India Nuclear News And Discussion

[GuruPrabhu]

Bade,

The Eddington probe which proved GR had nothing to do with precision. Until, Einstein had formulated GR, no body had bothered to look. It could have been done earlier as well.

I agree with what you are saying about laws of physics being outside of precision.

[brihaspati]

Conditional "seeking of truth"? the "fault finding" was explicitly used in response to a statement by a certain poster that the MVR paper extensively quoted here first, had no "question about its science and data" but that paper must be qualified with the "ideological proclivity" of the author. At this stage this was a statement about the rejection of the paper not on any technical "fault finding" but on "ideological grounds".

What is there to apologize about?!! If you have a buster from the Riyas, Mohanakrishnan paper that "busts" the quoted MVR, 2009 paper - by all means, do put it up. The original paper was quoted in full, with explicit request for its contents to be discussed or challenged, wasn't it?

[Bade]

If suppose in the future, somewhere there appears "measurement" evidence that the constancy is violated, will you reject such observations simply because it has already been "measured to be a constant"?

Simple answer. NO But what stops me from using the terminology 'constant' or 'exact' in the meanwhile. It is English words only for sure.

It is like saying an 'exact' Newtonian formulation of the laws of motion is not valid when v/c approaches the value of 1. The Newtonian formulation is as exact as the Special Relativity formulation, except that the 'exact' formulation breaks down at the relativistic limit.

[GuruPrabhu]

Hehe. I am in no rush. The perfidy does not need to be published because in quarters where it counts, MVR has no credibility. The folks at IGCAR are confident. They don't have to respond to MVR papers.

Those who believe in MVR can continue to do so. In fact, send me an honorary membership of the fan club.

I just played the "fault finding" game to see how far it will go. Believe what you will. My offer stands. Over and out.

[brihaspati]

Bade ji,
No problems in everyday or common usage. But somewhere back in the mind, the understanding should be there that it is a component of a theory constructed to explain observables. Therefore it should not be given a permanent inalienable status. The theory may need to be upgraded in the future and its "constancy" could be violated.

[brihaspati]

Fine! let us patiently wait! as and when "truth" comes out! Maybe it doesn't exist hence the elaborate nakhra of a "game" which no one started?

[Bade]

The Eddington probe which proved GR had nothing to do with precision. Until, Einstein had formulated GR, no body had bothered to look. It could have been done earlier as well.

I agree with what you are saying about laws of physics being outside of precision.

Thanks, that and if I recall correctly, Eddington's measurement was also questioned much later and found to have errors. A case of cancellation of errors which led to a proof via measurement. OT again.

[brihaspati]

Uh..well, Eddington's "measurement" of apparent bending of light is not the only astronomical "anomaly" that was "explained" by the GR. There was another anomaly - which was quite well known, [and came to be increasingly precisely measured because of more accurate tools] and people spent a lot of effort in trying to explain it. A whole sequence of "laws" and "theories" came into being to try and explain it and were subsequently replaced. Anyway - its out there! and well known! people can explore the whole thing - will illustrate a lot about how physics "functions".

[Bade]

Bji, you are a closet fizzicist ? I assumed you were a geologist ... due to some mountaineering comments you made. Anyway, how "physics" functions is a lot better than how many other fields do. It's methodology has the best approximations to pure mathematics as was referred to in Bengal. Your writings betray a Statistical/Applied Math Schooling of the famous PC Maha. All in fun onlee, if you do not mind.

[brihaspati]

Bade ji,
no problem at all! I do have a certain overlap professionally with certain areas of physics - but not of applied nature. Its more "mathematical" so to speak [non-comm/gauge]! Maha-jis inst has phys/econ/AI/sociology/geology units. But so has several other insts of "national importance"! But then from my writings - I should have been classed as a closet 'Historian" isnt it - that would be the best fit!

[GuruPrabhu]

Over and out.

OT: Sir, surely you realize saying "over and out" 10 times in consequent posts looks a bit odd?

It is my way of saying that I am done with that particular sequence. If a new sequence starts, I will again say over and out at the end of that. I conserve my web surfing time and usually don't post MB type rambling posts. Some exchanges can go on forever -- my way of saying over and out is to allow the other person to have the final word.

[Theo_Fidel]

There has always been a doubt IMO if Bpati is one person or many individuals. The mystery continues...

