India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

sum · Post by **sum** » 02 Mar 2012 08:28

Theo_Fidel wrote:I can see why they kept it secret and resort to wild accusations. To accuse CRIN of all such things is breath taking chutzpah. I have to say I'm speechless. Lets keep in mind there is no proof yet. Just wild accusations based on fishing expeditions. I can personally say WRT to Bishop Ambrose that such an accusation is laughable if you knew anything about the man.

Sure but calling eminent scientists and all members of the DAE as liars and anti-people is kosher!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Mar 2012 08:47

The belittling of the entire nuclear scientific establishment of India,after decades of massive indigenous expertise achieved and aeons of experience in operating N-plants (which have provided power to the poor-memory protesters too !),is the worst aspect of the controversy.These eminent scientists,with decades of proof of their expertise,have been treated like criminals by the PMANE gang of quislings and rent-boys,who used virtual goonda tactics of trying to shut their voices when they attended seminars to allay the fears of the public and educate them about safe N-power.For 4 decades now,people in TN have been used to consuming the power that has been produced at Kalpakkam without a squeak of protest.To therefore say that the TN population is against N=power is a diabolic lie by Udaykumar and his cronies.In fact,the media informs us that massive protests have been made by workers and ordinary people in favour of the opening of the plant,including ana ppeal by the former CM Karuananidhi.

The foreign element in the protests and the secret funding of the NGOs has at last been revealed.Those found guilty should be treated on the same par as spies in the pay of foreign powers and receive the maximum punishment.That is the only method which will quench the hot air that the protesters have emitted.If only that energy could've been tapped into electricty..! Our nation's power problems would be solved.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 02 Mar 2012 09:03

People are imagining things now. Good people do poor things when working for myopic organizations all the time. This is the true lesson of Fukushima.
--------------------------------------------------------------

WRT APJ, he made a number of recommendations to the government. So what has GOI done. Turfed him out without a second thought and completely ignored him.
-----------------------------------------------------

A good read.

http://newsclick.in/india/foreign-hand- ... governance

It makes strange reading when the prime minister of the country confesses that his government and the nuclear establishment put together do not have the credibility to convince the people of the area near Kudankulam regarding the safety of the plant. A rag-tag band of NGO's funded from abroad has more credibility than the entire Government including the PM? Is this not a cause for shame ? And introspection? Is it not a complete failure of governance?

The other issue is the role of NGO's The Government seems to be arguing that NGO's should not oppose government policy, if they are foreign funded. Here is a Government which has been soliciting foreign funds for every sector in the economy, has been fully backed by foreign capital, has allowed US and Israeli intelligence agencies to penetrate its security apparatus officially, allows “strategic” think tanks to create economic and foreign policy with foreign funds. Its only problem is with NGO's that are opposing government policies. What is the difference between the US companies opposing India's nuclear liability laws, or patent laws and international NGO's with their Indian counterparts campaigning opposing policies?

The problem with this Government is that it wants its policies to be selectively applied. Westinghouse and GE campaigning against Indian policies and laws is OK, but not NGO's opposing nuclear power. Monsanto can campaign for GM crops, but foreign funded NGO's can't oppose Monsanto. A Walmart can campaign for opening up retail to foreign capital but groups opposing Walmart in the US should not extend their activities here. What is sauce for the corporate gander is not sauce for the NGO goose. Globalisation of capital is to be welcomed but not globalisation of dissent.

The worst excesses of foreign funding in India is not on issues where there is a world-wide debate – such as GM crops or nuclear energy. It is in the murky world of strategic policies and arms trade. A huge number of “think tanks” have sprung up in the last two decades. They conduct strident “advocacy” for India to align with the NATO, appear as “experts” in the media and argue for a rightward shift in India's foreign policy. They also are the refuge of senior armed forces figures after retirement. If we examine their funding, most of their funding comes from the Government of NATO countries, who not only have an obvious interest in India abandoning its independent foreign policy but also provide a huge market for their armaments industries. In the US, they would have to register as lobbyists for foreign countries. In India, they masquerade as NGO's.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://news.in.msn.com/exclusives/it/ar ... id=5889824

The second instance relates to power projects. The issue in Kudankulam, according to the PM, is that NGOs are not appreciative of energy security of this country. Going by government actions in recent past, one can say that the government itself is not serious about energy security. Otherwise, why would it yield to protestors and scrap not one but three power projects in Uttarakhand - with total capacity of 1500 MW and costing about Rs.7000 crore. This was done in August 2010. Will someone in the government tell what happened to 'the need for increasing energy supply', after all 1500 MW would have been a substantial contribution to the grid? Did the government give in to NGO pressure because there was no 'foreign hand' there? Or was the government really concerned about preserving Himalayan ecology?

