India Nuclear News And Discussion

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 20 May 2011 10:53

GuruPrabhu wrote:Typical DDM issues. I will try to find out whether it is 4 more or 6 more in the planning stages.

GP-ji, its not about how many FBRs are under "plans"...The question is whether all of them will be outside safeguards..the reason is simple - as Ratan Sinha said in that interview to TSS, the FBRs are going use fuel from both our PHWRs and the imported LWRs..If the FBR is not under safeguards, spent fuel from imprted NPPs cannot be used in them, unless I am missing something...

Second, as MVR et al said in that paper I referenced, 4 FBRs (plus PFBR) will mean a Pu generating capacity of 500-600 kg per annum - in other words, about 100 nuke weapons per annum from the FBRs alone!

Putting these two together, I would rather say that the choice on whether the FBR would be placed under safeguards or not will be taken on a case-to-case basis, dpeneding on the situation..

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 20 May 2011 11:03

^^^ Yes, India is keeping all options open. The timeframe for such decisions in about 10 years from now. In the meantime we can see how the PFBR performs, how the AHWR design and site selection proceeds, how the design for 700 MW LWR progresses etc.

The balance between maal production and neutron economics will be delicate. But it should be clear why this balance is not made public.

And yes, you are right that the neutrons present in spent imported fuel of LWRs will not be "allowed" to be used in FBRs (as of today). My earlier comment was that "let's wait and see what all this "allowed" tamasha is all about". Maybe it will be ho-hum by then. If not, making FBRs or AHWR in civil domain can be considered.

But, no point making all this concrete today. Dekho kya hota hai.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 20 May 2011 11:24

GuruPrabhu wrote:how the design for 700 MW LWR progresses e

This was actualy the big surprise from that Ratan Sinha interview...Hadnt heard of this before ever...It would be interesting to know the background of this design..Is it off the Arihant reactor? Or the Russian VVER design? One positive netowrk externality is that our uber nationalists will not be able to argue that PHWRs are safer than LWRs

amit · Post by **amit** » 20 May 2011 14:53

^^^^

Indeed the LWR news is a surprise to me, though I'm sure some folks here knew about it. With India having it's own 700 MW LWR design IMO it makes eminent sense to import reactors from the French, US/Japanese and the Russians. That would give our folks a great opportunity to study different design philosophies and safety (especially the passive ones) measures built in. And it would also, presumably, show a clear path of how to upscale the design to bigger sizes.

I guess if we step back and look over the past few years, it seems everything, move etc taken by the nuclear establishment has been well thought out and planned. However as they say, the best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry. When you add folks like Uddhav Thakeray and Vandana Shiva in the mix...

Let's see how things go.

amit · Post by **amit** » 20 May 2011 15:09

Amber G. wrote:^^^ Amit et al - Also, some lessons for India from Fukushima..

(Just to show, that not everyone is taken in by likes of Busby.. nuclear explosions.. almost virgin meltdowns..dangerous cups and buckets of water with internal energy proving that 1mSV is going to do you great harm ityadi ityadi..)

Thanks for the links Amber. But I'm sure their contents are no surprise to you and many others here. After the dust settles the rationale of nuclear power is too strong for folks who actually make policy to be swayed by the likes of Busby. I suspect that even in Germany, Merkel will be advised by her experts to stall the move by the Greens to dismantle nuclear power, even though her Govt depends on their support for political survival. However, Germany is in a happy state. It is already power surplus and they have access to gas via pipelines from Russia and, if I'm not mistaken, soon from Khazakstan.

Regarding Fukushima, sure the clean up cost would be very high as will be the compensation claims. However, one needs to look at the tragedy in a proper perspective. If it had been a isolated accident as was the case with the RMBK reactor in Chernobyl then certainly questions should and would have been raised about the LWR designs in particular and nuclear power plants in general.

However, the disaster in Fukushima needs to be looked at the context of the massive tragedy in Japan caused by the earthquake and tsunami. Next to the cost of clean up and rebuilding of Japan the dollar number that will go into Fukushima will not look so astronomical. Remember the same cause is behind Fukushima (in particular) and Japan as a whole.

Finally, IMO everything shouldn't be reduced to just dollars and cents. The fact remains that despite the magnitude of the accident at Fukushima, not a single person has died of radiation, nor is a single person in hospital due to radiation sickness. As to what will happen in future, we will just have to wait and see. The fact remains that almost three months since the tragedy nobody is yet affected from radiation. And yes in case somebody didn't notice, elsewhere in Japan more than 25,000 people died and millions have lost their homes and livelihood.

