India Nuclear News And Discussion

[arnab]

Meanwhile

Amit this thread is getting s-fied again Considering Russia / China / India are increasing their nuke-energy mix, not sure what is being implied here. And 'dodgy LWR' for a 'given level of safety'. Somebody should ask Sanku ji if Indian PHWRs would have survived the prolonged LOCA at Fuk-D caused by the Tsunami.

That is why I strongly urge people to actually read with a open mind.

Firstly there was no "prolonged" LOCA before the LWRs melted down. The data has been posted, if a few hours is the definition of prolonged then we are in for serious trouble.

Secondly Tsunami only had a small role in Fuk-D disaster. The earthquake had already done a big job prior to that.

The above points are already covered.

Saar in the Mk-1 LWRs and Indian PHWRs anything above 12 hours is prolonged LOCA. That's how long the passive cooling lasts. Second, no the earthquake damage is not true. It has only been reported by some 'media' with no credible back up of their assertions.

[somnath]

Actually there is an interesting article in the current issue of Economist (or was it the previous?) about the German decision..Jurgen Grossman, the outgoing chief of one of the major utlities, went out and publicly said that there is no alternative to nuclear..

Going by the instance of that PV plant, 21k MW would require about 50k hectares of land...Hmmm....Singur erupted because of 400 acres of land, or about 150 hectares....And funnily, that is the realistic target for nukes by 2020...well...Let Vandana Shiva et al roll in!

[Sanku]

the decision to close down plants in Japan, Germany and elsewhere is purely coincidental.

Absolutely.

The "decision to close down" bladerdash is a classic example of Fuk-D'ing with facts.

Dear Amit, one must resist the temptation to show true colors even if the provocation (such as being called out on wrong facts) is grave.

Can you list the number of plants that have been closed down forever after Fukushima accident?

Again all been listed many times, since it passed you by those times, I am sure it will pass you buy again, but why not.

Japan has made a decision to not go for any NEW plants.

Germany has announced a plan to completely walk away from Nuclear power.

So have the Swiss et al.

2/3 Japanese NPPs are shut without ANY IDEA when they will reopen. Last time ONE such NPP was hit, it took over FOUR years to restart it, and that was a minor incident.

Now you need to understand, Nuclear plans have a long shut down period, they cant be turned off like a light switch. Also the impact of power loss from one source has to be compensated by enabling other periods.

So decisions taken now on walking away from Nuclear power -- will actually result in plants closing down and no NPPs replacing them over a 10-20 year period.

You need to understand how the field works.

Similarly for all the plans that India has, no new NPP is likely to produce even a mw of electricity before 2025, if at all. So new plants also have a 10-15 year period to show up minimum.

And I am quite sure that GoIs passion of NPPs is likely to wane very soon as well resulting in continuance of the current energy mix (at best) -- to mirror the global trends of constant to declining Nuclear power as % of established power.

[Sanku]

Saar in the Mk-1 LWRs and Indian PHWRs anything above 12 hours is prolonged LOCA. That's how long the passive cooling lasts. Second, no the earthquake damage is not true. It has only been reported by some 'media' with no credible back up of their assertions.

Arnab you are wrong on both counts and public source data confirms you are wrong as you are aware since you shift the target of "shooting the messenger" tactic from me to media at large.

Your denials of calling "some media", "assertions" "no backup" etc are increasingly making the point that "supporters on NPP (esp LWR et al) are based on repeated denial of real world facts" very easy.

Thank you.

[Sanku]

Actually there is an interesting article in the current issue of Economist (or was it the previous?) about the German decision..Jurgen Grossman, the outgoing chief of one of the major utlities, went out and publicly said that there is no alternative to nuclear..

And TEPCO said that they had it all covered. What does anyone expect?

The real deal is that people have caught on now.

[amit]

Again all been listed many times, since it passed you by those times, I am sure it will pass you buy again, but why not.

Japan has made a decision to not go for any NEW plants.

Germany has announced a plan to completely walk away from Nuclear power.

So have the Swiss et al.

So Japan making a decision to not go for any new plants (this news is suspect but I'll let that pass) and Germany announcing a plan to completely walk away from nuclear power (again a news item which has far more nuances attached to it) means there is a list of plants that will be shut down and it has been posted many times?

I'll say it again, if you can't provide such a list you're (most charitably) making all this up.

2/3 Japanese NPPs are shut without ME HAVING ANY IDEA when they will reopen. Last time ONE such NPP was hit, it took over FOUR years to restart it, and that was a minor incident.