Well, the real reason was political - pleasing a section of voters in the state and outside. "Our government is very conscious of the faith that crores of our countrymen and women have in this most holy of rivers (Ganga) and it is in keeping with this faith that these decisions have been taken," finance minister Pranab Mukherjee had recorded in a letter to the protestors. The letter, in fact, made it amply clear that the projects were scrapped not in response to any ecological or displacement concerns but purely as a matter of faith. Protestors in Tamil Nadu should note they have little hope because Kudankulam is not a shade when it comes to holiness, and their US funding is not coming from Bill Gates.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 02 Mar 2012 09:55

Theo_Fidel wrote: --------------------------------------------------------------

WRT APJ, he made a number of recommendations to the government. So what has GOI done. Turfed him out without a second thought and completely ignored him.
-----------------------------------------------------

Theo this is a pretty disingenuous argument. Not one of the 10 recommendations of APJ had anything to do with enhancing nuclear safety at the plant. Infact his report reiterated that KK is perfectly safe. His KK PURA (Providing Urban amenities to Rural Area) has recommended that the suggestions be completed by 2015, which include, among others:

Four-lane highways, a mega desalination plant, construction of houses, schools, hospitals as well as cold storages are amongst the suggestions to the central government made by former President APJ Kalam for the development of Kudankulam and surrounding areas in Tamil Nadu.

In a report, Kalam, who on Sunday visited the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KNPP) in Tirunelveli district and believes the plant is totally safe, said the 10-point Kudankulam PURA (Providing Urban Amenities in Rural Areas) programme should be implemented by 2015.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 02 Mar 2012 10:00

^^
1) Which UK/US/Germany funded NGOs have protested entry of Monsanto and Bt Brinjals in India so far?

2) Scrapping of Uttarakhand power project and protests at Kundankulam cannot be related.

a) Uttarakhand protests were not funded by foreign funded NGOs.
b) U Khand projects have direct impact on environment
c) If U Khand has religious angle (Ganga) - which relgious angle Kudankulam has ?

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 02 Mar 2012 10:48

Theo saar,
what is CRIN?

According to the report linked by juhujarji,11 people died due to a rare bone cancer in the vicinity of Kalpakkam power plant.Any comments from learned members?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Mar 2012 11:07

arnab wrote: Arrey Sanku ji of course everybody knows the difference between India and Pak and NK;

I see if every one does know the difference, kindly keep that bovine dropping out of discussion. Thanks in advance.

Our mathematically challenged friend is trying to make a case that since 'indigenous and imported uranium' increased the efficiency rates to >90 % - therefore the imported uranium doesn't matter

My dear boy, trying to get personal when caught passing junk as data are we?

Just to let you know I have reported this post -- I would have replied, but I dont think Mods would like your strain of personal attack to derail this thread.

Nice try though.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 02 Mar 2012 11:12

Sanku wrote:My dear boy, trying to get personal when caught passing junk as data are we?

Nice try though.

Nope - it is a fact not an opinion. Either one can add or one can't. Nothing personal about it

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Mar 2012 11:13

Tanaji wrote: especially given that PM himself has stated it (its unlikely he a PM will make such allegations without basis)

Tanaji Saar, I am afraid the above argument is just not possible, given Man mohan and his track record of accuracy and veracity of statements so far.

In the same interview in the same breath, he also cried about how Monsanto was being vilified by US funded NGOs. KKNP was somewhat also slipped in.

Jairam Ramesh had a apoplectic fit on the issue.

So while NGOs may be receiving money (almost certainly Church receives money and is also involved in public movements, but under current setup very little of it is illegal) Because Man mohan said it, means not very much unfortunately.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Mar 2012 11:14

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:My dear boy, trying to get personal when caught passing junk as data are we?

Nice try though.
Nope - it is a fact not an opinion. Either one can add or one can't. Nothing personal about it

Dear boy, the only fact that is obvious is that some people are being charitable with truth and getting personal when their facts are shown the light of day.

Other facts can not be gone into because of mods, but are equally clear.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 02 Mar 2012 11:20

Sanku wrote: Tanaji Saar, I am afraid the above argument is just not possible, given Man mohan and his track record of accuracy and veracity of statements so far.

.

Now this is an opinion being couched as a fact

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Mar 2012 11:43

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote: Tanaji Saar, I am afraid the above argument is just not possible, given Man mohan and his track record of accuracy and veracity of statements so far.