As I said everything should be looked at in perspective - at least IMO that's the objective way to do so.

JMT

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 May 2011 15:28

I thought there was a moderator warning to cease and desist discussions about Fukushima on this thread.

If its okay to discuss, we can return to analysis of what happened at Fukushima and its fallout's.

Lot of very interesting news continues to emerge. All of which further strengthens the basic charges.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 May 2011 18:17

amit wrote:I suspect that even in Germany, Merkel will be advised by her experts to stall the move by the Greens to dismantle nuclear power, ~~even though her Govt depends on their support for political survival~~.

Merkel's CDU does not depend on the Greens at all. It is a coalition of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), its sister party from Bavaria Christian Social Union (CSU) and the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP).

Environmental consciousness was always high in Germany, into which the Green Party taps in, but it does not mean that the voters of the ruling coalition do not have similar concerns. After Fukushima, the ruling coalition set up a commission to deliberate the issue of reactor security, because Merkel came under renewed pressure to rethink her position on prolonging the life of reactors already built. The Greens want to decommission them earlier, whereas the ruling coalition had agreed in 2010 to prolong their life by a few years more (8 years for 7 reactors built before 1980 and 14 for other 10 built after 1980). There is however consensus that no more nuclear reactors would be built. All the parties in Germany are of this view!

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 20 May 2011 18:57

Sanku wrote:I thought there was a moderator warning to cease and desist discussions about Fukushima on this thread.

If its okay to discuss, we can return to analysis of what happened at Fukushima and its fallout's.

Lot of very interesting news continues to emerge. All of which further strengthens the basic charges.

Well Nooklear Talibaan wanted FUK-D closed and they were successful by creating enough noise.

I second that. Mods should clean up and open that thread. It would be shame if we don't chronicle what is happening in FUK-D.

btw sanku san your meltdown for 2 and 3 unit is also confirmed lately.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 20 May 2011 18:58

Germany has two peculiar concerns.

First it is a very dense country. They were also the closest Western nation to Chernobyl and know first hand the clean-up costs involved. Any accident there could easily make 10% of the country uninhabitable for the medium term. They have no real coast as well. All of them understand this.

Second they have leaned heavily on renewable for some time now, approaching 20%+ on certain days. Despite this the nay-sayers they have been able to balance the loads using Hydel from Norway/Sweden and nuclear/fossil fuel from elsewhere in Europe.

They are fairly confident they can eliminate Nuclear on 'their' land. They don't promote it for everyone.

Note that India is even denser than Germany. We haven't fully experienced the cleanup cost from the aftermath of an accident. This gives us a false sense of confidence and we continue to play with fire.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 20 May 2011 19:06

Meanwhile "there-is-no-problem-with-coal" lobby continues to ignore the very real cost of coal:

http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-sh ... 110520.htm

The CAG says, for Maharashtra alone:

The excess consumption of 333.33 lakh (33.33 million) metric tonnes of coal (valued at Rs 5,515.85 crore) was mainly on account of low calorific value of coal received during 2005-10.

MSPGCL had not entered into coal supply agreements with two coal companies up to March 2009 and claims amounting to Rs 76.10 crore (Rs 761 million) on account of supply of stones and shale (instead of coal) and slippage in grade relating to the period 2001-09 were still pending with two coal companies.

Obviously the above results in low plant loading factors which the CAG notes as well.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 May 2011 19:18

I am currently watching a Discovery channel programme on Fukushima. It replayed the events leading up to the hydrogen explosions and the subsequent events.

Now it is claimed that a modern reactor today has design features that will prevent the reactor from doing the same. Such as the one being planed at Jaitpur, where it is claimed the internal pool of water will be perpetually used to keep the reactor cool and prevent the reactor from blowing up. Using evaporation and condensation of the internal water to create a rainforest type environment in the reactor keeping it cool.

Now the question that have is, can the existing reactors be retrofitted with similar systems that will keep the reactor cool in a situation where the NPP has suffered damage but the Nuke core is intact?

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 21 May 2011 07:06

India may expand Nuclear Program: APJ Abdul Kalam.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 21 May 2011 07:33

^^^ Nice twist by APJAK-ji. This should give Aussie NP Ayatollahs pause:

The Australian government bans uranium exports to India because it is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. But Dr Kalam, who is here as a guest of Sydney University, has urged Australia to co-operate with India in the development of nuclear reactors that use thorium instead of uranium to produce electricity.

