..
Well, just havign access to a couple of spent fuel rods isnt going to help Ayman Al Zawahari, is it?

Somnathji - you may know more but just do a google on spent fuel and Ayman Al etc..

You will find articles like:http://www.scribd.com/doc/50869593/SPEN ... ST-TARGET]

and many others...

The interrogation of Paddila, brought out the fact that AQ was interested in these things...
Sure a couple of fuel rods are not going to matter much, but why share details (specially unnecessary details) about how (and specially where in India) they are stored and transported

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 08 May 2011 01:35

Amber G. wrote: After all there have "no been technical faults "found" in that way for Jinn thermodynamics either.

I am guilty of finding no technical faults in the writings of Madam Jalebi, Ejaz Haider and Hila-le-Zafar. Haven't found a fault in nearly a decade. Halfbright (plus his young Indian apprentices), MVR, Purefool, RR, BK ityadi joined the team later.

Life is short (so many faults and so little time).

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 08 May 2011 02:03

^^^ GP and Brihaspati, you may also like to check out:
India must put nuclear power on hold
Where you may see

What do social scientists Romila Thapar and Ramachandra Guha, dancers Leela Samson and Malavika Sarukkai, former bureaucrats-diplomats S.P. Shukla and Nirupam Sen, retired Navy chief L. Ramdas, writers Arundhati Roy and Nayantara Sahgal, scientists M.V. Ramana and P.M. Bhargava, artists Krishen Khanna and Vivan Sundaram, and former vice-chancellors Mushirul Hasan and Deepak Nayyar, have in common?

..

... I had my comments about this at
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... a#p1071849
Brihaspati, you should really read, and pay special attention to numbers given there.. such as:

This appeal comes just as two workers at Fukushima have died. Nuclear power zealots had predicted that the accidents wouldn't harm plant employees, leave alone the public.
Fukushima's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), admits that three other employees have suffered severe (? ? ) radiation burns and many others have been exposed to radiation. The public is at risk. Radionuclides have contaminated milk, vegetables and fish in Fukushima and nearby.

(Matter of record, which one can easily check, that death of 2 people, "serious radiation burns" for 3 and many exposed to 'radiation' is false or dishonestly misleading or both)

The above is just a small sample, for others, look at the post I made.
(link given above)

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 May 2011 07:06

^^Amber-ji, more than that, it is the sheer relevance of the paper that is the question...In simple terms, "India does not have reprocessing capacity today for its requirements in the FBR project"...Well, of course! That is why we insisted on reproecessing as part ofthe nuke deal...

Above all, our NPP programme for the next 10 years, even 20, is only marginally dependent on the FBR...So the article itself is a non sequitor...As I said before, it is the economics/politics of the issue rather than the science that is a problem...

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 08 May 2011 07:41

somnath wrote:Above all, our NPP programme for the next 10 years, even 20, is only marginally dependent on the FBR...So the article itself is a non sequitor...As I said before, it is the economics/politics of the issue rather than the science that is a problem...

Exactly. IMO, what was needed was a licensing process for PHWRs and FBRs to the private sector after successful commissioning of the PFBR and 700 MWe PHWRs. Instead, we are now plagued by the public sector having to implement the plan. As we all know, in large scale Indian projects, the x-axis of the timeline is completely fungible because no entity except GOI loses money in delays. So, we will witness the hindu rate of growth in the nuke sector onlee.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 08 May 2011 08:54

GuruPrabhu wrote:Instead, we are now plagued by the public sector having to implement the plan. As we all know, in large scale Indian projects, the x-axis of the timeline is completely fungible because no entity except GOI loses money in delays. So, we will witness the hindu rate of growth in the nuke sector onlee

The way it will pan out is this...Thanks to exclusive mandate of public sector execution, nuke projects will be delayed...In 2020, when/if nuke capacity adds up to only 14k MW, our leftists and uber nationalists will in unison say "I told you so! Nuke power is only 0.0001% of total"! As big a self fulfiling prophecy as any...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 May 2011 19:17

Amber G,
I had not indulged in gratuitous snide denigration of authors or a paper published in Energy Policy, and clearly and repeatedly asked people to avoid trying to delegetimize the authors but argue against their content. The paper you mention is different from this one. You have raised "computational" issue in another paper, and that is legetimate. I merely put up all the details of this paper to be analyzed in scientific terms. Instead what I got was the content was "trash" because it comes from supposed "ideological motivations" hence even if "no question about science" in the author but still "his contents" have to be qualified and interpreted based on his supposed "ideological proclivities".