[somnath]

We have now had a few pages of discussion on a paper written by MV Ramana on Indian FBRs - which details India's capacity "inadequacies" in running the planned FBR programme...We havent seen a single, not a single answer to the simple question - why are FBRs germane to India's nuclear power discussion today, when they are a peripheral part of the programme for the next 10-20 years?? To speculate on our capacity constraints today on something that is still a long term WIP, is an intellectual exericse at best (if the idea is only to evaluate the FBR as a technical subject) and a non sequitor at worst (if the idea is to say - "India's nuke programme isnt ready to deliver on the plans", which is what MVR implies)...

[GuruPrabhu]

^^^ Somnath,

MVR has a huge chip on his shoulder. He takes Uncle's funding and criticizes DAE -- that is his shtick. The fact that he is getting air time on B RAKSHAK F is mind boggling. He is B BHAKSHAK, through and through.

There were objections to tarring and feathering him by some who are not well versed in the long term history of this individual. This happens occasionally. However, this time around there is a sense of certitude and unwillingness to examine his writings. I suppose this has its own place.

I have alluded to a cheat in his paper. I am determined to let that hang in the air, simply because those who are certain about their critical reading skills should be allowed to preserve that cloudy perception that MVR is a godlike critic of DAE. Those who are familiar with that individual don't need to be told about his track record.

But yes, in essence, his critique (if I allow him that) is basically a whine about how projects in India slip. If he had written the same article about the delay in implementing hygienic toilets in Indian Railways, he would not get any air time.

[GuruPrabhu]

here is another hint for those who are interested. It is an article by another hero of the fan club, A. Gopalakrishnan:

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/comment_ ... ts_1507567

Compare this to MVR and one gets into hero worship dissonance. But, combine the two and you will see that one of the two has to be wrong.

[this hint ought to help "fault finders" connect the dots]

[Sanatanan]

The folks at IGCAR are confident. They don't have to respond to MVR papers.

I feel that IGCAR should patiently strive and continue to persist with responding, paper for paper, article for article, to technology related criticisms [could be by any one, not just MVR or AG] published in scientific journals and even widely circulated / viewed news media reports. This would be a good, perhaps even a necessary, PR policy, so that a negative opinion (may be even a wrong one, according to IGCAR) expressed, does not, through default, get to be accepted in public perception, as being correct.

Added later after seeing your post just above. Perhaps you can include Bidwai too in your list !

[GuruPrabhu]

Santanan-ji,

I got the feeling that you were familiar with the nuke establishment in India. What you suggest above will never happen. The folks at IGCAR have grown up in the midst of gora criticism published in gora journals in the era of gora sanctions.

So you can just imagine their reaction to an SDRE writing in those gora journals. They simply ignore him for the most part. This has been par for the course for decades and (I thought) understood in BRF as well.

[I mean, no one can accuse BRF of being uncle friendly]

So, when I see on BRF that there is full-blown criticism of DAE based on gora journals, I am astonished.

What next? Will we see criticism of IA based on KashmirTimes.com about the 700,000,000 Indian troops raping Kashmiri women at the rate of 1 per millisecond?

[Sanatanan]

GuruPrabhu-ji,

I am suggesting that perhaps a time has come when DAE should consider a change in its public information strategy.

[somnath]

I feel that IGCAR should patiently strive and continue to persist with responding, paper for paper, article for article, to technology related criticisms [could be by any one, not just MVR or AG] published in scientific journals and even widely circulated / viewed news media reports.

+1...Absolutely...And I noticed that the establishment's PR efforts in the Fukushima aftermath was exemplary in this aspect...

But what I do have a problem with is people (whether MVR, or anyone else quoting him) trying to input complete non sequitor in the discussion...A lengthy harangue on India's current capacities to service the FBR programme is one such...Now who has claimed that FBRs are "critical" (no pun intended) to the programme in the next 20 years? Even a cursory glance through planned numbers would reveal the facts...FBR is a long term project, which is very much WIP...What is the point in damning the nuke programme through this? At wrst, it is an attempt to divert the issue completely..

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/comment_ ... ts_1507567

This is from some one with a "vested" interest, but what is key is this..

However, Areva’s philosophy is quite similar to that adopted in India (as elsewhere) with the recent launching of the 700-MW PHWR’s construction after many years of successful operation of the 220-MW PHWR model.
When developing the EPR, Areva designed an evolutionary product (this is what the “E” in EPR stands for). It means that the innovative 1650-MW EPR design has been conceived through incremental improvements, which build up on the experience of operating reactors of the French 1475-MW N4 and German 1365-MW Konvoi designs. These reactors have generated, to date, more than one million gigawatt-hours. The EPR therefore benefits from extended operating experience, just like the Indian 700-MW PHWR benefits from its predecessors.

The bolded section - this is precisey what Srikumar "this man isnt aware" Bannerjee said as well..