.
Now this is an opinion being couched as a fact

No its a fact couched as opinion.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 02 Mar 2012 11:47

Sanku wrote:
No its a fact couched as opinion.

Then prove it

- that MMS was lying about locals being funded by foreign NGOs to carry out agit prop against KK.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 02 Mar 2012 12:05

Dont know about global scarcity, doesn't seem to affecting India

High level of Uranium in Nalgonda

With Lambapur-Peddagattu uranium mines in Nalgonda district next in line for excavation, nuclear physicists from Osmania University, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and Chaitanya Bharati Institute of Technology have established ‘baseline data’ for background radiation in villages in this uranium-rich belt near Nagarjunasagar reservoir.

The expert team has found that mean radiation levels in the area are relatively high when compared to national and international averages.

Uranium Corporation of India Limited proposes to take up uranium mining at Lambapur-Peddagattu once mining starts at Thummalapalle in Kadapa district. The mines in Kadapa is expected to become operational later this month or early April.

Lambapur-Peddagattu is rich is Uranium reserves, and together with Thummalapalle could meet about 25 per cent of the country’s nuclear energy needs, experts say.

Baseline data developed by the team will help the Department of Atomic Energy to monitor radiation levels once mining starts at Lambapur-Peddagattu. Monitoring of radio-nuclide in the region is important as Nagarjuna-sagar and the Krishna river provide drinking water to millions of people in Nalgonda, Guntur, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad and Krishna districts.

The team said Uranium 238 concentration in near-surface soil varies from 100 to 176 Bq kg, Thorium 232 varies between 64 and 116 Bq kg, and Potassium 40 concentration fluctuates from 309 to 373 Bq kg.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 02 Mar 2012 12:09

Dated Feb 21st. Dont see it has been posted before

Work on thorium-based reactor to commence soon

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Mar 2012 12:11

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:
No its a fact couched as opinion.
Then prove it - that MMS was lying about locals being funded by foreign NGOs to carry out agit prop against KK.

If you think so.

What I said was that Man mohan's statement are worthless for most of us, they can not be used to make any meaningful conclusion. He may be right may be wrong, or could be using one right point in 90% wrong for some other "chanikian" purpose, is not what will ever be clear to any Indian like me.

This is going by his past track record of "chankianess".

Therefore, any discussion on KKNP should not use his utterances as data point because we (speaking for myself and people like me) are fair simpletons who look for things like transparency, actions on ground, corroborative evidence and over all solutions.

We are unable to understand what a random throw away statement without an ounce of real movement means. That is for people who understand deep chankian theories.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 02 Mar 2012 12:34

svenkat wrote:Theo saar,
what is CRIN?

According to the report linked by juhujarji,11 people died due to a rare bone cancer in the vicinity of Kalpakkam power plant.Any comments from learned members?

Svenkat,

Reg. Jhujar's article - when people are asked to write reports, they write screenplays instead.
The opening sentence is one such. But what was omitted is when the request for these medical reports were made and when they "eventually" filed a RTI form. BUrqa-ed strippper one again. Hide some facts, add some drama and barf a report.

One must compare the occurrence of cancer cases against other places. One must establish a correlation. What if 8 cases of the same cancer have occurred in say Himachal? Or 20 cases of loose motion near a thermal power plant?

Why cannot ANY independent organization including the highly sophisticated and hoity-toity Scandanavian organizations,establish , despite SO SO much funding, ANY SUCH REPORT, PUBLISHED ON ANY JOURNAL AND VETTED BY OTHERS? The standard methods of research, testing, establishing correlation , publishing in journals and submitting it to respective government orgs - have not been done. Have there been precedents of such reports, governments acknowledging the medical problem and rescinding on any nuclear plant?

Let them come out in the open and fight the fight. Lay down their proof in a level playing field. Shooting from behind fishermen's back - reeks of effete cowardice.

F****ng cowards!

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 02 Mar 2012 12:35

Sanku,
Mate..enormous respect for you.
But please please please take this MMS bashing elsewhere.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Mar 2012 12:43

Neela wrote:Sanku,
Mate..enormous respect for you.
But please please please take this MMS bashing elsewhere.

Not bashing him, merely discussing his comments like others are, unfortunately Man mohan has linked himself inextricably with Nuclear sector in India, cant discuss one without the other.

After all by his own admission, this was going to be legacy that the history would judge him on.

-----------------

I dont for example discuss him at all on any other thread, like the Mil threads.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 02 Mar 2012 14:35

Neelaji,
Thanks.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 03 Mar 2012 03:53

As people seem to have short memories.... ..here is point 10 on Kalam's recommendation... ..I'd say its a perfect 0/10 so far for GOI...

