India Nuclear News And Discussion

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Jun 2011 15:26

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

Gobarganeshml,

I think I can now understand what you are trying to do.

Best of luck!

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 03 Jun 2011 21:04

It is a little early to clear anyone's name WRT to Fukushima, leave alone TEPCO. Kinda unfortunate IAEA jumped the gun there.

These sorts of complex disasters take many years piece together. Typically a forensic unit would have been on the ground by now, gathering evidence, collecting data, following paper trail, interviewing witnesses, etc. Unfortunately in this case the site itself is off limits. Evidence is being destroyed as we speak as they continue to stabilize the reactors. We will likely never know the full story because of that.

The SOP of the Nuclear industrial complex is fairly straight forward. When you have no response...

- Drag in Solar.
- Next Drag in Coal.
- If that doesn't work, Radiation is good for SDRE only..
- Then finally some weak ridicule, name calling, I'm smarter than you comment, etc.
- Rinse & Repeat

Recently the command appears to be to attack newbie's or anyone who makes a first comment. Verily a Jihad...

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 03 Jun 2011 23:18

Theoji - Some time ago, you published, by your own admission, a random inline image of map with NO context, NO scale, NO reference. <<link>

Then you posted, again, inline chart, again with NO context, NO reference, and some random data taken from somewhere (with no link given)..(For comparison see, Somnath post which is actually helpful and informative)

Now again, here you AGAIN put inline images of 2002 "sodium leak" which you yourself said was considered a minor leak.

Why sodium (a part of salt) is even relevant here?.. At the minimum, you could put these images as link, with providing the right reference and context (BRF does have honor copy-right laws etc).

I have reported this to moderators, but am not sure if the report button works, or what blogsphere says about Ramana's abhay-dan is true, but I have not never received any reply. I do hope that reading this message you will edit those messages out.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation and continue to provide positive messages here.

PS - I would not have posted this message, but honestly I find these messages with huge inline images as annoying as
noise given by these in otherwise enjoyable soccer match. (For the consideration of others, I chose NOT to include the inline image /smile/)

I do hope that you consider NOT to included huge inline images unless they are appropriate and necessary.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 04 Jun 2011 00:25

Amber this is classic nuclear industry tactics.

You don't have any info to contribute so you attack those who do.

Did you even know that BARC has done a radiological study. You certainly don't have any info to contribute about it. I tried to file a RTI to get the info for Kudankulam but apparently most of NPCIL is exempt. I'm trying to file the Kalpakkam one as it is possible that one may be covered under RTI.

This is apparently the skirt you want to hide behind as well. Secrecy. One must wonder why. If this is your attitude please ignore my posts. We have nothing to say to each other.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 04 Jun 2011 01:48

Theo_Fidel wrote:Amber this is classic nuclear industry tactics.

You don't have any info to contribute so you attack those who do.

Did you even know that BARC has done a radiological study. You certainly don't have any info to contribute about it. I tried to file a RTI to get the info for Kudankulam but apparently most of NPCIL is exempt. I'm trying to file the Kalpakkam one as it is possible that one may be covered under RTI.

This is apparently the skirt you want to hide behind as well. Secrecy. One must wonder why. If this is your attitude please ignore my posts. We have nothing to say to each other.

Oh Theo , you are touching raw nerve here. for most part you won't get info under RTI. It would be denined under clause 8(1)(a) of the RTI

8 (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,—

(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;

If they give you some other reply do let me know. We can pull them up by reporting to Bredators here.

In case you forgot, there was a call to patriotism too. Add that to your list.It led me to a famous quote.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2011 02:54

AmberG, I dont know who you are basing your opinions on but I haven't been on this thread recently. And dont intend to.

I came here when it was pointed that you are taking my name in vain.

I see you are reporting Theo and not getting instant reponse throw my name gratitously. Is your case that some how, he is my buddy? Why tar the poor young man as you seem to have an opinion about me?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 04 Jun 2011 04:40

ramana wrote:AmberG, I dont know who you are basing your opinions on but I haven't been on this thread recently. And dont intend to.

I came here when it was pointed that you are taking my name in vain.

I see you are reporting Theo and not getting instant reponse throw my name gratitously. Is your case that some how, he is my buddy? Why tar the poor young man as you seem to have an opinion about me?

Ramanaji - Fair question, let me address your rebuke to me.

1. My recent report of the posts was just based on, what I though, were huge, random, and without links inline images by Theoji which may be against BRF policy (of cutting and posting without link). All I was asking was to encourage members to put a link, instead of inline image, unless the image is very important, and do provide context and reference for any cut and paste. I think I am pretty clear about this in my previous post too.

2. Wrt to "taking your name in vain" (as you called it), if you read it carefully; I started the sentence by giving the information about the report, "but am not sure if the report button works" . I have reported a few posts before (in the past) and never received even an acknowledgement, even though I checked the box. Naturally this was not a dig at you, just a mention of a fact that reporting in past did not seem to do anything. IIRC I have said this in one of my previous post(s) too. This was after, a post contained, what I considered, inappropriate words which made the environment hostile here. I was not even given a courtesy of a response by admin, even though, I asked for a response.

BRF encourages feedback by "report-button", I have tried it a few times and it did not seem to work.

3. Sorry if you misunderstood the part about "abhay-daan".. It was not directed or were meant to "tar" anyone (if anything, it was in light-hearted comment about hands-off policy). Again sorry if it was misunderstood but since you brought it up, let me just add that those were not my words. I was just echoing what some current and former respected BRF members have said about how certain members will get away. I am sure you already know that such posts are there even in blogspehere outside BRF. Whether we like it or not, BRF (its admins and posters) are visible in blogspehere. Let me just quote one comment (which I may have already posted .. ) .. (I have "x-ed" out names of brf members here)

...[his] sole mandate is to put out the EB viewpoint and annoy and bait EB-opponents with complete impunity: thanks to the shield erected around him by < an brf admin> . His angst against XXXXX, XXXXXX, the XXXXX, et al is probably because they constantly remind him of his ignorance. Beyond .net programming that is

My singular point for the above quote, is to give an awareness that BRF is becoming visible

You do have my email as we have talked in the past, so, if you like you can write to me. I am sure you will agree that *all* members of this thread should be treated with respect and brf policies should be followed for *all*. I am sure, you know that I am not talking about different view points but personal attacks and other violation of BRF policies which makes the forum less than it ought to be.

