India Nuclear News And Discussion

[somnath]

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

Left exclusively to the pvt sector (or without generous govt support), other industries that would die (or be priced completely out of reach) includes
1. Mass transport systems..
2. Pharmaceuticals..
3. Banking (at times )
4. Of course, pretty much every "alternate" mode of electrcity - wind, solar, biogas...

I can go on, but one gets the idea...

[Sanku]

Left exclusively to the pvt sector (or without generous govt support), other industries that would die (or be priced completely out of reach) includes
1. Mass transport systems..
2. Pharmaceuticals..
3. Banking (at times )
4. Of course, pretty much every "alternate" mode of electrcity - wind, solar, biogas...
.

Completely untrue. These industry existed in India and elsewhere without government support and thrived and did well. We have tons of examples.

The above patently false.

[amit]

Left exclusively to the pvt sector (or without generous govt support), other industries that would die (or be priced completely out of reach) includes
1. Mass transport systems..
2. Pharmaceuticals..
3. Banking (at times )
4. Of course, pretty much every "alternate" mode of electrcity - wind, solar, biogas...
.

Completely untrue. These industry existed in India and elsewhere without government support and thrived and did well. We have tons of examples.

The above patently false.

Sanku,

Can you give ONE example of a mass transit system which is:
a) Profitable and b) Does not have to depend on govt subsidies/grants for both construction and fares; c) are both a and b and is a pvt limited company? The company can be from any part of the globe.

And while at it, it would be great if you can give one example of a profitable (that is one which exists without out govt dole) solar power generation company. (Hint: You can look at Spain which has a large solar generation set up).

I'll wait for you reply and I'm really willing to be educated.

Of course I suspect "patently false" would have a new meaning.

[amit]

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

Brihaspati is indeed doing very interesting stuff. He has taken what was essentially a discussion on Nuclear vs Coal and the cost:benefit between the two into a interesting technical discussion about exponential decay and decay formulas.

However, in between he puts in very subtle non-sequitors like:

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.

The bolded portion does not bear with facts on the ground (why am I not surprised?). Nuclear to be the core of Indian power generation has to account for at least 50 per cent of total generation capacity. Or at least 50 per cent of new generation capacity that is to be added over the next 30-40 years.

Even DAE's does not claim either of the two in their most optimistic projections.

The cleverness of this argument (my respect of Brihaspati as a debater has gone up!) stems from the fact that it changes the argument which the so called pro-nuclear lobby (pseudo-secularists?) has been saying here, to wit:

Nuclear should be in the total mix of different energy generation technologies used over the next 50 years and should not be excluded on account of irrational and unfounded fears

To: "pro-core-role-for-nuclear-power" is what the pro-nuclear lobby is demanding.

Since this and other such interesting comments are buried in lengthy and wordy posts they go unchallenged and very soon become part of urban legends on this thread. Repeated enough times...

I find the anger to the use of "uber nationalists" amusing, even though I don't use it myself.

I wonder is Shriman Uday Thackeray not a Nationalist? Since nomenclature is so important is he in that case a "pseudo secularist"? Or maybe the objection is the the use of the adjective "uber"? So confusing.

The fact remains that the scion of the Shiv Sena has joined hands with known leftist ideologues and NPA chamchas like (Admiral) Ramdass to oppose the Aveya project on specious grounds - for example Thackeray saab has no objection if Maharashtra buys power generated by a nuclear power project from other states - meaning he's not worried if there's a nuclear accident in another state, say for example Gujarat. And he's on record saying he's not opposed to the India-US nuke pact!

[Please forgive inquiring minds which feel that at least the leftists and NPA ideologues are consistent in their opposition and are firmly focused on the cap, rollback and eliminate strategy in which this current agitation is but a footnote in a larger battle.]

Point remains those who are in the so-called self professed "Nationalist" camp in our political arena have joined hands with known Leftist ideologues in this issue.

Calling folks who point this out "pseudo secularists" doesn't change that, even though there's no "shivering in your dhoti" icon on BRF. I wonder why folks here take it personally when clearly the reference is to various public figures who are outside BRF.

[somnath]

He has taken what was essentially a discussion on Nuclear vs Coal and the cost:benefit between the two into a interesting technical discussion about exponential decay and decay formulas

Well, that too of a paper that springs a massive non sequitor in the first place, of FBRs!

Anyways, for this.

Please forgive inquiring minds which feel that at least the leftists and NPA ideologues are consistent in their opposition and are firmly focused on the cap, rollback and eliminate strategy in which this current agitation is but a footnote in a larger battle

I am sure our (uber or otherwise) nationalists have the best motives for India, but the above is confirmed by statements like this..

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

Err, so proximity to either a big city or the ocean/sea is grounds for shutdown of reactors...Well then, first on the list should be Tarapur, which a) is no longer "cheek by jowl" with Mumbai, but a part of Mumbai, b) right next to the sea and c) operates those lousy old Satan-designed BWRs (similar to Fukushima)! Result? No prizes for guessing....

Given that Kalpakkam is also "fair game", not sure what wuld remain of our weapons capacbility to "cap, rollback and eliminate" once these two sites are shut down...But yes, our nationalists have robust, indic ideologies, so either they have divine premonition of a Vedic-era Brahmastra weapon (as a nuke substitute) being available to India on invocation of Lord Shiva, or they have limited understanding (beyond google search, or advice from the likes of Manohar Joshi) of what they are talking about...Take your pick!

[Pranav]

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..

True. But R&D expenses have happened already, and the best way to recoup is to build as many plants as possible. Also there is the difficulty of running a variety of different designs.

Now, if Jaitapur is some kind of quid pro quo, then that should be stated explicitly. If Jaitapur does not make sense then one should see if there are better ways to pay back the relevant parties.