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 607289.ece

- While extending all these facilities, the villagers' fears about the project should be allayed, and all information they needed to know should be given, he said. , adding the Kudankulam project should be implemented with their full cooperation.

----------------------------------------------------

CRIN is a secular international organization that runs under UN guidance and is very active in Nagercoil and runs several orphanages and programs for street children. RUC is one of its wings that legally challenges mistreatment of children. By its nature its funding is almost all international. CRIN works in Sudan, Somalia, Tibet and Afghanistan to give you an idea of how extremely careful it is to be PC. It like accusing UNICEF of being a 'foreign hand'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW 25% of India's Uranium needs means 250 tonnes of uranium per annum. Since Nalgonda has on average 0.04% Uranium and extraction efficiency is about 50% right now. that would mean 250/0.04x100x2 ~ 1.2 million tonnes of ore and tailings that will have to be processed and disposed of each year. To feed roughly 1000 MW of capacity a year. Imports are not going to stop. They are just beginning.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 03 Mar 2012 04:37

http://www.crin.org/about/index.asp

CRIN is currently funded by:

The Sigrid Rausing Trust, The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency (Sida), the Oak Foundation, a Private Donor and Save the Children Sweden.

Pretty interesting groups. need to research in more detail.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Mar 2012 06:52

First understand some basics.Norway is the US's catspaw internationally.There is voluminous evidence of this available to the discerning researcher.The relationship between pro-Nazi right wing Yanquis and Norwegians included names such as Prescott Bush,The Bush patriarch,who was also accused of bankrolling Hitler!

Norway has a most intensive intel relationship with the US post WW2 and works in tandem with the US is apparently playing the role of a "neutral" in resolving international disputes,where actually,it has another devious agenda.This has never been made clearer than its role as "facilitator" in Sri Lanka,where it was actually actively promoting a de-facto division of the island favouring the LTTE.A disgraced politico,Solheim,who was allegedly involved in a scandal involving E.European tarts.Solheim is also involved in anoeher "aid" scandal involving Tanzania details here:

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/10/31/ ... aid-funds/

The Norwegian authorities, including the government minister in charge of foreign aid, Erik Solheim, claim they have done all they can to investigate how Norway’s money was used on the Tanzanian projects. Solheim has repeatedly noted that the Tanzanians at one point refunded some of the money, but it only amounted to less than NOK 12 million to cover alleged irregularities and tax discrepancies. Solheim has claimed he’s quite satisfied that any money was repaid at all.

Therefore understand the true motives behind many foreign NGOs,they are not all as innocent and philanthopic as they appear.They are adjuncts to their nation's intel and foreign ministry apparatus because they can find easy ingress into a poor nation especially those which are experiencing natural disasters,etc.How memories ard short in India.How many remember about the aftermath of Bhopal and the rush there by so-called medics to assist in relief.Most of them were chem warfare specialists who took back blood specimens ,as it was the equivalent to a chem warfare attack.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 03 Mar 2012 10:31

amit wrote: But of course what does Srikumar Banerjee know? Right? He must be a marketeer for all those big, bad nuclear companies which are trying to screw India.

This is what Srikumar Banergee said in the recent India International Nuclear Symposium held in New Delhi and attended by Srikumar Banerjee , Anil Kakodkar, Rajagopala Chidambaram, SK Jain etc. .

We're not talking only about the next 20, 30 or 40 years, but what about beyond?Imported coal costs much more than nuclear energy. Without nuclear energy, the economic growth of the country will be slowed down."

I don't know if any one here attended that symposium, but there Banerji's calculations with one scenario showed that (in 2050) with Maximum use of renewables including hydro, if rest is left to coal it will result in about 7.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year....

Minister of Power Shinde lauded joint venture deals made so far between Indian power equipment manufacturers and their American, European, and Japanese peers. He appealed to the assembled executives:

If anyone is interested in joint-venture for manufacturing of nuclear power machinery, we will welcome and we will assist you in any way you need

.

India's commitment to nuclear energy remains strong as the country looks ahead to decades of sustained growth, New Delhi conference delegates have been told by leaders of the country's program.

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Mar 2012 10:49

Amber,

Thanks for sharing this link. Should be sufficient for most reasonable people. However at the same time it's useful to remember that there is no cure for paranoia and delusions.

I've taken a bet with myself on how many posts before we get something to the effect: what do these idiots know? Or: they did not say this. You don't understand what they are saying, heck even they don't understand...