I added the part you missed (see underlined) in that quote of yours. Everyone else knows the time frame mentioned by the Japanese for Chubu Electric's Hamaoka plant. See here

The plant is expected to remain closed while a tsunami-resistant wall is built and emergency backup generators installed to improve its ability to function after a natural disaster.

Company officials estimate it will take two to three years to build a 12-metre-high tsunami wall stretching nearly a mile along the Pacific coast. At present the plant is protected by sand hills high enough to withstand an 8m tsunami. The waves that knocked out the power at Fukushima were at least 14m high.

Can you mention the names of the other plants that have been indefinitely shut down in Japan. Now please don't mention Fukushima Daiichi.

You need to understand how the field works.

I'm sure I'm learning from an expert. [That is a Googal expert]

Similarly for all the plans that India has, no new NPP is likely to produce even a mw of electricity before 2025, if at all. So new plants also have a 10-15 year period to show up minimum.

I agree with you. When pinkos like Vandana Shiva and extreme right in form of Shiv Sena, team up they form a powerful disruptive force. But the delay is because of political skullduggery and not due to reason or facts. POSCO was delayed for so many years for the same reason and Singur which was a second chance for West Bengal in industrialization were the result of the same political skullduggery. That doesn't make it right.

Anyway I have no interest in allowing this thread to get derailed, so my last post to you in this particular discussion.

I leave you with your Fuk-D fantasies.

[Sanku]

So Japan making a decision to not go for any new plants (this news is suspect but I'll let that pass) and Germany announcing a plan to completely walk away from nuclear power (again a news item which has far more nuances attached to it) means there is a list of plants that will be shut down and it has been posted many times?

Yes it does, unfortunately it will take you about 20 years to realize it (hopefully you will then), just like it was clear to some that there is a melt down at Fuk-D, and it took the rest about 2 months more.

Does it mean that those who call it right early are particularly clever? No it means that some people are going to stay in denial and play with words and twist things around till it becomes way to hard to keep denying.

I'll say it again, if you can't provide such a list you're (most charitably) making all this up.

You must leave this tendency of assuming others are like you.

Can you mention the names of the other plants that have been indefinitely shut down in Japan. Now please don't mention Fukushima Daiichi.

Please google. This information is easily available.

I'm sure I'm learning from an expert. [That is a Googal expert]

I dont think you are, if you were, it would help to improve the SNR ratio since you could at least read the basic information out there instead of being stuck about 20 years back and repeating "no it aint"

If you can learn to google, I would consider it a huge improvement, and it will show in your discussion quality.

Anyway I have no interest in allowing this thread to get derailed, so my last post to you.

Nevertheless you have worked very hard to make sure it was derailed. Also this is your repeated remark, "I dont want this but proceed to do exactly that.

I leave you with your Fuk-D fantasies.

We will see if you do.

[amit]

OK after all the Fuk-D fun and games, let's have look at the German power options. Here's and interesting Reuters analysis.

Eight suspended reactors will not return to the market in mid-June after seven were shut in response to Japan's nuclear crisis at Fukushima, and one was already suspended.

They represent 41 percent of Germany's nuclear capacity which supplied 23 percent of the country's electricity in 2010.

"The green logic is that everything can be done with wind or solar power," said Konstantin Lenz of Lenz Energy in Berlin.

"But public opinion would turn quite dramatically if there was a blackout in the winter in the south of Germany. Without wanting to be alarmist, lack of wind and overcast conditions could contribute to that."

"The missing capacities which are needed at times of weak wind and solar will only be met by newly built conventional gas- and coal-fired power plants," said Tobias Federico of Berlin firm Energy Brainpool.

"An economically and technically sensible exit would have entailed the return of at least three of the seven oldest plants up to 2015," he said.

So like I wrote earlier, if Germany really abandons nuclear, it will have to turn to coal and gas to fill the void. At current levels of technology wind and solar look all fine and dandy on a computer screen. In the real world however...

Here's something which ties in with my anecdote about my discussion with that German guy.

Federico said that during a moratorium on the seven oldest plants since mid-March average demand was for 52,000 MW of installed capacity.

Some reserves and imports from France and the Czech republic have helped bridge any gaps.

But in the coming winter, January through to March being the coldest months, demand could be 60,000 MW, he said.

Power market patterns show that is a time when French consumers switch on electric heaters, driving up extra demand.

So there's a real chance that some parts of Germany could experience temporary black outs during this winter!

While Germany has over 40,000 MW of wind or solar power at its disposal on top of ample thermal capacity, in theory this could produce zero power on a windfree and overcast winter day.

As I wrote before, anyone who's been to Germany would know that this is quite common in German (and the whole of northern Europe for the matter) during winter.