[somnath]

True. But R&D expenses have happened already, and the best way to recoup is to build as many plants as possible. Also there is the difficulty of running different different a variety of different designs

Not sure that "R&D expenses have already happened"..the 220 MW design is standardised now, but there is work going on to perfect the 700MW design, the AHWR, the FBR..DAE/BARC has an annual budget upwards of a billion dollars - most of it will be nothing but R&D..So we will never really know the contribution of GOI/BARC/DAE in the prices of NPCIL's NPPs...

about the second point, thats exactly the point Brahma Chellaney and some others are making..It has some relevance, but really looks like a belaboured point..I mean, when we had operated about zero reactors, policy makers opted for two different designs - CANDU and GE BWR...Why should we have a problem today, 40 years into a developed nuke programme, to master a couple of more variants of LWRs? Stretching that argument, we will never "upgade" to a newer better model, simply because we have perfected the CANDU! In a related, but different sector, we should never graduate to super critical thermal power plants, given tht BHEL has perfected (license production of) subcritical plnts!

Now, if Jaitapur is some kind of quid pro quo, then that should be stated explicitly

AREVA is France, not US..If it is "quid pro quo", then its a win-win one! We will be the fourth operator of the EPR design when it goes through..So its not exactly a "new bird"...

[Pranav]

^^^ The 700MW PHWRs are already under construction, so presumably, the R&D is already done. And in a strategic sector like nuclear energy, there is no alternative to indigenous R&D.

[Sanku]

I mean, when we had operated about zero reactors, policy makers opted for two different designs - CANDU and GE BWR...

To compare a 40 year old choice with today is just worthless. 40 year choice was dictated for various reasons already posted by Sanatanam Guru.

Please pull up those reasons to educate yourself about why those choices were made and how the situation is different today.

=========

Stretching that argument,

The issue with LWR vs Domestic can also not be STRETCHED. In fact I find that a whole lot of people are STRETCHING various arguments a little too much. Kindly do not STRETCH anyone else's arguments, or RESTATE it, or SUMMARIZE it, or PARAPHRASE it, or think that IT CAN BE TAKEN TO mean, or use BY THE SAME LOGIC.

This whole thing is already STRETCHED quite THIN.

No STRETCHING and SPINNING please. We are NOT weaving a YARN here. At least some of us are not.

[amit]

We are NOT weaving a YARN here. At least some of us are not.

Can you give ONE example of a mass transit system which is:
a) Profitable and b) Does not have to depend on govt subsidies/grants for both construction and fares; c) are both a and b and is a pvt limited company? The company can be from any part of the globe.

[amit]

^^^ The 700MW PHWRs are already under construction, so presumably, the R&D is already done. And in a strategic sector like nuclear energy, there is no alternative to indigenous R&D.

Pranav,

Can you tell us why you think import of LWRs will stymie the building and R&D into indigenous designs? Is that stated anywhere in official documents or commentaries? Not accusing you personally but, as a general comment, this is one of the biggest Straw mans being propagated here.

If you look through the literature (a good source would be the archives of the discussions here during the Civil Nuclear deal) you'd find that the main reasons for wanting foreign reactor technology were:

1) Access to new technology which would help the learning curve (as far as local R&D) was concerned, especially as to how to ramp up to 1000 MW reactors.

2) Allow for the import of uranium so as to free up the domestic supply for the FBR programme and of course our strategic programme.

3) To ramp up electricity generation at a pace faster than what local R&D was and is capable of sustaining.

It is because of this India had/has no qualms of having any future foreign built reactors under IAEA inspection and even local built ones which use imported uranium. These have been designated for electricity generation.

Despite what doomsday predictors said then (the same crew which is crying hoarse now, so you can understand my skepticism at their gyan) that once the deal was in place IAEA inspectors would be looking into every orifice which has the letter N in its name. Hasn't happened has it?

In short local R&D will go on as usual with the added bonus of imported uranium and infusion of new tech in the sector. Bonus is electricity generation. There is a iron ring fence around our strategic reactors.

However, thanks to our brilliance we are on the verge of allowing the whole thing to unravel. Isn't it a coincidence that every single proposed nuclear power plant site is witnessing a concerted anti-nuclear protest from West Bengal all the way to Maharashtra. And in every case some opportunistic political party - cutting across the ideological spectrum - is egging them on for petty political gains.

[Pranav]

^^^ The 700MW PHWRs are already under construction, so presumably, the R&D is already done. And in a strategic sector like nuclear energy, there is no alternative to indigenous R&D.

Pranav,

Can you tell us why you think import of LWRs will stymie the building and R&D into indigenous designs? ...

However, thanks to our brilliance we are on the verge of allowing the whole thing to unravel. Isn't it a coincidence that every single proposed nuclear power plant site is witnessing a concerted anti-nuclear protest from West Bengal all the way to Maharashtra. And in every case some opportunistic political party - cutting across the ideological spectrum - is egging them on for petty political gains.

I was just responding to Somnath's claim regarding cost estimates for domestic PHWRs.

I have no ideological position on this, but cost and safety are concerns. We've already burnt our fingers with the Enron fiasco, if you remember it.

[Sanku]

I think this is just to juicy a post to let go without replying.

Can you tell us why you think import of LWRs will stymie the building and R&D into indigenous designs? Is that stated anywhere in official documents or commentaries? Not accusing you personally but, as a general comment, this is one of the biggest Straw mans being propagated here.

I see. So you expect us to quote a GoI document which says. "LWRs will stymie internal research hence we will buy it"?

Coming next A Raja confess "Yes I did it".