[somnath]

got the feeling that you were familiar with the nuke establishment in India. What you suggest above will never happen. The folks at IGCAR have grown up in the midst of gora criticism published in gora journals in the era of gora sanctions.

So you can just imagine their reaction to an SDRE writing in those gora journals. They simply ignore him for the most part

GP-ji, that isnt going to "cut it" anymore in the 21st century information world...And folks at IGCAR, being men of science should understand that more than any other "govt" department...Especially true when you have triple whammies:

1. A global coordinated clamour against nukes per se..
2. A sustained efforts by NPAs specifically against India's nuke programme, more so after the nuke deal..
3. A widespread belief, not entirely untrue that the civilian nuclear programme has not delivered on its promises over the decades...

Which is why DAE came out with all guns blazing on the Fukushima affair, which unfortunately also coincided with the Jitapur controversy...No less than Srikumar Bannerjee went public repeatedly with clarificaitons, the PM himself set the political direction unambiguously (saying that nuke power will continue) and policy actions (like the new regulator) was speedily announced...This is first class stuff! The Japanese policydom should be taking some lessons from us

So people like MVR need to be rebutted everytime - through a considered technical response (to issues like the "safety" of sodium-cooled reactors), or by simply calling his bluff in economic/practical terms (to issues like the one discussed ad nauseam here - capacity constraints on the FBR)....

[GuruPrabhu]

GuruPrabhu-ji,

I am suggesting that perhaps a time has come when DAE should consider a change in its public information strategy.

The vehicle for that was to allow private sector to enter the nuke business.

Please spare a thought for senior DAE scientists (I believe that you know a few). These guys have served the motherland in TWO ways -- they made the bomb AND they developed nuke power. All of this was done on pittance for salaries.

What reward did they get? NONE.

Except, of course if you count the reward of having code coolies criticizing them!

Now, you want them to become Media Savvy as well? How many tricks do you want out of this overworked pony?

[GuruPrabhu]

got the feeling that you were familiar with the nuke establishment in India. What you suggest above will never happen. The folks at IGCAR have grown up in the midst of gora criticism published in gora journals in the era of gora sanctions.

So you can just imagine their reaction to an SDRE writing in those gora journals. They simply ignore him for the most part

GP-ji, that isnt going to "cut it" anymore in the 21st century information world...And folks at IGCAR, being men of science should understand that more than any other "govt" department...Especially true when you have triple whammies:

1. A global coordinated clamour against nukes per se..
2. A sustained efforts by NPAs specifically against India's nuke programme, more so after the nuke deal..
3. A widespread belief, not entirely untrue that the civilian nuclear programme has not delivered on its promises over the decades...

Which is why DAE came out with all guns blazing on the Fukushima affair, which unfortunately also coincided with the Jitapur controversy...No less than Srikumar Bannerjee went public repeatedly with clarificaitons, the PM himself set the political direction unambiguously (saying that nuke power will continue) and policy actions (like the new regulator) was speedily announced...This is first class stuff! The Japanese policydom should be taking some lessons from us

So people like MVR need to be rebutted everytime - through a considered technical response (to issues like the "safety" of sodium-cooled reactors), or by simply calling his bluff in economic/practical terms (to issues like the one discussed ad nauseam here - capacity constraints on the FBR)....

I tell you Somnath, the real world is very different. The nuke establishment feels betrayed by self serving politicians.

The privatization of the nuke sector was the reward that many felt was coming their way for the hard work and service they had put in. They were dreaming of code coolie like salaries working for Reliance Nuclear Power Corp or some such entity.

A bunch of yahoos took that away based on politics and miniscule understanding of the nuke sector.

Suppose we ask the code coolies to work for Rs 15,000 per month and produce code for GOI because foreign/private participation in code development is banned by GOI, based on political whim.

Will that drive the message home to some of the worthies here who critique DAE and by implication, its employees?

[GuruPrabhu]

Folks,

I apologize for revealing some emotion and indulging in a rant.

Now, the usual suspects will come out and say, "Aha, I told you so! It is all about self-interest." Fine. So be it. Over and out.

[somnath]

Now, the usual suspects will come out and say, "Aha, I told you so! It is all about self-interest." Fine. So be it. Over and out

Not at all..The article written by PK Iyengar posted here sometime back had him express his concerns about attracting talent into the sector...the only way bright kids can be motivated to join the nuke industry (rather than writing codes for Infy or worse, selling options-linked products in a bank ) is by offering greater freedom and better salaries..A vibrant private sector is a sine qua non for the same...The Insurance industry is a good example of that - lots of talent has migreated into the sector once the monopoly of LIC was ended, and LIC itself benefited from that even though it lost quite a few people to the new pvt sector..