Then comes in "uber nationalists" thrown around for anyone questioing the position of the posters. So do you find all such "analysis" relevant for the discussion? I was also pointing out that when opinions belong to the agenda, "arguing with smileys" are not to be derided upon, but welcome and "logical", while if the opinion seems to be in opposition - "arguing with smileys" are unacceptable.

Finally, calling a scientist casually "chaps" is also okay! Standard English language guides will mention this as slang, and usually used in derogatory or dismissive stance. Chap and cheap are from similar etymological roots and denoted "common/street-trader/tradeable" - hence not a sign of polite usage. This personal barb thing never stops, is given out liberally.

It would have taken a few bits of numbers to show that thsi particualr model and its numbers in Ramana's paper are in error? Did it need attacking him personally or me for quoting his paper and details?

I have not much problems with banding together different voices arguing about the same thing along similar lines and bracketing them as all sharing in a common ideology that you seem to be arguing for. Just be careful that it can imply lots of things and can cut both ways. By that logic anyone on this forum who opposes Salwa Judum must be a Sadistic Maoist. Anyone on this forum who loves music and is fond of animals must be a Nazi because he has them in common with Hitler. Of course you will need to qualify your logic with the point that "sharing a certain position in common implies common ideology" is only applicable to cases you declare as applicable, and for anyone using this logic that does not suit you has "zero undestanding" and "is out of context".

Everyone is speculating here. Some are doing it on wishes that plants will be built in time, supplies in the future are guaranteed, capacities will be built in the future according to claimed numbers, and GOI has gamed things into the future with all options open which is also apparently known with surety now by posters. It is only that some speculations are okay and the other speculations are based on "zero undestanding" and the holders of such speculations are to targeted personally.

Since "uber nationalist" seems to be continued to be found to be relevant for this discussion as "opponents" of core-role-for-nuclear-power [at least no pro-core-role-for-nuke-power lobby seems to mind or find it "irrelevant"], and all technical claims are basically driven by ideology, I think it is time to try to undestand this core-role-for-nuclear-power lobby as also sharing in a "uber pseudo secularist pseudo nationalist" agenda of doing business with foreign "nuclear corporates" with some hidden ulterior motives! Since all technical points are raised to cover for hidden personal agenda, should we start exploring whether this "uber pseudo secularist pseudo nationalist" clamour for core-role-for-nuclear-power are connected to hopes of financial benefits a la Qattrochhi or whoever from Indian side facilitated him?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 May 2011 19:34

Theo_Fidel ji,
I was not a supporter of your exclusive arguments [to exclude nuclear power generation attempts completely]. But I guess by the current consensus of pro-core-role-for-nuclear-power lobby is that you and I share in the opposition to their position, which makes you possibly belong to the "uber nationalist" category. From now on, no technical details should be seen in isolation, but seen as who is quoting them - and therefore his supposed ideological proclivities and hidden agenda should be more important.

Your patient arguments on technical points are irrelevant then. Should we start looking at the financial connections? The historical precedence of eagerness to do business with Quattrocchi type mediation appears to point to a "pseudo secularist pseudo nationalist" common agenda. Maybe that is the main hidden drive behind this clamour?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 08 May 2011 21:21

Folks,

I like this "find faults" game. I present to you the following paper for your "fault finding" pleasure:

http://tinyurl.com/6ekynvr

[Hint: it exposes MVR's perfidy. But, I will not spell it out -- let the fans of MVR do the homework]

I apologize for the fact that it is an Elsevier copyright document, but then so was MVR's paper.

Happy fault finding!

