arnab wrote:
But saar - the "oh those russians" argument (don't know who made it - but if you could provide links) still stands. Chernobyl was a nuke accident / explosion. Fuk is not.
That is the lack of understanding in some members that the better informed have been trying to correct, without much success.
Fuk-D is as much a disaster as Chernobyl, expect the trigger conditions were slightly different. With the LWR method, many triggers exist which can lead to similar outcome.
Second, is that despite the nuke catastrophe the Russians did not give up on LWR technology. They are increasing their nuke energy mix from 15 to 25 % over the next two decades (Oh those Russains) and exporting the same to India
That is the Russian cross to bear, as I said before, in another thread, which people did not find saucy and provocative enough to discuss, the Russians have their own reasons, and they are not Japan.
Let Russians do what they want with LWRs, I did not ask them to stop doing so, neither did I ask France, nor US (its a different matter that US does not need anyone to tell it do what common sense would suggest)
I did not even ask Japan to stop using LWRs. They are welcome to have as many Fukushima's in their country as they want. I merely objectively talked about
1) The horrid incestous Japanese nuclear sector.
2) Lack of scientific rigor in placing and operating LWRs in a earthquake prone country.
So clearly I have no idea what you are talking about here.
However when it comes to India, LWR import has myriad dimensions, including the fact that LWRs are unsuitable for large scale deployment in Indian context.
Third, there is no evidence to tell us that local PHWR is safer than the imported LWR. In fact the Indian PHWRs have a passive cooling capacity of about 13 hours (compared to 72 hours for the 3rd generation Westinghouse reactors and 8 hours for Fuk). So there is no reason to believe that had Indian PHWRs been installed in Fuk instead of LWRs, the situation would have been any different.
Again, you have missed tons of articles presented by Sanatanan, Ramana (not MVR) and others on this thread, detailing how PWHR is essentially safer.
There is no way out if a consistent attempt to look away from data points is made. How can any one any one provide evidence if people are in blatant obvious denial, and thats putting it very mildly.
I think the problem is that you conveniently skip from 'Anti nuke power' (e.g health concerns of radiation) to 'Anti imported nuke power' (e.g nuke liability clause) depending on the arguments being made
I think such problems are termed cognitive dissonance - but Shiv ji would know better
I think the problem is suitable scientific open minded approach towards various issues have not been made, along with understanding of context and nunances.
Extraordinarly childish and juvenile statements are made about other posters, which stem from the fact that the people passing the fatwas about other posters have no clue as to what people are saying, but want to weigh in nevertheless.
Fourth, you seem to be making a vague point about 'consequences of operation' vs consequences of accident' vis a vis coal and nuke. I think it has been categorically proved that 'consequences of operation' of coal are worse than the 'consequences of accident' of nukes.
Nothing of the sort has been proven, again you show a marked distaste towards considering factual studies which go against a previously established "rah-rah" position by western commercial interest.
Refusal to look at data does not make reality. Later people crib about those who get things right as being fortune tellers. Well, when Kalidas was told that if he cuts the branch that he is sitting on, ignored it, and fell, did think the person was a fortune teller.
argue themselves in knots on what they are trying to say (nuke is bad, imports is bad, BARC is incompetent or whatever else), this is what China is doing...
...
That is what my point is NP cannot be pitched against Coal it's a silly tactic.