Critics abound. On Friday, network supervisory agency Bundesnetzagentur warned that the coming winter could see problems if the old reactors were to go offline completely.

Bundesnetzagentur President Matthias Kurth told reporters it would be better to keep 2 or 3 old plants on standby.

It would be interesting to see if the German resolve to keep its nuclear plants close survives this winter!

New coal and gas-fired generation plants will require years to build and also rely on a planning horizon of some 30 years to lure investors to spend 1 billion euros ($1.4 billion) or 2 billion euros apiece.

Again see coal and gas is the alternative being considered to nuclear in Germany.

But in the European context the problem with that is this:

The carbon bill from the lost capacity alone looks to be running into hundreds of millions this year.

Industry group BDEW said in March that the three-month closure of the eight plants would cost 8 million more CO2 emissions rights certificates costing 17 euros a tonne each.

The loss of the plants until year-end at current carbon prices would cost 400 million euros ($571 million).

Once the hullabaloo from the Fukushima plant subsides it would be interesting to see if German resolve on closing nuclear remains.

For the Indian context to this, one needs to remember that the Germans can afford to fiddle around because it is either (that is depending on the time of the year) power self sufficient or slightly surplus. And demand is growing at a very slow rate. Plus it is surrounded and well connected to a number of power surplus or power self sufficient nations who have no problems in selling power to Germany.

India on the other hand has a huge power deficit and this deficit is just growing so much so that it now has the capacity to affect future growth. And we have no neighbour from whom we can buy power if required, everywhere it's a deficit situation save for Bhutan, but we already get around 3,000 MW from them if I'm not mistaken.

In such a situation I'll have to repeat again: forgoing the nuclear option is tantamount to energy security suicide. We need to build both coal and nuclear power plants by the dozens and we needed to start yesterday.

[amit]

Here's another interesting article.

http://mygermantravels.com/2011/03/germ ... ternative/

German Solar Power – Nuclear Alternative?

Fueling German solar energy growth is a one billion Euro monthly tax incentive for individuals and companies. This Feed-In Tariff is part of the German Renewal Energy Act. The cost is shared by all rate payers.

So this is one of the reasons for the great love for solar. But that's not a surprise, it's the same in Spain the other great bastion for solar power in Europe. But note, again in the Indian context, the bolded point. The consumers pay the subsidy for all these solar farms. Will this work in a price sensitive market like India?

German solar power plants, or solar parks, are the biggest investment. These massive fields of photovoltaic panels, or PV’s, provide peak power between 2 and 50 megawatts each. Finsterwalde Solar Park, near the Polish border, is the world’s largest solar power plant with peak power of 80.1 megawatts. How much land and government investments are Germans willing to accept to increase the solar power growth rate?

Now look at the economics of it all:

While German solar power is rapidly growing, as is the country’s projected gross national product. The government’s solar power estimate is 66 gig watts, or 66 million kilowatts, by 2030, a growing spark on the electrical grid. The most optimistic estimate by Solar Energy Connection is a 25% solar share by 2050. The challenge: nuclear power is 25% of current German electrical sourcing. A 2009 government decision postponed the shutdown of the 17 German nuclear power plants until 2022.

That 2009 decision was based on sound reasoning. However, Fukushima proved a great opportunity for the Green jihadis to gang up and pressure Frau Merkel. Up again let's see what cold economic logic says after everything has settled down. Germans want to grow their GDP just as much as they love solar.

Given the crisis in Japan, German anti-nuclear protests grow. Based on the Japanese crisis and political pressure, the government temporarily shut-down several of the reactors for safety inspections. Should the opposition threaten the current government, German nuclear power years will likely shrink. While wind power and solar power energy are major government investments, neither are ready to supplant nuclear in the near term.

Since wind and solar cannot substitute nuclear what does Germany do?

Deutsche Welle estimates 26 German coal-fired power plants are under construction or in planning. Increasing ferrous fuel capacity flies in the face of European Union and German goals to reduce carbon output. More gas and oil power generation is an option, but these fuels places Germany more dependent on Russia. After over a half century of tension no one is comfortable with Moscow’s hand on the faucet.

However one may argue, like Sanku Maharaj, that Germans prefer Moscow's hand on the faucet to "dodgy LWRs", the real world is far different.

There are no easy choices for Germany. They must simultaneously juggle a desire to grow; a passion to reduce carbon output; and the priority of keeping their citizens safe. We only hope the sun shines on these decisions, and Germany’s solar power panels.

The quote above is a neat summary of the dilemma faced by the Germans despite the fact that it's a clear pitch for solar.

