India Nuclear News And Discussion

[chaanakya]

Ok

First do take the snapshot of the price movement graphs of coal and gas, upload it to free image hosting provider such as imageshack and put a link here with tag. While doing this also please do the same graph for nuclear fuel.

once done
(1)
Please tell me how these movements impact the unit price of power generation from different sources and financial viability of the project. Say for 1000 MW power plant? Just include the quantifiable variables and not the liabilities arising out of "black swan" events.

I am interested in per unit cost impact of price movement.

[amit]

If you show me a direct causal relationship with deaths as you claimed with that of "the" Coal power plant ( be specific) then perhaps there is a reason to believe that. Just because you whittled down your number from 300,000 to 10,000 does not make it factual. I am sure that is the strict proof of causality demanded in case of Cher.

Ok no disrespect but I don't find the rest of your post worth responding to.

300,000 or 10,000 or the other numbers I posted above which corresponds to the 10,000 I speculated is not the point here.

The point is this, (sorry for the bold but it seems this point is not getting through to you). Do you or don't you think people die in India due to the pollution they inhale from not only coal-fired thermal power plants but also the entire supply chain behind these plants including mining and transportation?

If you don't think a single person dies then state so clearly. And if you think some do die then please give an estimate of how many people you think die each year. You can't rubbish my numbers (including the ones from a new study which I quoted above) without giving your own numbers.

All this bumpkin about direct causal relationship sounds all and nice fuzzy when you type it while sitting in front of your computer. But if you can't give your own estimate, don't expect to be taken seriously.

And what's this khujli about Chernobyl? You quoted a Russian study to say 985,000 people died due to Chernobyl over 25 years. People laughed at the number and some articles like this one by George Monbiot was posted to refute the number.

Here's what he says:

Like John Vidal and many others, Helen Caldicott pointed me to a book which claims that 985,000 people have died as a result of the disaster(14). Translated from Russian and published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, this is the only document which looks scientific and appears to support the wild claims made by greens about Chernobyl.

A devastating review in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry points out that the book achieves its figure by the remarkable method of assuming that all increased deaths from a wide range of diseases – including many which have no known association with radiation – were caused by the accident(15). There is no basis for this assumption, not least because screening in many countries improved dramatically after the disaster and, since 1986, there have been massive changes in the former eastern bloc. The study makes no attempt to correlate exposure to radiation with the incidence of disease(16).

Its publication seems to have arisen from a confusion about whether the Annals was a book publisher or a scientific journal. The academy has given me this statement: “In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer-reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else.”(17)

Interestingly Monbiot makes a telling comment:

Failing to provide sources, refuting data with anecdote, cherry-picking studies, scorning the scientific consensus, invoking a cover-up to explain it: all this is horribly familiar. These are the habits of climate change deniers, against which the green movement has struggled valiantly, calling science to its aid. It is distressing to discover that when the facts don’t suit them, members of this movement resort to the follies they have denounced.

We've seen all of the bolded portions above in full display here on this thread and in the Fukushima one.

Otherwise why bring in Chernobyl deaths in a discussion on how many people die every year in India due to pollution emanating from coal-fired thermal power plants.

It's like this:

BabyA: Please let me play with your (toy) car.

BabyB: No, I will not, you didn't let me play with your (toy) bus, last time.

[chaanakya]

^^ ok it was your number so you defend it.
The number from whatever report you say about cher was not my number so do contact the author for further clarification.
It is immaterial what I think. You just can't assume something that is not posted by me.

oth, I don't respond to juvenile responses, no disrespect intended.. Thanks.

[somnath]

Ok

First do take the snapshot of the price movement graphs of coal and gas, upload it to free image hosting provider such as imageshack and put a link here with tag. While doing this also please do the same graph for nuclear fuel.

once done
(1)
Please tell me how these movements impact the unit price of power generation from different sources and financial viability of the project. Say for 1000 MW power plant? Just include the quantifiable variables and not the liabilities arising out of "black swan" events.

I am interested in per unit cost impact of price movement

I dont have time (or access from office to sites like imageshack) to put the charts up...You have to take my word for it..

Better still, check out COAL INDEX, CL1 on BBG (if you have acess), or any other intenet site - you should get the data..On Uranium, UXA4 on BBG (uranium futures on Nymex) shows that in the same period, uranium prices have remained flat...