''Australia has got tremendous reserves of thorium, a future material for replacing uranium,'' he said. ''It is cost-effective and [produces] less radiation … India and Australia can work together in building a thorium-based nuclear reactor for the world market.''

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 21 May 2011 08:16

For all fans of coal - interesting editorial in IE about India's coal "issues"..

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/plant ... er/793836/

Much of the domestic coal, the so-called 20000 year reserve, is just not usable in economic terms in power plants...We are already importing large quantities - if coal-dependence continues, besides oil-import-dependence, we will be a coal-import-dependent economy as well..

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 21 May 2011 08:20

somnath wrote:We are already importing large quantities - if coal-dependence continues, besides oil-import-dependence, we will be a coal-import-dependent economy as well..

Three most important words for India's energy reduced-dependence (not quite independence):

Thorium, thorium, thorium.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 May 2011 09:05

Somnath can we cut the crap ? despite all that googling and number crunching the fundamental fact is India does not export coal in huge quantities despite having pretty respectable reserves, we buy it ; it still remains the single biggest contributor to the grid as a the source of electricity so no need for the patronizing tone. Oh yes I remember your comment as to how imported coal is expensive but then unlike coal you cannot just mine uranium and shove it in furnace with a shovel so comparing the price of ore tells nothing.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 21 May 2011 09:16

^^^ Negi-ji,

Are you defending coal or attacking Somnath? These are two distinct approaches to the topic.

Let us be gentle and assume that you are defending coal because it is the "biggest contributor". How does being the biggest absolve it of its sins of spreading pollution and radioactivity? Is it just an argument of size of contribution, and hence, nuke is bad because it is small?

Please excuse me if I have misunderstood you. I would like to be educated in your thought, which at first blush appears to be an expedient defense of a particular power source.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 21 May 2011 09:19

Negi ji, i don't see what Somnath Ji has written incorrectly. India will have to import coal in larger quantities simply because as he and others have mentioned before Indian coal is not good quality. Indai imports coal massively from Indonesia and Australia presently.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 May 2011 09:25

^ Kindly point out where have I been wrong, either ?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 21 May 2011 09:25

negi wrote:Somnath can we cut the crap ? despite all that googling and number crunching the fundamental fact is India does not export coal in huge quantities despite having pretty respectable reserves, we buy it ; it still remains the single biggest contributor to the grid as a the source of electricity so no need for the patronizing tone. Oh yes I remember your comment as to how imported coal is expensive but then unlike coal you cannot just mine uranium and shove it in furnace with a shovel so comparing the price of ore tells nothing.

???? what is the point you are making?

1. Coal is >50% of current electricity supply in India.
2. Our reserves of coal, humungous as they are, are of pretty poor quality..Cant be economically used in most modern power plants..
3. Many of the new plants are coming up on imported coal..
4. Coal India, the world's 3rd largest coal miner, is scouting for coal assets outside India, to feed Indian demand..

Ergo, there is a distinct possibility that we become import-dependent in the second big leg of our energy matrix too (the first is oil)..Hence, it is foolish to give up the only scalabe thermal alternative we have, ie, nukes...

so which part of the above do you not agree with? And yes, no need to google for the data - just go throguh the Planning Commission India Energy Outlook 2006 that I referenced earlier..All the data is in there, along with the projections...

PS: where is the "patronisation" here?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 21 May 2011 09:44

^ Kindly point out where have I been wrong, either ?

Indeed as GP Ji pointed either you are defending coal or attacking Somnath ji who is putting up points that find relevence to the debate. I and rightfully any other rational thinking person should not be envisaging India's Energy future on massive coal dependence. While coal may be a large part of our energy mix in the next 30 or more years it by no means means that India should do away with the nuclear option.

This debate reminds me of the late 80s and early 90's of the anti-economic opening up brigade. Vehement personal attacks and pig headed arguments that India will be taken over and it's East India company redux. The same folks have beated a retreat since then but clambered on to the bandwagon against retail etc..and civilian nuclear energy. 10-15 years down the line, no one will be arguing against the civil nuclear deal or India going after Nuclear as a larger part of it's energy mix. That brand of thinking will die it's natural death for good.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 May 2011 09:52

Somnath I have been around, not a party to the discussions here but have been reading them nonetheless.