If you look through the literature (a good source would be the archives of the discussions here during the Civil Nuclear deal) you'd find that the main reasons for wanting foreign reactor technology were:

BRF thread does not qualify as literature. Neither does some one saying "1 == 2 is true" waiting for 10 days and saying refer to statement made 10 days back which proves "1 == 2 is true" is any logic.

There was never any literature then and now supporting ANY of your claims. There was/is enough literature to the contrary!!

1) Access to new technology which would help the learning curve (as far as local R&D) was concerned, especially as to how to ramp up to 1000 MW reactors.

So people who have been developing PWHRs would suddenly learn from LWRs for tech. Hey must be since tech is tech.

2) Allow for the import of uranium so as to free up the domestic supply for the FBR programme and of course our strategic programme.

Since both before and after the deal. ALL our spent fuel was going to those programs, and after the program the EXACTLY SAME Fuel is the input to those program, what is freed up?

3) To ramp up electricity generation at a pace faster than what local R&D was and is capable of sustaining.

Since when does local R&D sustain electricity generation? That is done by the companies MAKING the power plants not doing R&D in it. If we want to build plants we should build plants. Not find excuses.

It is because of this India had/has no qualms of having any future foreign built reactors under IAEA inspection and even local built ones which use imported uranium. These have been designated for electricity generation.

So now you speak for India?

A lot of people in India have called the above a fraud, including other large political parties, strategist and nuclear insiders.

Despite what doomsday predictors said then (the same crew which is crying hoarse now, so you can understand my skepticism at their gyan) that once the deal was in place IAEA inspectors would be looking into every orifice which has the letter N in its name. Hasn't happened has it?

A gross (as usual) deliberate and malevolent misinterpretation of statements made. NO SUCH statements were made.

In short local R&D will go on as usual with the added bonus of imported uranium and infusion of new tech in the sector. Bonus is electricity generation. There is a iron ring fence around our strategic reactors.

In short
ALL your statements are proven to be false.
There is any way tenuous logic in your statements and your conclusions.

However, thanks to our brilliance we are on the verge of allowing the whole thing to unravel. Isn't it a coincidence that every single proposed nuclear power plant site is witnessing a concerted anti-nuclear protest from West Bengal all the way to Maharashtra. And in every case some opportunistic political party - cutting across the ideological spectrum - is egging them on for petty political gains.

That is because the Indians dont want it. Period, as simple as that. And those who made promises on behalf of India to US (such as in case of MRCA) have found the reality when road met rubber.

[Sanku]

I have no ideological position on this, but cost and safety are concerns. We've already burnt our fingers with the Enron fiasco, if you remember it.

There is not a question of ideological position. There are facts and there are incorrect statements. Those are incorrect statements.

[amit]

I was just responding to Somnath's claim regarding cost estimates for domestic PHWRs.

I have no ideological position on this, but cost and safety are concerns. We've already burnt our fingers with the Enron fiasco, if you remember it.

No issues on that. Just wanted to put the record straight.

Regarding Enron the comparison is not right. Enron was a fiasco due to financial and corruption reasons, not due to technical deficiencies of the Dhabol project.

Why should that be the basis of thinking - as in the French case - that the same would happen. Here the French company is supply the reactor and other equipment to NPCIL who will be both building (as in supervising) the plant and generating electricity. If we can't trust a GoI entity to be honest in a way Enron was not, then we might as well go back to gobar gas and cowdung cakes.

[Sanku]

No issues on that. Just wanted to put the record straight.
.

I have put it straight now. After correcting all those totally wrong things you said. Not that its going to do any good. But hey often enough the same basic factual things have to be repeatedly said just so, accidental repetition of incorrect information does not distort picture.

[amit]

In short
ALL your statements are proven to be false.
There is any way tenuous logic in your statements and your conclusions.

This is funny!

BRF thread does not qualify as literature. Neither does some one saying "1 == 2 is true" waiting for 10 days and saying refer to statement made 10 days back which proves "1 == 2 is true" is any logic.

There was never any literature then and now supporting ANY of your claims. There was/is enough literature to the contrary!!

Sorry boss didn’t know you comprehension skills were that bad. I should have been more clear. What I meant was that there are various links in the posts made there which can qualify as “literature”. The person for whom the post was intended seems to have understood.

However, I know it futile to ask you to provide “enough literature to the contrary”. So I won’t even ask. But if you feel like posting please go ahead. I love reading BC!

So people who have been developing PWHRs would suddenly learn from LWRs for tech. Hey must be since tech is tech.

I know in software programming things are compartmentalized.

No need to assume that it’s the same in other sectors eh? For example the philosophy (am bolding this for your easy comprehension) behind cooling technologies or built in passive safety features? You think there’s nothing that can be learnt there?

Since both before and after the deal. ALL our spent fuel was going to those programs, and after the program the EXACTLY SAME Fuel is the input to those program, what is freed up?

Sigh! Sanku, Sanku still the same myopia. Everything is not just bits and bytes. Sure all our spent fuel was and is going to go into the programme. But you seemed to have (as usual) missed the point.

And that is if all goes to plan the same maal will circulate in our strategic programme but the amount of electricity generated through the nuclear route would go up by a factor of X (variable). Why can’t you wrap your head around the fact that the whole purpose of the deal is to increase electricity generation while protecting and sustaining our strategic programme and hoarding our domestic uranium supply?

Since when does local R&D sustain electricity generation? That is done by the companies MAKING the power plants not doing R&D in it.

This takes the cake. So you are saying that Nuclear Power Corporation of India does not have any connection to the DAE or Atomic Energy Commission and our general nuclear hierarchy?

So now you speak for India?