But what you are interested in, fuel price sensitivity to electricuty costs - it has been posted already here (or the other thread)..Once more..

http://www.egea.eu/congresses/wrc08/con ... 0Power.pdf
Nuke is the flatest, while gas is the sharpest, coald in between..

[amit]

^^^ There is an EPA study which estimated (IIRC 30,000 deaths / year due to fossile fuel)

This link or this link or this link may point to EPA link.

(I just did a google on " deaths per year in U.S. due to emissions from fossil fuel burning power plants"

In any case the order of number in US is of this much, India would be similar.
(Would be interesting to see what numbers Chaanakya thinks are reasonable)

Amber thanks for the links, will go through them later.

However, I think the order of numbers in India would be much higher given same levels of pollution (which itself is big assumption as the level of thermal tech, that is clean tech, is much higher in the US) since the population density is much higher in India. Typically you'd have more people (in order of magnitude) residing downwind to a thermal power plant in India that in the US, IMO.

[amit]

^^ ok it was your number so you defend it.
The number from whatever report you say about cher was not my number so do contact the author for further clarification.
It is immaterial what I think. You just can't assume something that is not posted by me.

oth, I don't respond to juvenile responses, no disrespect intended.. Thanks.

Noted. So no number or estimate (of deaths) from you and neither a categorical statement that nobody dies from coal fired thermal power plants in India.

The snow must be very thin on the slopes due to all that pollution. It must be a really bumpy ride downhill even for experts.

[amit]

X-posting this from the Fukushima thread as Sanku has posted the original article here as well.

Excellent article on the bright future - nuclear for Japan.

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/0 ... apan-have/

With Nuclear Expansion Off the Table, What Do Japan's Energy Options Look Like?

Selective reading is a habit and a bad one at that. But it's a nice tactic on a thread where most people don't have the time to actually click on the link and read through and depend on the poster to highlight the important portions.

This is also from the article.

Last year, Kan's government announced plans to build 14 new reactors that would expand that production to meet 50% of the nation's electricity needs. Japan is world's third largest consumer of electricity, and, as the largest importer of liquified natural gas and coal and third largest consumer of oil, has long relied on non-domestic fossil fuels for the majority of its electricity production. In an island nation without its own natural resources or space, nuclear seemed like the right way forward in order for Japan to distance itself from the volatility of the oil markets and to meet its pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% of 1990 levels by 2020.

The government has not yet backed down from that target, but it is certainly one of the things that will now be up for debate in forging a brand new energy policy. Kan, in sentiments later echoed by Environment Minister Ryu Matsumoto, said that new direction would focus on other renewables like wind, solar, hydro and geothermal, and conservation.

Being up for debate is not the same as announcing a stop or step back from nuclear. Note there's no mention of not building those 14 new plants or closing down the existing 54 plants (save of course Fukushima). Or even news that such a move would be considered.

Japan is going to invest more on renewables, that's really good news. But it's the third largest electricity consumer in the world and needs a lot of energy.

The day when the actually announce the cutting back or scraping of nuclear power plants will be the day to sit up and take notice, IMO.

[GuruPrabhu]

The discussion may be converging. Some evidence:

Do you know something about power plants? I don't. So you may be right.

It is immaterial what I think.

These remarks are not out of context. Go back up and check.

[GuruPrabhu]

However, I think the order of numbers in India would be much higher given same levels of pollution (which itself is big assumption as the level of thermal tech, that is clean tech, is much higher in the US) since the population density is much higher in India. Typically you'd have more people (in order of magnitude) residing downwind to a thermal power plant in India that in the US, IMO.

Please don't forget to add the deaths due to coal mining accidents.

[Sanku]

Its so totally fraudulent to on one hand consider total life cycles of coal/hydro whatever, and in the same breath consider only part of NPP operating cycle.

Seems like TEPCO et al use similar scientific methodology quite frequently.

[Theo_Fidel]

WRT to coal people may not remember but way back when my school text book said we had 500 years worth of coal and another 1000 years from 'undiscovered deposits'. Yes, really. Then about 30 years ago it turned into 200 years worth of coal. Now India and China have not really fully ramped up and already the math say few decades at best. I saw one projection that had severe shortages in 20 years as wild over consumption burns through our reserves and most coal exhausted in 30 years. India is fortunate that the majority of our coal is untouched. It is however under about 40 million acres of land which will all have to be strip mined. Yet we balk at putting solar plants on 2 million acres of waste land.