Regards.

P.S - Ironically, I honestly thought that my request to Theo (to provide, link, context and put avoid inline images unless necessary),, was what everyone will endorse. Apparently my faith was misplaced.

P.P.S - Ramanaji (or any other admin who read my report/feedback), I do want to get your view points about the points I raised in the feedback to admins and what I have posted in the previous post ( with regard to use of random inline images, without link or context) .. you really have not addressed that in your rebuke to me.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 04 Jun 2011 08:48

We have to avoid getting this thread Fuk-d Up.

I agree with Amber's broad point that all members should post their arguments coherently. If an image is posted, it should be explained and some conclusions drawn. If a large article is C&P'ed, its relevance should be explained.

Occasional posts in the lighter vein with humorous intent should also be allowed - they add to the content. However, if the entire portfolio of a member consists of one or two line tippanis, that should be frowned upon.

Having said that, I have my own observation in this ongoing battle between pro- and anti-nuke crowd. I believe that a complete impasse has been achieved for a simple reason. Those who fear the "invisible danger" will not find solace in any amount of scientific reasoning. Similarly, those who reason, will never understand the irrationality of fear.

Now, regarding the point of "bringing in coal" to the discussion, the intent is simple - it is to demonstrate that no source of power has just emerged after a bath in the Ganges. All sources of power have problems and it is a question of relative merit.

Now, my question to the worthy members is this: Are we going to debate the relative merits based on data and reasoning, or on irrational fear?

[Before folks feel like attacking me, please think about the simple *rational* fact: nuclear power has *still* not killed anyone in Fukushima.]

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 04 Jun 2011 11:03

Excellent post GuruPrabhu. And, indeed this observation is quite insightful:

I believe that a complete impasse has been achieved for a simple reason. Those who fear the "invisible danger" will not find solace in any amount of scientific reasoning. Similarly, those who reason, will never understand the irrationality of fear.

As for me, I can still find quite a bit to learn from some posts here so I like to read the posts here and do my best to filter out the noise.

Meanwhile, for those who want to look at data, learn from past experiences, and are not afraid to acquire new knowledge, here is an excellent preliminary report from MIT's Advanced Nuclear Energy System. Indian Nuclear Industry and others should find it very informative.

The title of the report is:
Technical Lessons Learned from the Fukushima-Daichii Accident and Possible Corrective Actions for the Nuclear Industry: An Initial Evaluation

The report just came out.

Here is the link:Fukushima Lessons Learned

You may find many other interesting papers under Canes Publications worth reading.

One thing struck me, while reading the report, that it contains many of the points raised and technical analysis done by us in the thread. The paper underscored the importance of understanding (and for experts to teach this to aam janta) the basics of radiation (which I did in a few messages).

Anyway let me quote the beginning part:

First, the accident was a result of the worst earthquake and tsunami in Japan’s modern history, an event which has caused the loss of over 20,000 lives and up to $300 billion in damages. Second, given the extraordinary magnitude of the initiating events (i.e. earthquake was 9.0 vs design 8.2, tsunami wave was 14 m vs design 5.7 m), the Fukushima-Daichii plant has performed relatively well in some respects and so far there is no evidence of major human errors in handling the crisis. It is noted that the containments at Units 1 and 3 have not failed, in spite of the exceptional loads they have been subject to, i.e. earthquake, tsunami, hydrogen explosions in the reactor buildings, steam discharges from the reactor pressure vessel, exposure to hot seawater, pressure above design limits for days. It is likely that there is a leak in the containment at Unit 2. The release of radioactivity from the plant has been large (with contributions also from containment venting and spent fuel pool overheating) and some workers have received significant radiation doses (>100 mSv whole-body equivalent), but health risks for them and the general population are expected to be negligible (see Appendix A). In fact, no loss of life has occurred as a result of the accident. Direct damage and casualties inflicted on Japan by the earthquake and tsunami far exceed any damage caused by the accident at the nuclear plant...

Wrt to reaction by US to make the exclusion zone to 50 miles.. (Germany's reaction was even more drastic) the report says - something what I have observed..

The U.S. NRC called for a much larger evacuation zone for U.S. citizens around the Fukushima plant ("This is the same advice that the NRC would give if this incident were taking place in the United States, to evacuate beyond a 50-mile radius," NRC Chairman Jaczko, March 17, 2011). While precautionary, this call did not seem consistent with the magnitude of the radioactivity releases; it undermined the Japanese regulator’s credibility, and created anxiety and confusion in the media, local population and general public {it sure did ..even in BRF}.

It also mentions: (Something which I tried to educate the aam janata here)

Communication of radiation levels to the public was made difficult by three factors: the use of three different scientific quantities (dose, dose equivalence and activity), the use of two systems of units (SI units used worldwide and the older units still in use in the U.S.), and a lack of context for understanding the meaning of these radiation levels. { This is why I tried to compare it with background radiation, banana dose etc - }

In fact it says, for example:

Radiation risk during nuclear accidents should be communicated to the public using a qualitative, intuitive scale ( ) vs. the traditional quantities of dose rate and activity. For example, the units of ‘natural background dose equivalence rate’ {Yes, 1/3 of background is much more intuitive than 1000 muSv} could be adopted. To avoid the necessity of adjusting for local background variations, the world average dose-rate from natural sources should be used: 2.4 mSv/year or 0.27 µSv/hr. Thus the elevated levels due to contamination would be presented in terms of the factor by which natural background
radiation is exceeded. ..... 10 times natural background is easier to grasp than
2.7 µSv/hr since no prior learning in a specialized field is required.

The report is worth reading in full. It describes measured health impact of radiation and other lessons learned. It also gives recommendations. If the technical data seems consistent with many of the posts here, it is not pro-nuke CT, it is just that the basic physics does not change. Of course, the situation is still evolving, so there may be more learning.