But it will happen in some ways...Even if pvt operators are not allowed, the likes of Areva will be setting up large India operations..The likes of L&T will be large ancilliary suppliers to Areva..So opportunities will be there..

But there would be no industry available if the doomsday analysts hae their way...If we were to go by what Theo described as "unaceptable risk parameters" (prximity to sea and large urban centre), we will need to shut down Tarapur and Kalpakkam for starters....Which is precisely why people like MVR (who carry a lot of credibility than a name-anonymous blog like BR) be rebutted each time, and diligently..

[arnab]

Incidentally the UK has recently submitted its 'Renewal Energy Review' Report. This is what it says:

http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/Renewable ... er%201.pdf

There are three broad categories of low-carbon technologies that can
contribute to the decarbonisation of the UK power system, each of which has its
own characteristics:

• Renewables.
– Renewable energy comes from sources that are naturally replenished, such
as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and geothermal heat (heat from the Earth).
– This category encompasses a wide range of technologies, from those that
are established and currently cost-effective (e.g. hydro power) to those in
the demonstration phase (e.g. wave) or in the early stages of deployment
(e.g. offshore wind).
– The output of many renewable technologies varies according to the natural
resource being harnessed, although some (e.g. tidal range) are highly
predictable and some (e.g. biomass) can generate on demand.

• Nuclear.
– Nuclear power is well established, although new plants that are being
constructed and planned use a new generation of designs.
– It produces long-lived radioactive waste products and uses finite, though
widely available, fuel.
– Recent estimates indicate that its costs (including those for
decommissioning and waste) are among the lowest of the low-carbon
options.
– Given its capital intensity and low marginal cost of generation, it is best
suited to operating at baseload.

• Carbon capture and storage (CCS).
– CCS involves the removal of CO2 from the flue gas of fuel-fired power plants
and its transportation and long-term sequestration in geological formations.
– It is currently in the demonstration phase and as a consequence there is
uncertainty over its future viability.
– CCS based on fossil fuels competes for a finite supply of resources globally.
– As a ‘dispatchable’ form of generation, its output can be varied as required to
respond to variations in demand or the output of intermittent renewables.
Lifecycle emissions (i.e. including emissions resulting from construction, fuel
supply and decommissioning) across the renewable technologies are generally
well below 50g/kWh5. Lifecycle emissions from nuclear are also low, estimated
to be around 20 g/kWh.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has higher lifecycle emissions. Residual
emissions from fuel combustion, assuming a 90% CO2 capture rate, are around
50 and 110 g/kWh for gas and coal CCS respectively, with further potentially
significant emissions from extraction and delivery of the fuel, related to energy
use and methane leakage, depending on its source (e.g. it has been suggested
that shale gas production may lead to high rates of methane leakage).
There is scope for lifecycle emissions to fall as other sectors decarbonise.

[Sanku]

No need for anyone to say anything, obvious has been actually always obvious, some people are salivating at mouth of what bonanza can come their way if critical national intrests are "privatized" especially if the "privatization" happens at terms helpful to them.

I am surprised that the e-con-o-mist(s) have not asked for the defense forces to be sold out as mercenary units? Or perhaps they
have?

In time everyone reveals their true colors. Everyone.

[somnath]

I am X-posting a link posted by Arnab in the other thread...

Chinese POV on la affaire Fukushima - amazing clarity of thought and action...(Reminded me of Srikumar Bannerjee's interview with Shekhar Gupta, though SB was much better in his clarity )..

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/sh ... le/en/4281

On the famed radiation "leak"...

I think the media performed badly in this case. First, they failed to go out and get the basic facts about nuclear power. To discuss this subject, you need a very strong technical background – you can’t just talk about it in the same terms as anything else. But at the start, journalists just repeated what they heard, throwing in all sorts of different opinions, and the reports made the situation sound terrifying. The average member of the public is unable to differentiate between them.

One error, at the very start, was that it was often reported that radiation levels were “10,000 times” over the legal limit. Actually they weren’t, they were 10,000 times higher than background radiation levels. What does that mean? The media didn’t explain that, in Tokyo and where the plant is located, background radiation is 0.04 microsieverts, and so 10,000 times is 400 microsieverts. Just compare that with the radiation caused by an X-ray. [One X-ray causes exposure of 1,000 microsieverts, according to the China Center for Disease Control and Prevention].

On costs..

The order of expense is: photovoltaic solar power as the most expensive, then offshore wind, onshore wind, natural gas, nuclear, coal and hydropower. The costs of nuclear already include waste handling and safety management.