Firstly yes we import coal (they teach one about poor quality of our coal reserves in school) , but then what was the Indo-US deal about ? The nuclear fuel too will be imported for first phase . Comparing ore prices does not tell much since you believe in number crunching how about telling us how much does does it cost to make a fuel bundle vs coal pellets that are fed into a furnace ?

I have read those projections by planning commission and Coal will be the mainstay of our energy policy until 2032 ;the fact is we have fallen short of our goals and again tried to make up for that by ramping up the installed capacity by guess what ? Building more coal powered plants.

All this talk of pollution and health hazards really makes me laugh; as far as India is concerned all this talk about pollution and radioactivity is a western narrative; we still have 20 year old 2-stroke engine vehicles plying our roads and majority of our rural villages are burning firewood/upalas for cooking so these sermons about pollution and carbon emissions are only good for power point presentations and some hifi conferences . The fundamental fact is as long as initial costs for setting up a thermal power plant are low and coal is readily available it will remain a mainstay of our energy program . Nuclear energy will contribute to the grid purely based on it's own merits and simply because Coal reserves are depleting not because it causes pollution.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 May 2011 09:55

Harbans where did I say that we should depend on Coal ?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 21 May 2011 10:02

All this talk of pollution and health hazards really makes me laugh; as far as India is concerned all this talk about pollution and radioactivity is a western narrative; we still have 20 year old 2-stroke engine vehicles plying our roads and majority of our rural villages are burning firewood/upalas for cooking so these sermons about pollution and carbon emissions are only good for power point presentations and some hifi conferences . The fundamental fact is as long as initial costs for setting up a thermal power plant are low and coal is readily available it will remain a mainstay of our energy program .

This kind of self defeatist arguments should not be doing rounds on these fora. Respect for nature and desiring a cleaner environment is not a Western narrative being sold here. It's what most right thinking Indians do want for themselves and future generations. Working proactively towards a cleaner future is and should not be up for dispute here. But unfortunately it's being got in here as if we are a condemned race. I also don't understand your peeve with the 2 stroke cycle. 2 stroke cycles are immensely efficient and most very large modern oil burning engines are 2 stroke.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 21 May 2011 10:04

negi wrote:The nuclear fuel too will be imported for first phase . Comparing ore prices does not tell much since you believe in number crunching how about telling us how much does does it cost to make a fuel bundle vs coal pellets that are fed into a furnace

And what is sensitivity of fuel cost to nuke power generation (vis a vis coal or gas)? And how have uranium prices moved over the last 3-4 years, relative to movement in oil or coal? Both these questions have been addressed before - so if you followed the discussion, you would realise that "import" of uranium is not a commercial issue, its a political one (which is what got addressed by the nuke deal)...

negi wrote:I have read those projections by planning commission and Coal will be the mainstay of our energy policy until 2032 ;the fact is we have fallen short of our goals and again tried to make up for that by ramping up the installed capacity by guess what ? Building more coal powered plants

If you read that report carefully enough, you would find that they are projecting coal contribution to electricyt to come off by 7%, hydro by 2-3% - and the entire gap is planned to be taken up by nukes...And this report was done in 2006, with no visibility on the nuke deal, ie, import of LWRs..They have given the coal requirement projections as well there - just keep nuke constant @ 3% and make up the gap in 2030 by thermal - calculate the incremental coal required..you would find how much extra vulnerability to global coal prices that would impart the economy..Nuke in the mix "immunises" the energy portfolio to a certain extent from hydrocarbon prices - higher the proportion, greater the buffer to absorb price spikes...

negi wrote:The fundamental fact is as long as initial costs for setting up a thermal power plant are low and coal is readily available it will remain a mainstay of our energy program

No one's doubting that coal will remain the largest part of the programme in the foreseeable future - its about seeing how much we can immunise the portfolio in the medium term, and about retaining the option for the long term...

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 May 2011 10:17

harbans wrote: This kind of self defeatist arguments should not be doing rounds on these fora. Respect for nature and desiring a cleaner environment is not a Western narrative being sold here.

Don't get too senti here; nothing self-defeatist about my comments , I was merely showing the mirror. Desire for clean environment takes a backseat when compared to more immediate and pressing needs. Education and awareness of course have their own role to play but then again they take a back seat in our country due to obvious reasons.

