chaanakya wrote:However, I'd like one small clarification: What crime has the Indian nuclear industry committed? {its fallacy of your argument that was pointed out}
Exactly what is the fallacy in the context of the discussion on possible accidents due to nuclear power generation? Where has there been a major nuclear accident in India which required evacuation, mobilization and general hysteria?
Do note that in this post of yours as well as others you seemed to have blamed the Japanese as much as natural elements for Fukushima. For example here you said that the Black Swan event was not unexpected. {do read and review news about fukushima that has been posted in detail pointing to how TEPCO fared in all this, all from Japanese sources and news media}
Boss hope you don't have comprehension problems, I'm saying precisely that you have said the Black Swan event was not unexpected.
So are you trying to say that since the Japanese nuclear industry "committed a crime" (alleged negligence) the Indian nuclear industry is culpable too? Why are you lumping the Indian nuclear establishment with the global one? {negligence, yes, they committed negligence from the inception or conception of the plant, well documented, not going to argue again}
Hey read my post again. I said that you are condemning the Indian nuclear industry of committing a crime
because allegedly the Japanese nuclear industry "committed" a crime? Why the harangue about Japan when I'm talking about the Indian industry.
Meanwhile, I say the Indian coal-based power generation industry has already killed people and are killing them every day (you don't get to 10,000 or any other similar number without killing every day). And till now at least the Indian nuclear industry hasn't killed a single person. So who or which industry is more culpable - one that is already killing or one which may kill in the future? {do you have direct causal relationship or just studies pointed out as in cases of Nuclear accident?}
OK when I posted that study which said 300,000 people die every year due to pollution emitted from coal fired plants in India, you had then claimed you don't believe the number. Since I haven't been able to get any other source I deliberately whittled down the number (using a particular methodology which I described in a previous post) to 10,000. Regarding nuclear accident I do note that you have been honest enough to use the singular in the case of accident. Chernobyl was precisely that an accident. And the only one in which there was a loss of life in the nuclear industry.
However, the deaths due to coal plant pollution is not due to
accidents. Its due to day to day operation of the plant. That is why I said the coal based power generation industry in India has already killed people. Or are you one of those who denies people die due to coal thermal plant pollution?
Here's a report which says this:
The bad news is that Coal-fired power plants in the Northeast are polluting the air and water and making people sick, actually killing 4,000 every year in the Northeast region alone.
Do not the Northeast here doesn't refer to the Seven Sisters in India. It refers to Northeast of the US of A.
And you still believe that my 10,000 number for India (out of a population of 1.2 billion) is a figment of my imagination?
Also have a look at
this presentation as well.
In India, the trend to depend on coal-fired plants is more noticeable than the world for the strong demand growth.
Capacity of coal-fired plants is still drastically increasing from 78GWin 2007to 364GW in 2030. (4.7 times)
CO2 emission amount from coal-fired plants is increasing from 0.7billion ton in 2007 to 1.6 billion tonin2030. (2.3 times)
{dear I have seen coal plants in Japan with zero emission, 99.99% to be exact. So tech could be evolved. And in any case if coal is going to run out it will be replaced with something, not necessarily with one or the other, but could be a mix }
I'm sure you have seen them but have you seen them producing 1,000 MW and more electricity at a rate comparable to nuclear power generation?
Have a look at some comments
here
"Clean coal technology is still developing and not widely used. For further improving the efficiency of energy combustion, we need IGCC and IGFC in the future," said Kaushlendra Kumar Mishra of Coal India Ltd.
IGCC, or integrated gasification combined cycle, and IGFC, integrated coal gasification fuel-cell combined cycle, are advanced clean coal technologies that have been introduced on an experimental basis.
In short it is certainly a step in the right direction but it's still a work in progress. But can India afford to wait until the technology matures? You got to understand when you set up a power plant - whether coal or nuclear - you just can't tear it down a few years later and then set up a new one. You can only make incremental improvements. So a plant set up today will be running at least for 50 years. Is there a clean coal technology that can help set up a 1,500 MW coal fired plant today?
{ Do you really understand how real power systems work and who talked about only solar?}
Oh, I'm sure you have enough knowledge for both us and then some to keep in the fixed deposit locker. So let's not go down that path.
{sure there was one physicist, an eminent one at that, who refused to live under the shadow of nuclear plant, ostensibly it was too ugly and I am still waiting for one to eat plutonium to disprove its toxicity. Ostensibly he wanted someone to eat caffeine to prove comparative toxicity. How convenient as toxicity of caffeine in certain amount was not in question}
Yup Ralph Nadar backed off from eating the caffeine. I wonder why, since the toxicity of caffeine was not in question.
However, the broader questions remains, if plutonium is sooo bad shouldn't we close down our plutonium plants? I mean its criminal to have people living around plant daily using and producing such a toxic substance, na?
What takes the cake is all effort is made to project what how evil and unsafe the industry nuclear is, run by a bunch of criminals all the way from Japan via the US to India. Then one turns around and says we are not calling for closing all nuclear plants.
We are calling for....
Sucks I forgot what the clarion call is for?
Darn I must have radiation in my brain.
. Solar Thermal can be at over 15% efficient. We just haven't worked on the plants enough. The latest Solar Thermal in the USA is about 6% efficient and rising. I'm sure we can do much better than 2% over time as we get closer to lab performance and squeeze more power out
No dramatic near-term improvements are expected either in the conversion efficiency of PV cells deployed on MW scale in large commercial solar parks or in the average capacity factors. But even if the efficiencies rose by as much as 50% within a decade this would elevate average power densities of optimally located commercial solar PV parks to no more than 15 W/m2.
) "If you want enough power just for California," he continued, "you'd have to plaster the whole state with solar cells!" 
- No idea what this means..)