I find this a highly objectionable statement and if it had been made by anyone else I would have reported it. However, coming from you…

What do you think? I’m not Indian? If you can claim to speak for India, I can’t claim to do the same? Trying to be more holy than the emperor?

A lot of people in India have called the above a fraud, including other large political parties, strategist and nuclear insiders.

More people in India have called the deal a great achievement including strategists and nuclear insiders. Coming to political parties can you point out where the BJP has called the deal a “fraud”? They have done what most political parties do, given nuanced opposition for political positioning but where have they called it a “fraud” out and out? But then I must ask: So now you speak for the BJP and other “Nationalist” parties? Are you a member authorized to speak?

A gross (as usual) deliberate and malevolent misinterpretation of statements made. NO SUCH statements were made.

I think Gerard might care to comment the prediction of what IAEA inspectors would do once the deal was signed, if he is so inclined!

That is because the Indians dont want it. Period, as simple as that. And those who made promises on behalf of India to US (such as in case of MRCA) have found the reality when road met rubber.

So you speak for India? Are you the official spokesperson?

Your point about MRCA is hilarious. During the Arjun-T90 saga you said that MoD directed by the PMO takes all decisions and the Army has to abide by that as the lame excuse for the Army's preference for the T90 over Arjun. But in the MRCA deal, somehow the US lost out despite the PMO making promises on behalf of India because of a valiant Air Force and MoD? The US birds were kicked out despite the Prime Minister making promises?

I just hope you realise how juvenile that sounds.

[amit]

I have put it straight now. After correcting all those totally wrong things you said. Not that its going to do any good. But hey often enough the same basic factual things have to be repeatedly said just so, accidental repetition of incorrect information does not distort picture.

Read the post while looking into a mirror. Repeat it a 100 times. Such exercises are good.



Meanwhile I'm still hoping to get a response to this:

Can you give ONE example of a mass transit system which is:
a) Profitable and b) Does not have to depend on govt subsidies/grants for both construction and fares; c) are both a and b and is a pvt limited company? The company can be from any part of the globe.

May be after that 100 times therapy you can give it a shot?

[somnath]

Pranavji

Re enron, pls read my post. It has the answer - no comparison between jaitapur and enron.

On 700mw design, given that the first reactor is still under construction, pretty sure barc involvement hasn't ended. We will never know the precise r&d costs for each model, barc is unlikely to be doing ABC analysis! But on costs of lwr, enough resources have been posted here. The costs compare well with thermal and of course to most alternates.

[Sanku]

Amit, dont worry, every time you put out a incorrect factoid I will correct it. I will not bother with silly personal attacks later though. Though it is telling how quickly you devolve to cheap personal attacks.

[amit]

Amit, dont worry, every time you put out a incorrect factoid I will correct it. I will not bother with silly personal attacks later though. Though it is telling how quickly you devolve to cheap personal attacks.

Very similar to I will never actually jump off the building but only occaionally threatened to do so as the self appointed upholder of Indian interests.

Not to worry every time you try to pull something out of dark places like the comment on mass transit systems I will be around to make a discreet cough.

[GuruPrabhu]

Amit, dont worry, every time you put out a incorrect factoid I will correct it. I will not bother with silly personal attacks later though. Though it is telling how quickly you devolve to cheap personal attacks.

Excuse me, but that is not how it transpired. The evidence is there. Here is your first salvo in this current exchange:

Completely untrue. These industry existed in India and elsewhere without government support and thrived and did well. We have tons of examples.

The above patently false.

Amit asked you for ONE example out of the TONS that you promised. Rather than provide one, you started attacking. Can we have one kilogram out of the ton?

[btw, I am learning how compelling a post becomes with font size manipulation.]

Also, is accusing someone of spreading patent falsehoods NOT a "personal attack"? Is it a compliment in your mind?

Just look at how you entered the discussion and derailed it.

[Sanku]

The above is patently false != accusing some of spreading falsehoods repeatedly. (although now that you mention it, perhaps something was going on in your mind).

Also, please note that the art of highlighting is a fine art, a street side prostitute and a elegant lady both apply lipstick, however the results are different. I am sure a fine person as you will appreciate it.

Finally, Amit has been asking for too many things, almost including Newton's original manuscript stating the laws, every time anyone mentions physics. One cant be bothered.

But since it appears to be a vexing question to many -- a example of private enterprise in mass transport?

Airlines in US. (yes in US they are MASS transport in their context). There are others too, number of bus lines etc but since clearly that was a rhetorical question, I am not inclined to reply. Now please dont bring up that bus lines need roads on which buses run etc, we are not talking of govt creating enabling conditions. We are talking of private run mass transport systems.

[GuruPrabhu]

Also, please note that the art of highlighting is a fine art, a street side prostitute and a elegant lady both apply lipstick, however the results are different. I am sure a fine person as you will appreciate it.

If you prefer to be a prostitute, I can't stop you. It is your own cross to bear.

[else, if you are calling me a prostitute, it is a personal attack and worthy of reporting/censure]

Airlines in US. (yes in US they are MASS transport in their context).

Who takes out bonds to build airports in the US? Who writes the contract for TSA? Who subsidizes ATC? Is this your level of knowledge of US airlines? Who bailed out airlines following 9/11? If this is your best example, the TONS of examples must be amusing.

[Sanku]

Who takes out bonds to build airports in the US? Who writes the contract for TSA? Who subsidizes ATC? Is this your level of knowledge of US airlines? Who bailed out airlines following 9/11? If this is your best example, the TONS of examples must be amusing.

Why am I not surprised. I knew this was coming.

Now please dont bring up that bus lines need roads on which buses run etc, we are not talking of govt creating enabling conditions. We are talking of private run mass transport systems.