Hence to simplistically say that the German "decision" to close nuclear plants in the wake of Fukushima is an open and shut case and the Germans have walked away from nuclear forever, is just a case of...

Well never mind!

[GuruPrabhu]

uh oh, Gerard is gonna lock this up again.

Can we have a thread in GDF called "Sanku XI vs. Rest of India"? That would be the grand central of vishesh tippani till the cows come home (or, till Germans give up NPP).

[amit]

...till the cows come home (or, till Germans give up NPP).

I wonder which one will happen first!

[somnath]

One more Rip Van Winkle series?!

[Tanaji]

Observed as a news ticker on Star News:

Saudi Arabia to build 16 nuclear power plants by 2030.

It didnt say whether they were PHWRs...

[Bade]

If all of Oirope has a connected grid, and power is being shared come winter Germany's decision will have some consequences as per a TV debate I happened to chance upon on a French News channel.

Or is Germany just letting other Euro zone nations build NPPs and just use the power generated from the shared grid ?

[JwalaMukhi]

Observed as a news ticker on Star News:

Saudi Arabia to build 16 nuclear power plants by 2030.

It didnt say whether they were PHWRs...

Do not know whether to laugh or cry. After all comparing the import of NPP to sheikhs of arabia is not very off the mark. So, India would and can also import "build" just as Saudi Arabia can import "build" new clear plants. Hope there are user serviceable parts that does not void warranty, that comes with those builds.

[somnath]

Or is Germany just letting other Euro zone nations build NPPs and just use the power generated from the shared grid

I told you, maybe Frau Merkel had a session with the junior Thackrey

[amit]

If all of Oirope has a connected grid, and power is being shared come winter Germany's decision will have some consequences as per a TV debate I happened to chance upon on a French News channel.

Bade ji,

Don't see how this can be a long-term and viable solution. You know the kind of spike in energy demand which Oirope, especially the northern part witnesses in winter.

After doing some reading in the matter over the past few days, I've personally don't see how the Gremans can manage their energy demands without nuclear unless they resort to building more coal-based thermal plants or go hat in hand to Putin for gas. Even in best case estimates solar will meet 25 per cent of German needs by 2050. However, nuclear already meets 25 per cent. So minus nuclear the solar (assuming it actually hits 25 per cent) would just replace nuclear without adding new generation to the grid. The extra energy required by 2050 has to come from somewhere.

Coal has it's own set of problems in carbon conscious Oirope. And seeing what Putin did to Ukraine, I'd think the Germans would be very wary about being too much dependent on Russian gas.

Frau Merkel has her job cut out. A few blackouts during this coming winter might make her job easier!

[amit]

Or is Germany just letting other Euro zone nations build NPPs and just use the power generated from the shared grid

I told you, maybe Frau Merkel had a session with the junior Thackrey

I hope Shriman Uday Thackery had the sense to copyright his IP!

[Amber G.]

Wrt to Merkel and Germany ..
X-post
Talks on cost of anti-nuclear policy

EOn is counting the cost of Germany's new energy policies and preparing to put its case to government for a multi-billion euro compensation deal.
he utility was told on 31 May that three reactors representing 3463 MWe of capacity would not be allowed to restart after a knee-jerk shutdown order in the early days of the Fukushima crisis. In addition, the firm's remaining four units, worth 5405 MWe, will have to shut down earlier than proposed by legislation put through earlier this year.

All these plants received approval from safety regulators even in the light of the Fukushima accident.

Chancellor Angela Merkel was re-elected in September 2009 on campaign pledges to extend the use of nuclear power as an 'energy bridge' and push shutdown dates out to the mid-2030s. EOn said today that it had made "substantial investment" based on that, and the sums would be added to the value of lost generation from early shutdowns.

EOn acknowledged that it has to accept "the will of the political majority," but went on to assert that it "expects to receive due compensation for the financial damages associated with these decisions, which is expected to amount to billions of euros."
<snip>

[Amber G.]

Also x-post as related here for lessons to India:
First IAEA report on Fukushima

The handling of the Fukushima nuclear crisis was "exemplary," said a preliminary report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and could eventually show "what can be achieved in responding to such extreme nuclear events."

After a week's fact-finding mission that involved touring nuclear sites and talking to officials, managers and engineers, head UK safety regulator Mike Weightman has delivered a preliminary summary of his group's findings. The full report will be presented to a ministerial meeting held at the IAEA's Vienna headquarters later this month.