Let me quote the end few paragraphs of this report:

Closing thoughts:

The initial response of the nuclear industry and the U.S government to the Fukushima accident has been measured and rational (see Appendix . However, the risk of over-reacting to an accident, particularly one as dramatic as Fukushima, remains high. The industry is concerned about the near-term effect of Fukushima on the process of life extension of current plants and the support for new construction projects. Under the pressure of the public and the media, the government may be compelled to push for sweeping policy and regulatory changes, which may ultimately prove to be unnecessarily onerous on existing and future plants. Decision-making in the immediate aftermath of a major crisis is often influenced by emotion. Therefore, the following questions should be addressed after searching for vulnerabilities at existing plants, but before enacting significant changes in nuclear energy regulations and policy. Does an accident like Fukushima, which is so far beyond design basis, really warrant a major overhaul of current nuclear safety regulations and practices? If so, when is safe safe enough? Where do we draw the line? It seems that a rational approach to this question would need to be based on a riskinformed comparison of nuclear energy with other energy sources (particularly its most credible competitors, such as coal and natural gas), {GuruPrabhu's point} including their effects on climate change, global economy, stability and reliability of the energy supply, and geo-politics. But can the decision makers take a risk-informed approach to energy policy?
All engineered structures (e.g. power plants, bridges, skyscrapers, dams, highways) will fail if subjected to loads far enough beyond what they were designed for. The catastrophic failure of an irrigation water dam in the Fukushima prefecture, which occurred when the earthquake hit, went virtually un-reported in the media. {Amitji did mention it for perspective} What does this failure say about the safety of hydro power? Are the design basis selections of energy industry structures posing high environmental hazard, such as oil drilling platforms offshore, coal mines and water dams, consistent with those of nuclear plants? If not, are we as a society irrationally accepting higher risks from certain technologies than others?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 04 Jun 2011 18:49

amit wrote:
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. In Japan one plant has been temporarily shut down pending building more robust defences against tsunamis and the Germans have been talking about closing down their old nuclear plants instead of going for a life extension that had been touted by Frau Merkel. But they haven't yet actually started the process of clsing down a single plant yet.

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

BTW all this is good entertainment.

Amitji - you may find this x-post interesting:

MHI eyes global growth in nuclear orders

Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) is still aiming to reach its goal of doubling its global nuclear power-related orders by 2014. The company's US subsidiary has announced plans for a new engineering centre in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems (MNES) said that the Charlotte Engineering Centre will "expand the company's business in the US market of building new nuclear power plants and supplying replacement components for existing nuclear power plants." It added that the new centre "will be the core of the company's new-build projects in the United States."

The company said that it will invest some $4.1 million in the new facility, which is expected to create 135 jobs over the next five years.

<snip>
Global growth

MHI expects to meet its goal of doubling orders in the nuclear power business in the next few years, despite the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. The company anticipates nuclear power orders worth ¥600 billion ($7.4 billion) in fiscal 2014, Kyodo News reported.

In the fiscal year ended March 2011, the company's nuclear business reported orders worth ¥310 billion ($3.8 billion), up 15% from the previous year. For fiscal 2012, MHI anticipates orders worth ¥400 billion ($5.0 billion).

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 04 Jun 2011 18:52

AmberG,

Good post and thank you for the valuable link. Unfortunately, there are some individuals here who will argue that MIT-NSE is a sell-out to the nuclear industry. I've even had discussions with people who state that "some college" doesn't have the experience of operating an NPP nor the experience in clean up after a disaster. As GP stated so correctly that no amount of scientific reasoning will overcome the irrationality of fear.

In the Indian context, one can argue that we have a corrupt government at many different levels and corrupt industries colluding to rip-off and fraud the public for private profit. Therefore, all nuclear facilities be it for weapons or power are a major hazard and can make large parts of India uninhabitable for thousands of years due to one accident. Since this is the case, I would advocate signing the NPT, CTBT and other treaties and dismantling all nuclear weapons, reactors and facilities. America should be invited to help make all of south Asia a nuclear free zone similar to what Germany plans. Everything that has an atomic weight of 85 or greater is a danger to the public and must be banned.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Jun 2011 23:31

It appears that some people vehemently believe that if TEPCO and other western tech is shown to be broken, every one else must be in the same boat.

If they failed to read the basic scientific facts right, everyone else must be social science person too.

What hubris.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 05 Jun 2011 00:58

Sanku wrote:It appears that some people vehemently believe that if TEPCO and other western tech is shown to be broken, every one else must be in the same boat.

If they failed to read the basic scientific facts right, everyone else must be social science person too.

What hubris.

Absolutely. BARCs FBR and other reactors don't follow the same laws of physics used in the west, SU & Japan. India has its own laws that supersedes it. When your brain is more massive than a neutron star and is computing faster than the speed of light, who knows what sort of technologies can be developed? We just need to be careful that our brains aren't so massive to become black holes like our ass holes.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 05 Jun 2011 01:54

Mortji -
Thanks. Yes the MIT faculty report is an excellent document and there is lot of imortant learnings which we should pay attention to.

IMO, it is beyond pale to come out with statements like "trust me, they are lying" even without reading the report.

I understand the frustration.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jun 2011 04:51

http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/05/stories ... 591800.htm

Preparations under way for hot run of Kudankulam nuclear reactor

Safety features

The Kudankulam reactors have state-of-the-art safety features in terms of the various passive safety systems backing the active safety systems. Twelve huge water tanks are installed inside the reactor building to ensure that the reactor is filled with water with boron in case of loss of water from the reactor fuel core. In addition, the reactor is cooled by way of natural circulation of air in the event of loss of electricity supply. Each reactor at Kudankulam is provided with four diesel generators of 6.3 MWe capacity each. Of the four diesel generators, only one is required to keep the reactor in a cool state under shutdown condition. The diesel generators were installed at a height of nine metres above the mean sea level, isolated from tsunami-like floods, Mr. Balaji said.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 05 Jun 2011 04:53

Thanks Sai. Some good news in this thread is overdue. The Kudankulam reactor going critical would be welcome news.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 05 Jun 2011 05:15

Beyond design basis threats... Is that the same as unknown unknowns.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... es/437878/

The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Atomic Energy Commission, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and the Nuclear Power Company (NPC) would soon jointly give a fresh look at the safety and security measures currently in place at 20 reactors with total generation capacity of 4,760 Mw.