Since a govt rules the country, every action it takes impacts a private player, hence Govt is involved in all activities equally.

Since 1 << inf && 2 << inf

1 == 2.

Water carrying utility == railways == nuclear power.

Yes Sir.

Jai ho.

[GuruPrabhu]

Why am I not surprised. I knew this was coming.

If you knew that your example will be falsified, why would you be surprised indeed?

Face it, Sanku, you promised TONS and couldn't even deliver a milligram.

ok, enough of this. Let the BRF readership decide whether you delivered or not. Have your last word. Over and out for me.

[Sanku]

Face it, Sanku, you promised TONS and couldn't even deliver a milligram.

You have a unbreakable defense on your side "Aint so" -- for everything you can say "aint so". In any case in your world Solar panels explode and spread radioactivity while nuclear plants dont. Railways have a 130 billion $ cleanup budget, while NPPs kill zero people (despite spraying 80,000 people with higher than acceptable levels of radioactivity for a month)

What do I say? This is Alice in blunderland.

Physics maths and statistics have been turned on their head.

I mean "hum nahi manege" (I will not accept) is so cast iron, no knowledge is guaranteed to pass it through.

This is remarkable. In this world proof, data and facts are useless commodities.

People can go around claiming same status for Raliways as a nuclear plant without batting a eyelid. (Since all world is composed of atoms which have nucleuses of course)

[Amber G.]

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...
.

..
Agree with that. I was simply using Brihaspati's formula, posted in this thread. I did hope, that if there was any typo or error in his understanding, when he typed that, he had a chance to correct it and thank you for pointing that out.

Anyway, thanks from me to point that out.

One thing surprises me that even after EXPLICITLY pointing out absurdities , Brihaspati (or Theo) has not made any comments about Ramana's paper. One would think, that after quoting so many posts, and apparently interested in his articles he would be interested in reading those papers critically.

Let us wait for his comments ..

[brihaspati]

Ah! amazing and amusing!

But anyway, it is good to know that "power law decays" are contrary to "physics"! This is good. Anyway, perhaps people who still continue to use unrelated adjectives or phrases - like "Hindu rate of growth" or "fans" or "uber nationalists" and pretend that these words are most relevant, and think all "decays" are exponential in "nature" perhaps should consider whether "decay heat" should always be "exponential" and anything contrary to this is contrary to "physics". As for me, it does not matter whether it is the "decay rate" or "prostitution rate". I treated it simply as a given equation in a paper jointly authored by someone whose 2008 paper is supposed to have busted another author's perfidy - and therefore must be showing acceptable standards of scientific "rounding off" and "error percentage/uncertainties".

Amber G,
my question was rather simple. If you have such an equation, where the two constants are given up to 4th place of decimal, and the time count does not start at +infinity and 0 is not excluded - would you be satisfied, with an additional 20% uncertainty added on to this - as "scientifically" okay?

I will not even go into "theoretical" implications of adding uncertainties to parameters or results of equations which themselves appear as parameters/variables/inputs into other equations.

But, rather the question is whether 4 places after decimal, is acceptable to you, and 20% "uncertainties" added on top of interim calculations are also okay. I will proceed on the premise that 3 places of decimal is unscientific and to be rejected, but 4 places is scientific. Moreover, if it is 3 places of decimal then 20-30% uncertainties are unacceptable and unscientific, whereas if it is 4 places of decimal then 20-30% uncertainties are acceptable and scientific. I have no problems with this "hypothesis". As you must be realizing, we can carry out the explicit set of equations given in the paper I quoted in details, and test them for robustness for "neglecting" the 4th place of decimal.

Whatever it turns out should be illustrative. It could reveal the seriousness of that paper's neglect of 4th place of decimal and sticking to 3. It could be inconclusive. Let us see. If you want you can also disagree with the set of difference equations used or the parameter values. Let me know. Since if you disagree with the structural equations or differecne scheme - there is no point in implementing them. Seriously, if that paper is such a huge hatchet job, you could show the problems and the results should be submitted to Energy Policy as a rebuttal.

[Amber G.]

"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. ".

Agree with that no one ought to use abominable uncivil tongue. (Though I am not sure, if "chaps" is really uncivil - but that is besides the point).

I hope, you will join me, to denounce posts (over years)made here in BRF ...

RC, AK and President Kalam, Primeminister MMS have been called ..
- Liars (multiple times)
-Snake oil sellers (multiple times)
-[Men who] Walk on Water ( AK i was amused, when some one called him MWWOW)
-Traitors
--Vapor ware sellers.

There have been quotes like:

Now ....[some event] .. can we have Anil Kakodkar and MMS put on trial for Cr.Procedure 420 and pushing treasonous nuclear deal with USA

Snake oil seller lead by M/S MMS and Kakodkar were selling to gullible Indian janata

And, yes, I have given feed back, see:http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... al#p757887

Thanks to intervention by admins, lot of this has been stopped, but one still sees, more often than I would like, environment here made hostile. (to be fair to others, as I have already remarked before, there is only one person who consistently does that with impunity)

I really hope that, that person will stop this.

[brihaspati]

Amber G,
I started with a single paper and it was suggested that this paper cannot be relied on because the author has certain ideological "proclivities", and hence even if there is not an "issue with his science or data" [not from you] his conclusions must be interpreted from the ideological viewpoint. Then came in the argument that because he possibly erred in relying on 3 significant digits and in rounding off arbitrarily in another paper, his arguments in the paper I quoted were unacceptable. Now it seems that he is accused of tampering with earlier "models".