The thing to remember about coal, its also an industrial chemical. About 35% of the coal in the world is used for steel, limestone, cement, etc production. Electricity alone can not perform this service. This is why I always say, doesn't matter what you do, all the coal will be burnt. There is no point arguing about it, just make it as clean as possible. Nuclear can not stop this or even mitigate it in the least. It is a complete fallacy to think it can even replace or prevent 10% of future coal consumption, let alone present consumption. Nuclear is nanga and has been for a long time. Nuclear is simply non scalable. Anything above a global nuclear capacity of 500,000 MW will be a serious strain, quickly bringing supplies to an end. This when global capacity demand for electricity alone in 20 years is projected to be 8 Million MW. Forget total energy demand which borders on 20 Million MW capacity in 20 years

While we are at it, population projections show that 50% of the worlds population will be in Africa by 2050. They havn't even begun to industrialize, where do they get electricity. Yup, no one has thought of them have they.

The only really scalable while unfortunately dilute sources of energy are Solar, Wind and maybe Geothermal. Biomass is of course limited.

[Amber G.]

^^^ ( WRT coal mining accidents) U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration has pretty good data, for US
From 1980-2001
We have: .0004/ miner-year (67 deaths averaged out of 166,000).

Earlier period (1900-1950), deaths due to mining accidents are very high (>1000, as much as 3000 deaths /year)

For 1960-2001 from the same source,
Coal mining claimed 0.33 deaths per Mt and coal processing 0.019 deaths per Mt; the
number of disabling injuries is 25 per Mt in mining and 1.2 per Mt in processing

[chaanakya]

I dont have time (or access from office to sites like imageshack) to put the charts up...You have to take my word for it..

Better still, check out COAL INDEX, CL1 on BBG (if you have acess), or any other intenet site - you should get the data..On Uranium, UXA4 on BBG (uranium futures on Nymex) shows that in the same period, uranium prices have remained flat...

But what you are interested in, fuel price sensitivity to electricuty costs - it has been posted already here (or the other thread)..Once more..

http://www.egea.eu/congresses/wrc08/con ... 0Power.pdf
Nuke is the flatest, while gas is the sharpest, coald in between..

Well I understand. Never mind.
I was interested in your BBG graph for all the three and your idea about power generation cost as dependent on raw material prices.

Any way since you are giving some other study , thanks for your time.

[Amber G.]

...Can you tell me where I used that exact words as amit used to demand often from others?

For the record, you did not use the exact words, I paraphrased what you said. (I did not said or implied that they were your exact words anyway). What you said was something like "dining us with" ..[ the radioactive dose].. If you want to correct the record, and clarify what you said, why not do it? If you got helpful info from my posts, say so (or not say so) but ad absurdum talking about "banana experts" does not help. After all, there are tons of quantitative vales, numbers, and math in many of the posts I put here, it is not difficult to point out errors, if there are any, what is unhelpful is endless innuendos and speculations.

For example, you asked, if there are/were any studies in UK between background radiation and cancer. When that study was produced (with the links etc), why not , at least look at the study, point out if there any outright errors, and compare it with other studies. In stead, what you have done, more often than not, mock the messenger.

And why do you think "strange" is an insult. Do you really believe whatever I say is an insult to "You", leave alone "tons". ..

Why do you think that I think "strange" is an insult to me? I am sure you know, what was considered and insult.

So let me agree with you, in not derailing the thread. What will be helpful, if you choose to answer it are the direct points you have raised and people answered you. (Such as, what is your number/estimation of dead in Chernobyl, validity of LNT (I am sure there has been enough time to look sources up), number of deaths (your estimation) for coal plants, health effects of 1 mSV dose etc.,,etc.).

Of course, you need not answer ... but that is up to you.

[Amber G.]

.. in fact I resent the way comments from other blogs were brought to brf to ridicule sanku. He has not said a word, nor I intend to make one. that shows how low one can get to attack someone personally, least expected from an eminent teacher with swyam pragya like you

Sorry if you feel that way, of course, I don't think there is any "low-ness" or "attacking" .., else I would not have done that.

It may interest you you to know, that Sankuji's reference in the "other blog" was brought to my attention from .. yes, folks, that's right, by Sankuji himself. ... Actually I "discovered" the other blog, thanks to google and vague references to it by some of the moderators.. but Sankuji was the one, who informed us in this blog, that how he is/was "famous" (some thing like "people love him there") in the other blog. (This was, IIRC in Oct 2009).