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 08 May 2011 22:16

^^^ Thanks GP.
Brihaspati:

brihaspati wrote:Amber G,
I had not indulged in gratuitous snide denigration of authors or a paper published in Energy Policy, and clearly and repeatedly asked people to avoid trying to delegetimize the authors but argue against their content. The paper you mention is different from this one. You have raised "computational" issue in another paper, and that is legitimate. I merely put up all the details of this paper to be analyzed in scientific terms. Instead what I got was the content was "trash" because it comes from supposed "ideological motivations" hence even if "no question about science" in the author but still "his contents" have to be qualified and interpreted based on his supposed "ideological proclivities".

First, thanks for not indulging (I say that with sincerity) in gratuitous snide denigration, not only of the authors of the paper but also the authors of BRF posts. I find that refreshing in contrast to diatribes.

As you ought to be happy to see, that I did argue about the contents, actually giving page number for just one random example. This was not to trash the author, certainly not on his supposed ideological proclivities but rather point to utter unscientific, and frankly absurd, flaws. The content was "trash" (as you put it - my word would be absurd, at least those numbers pointed out by me) simply because it ignored the most basic (some thing every student of science learns) scientific principle.

More than just "computational" issue, it just removes any confidence, as author seems to be ignorant of even the basic scientific methodology. Besides, if the computations (hence the numbers in the article) are unimportant/wrong/absurd - what else is left?

Be it a chess game (one does not have to make mistakes in every move - just one mistake can result in a loss) or a math problem or a scientific paper, if there are (even a few) false steps, final result is not fault free.

Getting back to the MV Ramana's paper (the one I gave link) .. Brihaspati, do you have any comments - just on the technical part. Similarly can you look at material you posted here, and give your judgement on how accurate those figures are? (and why?)
(Basically I am asking, how one would get a 3 sig. figure result when the input is not - AND how can you not notice even that simple fault?)

Waiting for your analysis. (Please stick to technical part(s) only, if you can)

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 May 2011 00:56

Amber G,
I did not say I was supporting or rejecting Ramana's conlcusions. I will look at the 2009 paper, which I quoted, and where he gives his equations, and check out calculations after writing up the relevant program. I had put up his paper in details for people to contradict what he has written. If he has erred or mis-stepped in another paper that can also be looked into [which I have already mentioned as legit cricticism by you] but after this paper, which has been rejected here as pushing for NPA agenda and which it has been claimed should be interpreted by "ideological considerations" and not the model or calculations in that paper.

Meanwhile, and this is not at you :
This is what comes up on first reading of "Studies on physics parameters of metal (U–Pu–Zr) fuelled FBR cores" by A. Riyas, and P. Mohanakrishnan -Annals of Nuclear Energy 35 (2008) 87–92, apparently the paper that exposes the "perfidy" of MV Ramana: [By the way, there seems to be an unilateral pontification about existence of "fans" of MV Ramana, do not know whether this falls under data-driven expert related relevance].

The computed peak fuel temperature[genuine question so it cannot be or was never measured directly?] in metallic fuelled FBR is 800 deg C (Singh and Harish, 2002). Consequences of zirconium reduction other than the reactor physics parameters are not examined here. Metal-fuel without zirconium considered here is an extreme theoretical possibility, due to the lack of irradiation experience with such fuels.[so one of the assumptions of this perfidy breaking paper is actually an extreme theoretical possibility? ]The other parameters investigated in the study were doubling time, fast and total fluxes, sodium void worth, Doppler coefficient, plutonium inventory and delayed neutron fraction.
[...]