I am simply using the paper I quoted in details to explore how much he could be in error based on the explicit set of equations he has given to estimate Plutonium accounts. We can go into his earlier faux pas, if necessary, [and I am not reluctant to do it all! - because the more I see the papers, the more it appears that everyone is estimating according to theoretical models and pushing or tweaking parameters to see what might happen. The difference seems to be theoretical computational projections are being passed off here as already "attainable" in practice. Adding hypothesized uncertainties to model parameters changes ordinary diffusions into stochastic diffusions in possibly non-linear ways. Even first-order perturbation theories need not be stable for all possible extensions of domains.] after I dispose off this one!

added after seeing you post:
I have personally not ventured into nuke threads before [ not at least much that I can recall]. I have never personally used "snake-oil" peddlers, etc., not even against Kakodkar or MMS. I do not think such terms should be used against absent voices who cannot come into the forum and fight it out. If you have noticed or remember, I had even tried to protest Paki-bashing (as people). I have no objection if a certain "theory" or "piece of propaganda" is being termed snake-oil, but a "peddler" makes it personal. However, one source of confusion could be that sometimes such terms are used by posters against one another, and the resulting response would automatically draw in kind. In the case I protested, it came to my notice as part of the page, in an interactive set that involved something I had posted on. "chaps" is slang and derogatory - from its etymological origins, and at least I grew up in an educational environments where it was treated as slang in that language.

[GuruPrabhu]

One thing surprises me that even after EXPLICITLY pointing out absurdities , Brihaspati (or Theo) has not made any comments about Ramana's paper. One would think, that after quoting so many posts, and apparently interested in his articles he would be interested in reading those papers critically.

Let us wait for his comments ..

Yup, a critical reading is important for finding faults. I see very colorful commentary, but not the simple one liner which points out the mistake by MVR. It is a simple matter of reading two papers and references and understanding the subject matter.

There is no rush -- I am happy to wait forever because MVR's paper has zero relevance to the FBR program. It is only good for chai-biskoot here.

[Amber G.]

Ah! amazing and amusing!

But anyway, it is good to know that "power law decays" are contrary to "physics"! This is good. Anyway, perhaps people who still continue to use unrelated adjectives or phrases - like "Hindu rate of growth" or "fans" or "uber nationalists" and pretend that these words are most relevant, and think all "decays" are exponential in "nature" perhaps should consider whether "decay heat" should always be "exponential" and anything contrary to this is contrary to "physics". As for me, it does not matter whether it is the "decay rate" or "prostitution rate". I treated it simply as a given equation in a paper jointly authored by someone whose 2008 paper is supposed to have busted another author's perfidy - and therefore must be showing acceptable standards of scientific "rounding off" and "error percentage/uncertainties".

Brihaspati, I believe GP is correct. (Read his message carefully to get the fine points and context)

Of course, quite often, even the exponential decay can, and usually, approximated by a polynomial (or even linear) function --- as long as one has narrow range of time.

One example is decay heat in spent fuel rods. If you saw GP's posts (in the other thread)
one can approximate ( I did that for Fukushima's case to calculate/estimate the decay heat etc) the sum of various exponential decays into simpler formula which may look similar to (but not exactly same) your formula.

(GP - correct me, if I am wrong)

I used P=P_0*0.07*((T-T')^(-.2) - T^(-.2))

For more technical detail see, for example: http://www.nuceng.ca/papers/decayhe1b.pdf

Bottom line, the decay heat is exponential in nature. Above formula can be used, as long as T is less than, about 100 days, to give meaningful result.

(In fact, for higher value of T, a simple exponential curve, would give a better approximation)

Amber G,
my question was rather simple. If you have such an equation, where the two constants are given up to 4th place of decimal, and the time count does not start at +infinity and 0 is not excluded - would you be satisfied, with an additional 20% uncertainty added on to this - as "scientifically" okay?

I will not even go into "theoretical" implications of adding uncertainties to parameters or results of equations which themselves appear as parameters/variables/inputs into other equations.

But, rather the question is whether 4 places after decimal, is acceptable to you, and 20% "uncertainties" added on top of interim calculations are also okay. I will proceed on the premise that 3 places of decimal is unscientific and to be rejected, but 4 places is scientific. Moreover, if it is 3 places of decimal then 20-30% uncertainties are unacceptable and unscientific, whereas if it is 4 places of decimal then 20-30% uncertainties are acceptable and scientific. I have no problems with this "hypothesis". As you must be realizing, we can carry out the explicit set of equations given in the paper I quoted in details, and test them for robustness for "neglecting" the 4th place of decimal.

Whatever it turns out should be illustrative. It could reveal the seriousness of that paper's neglect of 4th place of decimal and sticking to 3. It could be inconclusive. Let us see. If you want you can also disagree with the set of difference equations used or the parameter values. Let me know. Since if you disagree with the structural equations or differecne scheme - there is no point in implementing them. Seriously, if that paper is such a huge hatchet job, you could show the problems and the results should be submitted to Energy Policy as a rebuttal.

I made quite a few passes reading above but still, honestly, can not understand what exactly is your point.

I gave the explicit formula for to just plug in..

( Obviously, you can forget about uncertainty in "a", as you just add relative error in a for its contribution .. IOW if (relative uncertainty in "a" is .0001, just add that in the final result )

For example, if b=0.2000 (uncertainty here, say .00005)
When t=1 , the contribution due to this will be zero. (ln 1 = 0)
When t = 100, the contribution would be .0002

You get the idea.

Rest of your post, makes no sense to me (and I have tried to read it many times).. may be some one else can comment.
As to:

But, rather the question is whether 4 places after decimal, is acceptable to you, and 20% "uncertainties" added on top of interim calculations are also okay. I will proceed on the premise that 3 places of decimal is unscientific and to be rejected, but 4 places is scientific. Moreover, if it is 3 places of decimal then 20-30% uncertainties are unacceptable and unscientific, whereas if it is 4 places of decimal then 20-30% uncertainties are acceptable and scientific.