These agencies are expected to revisit emergency preparedness of the plants, the site and on and offsite disaster management to effectively tackle any Fukushima-like disasters and also biological, chemical and nuclear warfare.

This comes close on the heels of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's meeting with the National Disaster Management Authority on Wednesday where the former emphasised the need to upgradation of beyond design basis accidents. Besides, a high-level committee comprising representatives from the ministries of defence, home affairs, intelligence agencies and DAE take a quarterly review of beyond design basis threats.

So what happens outside the 16 km zone?

A BARC scientist, requesting anonymity, said as a matter of abundant caution, even some beyond design basis accidents are postulated for the nuclear power stations.

"It is only under such highly unlikely scenarios, that there is a possibility of a radiologicial emergency in the public domain. Response plans have also been drawn up for handling such emergencies in the public domain which are known as off site emergencies. These are in addition to the other types of emergency response plans in place within the facility to handle local emergencies. These plans, which are drawn up separately in detail for each site, which are under the jurisdiction of the local district administration, cover an area of 16 km radius around the plant or the off site emergency planning zone.”

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 05 Jun 2011 05:57

Theo_Fidel wrote: So what happens outside the 16 km zone?

Excellent question. For example, what is the plan for evacuating Guwahati in case of an accident at Kudankulam? Inquiring minds want to know. I doubt that we can trust the lazy bums of DAE to have thought this through.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Jun 2011 06:03

Guruprabhu. A request from me. Please follow the news about MMS preparing Indian cities for power plant events. Which cities, where are they etc.?

TIA

ramana

Reuters report:

India’s rapidly emerging nuclear power plants are seismically safe, but the country needs to ramp up its capacity to respond should an emergency strike, a top disaster management official warned on Wednesday.

The nuclear fallout from the earthquake and tsunami in Japan in March has in recent months turned the media spotlight onto India’s own nuclear energy expansion plans and the high risks it poses.

Following a meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to review the country’s level of preparedness to cope with a nuclear crisis, National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) officials told a news conference they were satisfied with the construction and design of the country’s plants.

“Dr Banerjee, head of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), has reassured us that they are very confident that our facilities are safe,” said Shashidhar Reddy, NDMA’s vice chairman.

Citing disasters from the past where Indian nuclear plants have emerged relatively unscathed – the 7.9 magnitude quake which hit the western state of Gujarat in 2001 and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami – Reddy said it proved that such facilities could withstand a major natural disaster.

With an energy deficit of about 12 percent, power-starved India is rapidly establishing nuclear plants to fuel its economic growth. It currently has 22 plants across the country and at least six more are on the way.

BOOSTING RESPONSE

But the events at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant have not only resurrected concerns from environmentalists and social activists over the need for nuclear power, but also whether due attention is being given to the risk of a nuclear fallout in the world’s second-most populous nation.

Reddy said while he believed the construction standards of nuclear facilities were safe, India still needed to prepare for the worst.

“Despite having a clean record, the government is very keen on taking all necessary preparedness measures to deal with any unlikely nuclear or radiological emergency,” he said, adding that plans for mass evacuations of affected populations and better detection of radiation were being examined.

This ministry of health has also produced a road map on improving response, which includes stockpiling medicines and equipment, training doctors and paramedics in dealing with nuclear and radiological injuries as well as investing in psychosocial care.

In districts where there are nuclear installations, the government hopes to pre-position specialised medical teams, upgrade and equip hospitals and create better awareness amongst the general public on how to protect themselves.

“The honourable prime minister has directed concerned officials of all the ministries to fast-track all these activities,” said Reddy. “I am very confident that we will be able make a lot of progress … so that we can instil confidence in the minds of the people of this country.”

Reuters AlertNet

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jun 2011 06:56

Varoon Shekhar wrote:Thanks Sai. Some good news in this thread is overdue. The Kudankulam reactor going critical would be welcome news.

YAW!

for your viewing pleasure in color:

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 05 Jun 2011 09:40

GuruPrabhu wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote: So what happens outside the 16 km zone?
Excellent question. For example, what is the plan for evacuating Guwahati in case of an accident at Kudankulam? Inquiring minds want to know. I doubt that we can trust the lazy bums of DAE to have thought this through.

Well, seems they have...Often, we just need to ask people whose day job is to work on these issue...

NDMA-AERB brought out this guideline document on nuclear emergencies, in 2009...
http://nidm.gov.in/PDF/guidelines/nucle ... encies.pdf

A lot of these would be guidelines, and capacities on the ground might not yet be fully there (which is true for everything under the sun in India), but its not as if people who are paid to these things are "kumbhakaran"-ing on their desks...

On the larger point, and I am digressing a bit here, this is a trend quite visible in the blogosphere, and unfortunately BR isnt immune to that...Increasingly there is a tendency here of some postors to simply take on a position, without having done elementary research/studies on the matter, and then post random news articles/data/chart which means absolutely nothing, or are plain incorrect to the point being made...

For example, a few posts back, Theo posted a NEERI reprots on "potential" radiologiccal discharges from Kudunkulum, and concluded that "actual" numbers would be higher..For good measure, he concluded that BARC does not release actual data...All that somone had to do was to check with AERB (whose day job is to do these things) - which is what I did, and posted the annual report with a full and granular analysis of actual radiological discharges, along with benchmarking of the same with ambient standards...Now Theo has this proclivity to make similar conclusions based on incorrect/non-contextual random data and erroeneous theoretical backgrounds - one has seen lots of them the "Economy thread" - where his "personal anecdotes" and "my father told me so" are used to arrive at judgements and conclusions...Unfortunaetly, Theo isnt the only one - there are lots of such postors, many of whom additionally also turn easily to personal comments/remarks to mask rank inadequacies in their logic/knowledge/understanding...