Readers of this forum do look and contribute in/to other blogs, scientific papers etc. I did put the link/source when I put the quotes. The quotes were not mine (as clearly noted), but they were well articulated by reputable people. Keep in mind that many Brf members (and moderators) have their own blogs, they write in other blogs, including the blog which I referenced.

Hope this helps.

[Gerard]

Japan has the third largest geothermal energy potential in the world after the U.S. and Indonesia. But in terms of harnessing that heat and turning it into power, Japan only ranks 8th, after countries with drastically smaller populations, like Iceland and New Zealand.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/geothermal-energy/5

Polluting waterways

Geothermal fluids contain elevated levels of arsenic, mercury, lithium and boron because of the underground contact between hot fluids and rocks. If waste is released into rivers or lakes instead of being injected into the geothermal field, these pollutants can damage aquatic life and make the water unsafe for drinking or irrigation.

A serious environmental effect of the geothermal industry is arsenic pollution. Levels of arsenic in the Waikato River almost always exceed the World Health Organisation standard for drinking water of 0.01 parts per million. Most of the arsenic comes from geothermal waste water discharged from the Wairākei power station. Natural features such as hot springs are also a source of arsenic, but it tends to be removed from the water as colourful mineral precipitates like bright red realgar and yellowy green orpiment.
Air emissions

Geothermal fluids contain dissolved gases which are released into the atmosphere. The main toxic gases are carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Both are denser than air and can collect in pits, depressions or confined spaces. These gases are a recognised hazard for people working at geothermal stations or bore fields, and can also be a problem in urban areas. In Rotorua a number of deaths have been attributed to hydrogen sulfide poisoning, often in motel rooms or hot-pool enclosures. Carbon dioxide is also a greenhouse gas, contributing to potential climate change. However, geothermal extraction releases far fewer greenhouse gases per unit of electricity generated than burning fossil fuels such as coal or gas to produce electricity.

[somnath]

I had posted one version of the power mix for 2030. I was hoping that it would spark debate in terms of fine-tuning that mix. It still had coal as the majority producer.

The crux of the problem is that if more of coal is front-loaded in the mix, the faster it runs out.

So, the question can be clearly phrased: what is the mix when coal runs out?

This is as good an estimate as any, given that it was signed off by everyone who has a skin in the game!

http://planningcommission.nic.in/report ... ntengy.pdf

Refer to Table 2.7...

The share of thermal is expected to go down from 84% to 78%, actually not a huge decline at all...But the entire reduction (and the same in hydro) is taken up by nuclear...thermal is defined as coal+gas+oil..And share of coal is going down in the thermal mix from 63% to 58%, taken up enirely by gas...

And even at these levels, the report estimates that supplies of coal will require to be 4 times that of today..4 times?? Thats a stretch in itself...

this report was done in 2006, when the nuke deal had not achieved fruition...So estimates on imported LWRs are underballed..today it is not therefore stretching credulity if we estimate that 15% of the total mix, or 20-25% of the incremental supply, can come from nuclear...

[amit]

So let me agree with you, in not derailing the thread. What will be helpful, if you choose to answer it are the direct points you have raised and people answered you. (Such as, what is your number/estimation of dead in Chernobyl, validity of LNT (I am sure there has been enough time to look sources up), number of deaths (your estimation) for coal plants, health effects of 1 mSV dose etc.,,etc.).

Of course, you need not answer ... but that is up to you.

Amber,

A lot of questions remain unanswered because the answers are very inconvenient.

Apart from the ones you've highlighted there's one central question that needs an answer.

And that is what does all this discussion which started with the Fukushima accident mean for India? After all this is Bharat Rakshak not Japan Rakshak or some such.

We've had reams and reams of posts which boils down to this:

· Nuclear power generation is inherently unsafe.
· Nuclear accidents can and have killed thousands of people. One poster has stated that there’s one major nuclear accident every 10 years!
· The global Nuclear industry runs like a cabal and brooks no dissent and hence if the Japan Nook industry is unreliable and cut corners, the Indian industry must be doing the same.
· Renewable sources, be it solar, wind, geothermal can easily substitute the core generation capacity that nuclear provides and things like mega solar power plants which produce 1500 MW and more of electricity is just round the corner just as mega clean coal power plants are. We only have to wait patiently and meanwhile we can go on building dirty coal plants.