Some of the findings come as no surprise - "The tsunami hazard for several sites was underestimated" - while others praise Japan's "extremely open" stance in sharing information with the IAEA team. {Interesting how many times Busby and their followers blamed Japan for hiding things} There was no dissection of precise actions by the various corporate and government players either before or after the tsunami, with this kind of detail inevitably coming in subsequent reports on a much longer timescale.

Many findings matched the regulatory considerations already under review in national jurisdictions: diversity and redundancy of safety systems, defence in depth and physical separation all in the context of extreme natural events. Singled out for praise was the J-Village near the damaged Fukushima Daiichi plant, which gave "highly professional back-up to secure the protection of workers at the site." The accident showed the value of hardened on-site emergency response centres, which "should be provided for all major nuclear facilities with severe accident potential."

The response of Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) by "dedicated, determined and expert staff under extremely arduous conditions has been exemplary, and resulted in the best approach to securing safety given the exceptional circumstances," said Weightman.

The overall response in Japan was also praised. He said the government's protection of the public (mainly by means of early evacuation and use of potassium-iodide pills) was "impressive and extremely well organised." Future monitoring of the health of the public as well as workers "would be beneficial" although "to date, no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation exposure." {And yet, worthies are still peddling 1,400,000 deaths per Busby and other nonsense..wonder if they have any shame}

Weightman alluded to the possibility that the areas near the Fukushima Daiichi plant could return to normal, given proper planning and perhaps remediation. He said the roadmap to stabilise the plant should be thought of as part of a wider plan, "that could include the remediation of areas affected off site affected by radiological release to allow people to resume their normal lives. Thus demonstrating to the world what can be achieved in responding to such extreme nuclear events."

Weightman on the Fukushima Daiichi staff

"The operators were faced with a catastrophic, unprecedented emergency situation with no power, reactor control or instrumentation, and in addition to this, severely affected communications systems both within and external to the site."

"They had to work in darkness with almost no instrumentation and control systems to secure the safety of six reactors, six associated fuel pools, a common fuel pool and dry cask storage facilities."

"Despite brave and sometimes novel attempts of the operational staff to restore control and cool the reactors and spent fuel, severe damage of the fuel and a series of explosions occurred." { And to think of shameless worthies blaming these brave people}

"These explosions caused further destruction at the site, making the scene faced by operators even more demanding and dangerous."

"The response on the site by dedicated, determined and expert staff under extremely arduous conditions has been exemplary, and resulted in the best approach to securing safety given the exceptional circumstances."

Here you have it. Yes the report took some deliberation and inspection of data, but unlike the shameful shouting of idiots who had and continue to have no idea of the facts or the sciences involved, it is worth paying attention to.

More check out
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/201 ... ssion.html

[somnath]

^^^+1

[Sanku]

I think people still dont realize that petty narrow behavior like mocking Angela Merkel et al is not going to help their cause, in fact the common perception that is being built by TEPCO and other Nuclear lobbyists behavior of using nasty means to have their way in non transparent manner is only going to be reinforced.

Dont say you weren't warned.

[amit]

I think people still dont realize that petty narrow behavior like mocking Angela Merkel et al is not going to help their cause, in fact the common perception that is being built by TEPCO and other Nuclear lobbyists behavior of using nasty means to have their way in non transparent manner is only going to be reinforced.

Dont say you weren't warned.

If people have been mocking Angela Merkel, then I'm afraid the effort is misplaced and directed at the wrong person. There's somebody nearby who deserves that.

But it's shameful that the only way you can get into this discussion is by claiming that a discussion on the options in front of Merkel and Germany is tantamount to mocking her. I hope you don't think calling her Frau Merkel means she's being mocked.

Pah!

[Theo_Fidel]

Images of a sodium leak @ Kalpakkam, April 2002. This caused a reactor shut down for 6 months. Considered a relatively minor leak. Wonder what a major leak or a catastrophic leak would be.

It was primary coolant, hence radioactive. The cabin is positively pressurized with Nitrogen gas hence people can't just walk in there. Attempts to introduce oxygen resulted in fires. The fires caused noxious fumes. If the leak had occurred outside the Nitrogen cabin major fires would have resulted.

[amit]

Another interesting article about German plans.

Merkel Coalition Backs Atomic-Power Exit by 2022

The decision in the early morning hours today by coalition leaders in Berlin underscored Merkel’s flip-flop from a 2009 re- election promise to extend the life of nuclear reactors. She did her about-face after the March meltdown in Japan as the anti- nuclear Green Party gained in polls. Her party lost control of Baden-Wuerttemberg state to the Greens in March and finished behind them in a state election for the first time on May 22.