Coal will become more expensive in the future, due to pollution issues – nitrogen and sulphur scrubbers will be needed in power plants. There won’t be much change in nuclear-power prices, though the cost of the safer third-generation reactors are likely to fall by about 20%. There is huge potential for solar power to get cheaper, maybe by 50% over the next 10 to 20 years. However, there is not much scope for wind power to get cheaper

Merits reading in full...While China goes on full steam, we cannot be left back!

[amit]

No need for anyone to say anything, obvious has been actually always obvious, some people are salivating at mouth of what bonanza can come their way if critical national intrests are "privatized" especially if the "privatization" happens at terms helpful to them.

I am surprised that the e-con-o-mist(s) have not asked for the defense forces to be sold out as mercenary units? Or perhaps they
have?

In time everyone reveals their true colors. Everyone.

Rants like the one above would make the mandarins at AKG Bhawan proud. Maybe they originate from there? Afterall that's the last refuge for "uber-nationalists".

[amit]

Incidentally the UK has recently submitted its 'Renewal Energy Review' Report. This is what it says:

http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/Renewable ... er%201.pdf

There are three broad categories of low-carbon technologies that can
contribute to the decarbonisation of the UK power system, each of which has its
own characteristics:

• Renewables.
– Renewable energy comes from sources that are naturally replenished, such
as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and geothermal heat (heat from the Earth).
– This category encompasses a wide range of technologies, from those that
are established and currently cost-effective (e.g. hydro power) to those in
the demonstration phase (e.g. wave) or in the early stages of deployment
(e.g. offshore wind).
– The output of many renewable technologies varies according to the natural
resource being harnessed, although some (e.g. tidal range) are highly
predictable and some (e.g. biomass) can generate on demand.

• Nuclear.
– Nuclear power is well established, although new plants that are being
constructed and planned use a new generation of designs.
– It produces long-lived radioactive waste products and uses finite, though
widely available, fuel.
– Recent estimates indicate that its costs (including those for
decommissioning and waste) are among the lowest of the low-carbon
options.
– Given its capital intensity and low marginal cost of generation, it is best
suited to operating at baseload.

• Carbon capture and storage (CCS).
– CCS involves the removal of CO2 from the flue gas of fuel-fired power plants
and its transportation and long-term sequestration in geological formations.
– It is currently in the demonstration phase and as a consequence there is
uncertainty over its future viability.
– CCS based on fossil fuels competes for a finite supply of resources globally.
– As a ‘dispatchable’ form of generation, its output can be varied as required to
respond to variations in demand or the output of intermittent renewables.
Lifecycle emissions (i.e. including emissions resulting from construction, fuel
supply and decommissioning) across the renewable technologies are generally
well below 50g/kWh5. Lifecycle emissions from nuclear are also low, estimated
to be around 20 g/kWh.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has higher lifecycle emissions. Residual
emissions from fuel combustion, assuming a 90% CO2 capture rate, are around
50 and 110 g/kWh for gas and coal CCS respectively, with further potentially
significant emissions from extraction and delivery of the fuel, related to energy
use and methane leakage, depending on its source (e.g. it has been suggested
that shale gas production may lead to high rates of methane leakage).
There is scope for lifecycle emissions to fall as other sectors decarbonise.

Arnab,

Thanks for posting. However, this is hardly new, a lot of folks have posted similar stuff. Offhand I remember I posted two studies, including one done by MIT which says essentially the same thing.

However, I guess everyone has tried at some time or the other to p!!s into the wind.

[Sanku]

X-post from other thread, since the issues of Nuclear establishment and power does impact Indian thinking too.

===============

As the picture from Japan emerges more clearly as the dust settles down, it is clear that Japanese Govt and people have realized that they have dug themselves into a big hole and are now working hard to get out. Of course they wont go back to low levels of use of NPPs soon, since there is tremendous effort to free itself of the plants, with each plant decommissioning itself being a protracted difficult expensive and manpower intensive process, along with issues if suddenly the established power sources all went blink together.

However the direction has been set, Japan is drawing back -- why did they do that? After all Fuk-D disaster was not as bad as it could have been, I mean the place barely survived getting into a raging fire in Nuclear plant spewing the radiation through air (rather than drawing it out through water and dumping it in sea) -- so people should actually consider it a proof that NPPs can be handled even in difficult situations?

The answer to the above question has been answered to a unequivocal no by stake holders despite that.

Why?