While the above may be inevitable, if I may, there is a lack of enough "expertise quotient" in the moderators community here, which IMO exacerbates the situation...Now, none of us here are nobel winners, but some postors have more than enough experience with at least some of the technical topics being discussed (this thread, the "Indian Economy" thread and some others)...I have no background in Physics, but obviously people like Amber G and GP have got significant experience there...My day job (and training) is in the policy/financial markets/economy domain, so I might have a few insights on the same that someone not there would not have...Its not required of the postor to "declare" his "expertise quotient", it is often quite clear from his posts...But if the job of the moderator is to "moderate" the discussion to something useful, the moderator himself needs to have some appreciation, even instinctive (if not experiential) appreciation of the topic...Unfortuanely, not enough moderators here have that, some of them in fact have pretty shallow understanding of the topic being discussed and sometimes get involved in the discussion itself in a manner which isnt too different from how some of the postors described in the earlier para do...As a result, we have too many situation where some postors simply go on with random rants without enough data/theory/undestanding - and the thread itself is "Fuk-d"...One can undestand the scenario for some of the more "general" topcis like "strategic furture"or "internal security", but not for the technical ones like "nuke" or "economy"...I mean, in some of the more meaningful fora, there are people arguiing over this topic with lots of intensity, but seldom without intellectual rigour on these things...

Lastly, some postors seem to forget that this is just an internet forum, not the Parliament

- we are unlikely to make no difference to any outcome other than our own personal understanding/knowledge of the issue...It is better therefore to cutout the more personal remarks - it would enrich the purpose of the discussion rather...

My two pence, before going back to "lurk" mode - which is currently a "safer" way of trawling through BR!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 05 Jun 2011 19:31

Mort Walker wrote:
Sanku wrote:It appears that some people vehemently believe that if TEPCO and other western tech is shown to be broken, every one else must be in the same boat.

If they failed to read the basic scientific facts right, everyone else must be social science person too.

What hubris.
Absolutely. BARCs FBR and other reactors don't follow the same laws of physics used in the west, SU & Japan.

No its not about physics its about engineering.

Laws of physics are all the same, yet not a/cs are Su 30.

Is that so difficult to get.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 05 Jun 2011 19:47

^^^But I doubt some people don't comprehend engineering and good engineering practices.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 05 Jun 2011 19:54

Mort Walker wrote:^^^But I doubt some people don't comprehend engineering and good engineering practices.

I agree in fact, we can see them trying to pretend the meltdown didnt happen at Fuk-D when the really competent ones knew early enough.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 05 Jun 2011 20:13

ramana wrote:Guruprabhu. A request from me. Please follow the news about MMS preparing Indian cities for power plant events. Which cities, where are they etc.?

Reuters report:

In districts where there are nuclear installations, the government hopes to pre-position specialised medical teams, upgrade and equip hospitals and create better awareness amongst the general public on how to protect themselves.

Ramana,

There are 18 Emergency Response Centers as follows:

1. Mumbai (BARC)
2. Mumbai (Tarapur)
3. Kakrapar
4. Delhi
5. Narora
6. Jaipur
7. Kota
8. Indore
9. Kolkata
10. Shillong
11. Hyderabad
12. Jaduguda
13. Nagpur
14. Bangalore
15. Kaiga
16. Kalpakkam
17. Alwaye
18. Kudankulam

Each center will have an emergency response team, which will be well trained and equipped with both radiological detection and measurement devices, as well as medical emergency response equipment. They will be also trained in rapid evacuation and site isolation.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 05 Jun 2011 20:17

somnath wrote:
GuruPrabhu wrote: Excellent question. For example, what is the plan for evacuating Guwahati in case of an accident at Kudankulam? Inquiring minds want to know. I doubt that we can trust the lazy bums of DAE to have thought this through.
Well, seems they have...Often, we just need to ask people whose day job is to work on these issue...

NDMA-AERB brought out this guideline document on nuclear emergencies, in 2009...
http://nidm.gov.in/PDF/guidelines/nucle ... encies.pdf

Somnath-ji,

I am in agreement. I was making a weak attempt at reducto ad absurdum.

That document is well thought out and has a wealth of information. I suggest that anyone who questions safety etc., should at least first consult that document (170 pages) before posting doubts on BRF.

Also, that document shows the level of concern and thought that went in well before Fuk-D. Indian "environmentalists" who have woken up after Fuk-D should also read that document and then raise rational questions rather than embark upon an andolan at the drop of a hat.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 05 Jun 2011 20:27

Sanku wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:^^^But I doubt some people don't comprehend engineering and good engineering practices.
I agree in fact, we can see them trying to pretend the meltdown didnt happen at Fuk-D when the really competent ones knew early enough.

"trying to pretend the meltdown didnt happen" == "there was no evidence"

"really competent ones knew early enough" == tukkabazi

You are welcome to post how you had deduced a meltdown based on available data, your formidable engineering expertise, your massive intellect etc.

Until you do that, you will be regarded as a fortune-teller who got one right after all.

But knowing that you will never do that (really competent tukkabazi on my part), why keep derailing the thread with this nonsense?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 05 Jun 2011 20:37

somnath wrote: <..
On the larger point, and I am digressing a bit here, this is a trend quite visible in the blogosphere, and unfortunately BR isnt immune to that...Increasingly there is a tendency here of some postors to simply take on a position, without having done elementary research/studies on the matter, and then post random news articles/data/chart which means absolutely nothing, or are plain incorrect to the point being made..
.

For example, a few posts back, Theo posted a NEERI reprots on "potential" radiologiccal discharges from Kudunkulum, and concluded that "actual" numbers would be higher..For good measure, he concluded that BARC does not release actual data...All that somone had to do was to check with AERB (whose day job is to do these things) - which is what I did, and posted the annual report with a full and granular analysis of actual radiological discharges, along with benchmarking of the same with ambient standards...Now Theo has this proclivity to make similar conclusions based on incorrect/non-contextual random data and erroeneous theoretical backgrounds - one has seen lots of them the "Economy thread" - where his "personal anecdotes" and "my father told me so" are used to arrive at judgements and conclusions...Unfortunaetly, Theo isnt the only one - there are lots of such postors, many of whom additionally also turn easily to personal comments/remarks to mask rank inadequacies in their logic/knowledge/understanding...