“As far as the government’s credibility is concerned, it was about damage limitation,” said Bernhard Jeggle, a utility analyst with Landesbank Baden Wuerttemberg in Stuttgart. “Those people who wanted to exit nuclear probably voted Green in the first place and will continue to choose the original rather than Merkel’s copy.”

Finally, the political dimensions of Frau Merkel's flip-flop (Note: For those who think we are mocking Merkel, please note that I took the flip-flop descriptor from the quote above).

Businesses and utilities opposed Merkel’s move, warning of increased costs and less reliable power sources. Merkel said the government will ensure the shift won’t disrupt power supplies fueling Europe’s biggest economy.

“Germany is one of the best-performing and economically most successful countries in the world,” Merkel said today. “For that to stay this way, we have to have a competitive energy supply. Our citizens trust that there is sufficient availability at any given time.”

Nuclear supplied some 22 percent of German power in 2010, while renewable sources provided 17 percent, the Economy Ministry said. Europe is split on the future of nuclear power, with France and the U.K. planning more reactors while Germany joined Switzerland in setting an exit date and Italy extended a moratorium on plans to re-enter atomic energy.

Germany is Europe’s largest power market, followed by France. Germany last year was a net exporter of power to France, sending 16.1 terawatt hours to the country compared with imports of 9.4 terawatt hours, according to data published by grid operate Reseau de Transport d’Electricite.

“It’s hard to see how they will replace the energy,” Anne Lauvergeon, chief executive officer of French state-owned Areva SA, the world’s biggest maker of nuclear equipment, said. “I’m not sure there is enough Polish coal, and it creates carbon problems. Alternative energy sources are intermittent sources. I think they will do what Austria did in its time: import nuclear electricity from neighboring countries.”

Somnath, the last bolded portion, especially the Austria example is for you.

Germany may keep one of the seven oldest reactors in reserve should the country be at risk of blackouts, Roettgen said later today at a press conference with Merkel in Berlin.

I'm a bit mystified here. Perhaps GP or Amber can help. How do you keep a nuclear reactor in reserve in case of blackouts? Doesn't it take some time to fire up a reactor?

The CDU’s “Wirtschaftsrat” or council of affiliated companies, said Merkel’s “go-it-alone” nuclear policy in Europe may add billions of euros to power bills paid by industry and consumers.

“I’ve heard lots about a phase-out of nuclear power but little about the costs of phasing in renewable energy,” its President Kurt Lauk told reporters in Berlin on May 25.

Kurt Lauk's point is very important. It's been the same on this thread. All the folks championing alternative energy sources have been avoiding the cost issues. In a super cost conscious market like India can one fudge the cost issues?

Meanwhile, I still think that if the Germans are really serious about the 2022 deadline, they'll have to go either for more coal plants or gas from Russia to keep up to demand in what is by far Oirope's biggest and best performing economy.

[Amber G.]

Amit - Interesting article. Thanks.

Few things about German reaction is surprising to me. They were one of the few (only ?) who stopped flights to Tokyo, closed offices in places like Tokyo etc.. and Mekkel's flip flop after election promise. (Her election promise was some what pro-nuclear). Both Merkel and her husband are physicists so this is even stranger.

One thing caught my eye:

Merkel wants to present five or six bills in Cabinet on June 6, including a revamp of feed-in-tariffs for solar, wind and bio- mass power...

Check out this for bio-mass possibility: (for Belarus)
Chernobyl Land for Biofuel Crop Growth

A huge area of land affected by the Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosions in 1986 will be used as a site for biofuel crop production in a joint Belarusian/Irish eco-venture. In tandem with the Belarusian government, Irish firm Greenfield plans to construct a bio ethanol site to rank alongside Europe’s largest.
Martynov added that Belarus was likely the sole European nation with large areas suitable for biomass production. As a result of the Chernobyl disaster – which occurred over two decades ago – the land became contaminated. To this day, it remains unsuitable for food crop growth, but its inherent fertility makes it highly suitable for fuel plants. What’s more – the crops to be grown on it will themselves take in soil-based toxins and, thus, effectively sanitise the area and make it safer.

“The Government of Belarus has declared ethanol a priority topic for energy development, so we are very happy today to see the first steps being taken, in what we are sure will be a successful and large-scale development of ethanol production”, he concluded. <snip>

BTW Bio-mass (for those who like gobar gas etc) has its own radiation..much more than nuclear! (Actually C14 radioactivity which is not there is coal is there in bio-fuel)..
... Remember that nasty Cs-137 .. guess what? In peat-moss ash (actual measured dose in working plants) could be as much as 100,000 Bq/Kg.. due to Cs-137.(For perspective please do check out the numbers of all those scary reports from Fukushima)

(Don't take my word for it do some googling.. for example here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1X9290001A








[

[GuruPrabhu]

Few things about German reaction is surprising to me. They were one of the few (only ?) who stopped flights to Tokyo, closed offices in places like Tokyo etc..