In Section 2, core designs of 500 MWe and 1000 MWe cores are presented. The computational scheme is also described. Two-dimensional calculations are performed for the analysis using an ABBN type cross-section set. Detailed burn-up studies and safety analysis have not been performed. The computed core physics parameters are given in the next section. [Once again, then, is it a computational model whose predictions apparently breaks the perfidy?]
[...]
The number densities of various nuclei present in the homogenous regions are calculated using the code ATOMIX (Devan et al., 2003). The self-shielded cross-sections are calculated using the CONSYST/EFCONSY code system using XSET-98 cross-section data, which is a 26 group ABBN type cross-section library (Manturov, 1997; Devan, 2003). This cross-section data has been validated by analysis of 1000 MWe ANL benchmark (Mohanakrishnan and Narayanan, 2001) and BN-600 hybrid core benchmark under IAEA-CRP (IAEA-RC-803.3, 2001). The k-effective is calculated using the two-dimensional diffusion theory code ALCIALMI, in which R–Z geometry is used for the calculations. The breeding ratio, fast flux, peak linear pin powers and capture to fission ratio are calculated using the two-dimensional code ALEX. The delayed neutron fraction is calculated using the code PERTABBN that is based on first order perturbation theory. [Not much to comment except if people here have used these "codes" which appear to be software programs that simulate whats going on in physics - then they can perhaps describe the reliability of such codes if they are used to calculate for situations like "extreme theoretical possibility" for which the programs were not necessarily written originally. I am not saying they are not robust merely asking if they are.]

[...]
Ideally neutron transport theory has to be used for computing void reactivity effects in FBRs. But it has been found that due to larger mean path of neutrons and the homogenized approximation generally used in diffusion theory calculations (smearing of fuel and steel over the volume of subassembly), the void reactivity effect within the core and axial blankets is well computed by the diffusion theory also (IAEA-RC-803.3, 2001). Use of sodium plenum replacing the top axial blanket can reduce the total void reactivity effect. For the voiding of the sodium plenum region, use of diffusion theory gives rise to larger errors. Typically replacement of plenum is to reduce the positive void effect of core, the amount of this reduction is over-predicted by diffusion theory by 20–30% (IAEA, 1994). Thus the reduction in void reactivity due to the replacement of axial blanket by a sodium plenum is only approximate as computed by diffusion theory, for more reliable estimates, transport computations are essential.[Are approximate calculations kosher - from criticism of Ramana's I had the impression that calculations based on such error psossibilities immediately disqualified the person as a scientist!]
[....]
With the U–Pu fuel, the breeding ratio attainable for 1000 MWe fast breeder reactor is 1.61 with a doubling time of 6.6 yrs, at the same time it is having a higher sodium void worth of 8.0$. It is found that replacing the upper axial blanket with a sodium plenum can reduce sodium void worth, though it leads to a lower breeding ratio. An approximate prediction using diffusion calculation, shows that, this modification can reduce the sodium void from 8.0$ to 4.6$.
[But all this is based on a "theoretical prediction" on materials not exactly subjected to "irradiation" experiments yet, and the projected value of 1.61 is attainable in theory based on calculations which may have issues about approximation?]

Nothing against these authors, but they seem to be claiming high breeding ratios based on a computational model, [which has its acknowledge possible limitations] and using "extremes" of "theoretical possibilities" which is supposed to expose the "perfidy" of Ramana - and a guaranteed high breeding ratio which will be attained in the near future?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 May 2011 01:02

^^^They also explicitly state that they have only considered the physics "parameters" and not any "safety issues". From their view it is perfectly acceptable, since they are only undertaking an exploratory model analysis, which is also purely a theoretical extension on prevailing frameworks. But I am not sure we should pass off such exploratory works as being "proven/given/" and technologically implemented that will guarantee exceeding conservative estimates of probable breeding ratios.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 May 2011 02:43

Amber G,
in a 2011 paper in which one of the above authors [the paper quoted just above] have contributed, a certain decay formula is given as say at^(-b). Both a, b have been given up to 4th place of decimal as being "fitted values" [although no fit accuracy measures have been given - but I will assume they exist], and on this fitted/predicted decay rate, an additional 20% uncertainty has been added. For small values of t - small changes in error bounds for b will give large changes in predicted values.

Do you agree with this approach? Or do you think greater number of significant digits are necessary to make the 20% uncertainty acceptable?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 09 May 2011 04:48

This is getting to be fun, but I will let others enjoy -- I have other things to do.

IGCAR has a computational model. MVR cherry-picks that model and implements his own computational model (actually, Glaser's implementation of MCNP). MVR's *secondary* computational model is kosher (such are the features that define a fan club) while the IGCAR's *original* one is not.

Anyway, I promised not to get sucked in. Let the "fault finding" continue.