More can be added to the list but let's just work these for the time being.

My question: If nuclear is so inherent unsafe, uneconomical and there are alternatives, should India not just shun nuclear and close down the nuclear industry as allegedly the Germans are doing due to uber-green political pressure?

I think you'd agree this is a fair question.

However, now things become very coy.

The usual response, "Oh, we are not calling for India to shut down the nuclear industry." OK fine then what are you calling for?

Some are saying go slow, others are saying don't import LWRs (but VVERs from Russia is kosher!), Indian PHWR are better technology. Another refrain is build local capacity. However there no response to the neutron economics point raised by GP and the impact on our fast breeder programme. Just as there's no response to the fact that the nuclear deal has allowed us to freely import uranium and our existing plants are now running at 100 per cent (or thereabouts) capacity while previously, due to uranium shortage they were running at 60 per cent or so.

So we have a situation where the French Aveya plant is opposed because of safety concerns about the people who would be living nearby. We have had demands of closing down Kundankulam facility because it's near the "untrustworthy" ocean. We've had demand that Kalpakkam be moved to a "safer place" (I'm sure you can dismantle it and move it like a lego structure).

However, when Somnath and others ask why, in that case Trombay shouldn't be closed down since it is right in the heart of a densely populated area, there is deafening scilence.

What also remains unanswered is the domino effect which a backing down at Jaitapur would have on the NPA move for cap, roll back and eliminate. Do folks seriously think that if NPAs taste blood at Jaitapur they would quietly go home? Folks like Vandana Shiva – who calls herself an ecofeminist! – have clearly stated that Jaitapur is just the first step in eliminating all nuclear power plants (including the ones that make our bomb grade maal) in India. She's on record that she wants to live in a Solar Nirvana (as many here, I suspect do) where all electricity is derived from solar energy.

But then things are so confusing on BRF nowadays it’s not very clear where loyalty lies. Known NPA chamchas like MVR and Purefool Bidwai are the new heroes on this forum - we've had almost an entire paper from MVR posted on this very thread, a first for any researcher as the usual method is to post a link so as to not hog the bandwidth. Maybe it’s time to invite MVR to be a member on BRF.

To reiterate, my point is simple. One is entitled to a view that nuclear is unsafe and dangerous. There are a lot of very serious people who think that way.

However, if you believe that then have the intellectual honesty to say India should move away from nuclear, close down the plants and look to coal and other alternatives.

You can’t post reams on how dangerous nuclear allegedly is, quoting obscure 100-page papers and then say: “No we are not saying shut down nuclear plants in India.”

This is very contradictory and illogical. Among other things it assumes that current generation nuclear power plants, which are in operation in India, are safer than Gen3 plants that would be put up if all goes according to the roadmap. Are there academic studies to back such a leap of faith?

Questions, questions but no answers. Meanwhile, lets get back to counting the dead in Chernobyl and speculating on the thousands that would die due to Fukushima.

[GuruPrabhu]

^^^ an excellent summary, Amit.

I join you in asking the point blank question: Should BARC be shut down? If not, why not?

Any of the worthies is welcome to answer this simple question in a concise terse reply without the megabyte posts which mostly go unread.

[GuruPrabhu]

^^^ ( WRT coal mining accidents) U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration has pretty good data, for US
From 1980-2001
We have: .0004/ miner-year (67 deaths averaged out of 166,000).

Earlier period (1900-1950), deaths due to mining accidents are very high (>1000, as much as 3000 deaths /year)

For 1960-2001 from the same source,
Coal mining claimed 0.33 deaths per Mt and coal processing 0.019 deaths per Mt; the
number of disabling injuries is 25 per Mt in mining and 1.2 per Mt in processing

Thanks for posting this, Amber.

What will be the response from the worthies to this clear and present danger and mega-killer technology?

Unless there is a response from the coterie of anti-nuke folks, I would be forced to consider them non-serious.

[Sanku]

And that is what does all this discussion which started with the Fukushima accident mean for India? After all this is Bharat Rakshak not Japan Rakshak or some such.

I see the facts on ground are causing way too much discomfort.

We've had reams and reams of posts which boils down to this:

It does not boil down to any of those things. What it boils down to.

1) There are people who believe more in deliberate distortion of what others say.

2) There are people who will ignore anything and everything if it goes against there view

3) PARAPHRASING is a fav sport of these types.