While the above may be inevitable, if I may, there is a lack of enough "expertise quotient" in the moderators community here, which IMO exacerbates the situation..
<snip>
My two pence, before going back to "lurk" mode - which is currently a "safer" way of trawling through BR!

Very good post Somnagthji. It will indeed a loss to BRF if vuvuzelas drive out sensible contributers. {/quote]

Let me quote the last few lines from an old message (from 20th century

) , which I thought was very good, and it, justifiably, received many kudos.

Ramana wrote:...Incidently this is my 1001th post on BRF. I wanted it to be something meaningful and add to the collective memory of the Forum. I would like to confine myself to similar endeavours in future. I also will think twice before posting to see, if am adding value to the discussion without indulging in brutus fulmen.

Link:<link>

Now why don't we see, perspective wrt to, say IAEA report or other important points, from this contributer, who obviously is knowledgeable in the field?

I think it is odd that the only reaction recently from this admin, was a public rebuke to a messenger.

I really urge all, senior members and admins to show some leadership and respect. . ( My report/feedback for a post (which BRF guide-lines advises one to do, and promise a reply when you check a box) did not even got an acknowledgement) )

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 05 Jun 2011 21:32

Somnathji - I know what you mean.. but in lighter vein ...

...Now, none of us here are nobel winners

We don't know that do we?

But I do know, Sankuji has mocked one Physics Nobel winner from Russia, along with throwing tons of insults at me, simply because his data on Chernobyl differed from Sankuji..

Besides one does not have to be a Nobel winner to see through the idiotic contents from people like 140,000_died_due_to_atomic_explosion_in_Fukushima_Busby. Busby's paper was posted MULTIPLE times by Chaanakyaji. (And when people tried to correct the errors , he attacked those who were trying to help him.). BTW Busby is just ONE among a few other such worthies..and, Chaanakyaji has posted those papers *multiple* times too (vouching for those authors as 'no less of a physicist')

Don't know but may be GP/Mort is right - As far as irrational fear of radiation .. More technical points are no more likely to resolve this than it would have calmed the fears of the people of Salem in 1692. ...

Still as Gita says.. one must try.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 05 Jun 2011 21:54

Amber G. wrote: Let me quote the last few lines from an old message (from 20th century ) , which I thought was very good, and it, justifiably, received many kudos.

Link:<link>

I suppose this topic has been discussed to death, but I have had questions about the "Pu sample from Chagai". Has anyone who is commenting (I don't mean on BRF) ever seen this data? Finding Pu in a U weapon test should not be unusual -- when you bombard U-238 (supposedly 5-8% in HEU) with neutrons you are bound to produce U-239, which decays to Neptunium which decays to Pu-239. After all, this is the basis of making maal in a reactor.

So, black lentils will depend on the isotopic content of Pu that was measured from Chagai. The fingerprint would be different based on whether one started with a U or a Pu weapon. I have never seen an analysis like this. Just saying Pu was detected doesn't prove anything. I would appreciate commentary from Ramana or anyone else on this topic.

My apologies for digging up a 12 year old topic -- maybe not the right thread -- will x-post in the other one.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 Jun 2011 18:41

Having just deleted the latest 'banter' that threatens to derail this thread permanently, let me crosspost what I wrote in the international thread:

Please note that this isn't the Fukushima thread nor is it an anti-nuclear thread. Those on some Quixotic campaign should tilt at windmills elsewhere. This is all rather tedious.

Someone mentioned that BRF is not parliament. There is nobody here with power to ban the bomb or ban the reactor. BRF is not the internet either. There are many other places on the internet to wage a campaign. BRF is not the place. There are other places to wage personal attacks. This thread has driven even moderators away.

Let us return to the purpose of this thread - developments in the Indian nuclear industry and weapons establishment. Those who have problems with either, find somewhere else to vent.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 07 Jun 2011 02:27

India, Pakistan continue to build nuclear weapons capacity: report

Aman Malik, [email protected]

India could have 80-110 nuclear warheads today, up from 60-80 last year, while Pakistan may have increased its count from 70-90 to 90-110, Swedish think-tank Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) said in its 2011 yearbook.

India does not officially release such data. Sipri’s estimates are based on calculations of the country’s inventory of weapons-grade plutonium as well as the number of operational nuclear-capable delivery systems.

“India and Pakistan continue to develop new ballistic and cruise missile systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons. They are also expanding their capacities to produce fissile material for military purposes,” said the report, released on Monday.

Pakistan operates two plutonium production reactors, and construction work on two more such facilities appears to be under way, the report said. It, however, added that “rumours of possible Chinese assistance in building the fourth reactor appear to have been unfounded.”

An analyst said these numbers would only go up in the coming years.

“While there is no credible information on how exactly the two countries define minimum deterrence, the Pakistani establishment will likely use the Indo-US nuclear deal as an excuse to further increase their stockpiles,” said Anit Mukherjee, analyst at the New Delhi-based Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, referring to an agreement on civil nuclear cooperation between India and the US.

Sipri’s report said eight countries—the US, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel—possess more than 20,500 nuclear weapons, a drop of more than 2,000 since 2009.

“More than 5,000 of these nuclear weapons are deployed and ready for use, including nearly 2,000 that are kept in a state of high operational alert,” it said.

It pointed out that while the US and Russia had agreed to modest cuts in their nuclear arsenals in August 2010, “both countries currently are either deploying new nuclear weapon delivery systems or have announced programmes to do so, and appear determined to retain their nuclear arsenals for the indefinite future.”

The report also said growing global demand for resources, led by emerging economies such as China and India, could destabilize international relations. Concerns linked to natural resources, particularly scarcities and competition created by climate change, could be exacerbated by intensifying global demand driven by the rise of China and India.