[the perfidy is very simple for those who know where to look]

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 09 May 2011 06:23

GuruPrabhu wrote:This is getting to be fun, but I will let others enjoy -- I have other things to do

An intellectual "M" exercise on a non-issue...Perfect strawman...Hey India doesnt have enough reprocessing capacity to service FBRs..Ergo, India's nuke programme is all voodoo...And then suck the discussion into an elaborate exercise of discussing a non sequitor, with no reference to the real "nuclear" issues at hand...

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 09 May 2011 07:03

Jaitapur plant, a ‘dangerous version of Dhabol'

The Jaitapur plant would cost upwards of Rs. 22 crore a MWe against Rs. 8 crore in an indigenous equivalent nuclear plant, the two organisations said.

http://www.hindu.com/2011/05/09/stories ... 401000.htm

Are these figures correct?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 09 May 2011 07:10

Pranav wrote:Are these figures correct?
Are these figures correct?

Bunch of poppycock...

First of all, the key issue with Dabhol was the "gteed IRR" promised to the "pvt sector operator"..Which meant that the operator had every incentive to jack up project costs (the IRR was on an ROI basis)...In Jaitapur, the operator is, guess who, NPCIL! So unless the govt of India wants to screw itself in a fit of sado-masochistic pleasure, comparisons to Dabhol are stupid..

Second, while mentioning project costs - it is convenient to simply quote upfront costs/MW of LWR and compare it with thermal..Rather than the more realistic life-cycle costs, and most critically, marginal cost of generating power (crucial for a base load plant)...this thread has numerous references to both - and NPPs stack up very favourably to thermal and are much superior to "alterantes"...

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 09 May 2011 07:19

somnath wrote:
Pranav wrote: Are these figures correct?
Bunch of poppycock...

Perhaps you misunderstood. The comparison was between capital cost of indigenous nuclear reactors and the Jaitapur ones.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 09 May 2011 07:22

Brihaspati,

I accepted nuclear power here in the shadow of Kudankulam until Fukushima happened.

The key problem for me is the Nuclear industry. Nuclear power is dangerous and should not be played with IMO. They promise us a zero emission regimen which they promptly violate with 'minor' & 'major' accidents and then say that Nuclear power is safe and clean. I stand by my comments that there will be medium term fatalities from the radiation at Fukushima which the nuclear industry will try to reclassify as 'natural'. This is something that has gone on for a long time with the locals near Kalpakkam. I fear the Kudankulam area, which is densely populated is next to experience this.

It is clear that the reactors we are being 'forced' to buy under the 123 deal are not in our best interests. We don't fully understand this technology and the DAE after 50 years of research on the CANDU reactors has only a limited ability to improve and push the design further. This tells me their understanding and capabilities are still limited. Due to sanctions the DAE has lived a very sheltered life and I'm now nervous about even Kudankulam and their ability to handle twin 1000 MW reactors when their previous experience is with much smaller 200-350 MW type units. Historically bad things have happened in the nuclear industry when organizations go outside their comfort zone. Not only that all the fuel has to be imported. Essentially for ever as we don't have much economically feasible Uranium. I read in a couple of documents that with any Uranium deposit under 0.03% by the time you factor in all the energy costs of mining it, it is touch and go whether you actually get a substantial energy payback. It appears in India, with our low quality Uranium deposits we may have substantially just been converting coal electricity/oil into Nuclear electricity.

For sure there needs to be a medium term plan to shut down Kudankulam, too close to the unpredictable ocean. Kalpakkam is far too close to a major city and should be moved. Which brings me to India's peculiar problem, we are very densely populated. A Fukushima type evacuation will involve millions and so far when I ask the question of what happens, there appear to be blanks stares and the bluster over impossible 'extreme scenarios' which nevertheless have happen every 10 years. There is no solution in our case.

The Wolfcreek Nuclear plant in the Midwest has 20,000 residents in a 25 mile radius around it. The US is facing strong opposition from continuing nuclear plants near large population centers. There less opposition for isolated plants.

This technologist is clearly not suited for the specific Indian situation. It is too dangerous for us because of our circumstances. I am dead opposed to any expansion.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 09 May 2011 07:23

the Centre agreed to the French reactor even without design and safety features being presented to and approved by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).