Those who are REALLY interested in a honest discussion would have got the answers to the fairly basic questions, since they have been posted many times.

Rehoteric zindabad. Jai ho.

[GuruPrabhu]

1) There are people who believe more in deliberate distortion of what others say.

2) There are people who will ignore anything and everything if it goes against there view

3) PARAPHRASING is a fav sport of these types.

Brilliant outline for an auto-biography.

[Sanku]

1) There are people who believe more in deliberate distortion of what others say.

2) There are people who will ignore anything and everything if it goes against there view

3) PARAPHRASING is a fav sport of these types.

Brilliant outline for an auto-biography.

I am glad you could use it.

[amit]

Those who are REALLY interested in a honest discussion would have got the answers to the fairly basic questions, since they have been posted many times.

Forgive me Sanku bhai I must have missed your response to my questions since, as you said I'm behind the curve.

Could you repost your answer to my questions:

My question: If nuclear is so inherent unsafe, uneconomical and there are alternatives, should India not just shun nuclear and close down the nuclear industry as allegedly the Germans are doing due to uber-green political pressure?

I'm sure Sir, it will not be too much of a bother since its a "fairly basic" question?

[GuruPrabhu]

Amit,

Brace yourself for personal attacks now.

[amit]

^^^ an excellent summary, Amit.

I join you in asking the point blank question: Should BARC be shut down? If not, why not?

Any of the worthies is welcome to answer this simple question in a concise terse reply without the megabyte posts which mostly go unread.

Boss thanks.

But as usual, as one can see subterfuge is the order of the day.

However, I'll wait and see if more serious and intellectually inclined posters takes a dig at the question. However, the smart thing to do is keep quiet, na?

However, if we do get a response, then the follow on question, should be:

If you think, after so much reading and research, that nuclear is inherently unsafe and cause the deaths and destruction of property and livelihoods of millions, how can you still advocate the continuation of an industry which is so harmful to your fellow Indians and Bharat Mata?

[amit]

Amit,

Brace yourself for personal attacks now.

My neigbour once had Rottweiler which used to bark day and night. I'm still a bit deaf from all that decibel pollution.

[GuruPrabhu]

^^^ got it!

But seriously, there has been no clear statement from anti-nuke lobby about what to do with all these Dangerous Nuke establishments in India which will explode any day now and kill 1,00,000,000,000 people.

[Sanku]

I'm sure Sir, it will not be too much of a bother since its a "fairly basic" question?

It is a bother, since I know those who had to read it have, and the jokers going rotfl will not in any case.

Just that you put out a fundamentally untrue statement once again and has to be countered.

The many times untruths will be stated some one or the other will come up and say "basically completely untrue and pulled out of thin air"

[amit]

It is a bother, since I know those who had to read it have, and the jokers going rotfl will not in any case.

Just that you put out a fundamentally untrue statement once again and has to be countered.

The many times untruths will be stated some one or the other will come up and say "basically completely untrue and pulled out of thin air"

Everyday we get to see how wrong Rajendra Pachauri got it when he did his 2035 booboo about the Himalayas.

The snow must be really thick.

Or it could be the snow layer is indeed thin, but skilled exponents can handle the bumpy ride down the slope due to so much experience and familiarity. Winter Olympics anyone?

[somnath]

^^^Amit, if I may, the exchange at some levels has become a bit fruitless...Because there are no "exchanges" anymore, just flames...There were some questions raised at various stages, last in your post (the big one today ) - there are no answers to them, only rhetoric actually not even tht, rhetoric is attractive, its just flame)..

To be honest, I havent seen too many attempts at building an economic case of replacing nuclear in the equation...Or even a scientific "potential" case, barring generally throwing "super clean coal" and worse, "500 sq km solar farm" comments...

JMT...

[amit]

^^^Amit, if I may, the exchange at some levels has become a bit fruitless...Because there are no "exchanges" anymore, just flames...There were some questions raised at various stages, last in your post (the big one today ) - there are no answers to them, only rhetoric actually not even tht, rhetoric is attractive, its just flame)..

To be honest, I havent seen too many attempts at building an economic case of replacing nuclear in the equation...Or even a scientific "potential" case, barring generally throwing "super clean coal" and worse, "500 sq km solar farm" comments...

JMT...