Karma catches up.

Today, Russians of all people, were dumping German sabzi on the doors of the German embassy.

You don't like our Poo, we don't like your cabbage. LOL. Fuk-D is quiet but German E-coli is hot news.

Either gajar-mooli should be outlawed or all farmers should carry $1B in liability insurance.

[Theo_Fidel]

Nice. So now 16 people dying is karma for closing nuclear. I hope none of those families reads this. Would give them the wrong impression of India.
I guess opening nuclear plants must be punyam then...

EOn is counting the cost of Germany's new energy policies and preparing to put its case to government for a multi-billion euro compensation deal.

Anther reason not to get your nuts caught in the tender mercies of the Nuclear industry. This after swallowing billions in public tax payer money to build those plants...
Verily the incarnation of blood sucking Rakshsa on earth.

[GuruPrabhu]

Nice. So now 16 people dying is karma for closing nuclear.

Hehe. Reading problems? Let me repeat. The bad karma is two-fold:

1. Trying to isolate Japan by canceling flights to Tokyo, closing offices etc.
2. Inventing a word in the German language: schadenfreude

[Ryan Maguire]

I don't buy IAEA's report on Japan's Fukushima disaster.

People are forgetting that, IAEA is nothing but western version of AERB(Atomic energy regulatory board), a group of babus. Its directly under tight western control and there are big profit corporate profit interests involved in Japan.

Second point is, IAEA babus doesn't have all honest and right about this report because the disaster occured outside USA. If it had happened within USA, all bets would be off. There is a big difference between how West treats its own safety interests and that of non-westerners. Japan is merely a market for them, just like India, China. No more, no less.

Also, Japanese leadership is deeply involved in covering up incompetencies and mistakes made by private operateror(TEPCO) in maintaining prior checks and enough safety precautions regarding tsunami scenarios.

Lastly, just to clear, I don't support jaitapur movement. But we need more transperancy. Japan's disaster is classic example of how crony(unchecked) capitalism leads to catastrophes.

My main worry is not about whether TEPCO was careless in not visualing tsunami scenario and taking precautions for it in past, but my main objection is to the way everyone from Japan Govt. to every western media, lobby is trying to support TEPCO's viewpoints and ruling out any hint of deficiences in the operator's safety plans.

To me, this IAEA report is part of attempt to stand behind pro-western japanese leaders and to calm down public anger in Japan.

[amit]

I don't buy IAEA's report on Japan's Fukushima disaster.

People are forgetting that, IAEA is nothing but western version of AERB(Atomic energy regulatory board), a group of babus. Its directly under tight western control and there are big profit corporate profit interests involved in Japan.

Second point is, IAEA babus doesn't have all honest and right about this report because the disaster occured outside USA. If it had happened within USA, all bets would be off. There is a big difference between how West treats its own safety interests and that of non-westerners. Japan is merely a market for them, just like India, China. No more, no less.

Also, Japanese leadership is deeply involved in covering up incompetencies and mistakes made by private operateror(TEPCO) in maintaining prior checks and enough safety precautions regarding tsunami scenarios.

Lastly, just to clear, I don't support jaitapur movement. But we need more transperancy. Japan's disaster is classic example of how crony(unchecked) capitalism leads to catastrophes.

My main worry is not about whether TEPCO was careless in not visualing tsunami scenario and taking precautions for it in past, but my main objection is to the way everyone from Japan Govt. to every western media, lobby is trying to support TEPCO's viewpoints and ruling out any hint of deficiences in the operator's safety plans.

To me, this IAEA report is part of attempt to stand behind pro-western japanese leaders and to calm down public anger in Japan.

Boss,

I'm sure your views may have some merit. However, unless you back up you assertion with data, you are essentially telling us don't trust the IAEA they are lying, trust me I know.

Isn't that a stretching things a bit?

All of us are trying to understand the ramifications and the best way to do that is to back up assertions with links.

JMT

[amit]

This after swallowing billions in public tax payer money to build those plants...
Verily the incarnation of blood sucking Rakshsa on earth.

Theo,

I suggest you do some looking up on the kind of public money being sucked in Europe for the renewable energy fixation, particularly solar. A good place to look is Spain and also Germany. I think you'll find out that the billions in subsidies hardly translate to MWs of power that is required. That's where the problem lies.