“This is due to the increasing needs of major new consumer and manufacturing countries—notably China and India—while existing industrialized nations in Asia, Europe and North America maintain already high levels of consumption. Together, these demands are seen as promoting intensifying global competition for access to natural resources,” the report said.

“Commodity markets and security risks are increasingly globalized—so we need cooperative international frameworks for resource governance that directly address security issues,” said Neil Melvin, director of Sipri’s programme on armed conflict and conflict management. “Links between resource questions and conflict can only be broken if consumer and producer states, industry and civil society, work together.”

Pakistan's alarming nuclear arsenal

Bhaskar Balakrishnan
Share · Comment · print · T+

Its strategic objectives could go way beyond India, to take on Israel and support Saudi Arabia. Besides, nuclear devices could fall into the hands of non-state actors.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme has expanded considerably in recent years, far beyond what could be considered a minimum credible deterrent against India.

Key indications are — the rapid expansion in fissile material production, especially plutonium; moving ahead with warhead miniaturisation; development of MIRVs (multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles); and medium range ballistic missiles (MRBM).

Pakistan has also blocked progress on the fissile materials cut-off treaty (FMCT) at the disarmament committee in Geneva, a clear sign that its drive to produce fissile material is in high gear. It benefits from technical and diplomatic support from China for its weapons programme, and has also been involved in smuggling of weapons technology and material to North Korea, Iran, and Libya.

Estimates of the number of nuclear warheads with Pakistan vary considerably, due to the secrecy of its nuclear programme. Some estimates put this figure at 100-120 warheads, probably larger than India, which has to manage a credible minimum deterrent against both China and Pakistan.

Pakistan has also developed and deployed the MRBM Shaheen II with a range of 2,500-3,500 km and payload of 1000 kg. A MIRV system is being developed for this missile.

AXIS WITH SAUDI ARABIA

Pakistan refuses to adopt a “no first use” policy on nuclear weapons, unlike India, thus clearly indicating that nuclear weapons would be used in case of defeat in a conventional war.

Fissile material production capability has been greatly expanded by a second heavy water reactor at Khushab, completed in 2010.

This enables Pakistan to produce enough plutonium for 40-50 warheads per year. In addition, the centrifuge plant at Kahuta has 10,000- 15,000 centrifuges and can produce highly enriched uranium. However, the mainstay of the weapons programme seems to be plutonium weapons (requiring only 2-4 kg of plutonium), miniaturised to fit on missiles and boosted with tritium to enhance yields by three to four times.

Given the size of Pakistan's nuclear and missile programme, experts have speculated that its strategic objectives could go way beyond India, to respond to perceived threats from Israel, Iran, and to include nuclear umbrella protection to other states such as Saudi Arabia, with which Pakistan has very close military, political, and religious linkages. In 2003, reports emerged about a secret nuclear cooperation agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In 1986, Saudi Arabia acquired 36 CSS-2 intermediate range ballistic missiles from China, which could be used for delivering nuclear weapons.

Recently it was reported that Pakistan had sold two nuclear warheads to Saudi Arabia, kept separately under heavy guard in Pakistani bases for possible use in future, as well as Ghauri II Missiles with a range of 2300 km. These could provide Saudi Arabia with a deterrent against a nuclear Iran. Given the strong strategic, military, and political relations between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, this type of cooperation would be seen as mutually beneficial. Financial support from Saudi Arabia for Pakistan's nuclear programme would also be an added benefit.

Weapons transfer

There is a precedent for such weapons transfers. The US has deployed hundreds of nuclear warheads in Europe, despite having signed the NPT. The arguments advanced were that this averted a nuclear arms development by European states, and did not violate the NPT, since the weapons remained under control of US personnel. Pakistan could follow the same route with Saudi Arabia, keeping the weapons on its soil.

Israel's strong capability in nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and anti- missile defensive systems and space-based platforms, make it more than a match for Pakistan in terms of nuclear deterrent.

However, the development of miniature warheads makes it possible for these to be smuggled and delivered by unconventional means, including by hard core terrorist elements. Such action could be denied by the Pakistani state, as happened with the Mumbai attacks. Here is where the real menace of Pakistan's nuclear programme lies.

Extremist elements such as the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and supporters of Al Qaeda have steadily eaten into the vitals of the Pakistani state. They have also infiltrated the military establishment, and have spread out into Pakistan's heartland.

The recent brazen killings of moderate political figures, the violent reactions to Osama Bin Laden's killing, and the daring attack on PNS Mehran naval base near Karachi, are a stark warning of things to come.

NON-STATE ACTORS

However confident the Pakistan military might be over security of nuclear materials and warheads, there is a very strong motivation and incentive for non-state actors to acquire a few nuclear weapons. This can be prevented by increased security, or by storing the warheads in disassembled and dispersed form. But this does not seem possible given the tensions with India and the nuclear deterrent scenario existing between China, India and Pakistan.

Indian policy makers should look at possible scenarios involving use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan against Indian targets, and take steps to protect its civil population. Even very basic civil defence measures against nuclear attacks can reduce civilian casualties and suffering considerably. However, there is no sign of any concrete measures being taken by the government in this direction.

With the rapid increase and sophistication and build up of nuclear warheads with the military establishment in Pakistan, there is always a risk that such devices may fall into the hands of non-state actors, or renegade extremist actors working for their own agendas within the state organs.

The international community would do well to consider how to deal with such a threat.

(The author is a former Ambassador of India. He has served in West Asia and Africa, including three years in Syria. [email protected]).

Relevant articles.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 07 Jun 2011 04:36

IIRC when US Secretary of Commerce visited India, NuScale Power’s president was one of the one with him to find business opportunity (thinking that NuScale’s 45-MW modular reactor may have tremendous promise for rural areas in India’s)..

Anyway there is a recent NPR story about Mini modular reactors of the size of a car garage.

Is The Future Of Nuclear Power In Minireactors?

Here is a nice graphic from above ... may be of interest...
Graphic

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 08 Jun 2011 01:10

From NY Times:
G-8 Energy Ministers Pledge Support for Stricter Nuclear Safety Tests

Excerpts:

PARIS — International energy ministers and officials of nuclear agencies pledged support Tuesday for a global push to improve safety tests at nuclear power plants.