I don't even know (and you don't tell) what exactly is described? And what has uncertainty as 20%?

[brihaspati]

You also seem to be missing the "point" that it is not "my equation", but something quoted in a paper jointly authored by Mohanakrishnan. Power law decays are not exactly unknown in physics, but radioactive decays are modeled by exponential decay even if people have started exploring "anomalous" phenomena.

Anyway, the paper and not me, states a formula like 0.0631XP_0 t^(-0.1322). It does not add a second polynomial term as you have done. I saw 4 significant digits, and asked whether working with 4 significant digits was alright, since you object to 3.

The paper simply states "an uncertainty of 20% is added" which from the statement implies 20% of the computed value. Moreover they have fitted the formula, so it could not be for "very large t" which would make exponential decay faster than any polynomial rate.

In either paper, the main angst against MVR appears to be that he has chosen his numbers "wrong". In your claimed "critique", your criticism is about "significant digits", and rightfully so. But what stopped you from plugging in your own "corrections" - say the 10% you suggest on 200, and see the corresponding reduction? if you only increase that but keep every other value fixed, the first required qty comes down to 332. Would you also agree to try out similar 10% decreases or increases in power out put and consider the whole range now? So would it be that difficult to try out such perturbations on the other qty's involved and see what happens?

Do clarify if you think that this is the "error" in Ramana's earlier paper that you keep mentioning, and which is then apparently being busted by Mohanakrishnan's cited paper which again is claiming "attainable" BR of 1.61 based on no/reduced Zirconium "extremes of theoretical possibility" fuel with no as yet "irradiation exposure" observations/data.

Mohanakrishnan's "buster" paper is about theoretical projections on supposed increase in BR if some changes are brought about in configuration/fuel composition. Are you saying that this claim on possible BR increase busts the "significance" digits error of Ramana's earlier paper? or is it another "error" on Ramana's part - that he fails to see the "possibility" of "extremes of theoretical possibility" which would give rise to a BR of 1.61?

[brihaspati]

Amber G,
this is the exact quote

The formula is
P_cd =0.0631P_0 t^(-0.1322);
where t is time after shut down and P_0 is steady state nominal power. An uncertainty of 20% is also added which makes the decay heat estimate conservative.

Hope that helps. I thought you were simply against/dissatisfied with MVR's use of 3 significant digits, and since in this paper by Mohanakrishnan, [who is supposed to be a MVR buster or part of the authorship of MVR busting papers], 4-significant digits are used [forget even the functional part which does not seem to have had familiarity with your two term polynomial approximation] - I just wanted to ensure that 4 significant digits are "scientific", since we can easily check for the loss of accuracy in reducing to "3 significant digits" with the given expressions or equations.

Would you agree that the robustness can be explored for neglecting more "significant" digits, by adding to or subtracting 1 from the last significant digit in each of the values used in the formula?

Moreover, I still am missing the profound "busting" argument provided by the Mohanakrishnan paper cited [I have not yet cited the paper from which I quoted the "decay" formula] which concerns itself entirely on a theoretical computational exercise of trying to show that a BR of 1.61 is "attainable" based on their computational model and "extreme of theoretical possibility" fuel mix, plus some configuration changes - to MVR's supposed trash-content paper that you have referred to, and which you criticize on the basis of mixing up "significant digits".

The "extremes of theoretical possibility" computational projection of higher BR, can be used to "bust" MVR's 2009 paper [but appears to have no real busting connection to the earlier MVR paper that you refer to] that I have cited - which does not use 1.61 as BR. Is that the fundamental error that MVR is supposed to make in his "perfidy"?

[Amber G.]

You also seem to be missing the "point" that it is not "my equation", but something quoted in a paper jointly authored by Mohanakrishnan. Power law decays are not exactly unknown in physics, but radioactive decays are modeled by exponential decay even if people have started exploring "anomalous" phenomena.

Anyway, the paper and not me, states a formula like 0.0631XP_0 t^(-0.1322). It does not add a second polynomial term as you have done. I saw 4 significant digits, and asked whether working with 4 significant digits was alright, since you object to 3.
<snip>

You are right, and I said it before, I am missing the point, in fact that's why I said "it made no sense to me". By "your equation", I just meant you posted it, noting more, and I knew you were quoting from the paper.

I was just answering your question about uncertainty. (Basically if R=a*t^(-b), we have
ln R = ln a -b ln t, you differentiate both sides, and get the result I gave)

By no means it was a review/critique of the formula itself or the author. Rest of the comments about decay etc were addressed to GP. (His critique of my post was valid)

You may write to the authors themselves to get more understanding. If you are peer reviewing/criticizing the paper itself, that is fine. I don't have to agree.. (in fact I do not have expertise to give expert opinion, though I can certainly point out gross errors if I notice them, as I noticed in R's paper)

May be I misunderstood, but I have to roll my eyes in disbelief, at the following quote:

whether working with 4 significant digits was alright, since you object to 3.

What gave you the idea that I object to 3.. (and say 4 is alright..)? /sigh/.. I objected in one[ explicit /i] case, because the values given there was *absurd*. I assure you, read my post (it is quite clear) and
check out, say https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/displ ... NT+FIGURES
Or check (really check.. this is basic math)good math, bad math

Or check out ANY first year physics text book.