But, Somnath you miss the point. What more can you expect from posters who invariably spell like this:
E-CON-o-mist. Ignorance is bliss, especially if you happen to be one of the few Indians who have the privilege of sitting in an air conditioned room in front of a monitor.

Who the hell cares about energy deficit, eCONomic growth of India which is needed to bring millions out of poverty. All of the is just a CON.

[chaanakya]

...Can you tell me where I used that exact words as amit used to demand often from others?

For the record, you did not use the exact words, I paraphrased what you said. (I did not said or implied that they were your exact words anyway). What you said was something like "dining us with" ..[ the radioactive dose]..

Your integrity is indeed touching. I would have to give you benefit of doubt, though you were unrelenting in calling me dishonest and what not. Thanks.

[Sanku]

Who the hell cares about energy deficit, eCONomic growth of India which is needed to bring millions out of poverty. All of the is just a CON.

Actually it is a CON. Just like Raja gifting away spectrum and claiming it was done to help Indians get cheap telecom.

Empty Bhaashan baazi does not cut it on BRF.

[amit]

GP, if you read this, you'll understand why I narrated my Rottweiler experience to you in that earlier post.

And I'm sure you'll also note the deafening silence, despite the background noise.

[Sanku]

The people who excel at name calling, posting empty one liners, paraphrasing others to deliberately twist words etc are now crying about being flamed?

Guess all their tactics turned out worthless and they got back far more than they had bargained for.

[chaanakya]

^^ sanku san, I don't know if you noticed, there were fervent hopes that OBL incident would perhaps take the focus away from Fukushima and nuclear power plants. Of course you would have been called Rottweiler even otherwise while they fear personal attacks nobody ever mounted on them.

[amit]

^^ sanku san, I don't know if you noticed, there were fervent hopes that OBL incident would perhaps take the focus away from Fukushima and nuclear power plants. Of course you would have been called Rottweiler even otherwise while they fear personal attacks nobody ever mounted on them.

Chaanakya,

You may have comprehension problems but don't put words in my mouth. I called nobody Rottweiler. Read my post to GP carefully. Read once and then again. I was referring to the incessant background noise which is what barking all day is. My comparison was with the background noise - which is what I think most of Sanku's posts directed to me are. They add nothing of value to a discussion. And you construe that with me calling Sanku a Rottweiler?

My neigbour once had Rottweiler which used to bark day and night. I'm still a bit deaf from all that decibel pollution.

This was in response to GP's post:

Brace yourself for personal attacks now.

I would hope you have the decency to either withdraw your post or give an apology. Considering the high horse you've been sitting on in the other thread I'll be interested to see which way you go. In case you don't understand personal attacks are ones where you, for example, call somebody a habitual liar, not when you say a particular poster's response (post) is "noise".

[chaanakya]

^^ sanku san, I don't know if you noticed, there were fervent hopes that OBL incident would perhaps take the focus away from Fukushima and nuclear power plants. Of course you would have been called Rottweiler even otherwise while they fear personal attacks nobody ever mounted on them.

Chaanakya,

You may have comprehension problems but don't put words in my mouth. I called nobody Rottweiler. Read my post to GP carefully. Read once and then again. I was referring to the incessant background noise which is what barking all day is. My comparison was with the background noise - which is what I think most of Sanku's posts directed to me are. They add nothing of value to a discussion. And you construe that with me calling Sanku a Rottweiler?

My neigbour once had Rottweiler which used to bark day and night. I'm still a bit deaf from all that decibel pollution.

I would hope you have the decency to either withdraw your post or give an apology. Considering the high horse you've been sitting on in the other thread I'll be interested to see which way you go. In case you don't understand personal attacks are ones where you call somebody a habitual liar, not when you say a particular poster's response is "noise".

My Bad, Amit I didn't read that is what you intended.

But from bolded part it seems like this...
Sanku's post directed at you==background noise==barking all day== rottweiler barking.
Why use such juvenile epithets repeatedly at all??

My humble apology to you , if I misread you.

[amit]

Thanks Chaankya, you did indeed misread me. I don't do personal attacks because I think only folks who run out of ideas or arguments indulge in such stupid actions.

But juvenile is a matter of opinion, isn't it?

I think calling folks habitual liars on anonymous forums without knowing about the person's background or accusing them of falsehoods at a drop of a hat and typing e-CON-o-mist whenever referring to a particular academic discipline without which the world would stand still, is juvenile.

But each to his own, I guess.