1) It became clear to Japanese Govt that the Nuclear industry experts, despite all the bravado, had basically no clue as to what was happening, what to do to solve it etc.
2) Spray and pray as a solution to Nuclear disasters was not considered scientific enough, despite the "expert" opinion.
3) The govt realized that the Nuclear industry was deeply incestuous and therefore, trusting it was very difficult. They could not take Nuclear industry at its face value on any projections and calculations they have made, their credibility is reset to real levels now, that the carefully manufactured ballon has burst, reality not caring about "KEEP OUT" signs that the self proclaimed guardians of knowledge and created to hide behind.

I congratulate PM Nato Kan on real leadership, strength under fire, and wish a Japanese people all the best in their future free from Nuclear and other externally imposed shackles.

[chaanakya]

However, this is hardly new, a lot of folks have posted similar stuff. Offhand I remember I posted two studies, including one done by MIT which says essentially the same thing.

However, I guess everyone has tried at some time or the other to p!!s into the wind.

I am not sure if you are referring to the study done by MIT is the same as the one posted by me earlier on18th March.

That was a study for US Congress done by MIT later updated. Four key findings needs to be reiterated

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed, four critical problems must be overcome:
‡ Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas. However, plausible reductions by industry in capital cost, operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could
reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

‡ Safety. Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices” in construction and operation are essential. We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle, beyond reactor operation.

‡ Waste. Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open, once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

‡ Proliferation. The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

As Fukushima and closing down of other reactors shatters the first two points. Waste disposal remains a problem and Mongolia is being asked to permit US and Japan to have waste disposal plants ( why can't they have it in USA). It is like taking undue advantage of weak position of Mongolia.

Proliferation is , in my opinion , a concern for USA.

If you are referring to some other MIT study( I am sure there would be some more) posted earlier by you, do give us the link


I would also like to point out that this MIT study contradicts the study quoted above on cost front. If support is to be provided then Renewables are more attractive due to its very nature. I don't know if you subscribe to the theory of some about exploding solar panel causing 1000 years of catastrophe making thousands of sq miles uninhabitable except for frogs for a long time.

Also one has ignored the comments on Renewables in the above study.I am sure it is not deliberate as it would be difficult to oppose renewables on many counts.Let me highlight it.

• Renewables.
– Renewable energy comes from sources that are naturally replenished, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and geothermal heat (heat from the Earth).

– This category encompasses a wide range of technologies, from those that are established and currently cost-effective (e.g. hydro power) to those in the demonstration phase (e.g. wave) or in the early stages of deployment (e.g. offshore wind).

– The output of many renewable technologies varies according to the natural resource being harnessed, although some (e.g. tidal range) are highly predictable and some (e.g. biomass) can generate on demand.

[amit]

Some time ago I bought up the point about deaths in India due to pollution emanating from high sulpher coal. A link many pages ago, posted by me, quoted a study which said 300,000 people die every year from pollution caused by thermal plants.

In a subsequent post I noted that I was willing to discount that figure and whittle it down to 10,000 out of 1.2 billion people. (I mentioned the methodology which I used to do that in that post). But 10,000 every year. Do the math of how much that adds up to in 10 years or 20 years. Several orders of magnitude greater than all the deaths that have occurred due to nuclear disasters across the world since the time nuclear power became mainstream. (Incidentally it would be educative to look up estimates of how many folks died due to the Hiroshima bomb, but I'm not going to quote that as it's OT).

Also do note that the 10,000 figure is based on current generation estimates. Despite what "experts" here say, solar or wind etc cannot provide the high base load which coal does. And so unless we decide to regress back to a rural lifestyle (a world sans cyber coolies who work in air-conditioned offices for example) the demand for power is going to keep on growing and in the absence of nuclear, any guesses of what would be the chosen mode of generation?

Here's a study by the Physicians for Social Responsibility on the effects on human health from burning coal for energy.

Here are some excerpts:

Coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory iseases. This conclusion emerges from our reassessment of the widely recognized health threats from coal. Each step of the coal lifecycle—mining, transportation, washing, combustion, and disposing of postcombustion wastes—impacts human health. Coal combustion in particular contributes to diseases affecting large portions of the U.S. population, including asthma, lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke, compounding the major public health challenges of our time. It interferes with lung development, increases the risk of heart attacks, and compromises
intellectual capacity.

Coal mining leads U.S. industries in fatal injuries2 and is associated with chronic health
problems among miners, such as black lung disease, which causes permanent scarring of the lung
tissues.3 In addition to the miners themselves, communities near coal mines may be adversely affected by mining operations due to the effects of blasting, the collapse of abandoned mines, and the dispersal of dust from coal trucks. Surface mining also destroys forests and groundcover, leading to floodrelated injury and mortality, as well as soil erosion and the contamination of water
supplies.