/smile/ It is absurd to claim, the weight of a bird is 0.226796185 Kg, when all you happen to know that the bird is about 'half a pound'. I hope you get my point now. /smile/

...and rightfully so. But what stopped you from plugging in your own "corrections" - say the 10% you suggest on 200, and see the corresponding reduction? if you only increase that but keep every other value fixed, the first required qty comes down to 332. Would you also agree to try out similar 10% decreases or increases in power out put and consider the whole range now? So would it be that difficult to try out such perturbations on the other qty's involved and see what happens?



Do clarify if you think that this is the "error" in Ramana's earlier paper that you keep mentioning, ?

/SIGH/

To be honest, to me it looks like, you have *no* idea about why I said 10% error on 200 (as 200 Mev).
Please read this post of mine.. here in BRF (or again, any standard text book on nuclear fission)..
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... ev#p751728

FWIW from physics point of view ....the values are statistical averages.. ....200 Mev per fission is some what a statistical value (depends on what the fission fragments are etc..) not to mention the KE (of fission products) may be about 165 MeV only .. (rest, for example, gamma rays may not contribute much to the boom {depends on lot of factors how much of it goes as energy in a reactor} .. may values like 180Mev/fission may be the upper limit { that was for a fission bomb ...}

The whole point was, if one takes an approximate value of 200 (with certain uncertainty), and another component which is even more approximate (guess of %), the result should reflect those uncertainties.

[Theo_Fidel]

Just to make sure there is no confusion, the PFBR is at present designed to have a BR (Breeding Ratio) of 1.04. The DAE does not have any plans to switch to Metallic fuel which would be necessary for any breeding ratio above 1.2. The DAE needs at least a BR of 1.5 to populate all those Breeder reactors planned out there.

This is probably why the GOI panicked a bit and rushed through with LWR purchases. Adequate results were not forth coming from the DAE.

WRT recycling/reprocessing, that great solver of problems... ...per the DOE in massaland here is the inside dope...
GTCC waste is essentially treated like high level waste. Practically no difference. So much for making high level waste disappear, Not.



Total waste generated over 50 years (in cubic meters). This includes wastes from decontamination and decommissioning of reactors (excluding left over spent fuel), but not of other facilities such as reprocessing plants.


---------------------------------------------High-level Waste-----Greater than Class C Low-level Waste-----Low-level Waste-----Cesium and Strontium

Once-through fuel cycle-----------------70,990-----------------2,500------------------------------------------367,500-------------------0

Reprocessing with fast reactors-------55,000-----------------416,500----------------------------------------2,677,500----------------5,655

Reprocessing with thermal-------------54,000----------------400,500-----------------------------------------2,449,500----------------5,655
and fast reactors

[brihaspati]

An interesting pattern is emerging though - I have to give it to Amber G - for the model of "shared ideology in common" inferred out of convergence on a position/expression/etc. Further all "technological details" provided are essentially a cover for "ideological proclivities". Combined - it seems - certain things come together.

Liberal use of "Hindu rate of growth" (in the derogatory sense of stagnation and not the much pretended supposed current "positive" image!) as an accusation against those who appear to obstruct "nuclear power" which will in turn damage economic growth. But then "nuclear power" is not supposed to be seen as a core component of energy policy, (the DAE and none of the posters "for" nuclear power have claimed so) - yet obstructing it will fundamentally affect energy security and hence economic growth and hence bring in "Hindu rate of growth"!

Liberal use of "uber-nationalist" for anyone who seems to question the "nuclear-power lobby".

Anyone who does not fall in line with the "nuclear power lobby" is perfidious and anti-economic prosperity!

But then by the logic of shared ideology if sharing issues - even those who try hard to be "pseudo-secular", and share with the Leftists and Maoists an immense hatred of Salwa Judum find themselves sharing the "nuclear power lobby's" platform!

So what is really the "common" issue bringing such people together? Maybe a hint lies in the disgruntled complaints about the gov hogging all the "dealings" with the foreign corporates! Since we must consider the possibility that formal/overt technical arguments [in this case the supposed inefficiency of the public sector in such things - obviously through the gov which means bureaucracy - which ahs already been declared from the same sources as "doddering", and that too because of "reservations". But of course these same sources are against "casteism" too!] cover up for hidden ideological and other motivations - is it a financial motive?

Is it that if gov hogs it all, it will be a "Quattrochhi" situation where any possible "benefits" from transactions can go into concentrated pockets and not well distributed among a wider class of financial hopefuls? Ultimately is this the motivation that has brought "Hindu growth rate" chanters, Salwa Judum haters, reservations-leads-to-doddering-bureaucrats claimants, experts on nuclear medicine, all together?

[brihaspati]

Amber G,
even the fundamental constants are statistical averages. Anything that you observe experimentally is a statistical average. Hence measurements ideally should be given in terms of tolerance levels. But then if you consider that, you will not be able to do any calculation that involves experimentally observed quantities - if we follow your logic. There are uncertainties in all the quantities in that formula.

How do you deal with such cases then? I agree and am delighted that you finally say in essence that "200 MeV" is actually a particular average realization of a certain random variable observed in a sample of values. Fine, that makes the whole formula a random variable. In that case, expectations and variances would be relevant. Or the distribution of the "random variable" is needed. It is good to know that 1st year physics books now teach students to compute on such basis.

Are you saying because of the essentially random nature of all experimental observables, we cannot work with "average" values as fixed estimates? Do you realize that the same would then work for the 2-D diffusion equations? In fact for any calculation, even the fitted values for your two-term "decay formula" will be random variables.

[Bade]

OT, but not all fundamental constants are statistical averages. If the speed of light were not a exact constant in vacuum then it would have interesting consequences.

The speed of light, usually denoted by c, is a physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value in vacuo (in a vacuum) is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second[1]

A more authoritative source on values of fundamental constants.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2010/reviews/rpp2010 ... stants.pdf