There must be a story or explanation here. Unclear how they can build out the site without AERB approval, which itself can take upto 5 years if the PFBR and AHWR approval process is anything to go by.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 09 May 2011 07:46

vera_k wrote:There must be a story or explanation here. Unclear how they can build out the site without AERB approval, which itself can take upto 5 years if the PFBR and AHWR approval process is anything to go by.

thats precisely the point...Regulatory approval happens concurrently - its not as if the PFBR design was "aprpoved" by AERB before they started construction..GP can explain more, but regulatory approvals come in stages of inspections, approvals and design modificaions suggested..That is true for Indian NPPs, it will be tru for imported NPPs.

Pranav wrote:Perhaps you misunderstood. The comparison was between capital cost of indigenous nuclear reactors and the Jaitapur ones

Yes, that too..First, indigeneous reactors do not include the R&D costs (and lifecyle learning costs) incurred by BARC/DAE on development in the price to NPCIL...Doesnt mean those costs were/are not incurred...Two, our standard PHWR is a 220MW design - we have no clue on the final cost of our 700 MW PHWR design, or indeed our AHWR/FBR designs...To therefore compare the cost of a 220MW design to a 1000MW LWR again, is a bit of a fudge..

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 09 May 2011 08:15

US Nuclear Agency Is Criticized as Too Close to Its Industry

...
The Byron pipe leak is just one recent example of the agency’s shortcomings, critics say. It has also taken nearly 30 years for the commission to get effective fireproofing installed in plants after an accident in Alabama. The N.R.C.’s decision to back down in a standoff with the operator of an Ohio plant a decade ago meant that a potentially dangerous hole went undetected for months. And the number of civil penalties paid by licensees has plummeted nearly 80 percent since the late 1990s — a reflection, critics say, of the commission’s inclination to avoid ruffling the feathers of the nuclear industry and its Washington lobbyists.

Although the agency says plants are operating more safely today than they were at the dawn of the nuclear industry, when shutdowns were common, safety experts, Congressional critics and even the agency’s own internal monitors say the N.R.C. is prone to dither when companies complain that its proposed actions would cost time or money. The promise of lucrative industry work after officials leave the commission probably doesn’t help, critics say, pointing to dozens over the years who have taken jobs with nuclear power companies and lobbying firms.
...
...
The agency’s shortcomings are especially vexing because Congress created it in the mid-1970s to separate the government’s roles as safety regulator and promoter of nuclear energy — an inherent conflict that dogged its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission.

“It wasn’t much of a change,” said Peter A. Bradford, a former N.R.C. commissioner who now teaches at Vermont Law School. “The N.R.C. inherited the regulatory staff and adopted the rules and regulations of the A.E.C. intact.”
...
...
Still, David Lochbaum, a frequent critic of the N.R.C. who recently worked as a reactor technology instructor there, said the agency too often rolled the dice on safety. “The only difference between Byron and Fukushima is luck,” he said.
...
...
Situated on the banks of the Connecticut River, the 39-year-old Vermont Yankee, whose reactor is similar in design to the stricken plant in Japan, suffered the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007. In January 2010, the plant’s operator, Entergy, discovered that nearby soil and groundwater had been contaminated by radioactive tritium, which had apparently leaked from underground piping. Just months before, the company assured state lawmakers that no such piping existed at the plant.
...
...
But one day before the quake and tsunami that set Japan’s crisis in motion, the N.R.C. approved Vermont Yankee’s bid for license renewal — just as it has for 62 other plants so far. Its fate is now the subject of a federal lawsuit.

“How does a place like that get a license renewal?” Mr. Lochbaum said. “Because they asked for one. Absent dead bodies, nothing seems to deter the N.R.C. from sustaining reactor operation.”
...
...
To be sure, license renewal is still arduous. According to a 2007 audit by the inspector general’s office, an operator typically spends two years and up to $20 million preparing an application, and the commission on average spends two years and $4 million reviewing it.