Lots of other interesting nuggets but I won't post here as I don't like megabyte posts - I leave that to other distinguished posters.

Now what I find incredible and frankly disturbing is that folks here a clamouring for renewables to substitute nuclear power generation without even noticing the elephant in the room - coal.

Heck let renewables take care of the just under 50 per cent Indian power generation which comes from coal before looking at nuclear which is a far lower portion of total generation and will remain so even after all the new projects come on line.

One final point not a word or peep about the actual deaths due to coal which I mentioned in the first part of my post. Yet a lot of hullabaloo about the alleged dangers of nuclear and the theoretical deaths from a nuclear accident. Why theoretical? Well I haven't still finished counting the number of dead from the Fukushima disaster caused by the "stupid" Japanese.

My only conclusion is, life is cheap in India and nobody cares a damn about actual deaths that are happening every day. So boring and unintellectual, let's talk about theoretical concepts and maybe we can also discuss metaphysics. Pity one can't play the harp on BRF.

Please don't mind the rant, it's only me being cranky in my old age.

Now let's go back to the interesting discussion on theoretical physics, I'm sure that would be consolation for the guy who's right now is lying in hospital with lung cancer since he happen to live in a house which is downwind from a dirty thermal power plant somewhere in India - say Bandel in West Bengal (I have an idea of just how much pollution comes from there).

[amit]

Also one has ignored the comments on Renewables in the above study.I am sure it is not deliberate as it would be difficult to oppose renewables on many counts.Let me highlight it.

• Renewables.
– Renewable energy comes from sources that are naturally replenished, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and geothermal heat (heat from the Earth).

– This category encompasses a wide range of technologies, from those that are established and currently cost-effective (e.g. hydro power) to those in the demonstration phase (e.g. wave) or in the early stages of deployment (e.g. offshore wind).

– The output of many renewable technologies varies according to the natural resource being harnessed, although some (e.g. tidal range) are highly predictable and some (e.g. biomass) can generate on demand.

Boss could be a different study. Let me see if I can dig it out but it will have to be later, right now I've gotta rush.

But one quick point before I go, who has opposed renewables? Nobody who's been so-called pro-nuclear has done that as far as I can remember. The either/or position has been taken by the anti-nuclear group who's been saying, to effect, that let's dump nuclear because renewables can do the job. Of course the small question of high baseload generation becomes conveniently invisible.

However, like I wrote in my previous post, why isn't anyone, including you, talking about renewables substituting coal first? Do you think pollution due coal is no big issue but a theoretical nuclear accident cause by a once in a lifetime Black Swan event (like Fukushima) gives you sleepless nights?

[arnab]

However, like I wrote in my previous post, why isn't anyone, including you, talking about renewables substituting coal first? Do you think pollution due coal is no big issue but a theoretical nuclear accident cause by a once in a lifetime Black Swan event (like Fukushima) gives you sleepless nights?

shhh - don't you know about the coal based UMPPs being contracted out to Reliance and Tata power? With a 'variable pricing' policy'? So much so that the Gujarat govt does not want a second UMPP in the state unless the central govt can fix the price?
Nuke power is the only one which can provide a modicum of competition (in the future). The UMPPs would be happy to throw crumbs at the new renewable sector (solar, tidal etc) - since they produce crumbs anyway. So everyone is happy and the Indian tax payer gets into an Enron like situation without the ability to opt out

[Sanku]

It is very cruel, heartless and money minded to ignore the large number of deaths due to Nuclear disasters by using horrendous callous and barbaric phrases such as actual deaths and theoretical deaths.

The large numbers of lives destroyed at Chernobyl and the impact on the lives of people who are affected by Fuk-D are being mocked.

Mothers who have radiation in their breast milk,
fishermen who are going without work,
livestock's culled, people shifted from their homes.
People shifted from their homes after ONE month of exposure to radiation not knowing the effects on the rest of their lives,
children being forced to study in schools where the radiation is now equivalent to working in a nuclear establishment.
..........

This callous insensitive boorish approach towards their plight and efforts to see "Is this making money" instead of people centric approach makes me sick frankly.

[arnab]

Mothers who have radiation in their breast milk,
fishermen who are going without work,
livestock's culled, people shifted from their homes.
People shifted from their homes after ONE month of exposure to radiation not knowing the effects on the rest of their lives,
children being forced to study in schools where the radiation is now equivalent to working in a nuclear establishment.
..........

Yes, yes but give us the numbers - are these radiations "10,000" times over the legal limit? ; foot and mouth / mad cow etc culled more livestock. People moved on. So is 'equivalent to working in a nuke establishment' exposing people to unsafe levels of radiation? More people die of cancer by being out in the sun for too long.