In an ideal world everybody would support electricity generation by renewables, I think that a given at least on BRF. But we don't live in an ideal world and renewables still face massive technology challenges. Whether you or anyone likes it or not, coal and nuclear still remain the most viable means of producing massive amounts of energy at a relatively economical rate.

The choice still is between coal and nuclear and not between nuclear and solar, especially for India.

[Sanku]

I'm sure your views may have some merit. However, unless you back up you assertion with data, you are essentially telling us don't trust the IAEA they are lying, trust me I know.

Right now IAEA is working to achieve its stated goal of restoring public confidence in Nuclear power.

What does anyone expect given the above stated goal?

IAEAs report is a perspective thing, you can say that their perspective is so extremely biased to be inaccurate. Truth or lie is not a issue here. By the time IAEA moved its backside to go to Japan most of the lying, its fallout and subsequent exposure had already happened.

My view is that IAEA is not really a suitable agency for anything else than acting as watchdogs (to keep tabs on nuclear activity) in Non western countries, no need to give any more weight-age to them.

[amit]

My view is that...

You are entitled to you view. Just as others are too, I think you'd agree.

[Ryan Maguire]

I'm sure your views may have some merit. However, unless you back up you assertion with data, you are essentially telling us don't trust the IAEA they are lying, trust me I know.

Sir,

Can we avoid such kind of patronizing replies here?

If you disagree with my opinion, then please put your views on table. But talking about merits of someone's views without providing any basis, amounts to simple hypocrisy.

Sorry, if I am offending here but there is enough public material out there to back up what I stated on TEPCO's poor record in safety precautions. And, I have duly used words like "It seems" when talking about political factors behind IAEA's clean chit to one private operator in Japan.

[Ryan Maguire]

My view is that...

You are entitled to you view. Just as others are too, I think you'd agree.

I hope, same applies to you, Sir.

[Pratyush]

gobarganeshml can you please introduce your self on the Nube thread.

[amit]

I'm sure your views may have some merit. However, unless you back up you assertion with data, you are essentially telling us don't trust the IAEA they are lying, trust me I know.

Sir,

Can we avoid such kind of patronizing replies here?

If you disagree with my opinion, then please put your views on table. But talking about merits of someone's views without providing any basis, amounts to simple hypocrisy.

Sorry, if I am offending here but there is enough public material out there to back up what I stated on TEPCO's poor record in safety precautions. And, I have duly used words like "It seems" when talking about political factors behind IAEA's clean chit to one private operator in Japan.

Why do I get a feeling that I've seen this style of posting before? But choro, that's not important.

What I suggest is you re-read what I wrote:

you are essentially telling us don't trust the IAEA they are lying, trust me I know

Maybe my English was not very clear. It is after all not my mother tongue. But let me clarify that the "trust me I know" was used in sense of trying to compress what you said. It was not meant to mean "I know" in the first person sense.

May be this is better way to say it:

You are tell us don't trust the IAEA they are lying and you say this because you know.

then please put your views on table

Sorry boss, you've come to the party late. We've all put our views on the table, in this thread as well as the now closed Fukushima thread. We are now in the process of mopping up.

But to your point about IAEA being trustworthy or not, I follow a simple rule. If I don't have evidence that they are indeed lying, I'd assume that they are telling the truth. That's why I asked you to provide evidence with links on why you think they (IAEA) can't be trusted.

And the Fukushima debate and been done to death, if you care to read the various view posted you can see the earlier pages of this thread and the other thread.

[amit]

You are entitled to you view. Just as others are too, I think you'd agree.

I hope, same applies to you, Sir.

I would think so, that is I'm entitled to my views on the subject.

[Ryan Maguire]

May be this is better way to say it:
You are tell us don't trust the IAEA they are lying and you say this because you know.

No sir, I didn't say IAEA is lying. But I said, there might be political factors behind IAEA's stand of clearing TEPCO's name on whole nuclear disaster. Both are different.

Sorry boss, you've come to the party late. We've all put our views on the table, in this thread as well as the now closed Fukushima thread. We are now in the process of mopping up.

I am sorry about being late.

But to your point about IAEA being trustworthy or not, I follow a simple rule. If I don't have evidence that they are indeed lying, I'd assume that they are telling the truth. That's why I asked you to provide evidence with links on why you think they (IAEA) can't be trusted.

That's a loaded question. That's like asking - provide me evidence that you are always truthful to your wife.

But for sake of analogy, a better question would be - Does politics influence IAEA decisions, at any point? And, I think no diplomat would take a call on this.