I also don't understand your peeve with the 2 stroke cycle. 2 stroke cycles are immensely efficient and most very large modern oil burning engines are 2 stroke.

Again I said '20 year old 2-stroke engines' , moreover kindly tell me how many 2-stroke engines power the commercial vehicles these days ?

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 May 2011 10:31

somnath wrote: And what is sensitivity of fuel cost to nuke power generation (vis a vis coal or gas)? And how have uranium prices moved over the last 3-4 years, relative to movement in oil or coal? Both these questions have been addressed before - so if you followed the discussion, you would realise that "import" of uranium is not a commercial issue, its a political one (which is what got addressed by the nuke deal)...

It was only political until we gate crashed into the party , from here on it is a purely commercial issue.

If you read that report carefully enough, you would find that they are projecting coal contribution to electricyt to come off by 7%, hydro by 2-3% - and the entire gap is planned to be taken up by nukes...And this report was done in 2006, with no visibility on the nuke deal, ie, import of LWRs..They have given the coal requirement projections as well there - just keep nuke constant @ 3% and make up the gap in 2030 by thermal - calculate the incremental coal required..you would find how much extra vulnerability to global coal prices that would impart the economy..Nuke in the mix "immunises" the energy portfolio to a certain extent from hydrocarbon prices - higher the proportion, greater the buffer to absorb price spikes...

It is because the contribution of Nuclear power is increasing in the mix not because the amount of coal being imported or burnt is reducing, in fact that is what I am trying to highlight here i.e. it's useless to diss coal for it's consumption will only increase as the time goes by.

No one's doubting that coal will remain the largest part of the programme in the foreseeable future - its about seeing how much we can immunise the portfolio in the medium term, and about retaining the option for the long term...

No arguments here.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 21 May 2011 15:23

I think the point GP is trying to make is that buying coal keeps us buying coal till infinity or stocks run out. Buying uranium now offers us the opportunity to stop buying it in the future once we have FBR and AHWRs online and start burning thorium.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 May 2011 18:11

Tanaji wrote:I think the point GP is trying to make is that buying coal keeps us buying coal till infinity or stocks run out. Buying uranium now offers us the opportunity to stop buying it in the future once we have FBR and AHWRs online and start burning thorium.

And my point is that I am trying to understand why do we need to buy Uranium to be self sustaining. My understanding of Neutron economics based on old statements from Indian establishment was that we do not need external neutrons.

What changed?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 21 May 2011 22:17

Tanaji wrote:I think the point GP is trying to make is that buying coal keeps us buying coal till infinity or stocks run out. Buying uranium now offers us the opportunity to stop buying it in the future once we have FBR and AHWRs online and start burning thorium.

Thanks for the succinct summary. Yes, coal indeed will run out fast while the thorium plus uranium can keep going. When spent fuel is pulled out of reactors, most of the U-238 is still intact -- only a small fraction gets converted to Pu and higher isotopes. Same story for Th-232. With good R&D, we can recycle fuel through several cycles.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 21 May 2011 23:38

We often hear the peak oil, peak coal and now peak Uranium/Thorium type of argument. Oil and coal is largely due to buried biomass from millions of years ago. So there is perhaps a shallow boundary in depth for discovery, hence more reliable peak estimates or if one may, total absolute deposits on earth.

Now Uranium is a different beast, so is Thorium. Why are the upper limits to these reliable ? With the earth's past natural tectonic processes and bombardment from outer space from the distant past the potential mechanisms for deposit creation are many and the heavy elements deposits are not fully explored yet perhaps. Need to read up more on this.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 22 May 2011 00:23

Wrt to coal plant ... was driving along.. saw a coal plant on the bank of Kanawha River emitting lot of smoke and stuff... actually about 3 plants clustered together , 3GW in total. I asked others, if they can guess how much stuff was in the smoke, and in the residue ash.. for example if they can guess how much Uranium was there..One remarked, since the "question came from me" probably much more than one would guess..Some quick calculation (and later confirmed with actual data) ...
In this 3GW plant per year - Accumulated ash contains ...

About 30 tons of Thorium
About 15 TONS of Uranium ( about 100Kg of U235 enough to make about 5 bombs / year)
(Talk about proliferation)

Amount of radioactive material output ..., in a single year about 1 Tera Becquerel (1,000,000,000,000 Bq) (More than entire output from Three mile Island meltdown..

Puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 22 May 2011 00:43

Bade Saar,

I am sure that you are aware that the geothermal heating of the earth's mantle and crust is attributed to uranium/thorium and potassium decays. Recent discovery of geo-neutrinos have confirmed this. The U/Th deposits are part of basaltic melts -- the estimate for *average* U content is something like 10^-8 - 10^-7, However, for mining purposes, much higher concentrations are needed.

Surprisingly, the U/Th content of the mantle is much higher than the core (counter-intuitive, if you think that heavier elements should sink. However, the process is chemical, not gravitational). The source of earth's heat is to a large extent due to U/Th/Pb/K decays. There was conjecture that there is a natural reactor in the earth's core, but it is being disproven by geo-neutrino data.

Here is some reading for your pleasure:

Fyfe had done the original seminal work on geochemical cycle of uranium:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979RSPTA.291..433F

Here is a well regarded later work on estimating U/Th content:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/54182

Here is something from WNA on the cosmic origin of uranium:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

Here are some news items and webpages on geo-neutrinos and their discovery:
http://www.physorg.com/news187946006.html
http://kamland.stanford.edu/GeoNeutrino ... rinos.html
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~mcdonoug/geoneutrinos.htm

If your interest gets more aroused, here is a good text on geodynamics:
http://www.amazon.com/Geodynamics-Donal ... 0521666244

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 22 May 2011 00:55

Thanks for the links GP. Will take time to educate myself more on it.

AmberG, the numbers are astonishing. And to let all that float away and lost is criminal.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 May 2011 00:58

Someone had put up a link to a slide that described what the inputs to the various reactors were and how their outputs fed into the next stage of a 3 stage cycle. I cant seem to find it anymore, can the person please oblige?

I am really trying to get a primer for the Indian 3 stage programme, but am getting confused by the terms. Earlier I just thought it was PHWR, AHWR and FBR, but now I see terms that further classify the FBR. If GP/Amber/Bade could just put up the basic equations at each stage that essentially state the neutron economics at work for the 3 stage program I would be much obliged.

Lets make a list of basic facts that we can put up as a sticky for this thread. Newbies to the thread then can read up the basics in one post avoiding the same circular arguments. (not directed at anyone in particular).

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 May 2011 01:19

Talking about perspectives how many of the gents here own cars ? Shall I dump some info from web as to how harmful these emimissions are ? Or lets take a step back and talk about average per capita C02 emissions from Unkil land vs bad Cheena (India is still pretty low on chart)

. If pollution and environment is so much of an concern then why weren't hybrids in market say 5 years back ? It's only now when gasoline is 4+ $/gallon people are buying hybrids. If Initial costs and maintanance can be a deciding factor when buying a car then why cannot same logic be extended to the power sector of a country like ours ? Dependence on Coal is not by choice it's a compromise.
Why is Unkil a nuclear supelpowel buying so much coal ? My point being this concern about environment and increasing pollution is only big farce when it comes to power generation; anything or everything which can serve as a viable source of power is kosher enough.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 22 May 2011 01:22

Tanaji,

The wiki page has basic definitions -- from there one can follow links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%27s_ ... _programme

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 22 May 2011 01:27

Negi-ji, no one (at least not me) would argue with you based on this:

negi wrote: My point being this concern about environment and increasing pollution is only big farce when it comes to power generation; anything or everything which can serve as a viable source of power is kosher enough.

However, the "anything or everything" falls apart where nuke is concerned because mango man has fear of the invisible, i.e., radioactivity. Amber's example simply shows that coal produces TONS more radioactivity than nuke power.

For a gyaani like you, "anything or everything" works, but spare a thought for mango man also. Please use your energy to educate others on the "big farce" of pollution etc.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 22 May 2011 01:33

negi saab, the typical argument against nuclear goes either that it is dangerous since it releases radioactivity in normal course of operation or if it fails it the costs are too high. Amber is merely putting things in perspective for the first one.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 May 2011 09:19

Tanaji wrote:negi saab, the typical argument against nuclear goes either that it is dangerous since it releases radioactivity in normal course of operation

Normal course of operation? No, no one said that.

or if it fails it the costs are too high.

Yes it is.

Amber is merely putting things in perspective for the first one.

Which is funny, because no one is even discussing that. There is no point of contention which says 's normal operation has radioactivity issues. The discussions were all elsewhere.

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

I see that my repeated questions on Neutron economics is going unanswered. Funny.