[amit]

It is very cruel, heartless and money minded to ignore the large number of deaths due to Nuclear disasters by using horrendous callous and barbaric phrases such as actual deaths and theoretical deaths.

The large numbers of lives destroyed at Chernobyl and the impact on the lives of people who are affected by Fuk-D are being mocked.

Mothers who have radiation in their breast milk,
fishermen who are going without work,
livestock's culled, people shifted from their homes.
People shifted from their homes after ONE month of exposure to radiation not knowing the effects on the rest of their lives,
children being forced to study in schools where the radiation is now equivalent to working in a nuclear establishment.
..........

This callous insensitive boorish approach towards their plight and efforts to see "Is this making money" instead of people centric approach makes me sick frankly.

Indeed my heart goes out to these unfortunate Goras and pseudo Goras like the Japanese. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I am chastened. How dare was I so stupid at to worry about some poor, stinking Indian dying due to coal poisoning when more worthy Goras - people we can look up to - were dying and were/are being deprived of their livelihood?

What was I smoking? <bang head, in commiseration icon>

PS: By the way how many people actually died due to Chernobyl? Do you have the number?

And over what timeframe? Was it 25 years?

[amit]

shhh - don't you know about the coal based UMPPs being contracted out to Reliance and Tata power? With a 'variable pricing' policy'? So much so that the Gujarat govt does not want a second UMPP in the state unless the central govt can fix the price?
Nuke power is the only one which can provide a modicum of competition (in the future). The UMPPs would be happy to throw crumbs at the new renewable sector (solar, tidal etc) - since they produce crumbs anyway. So everyone is happy and the Indian tax payer gets into an Enron like situation without the ability to opt out

Aha, now that you point this out, the AKG Bhawan drafted type posts make a lot more sense!

[Sanku]

However, like I wrote in my previous post, why isn't anyone, including you, talking about renewables substituting coal first? Do you think pollution due coal is no big issue but a theoretical nuclear accident cause by a once in a lifetime Black Swan event (like Fukushima) gives you sleepless nights?

Because

Large NPPs based on LWRs are not robust tech. -- NPPs disasters Chernobyl, three mile, Fuk-D and many many smaller ones go to show that NPPs are inherently accident prone.

A simple small issue at a large LWR NPP can quickly escalate out of control.

There are no good solutions to handling issues when NPP goes out of control.

NPPs for the small % of world power they provide have already killed more in direct fallout as compared to other sources including coal.

Indirect deaths due to operating without accident conditions for NPPs and coal are more or less similar since it is not clear at all if NPPs have net lower carbon foot print. Many studies show that full lifecycle carbon foot print for NPPs might even be significantly higher.

There are many environmental impacts of NPP, such as hot water discharge etc which are not handle able right now. In contrast the coal/gas power options have made tremendous strides in carbon sequestering technologies.


Cost.

All in all NPP tech today based on LWR for power generation at large scale is not really a attractive option purely from "which is better" perspective.

That is why NPPs have a declining share of world power %. People are not mad. A few countries which persisted unwisely are now turning around as well. Expect the total share to drop dramatically over next decade.

[somnath]

This "cost of nuclear power" debate now only evinces yawns...Big ones..

Multiple papers have been quoted in this thread on the issue...Once more (one such!)..

http://www.cstep.in/docs/CSTEP%20Nuclear%20Report.pdf

Refer to pages 45 and 46...

Most studies conclude that nuclear power costs compare very favourably with thermal power, and are much better than most of the alternates...This is without taking any carbon credits for nuclear power and requirements for more stringent emmission norms for thermal..

But here is a study by the "anti-nuke exemplar" himself - MV Ramana...He attempted to do a cost comparison between thermal and nuclear power in India...Now there are huge issues ith his assumptions on stuff like capital costs, DCF accounting, discount rates et al - he is clearly out of his depth in this..I am not inclined to explain those as it would only digress from the core topic...But still, go to the results..
http://www.laka.org/docu/boeken/pdf/6-01-0-10-69.pdf

Refer to Tables 10 and 11...

Even by MVR's own calculaions, done with huge leaps of faith on the financial assumptions, and based on data of a pre-nuke deal fuel situation in India, nuclear compares very very well indeed to thermal....This is without taking into account any of the emmission related issues (which MVR dismiss casually as being impossible to do because of lack of data!)...

As one can see, even the worst critics of nuke power cannot fault the source on grounds of cost!

And more "neutral", peer reviewed (yes, EPW isnt peer reviewed ) sources point out to much better outcomes...