But the audit also concluded that it was often impossible to know whether the agency had truly conducted an independent review of an application or why approval was granted. In some cases, for example, long passages in the commission’s assessment of a renewal appeared to have been simply copied and pasted directly from the application.
...
...
What frustrates some critics is that the N.R.C. has the expertise and resources — a staff of 4,000 and one of the highest densities of Ph.D.’s in government — to do a better job. Indeed, there are some examples of the commission making tough decisions.
...
...

Read it in full. Shows how the cozy industry-regulator relationship in US is undermining the regulatory environment there. And this is the agency that was being promoted by the US embassy around the world for its best practices, as also the US nuclear industry.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 09 May 2011 08:18

^^^ This is the problem with non-privatization. Everybody becomes an economist as if it is their Re that is going into the project. And then, yes, they fail to see that GOI has made R&D "free of cost".

If Mukesh Ambani were to be buying an EPR, all these armchair economists would just have to suck it up, because that man understands his Re very well. How many articles do you see criticizing the cost of UMTPP? It is because it is not the mai-baap govermint's money.

This is the prime reason for Hindu rate of growth.

I can't believe that after all the major scandals in GOI, it is left to the same GOI to pursue nuke power.

AND, this was hailed as GOOD thing by the most VOCAL critics of the present GOI.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 09 May 2011 09:04

brihaspati wrote:Amber G,
in a 2011 paper in which one of the above authors [the paper quoted just above] have contributed, a certain decay formula is given as say at^(-b). Both a, b have been given up to 4th place of decimal as being "fitted values" [although no fit accuracy measures have been given - but I will assume they exist], and on this fitted/predicted decay rate, an additional 20% uncertainty has been added. For small values of t - small changes in error bounds for b will give large changes in predicted values.

Do you agree with this approach? Or do you think greater number of significant digits are necessary to make the 20% uncertainty acceptable?

The relative error (percentage error of 20% = .20 etc) of the result is, of course, give by
delta(a)/a - ln (t) delta(b).
I don't know what you mean 'small' values of t ?(when t is close to zero, the whole thing tends to infinity - assuming b is positive) for any reasonable value of t (say t>1), and normal values of b, there is not much error (you can easily quantify this part..)

for large value of t, the whole thing tends to zero.. anyway.
Hth.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 09 May 2011 09:14

^^^ Amber,

I can see that you are being kind and ignoring the fact that a "decay formula" of the form

at^(-b)

is completely contrary to known physics.

Please provide the lecture on exponential decay if you feel up to it.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 09 May 2011 09:16

Left to the private sector nuclear power would die on the vine. Isn't this a market indication of the risk/reward.

Without fabulously generous permanent government financial, insurance, purchase & liability guarantees private won't touch nuclear with a 10 foot danda. Nuclear power remains in the race because governments are seduced by the technology. Looks like a silver bullet.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 09 May 2011 09:29

GuruPrabhu wrote:^^^ Amber,

I can see that you are being kind and ignoring the fact that a "decay formula" of the form

at^(-b)

is completely contrary to known physics.

Please provide the lecture on exponential decay if you feel up to it.

Yes, I noticed that, and was going to say that generally "decay formula" is more often of the form (a*b^(-t) ... (same as c*exp(-kt)),

Of course, some times it may be "sum of few exponentiation decays" (eg in decay heat where different isotopes decay with different half-lives).

But Brihaspati did not give any context (or what he meant by "decay") so I just used his formula...
Hth.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 09 May 2011 09:36

Theo_Fidel wrote:Without fabulously generous permanent government financial, insurance, purchase & liability guarantees private won't touch nuclear with a 10 foot danda.

Aaah. GOI must have misinterpreted the danda as the one probing its musharraf.

What was the need to pass a law OUTLAWING private participation, if the private sector was such a long danda averse??

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 09 May 2011 09:55

Amber,

Nature is amazingly loyal to exponential decays. Just about everything does it, so no need to specify the exact system. There are simply no power laws in quantum mechanical decays.

The only place a power law enters (AFAIK) is in Newton's law of cooling, which is a "decay" of sorts. However, even there, the power law is with temperature and not time.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 May 2011 10:45

Brihaspati ji? I like what you are doing. Even at great effort (or maybe small effort for you

). Kudos.