<snip>

Representatives attended from around 30 countries drawn from the G-8 and members of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
<snip>
Srikumar Banerjee, the chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission, said his country had little choice but to turn to nuclear power, given that its energy demand is growing 10 percent or more a year. “This power demand is so genuine,” he said, “the only alternative is that we burn coal.” He said that India currently contributed 5 percent of global carbon emissions, but that would rise to 50 percent if it met its energy needs from coal. New Delhi, he added, was investing in solar energy, “but it cannot sustain a metropolis or a heavy industry.”
<snip>

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Jun 2011 01:15

^^^
Srikumar Bannerjee in one paragraph has encapsulated very neatly all the arguments made on this thread for why India need nuclear power. Once this point can be settled then a discussion can be had on how to make India N plants more safer.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 08 Jun 2011 01:54

Amit ji i had said that long back in this discussion. But some folks were dismissive of the environmental aspect and said it's a Western thing. Lost interest in continuing on that track then. But this is a big issue. Nuclear is the cleanest form of mass energy that can be produced. IT's absolutely relevant for countries the size of India and China.

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Jun 2011 03:59

Harbans ji, yes indeed you have been saying this, as have been many others on this thread. Once we can understand that there's no escape from nuclear in energy deficient India then the discussion can move to how we can make our nuclear plants even more safer.

The biggest lessons that we should draw from Japan is not how TEPCO has been allegedly lying and incompetent but what are the things that can go wrong from a technical perspective and how we can prepare for such contingencies.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Jun 2011 04:17

Japan seeks India's cooperation on nuclear safety

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 08 Jun 2011 09:50

amit wrote:
Dear Amit, I really appreciate your bringing the light to poor Germans, don't even know how their country works, no doubt they have not figured out any of the above and.......

Wake me up when the Germans actually close down their nuke plants. We can discuss then.

.

Amit:

Missed that, I know every country is different, and Germany is Germany.. but still just a perspective check:

About 30 years ago ( as a knee jerk reaction to Three Mile Island Incident ) Sweden voted to phase out its 12 nuclear power plants by 2010. Eleven of them still operate today
(In June 2010, the Swedish Parliament adopted a decision allowing the replacement of the existing reactors with new nuclear reactors, starting from 1 January 2011

)

Added later: You may also like to look at the posts I made in the other thread regading
WP Post oped about Merkel's "flip flop" and WSJ story about Nuclear Exit Fails to Give Merkel's Party a Boost

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Jun 2011 00:57

Amber G. wrote:Amit:

Missed that, I know every country is different, and Germany is Germany.. but still just a perspective check:

About 30 years ago ( as a knee jerk reaction to Three Mile Island Incident ) Sweden voted to phase out its 12 nuclear power plants by 2010. Eleven of them still operate today
(In June 2010, the Swedish Parliament adopted a decision allowing the replacement of the existing reactors with new nuclear reactors, starting from 1 January 2011 )

Added later: You may also like to look at the posts I made in the other thread regading
WP Post oped about Merkel's "flip flop" and WSJ story about Nuclear Exit Fails to Give Merkel's Party a Boost

Amber,

Thanks for pointing out that little nugget about Sweden.

I saw the "flip flop" comment about Merkel and how her going back on her election promise of extending the life of nuclear power plants (yes many folks here don't know that but that was one of the major promised made by Frau Merkel's party in the run up to the polls) isn't going cut any ice with the Greens.

I believe I posted either the same article or another one which also had the "flip flop" comment on this thread.

What I'm interested in seeing is what happens this winter. Again, in a previous page or the one just before that, I posted another article which talks about German power generation. During the summer months they are comfortably surplus but during winter they need to import power from, among others, France.

Now this is an on and off thing. But with the plants still shut down, I'd wonder if this is going to become a permanent feature. It would be indeed ironic if the Germans have to import power made from nuclear power plants to heat up the homes of Greens who voted to shut their own nuclear power plants!

I personally think that if the Germans are really serious about this they will have to build coal-fired plants to take care of the growth of electricity demand. Best case estimates (I gave the link earlier) show that renewables would only take care of 25 per cent of the demand by 2050; now the nuke industry accounts for 22-25 per cent of demand. So we will have - again in a best case scenario - a situation in which renewables totally replace nuclear by 2050. This is great but the small problem that remains is that the Germans, like everybody else, want a growing economy. So assuming that the German economy would grow at a trend growth rate of between 2-3 per cent over the remaining period till 2050, where is the additional power requirements going to come from - you have to remember that the German distribution system is already quite efficient and there's not much scope for reducing distribution loss.

Let's see what happens but my personal reading is in order to keep its power supply (which is currently very nicely surplus) going the Germans can't just rely on radical measures like closing all nuclear plants at one shot. So the Swedish analogy is very appropriate.

Since this is the India thread I would like to add one point. Germans and the Swedes earlier have the luxury of tinkering with power generation because they are power surplus and have very reliable sources of power within Europe from where they can tap into extra power once needed. India does not have the luxury. We are seriously power deficit and we don't have any reliable sources in our neighbourhood. So all these vainglorious ideas about following the Europeans with such radical solutions look all fine and dandy when typed out on a computer screen. However, in the real world they don't work. India needs to follow all available power options in its energy mix. We don't have the luxury of trying anything else. Again I reiterate, once that's accepted then the discussion can be on what lessons can learnt from the Japanese accident and what can be done to make Indian nuke plants more secure.

PS: One link which I posted had some sobering information. In Germany recently a 8.3 MW solar power plant was inaugurated which had a solar farm built over 19.5 hectares of farmland. Now do a back of the envelop calculation of how much land it would require to generate the equivalent of what Jaitapur nuclear plant would - if it allowed to be built by the grand coalition of Vandana Shiva and Uday Thackeray - produce. In fact even in Germany, how many hectares of solar farms would be needed to keep, say, a BMW production plant running at the high efficiency that it does? Does India have that kind of land available to produce GWs of solar power? Have we all forgotten the kind of problems land acquisitions entail in land hungry India?