Ps: do have a link to the presentations?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 03 Mar 2012 11:00

amit wrote: Even on this thread, where one would expect more informed discussions than that which is going on around various churches in and around the KNPP site, we saw how rhetoric repeatedly triumphed facts - by using terminology very similar to those being used now by the KNPP agitators - during the Fukushima Dai'ichi nuclear accident debate. We had some very senior posters - even one who claims to be "always proven right" - claiming that it was only a matter of time before hundreds (and even thousands) of Japanese started to die of radiation poisoning. All I can say is that till date more people died in the Fukushima prefecture due to a dam burst (on account of the earthquake) which swept away 4,000 homes than from the radiation leakage (actually nobody died from radiation poisoning).

The number of deaths at Fukushima, due to radiation is still zero!

What may be of more interest to Amit (and at least a few people here) is to go through (Feb 2012) The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)'s "State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) research project 's draft report ( it is open for public comments).... Focusing on the representative of pressurised water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs) operational in the USA, the in-depth study combines up-to-date information on plant layout and operations, local population data and emergency preparedness plans with state-of-the-art computational analysis tools and best modelling practices. These have been used to provide an evaluation of accident progression and offsite consequences for a selection of severe accident scenarios which the authors say are more realistic than previous analyses...
(Their conclusion:
"The analyzed accidents would cause essentially zero immediate deaths and only a very, very small increase in the risk of long-term cancer deaths."

"very very small" is quantified as millions of times lower than the general risks of dying of cancer, over the life time.

I quote from the press release ...

A severe accident at a US nuclear power plant would not be likely to cause any immediate deaths, while the risks of fatal cancers caused by such an accident would be millions of times lower than the general risks of dying of cancer, a long-running research study has found.

An appendix there examines the current extent of knowledge on events at Fukushima...

Scenarios considered for both plants included short- and long-term station blackouts, involving the loss of all alternating current power. Scenarios including a containment bypass involving the rupture of steam generator pipes were also considered for the Surry PWR plant. Such scenarios would not be relevant in a BWR plant, which does not utilise steam generators.

SOARCA's main conclusions fall into three areas: how a reactor accident progresses; how existing systems and emergency measures can affect an accident's outcome; and how an accident would affect the public's health.

According to the report, the studies have shown that existing resources and procedures can stop an accident, slow it down or reduce its impact before it can affect the public, but even if accidents proceed without such mitigation they take much longer to happen and release much less radioactive material than earlier analyses suggested. Moreover, the analysed accidents would cause "essentially zero immediate deaths and only a very, very small increase in the risk of long-term cancer deaths". Latent cancer fatality risk from the selected specific scenarios was found to be thousands of times lower than the NRC's own so-called Safety Goal and millions of times lower than the general cancer fatality risk in the United States from all causes, even when employing the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response model, which assumes that health risk is directly proportional to radiation exposure and that even the smallest radiation exposure carries some risk.

Link:http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory ... /soar.html

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 03 Mar 2012 11:35

If people are interested here is the full report AmberG is quoting from.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Nu ... 02121.html

At present the average Indian's electricity use is just 750 kWh per year, compared to global average of 2752 kWh per year. Banerjee and Kakodkar agreed that in the long term the target for India should be around 5000 kWh per year, drawing strong correlations between female literacy and the human development index with that level of energy use.

Banerjee presented a scenario where a stablised population of 1.6-1.7 billion had individual power consumption of 5000 kWh per year in 2050. That amounts to 8000 billion kWh per year - equivalent to 40% of today's current electricity production. Maximum use of renewables including hydro would support about 1050 billion kWh of that, he said, leaving the rest to be met by nuclear or fossil sources. Banerjee's calculations showed that, in the worst-case, use of coal to fill the gap would result in about 7.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year, compared to the current global total of 30 billion tonnes.

This is the comment preceding the one pushing for Nuclear power. IMO everything else is meaningless fluff. So lets put it in context and the math something they fail to mention. Though undoubtedly they are aware of the math as well.

8000 billion kwh

Assuming a plf of ~ 80% we would need an installed capacity of 8 Billion MW / ( 365x24x0.8 ) ~ 1.14 Million MW hr. This is undo-able so I'm going to slice it to 2/3s or ~ 760,000 MW/hr. So capacity would need to be raised by ~ 600,000 MW/hr by their math at 80% plf. So their heroic scale nuclear at 63,000 MW/hr would be 10% of requirements. I don't know what to say. Nuclear will never be more than a rounding error. All the rest is presumably coal!

Lets assume we can build 63,000 MW/hr of nuclear, no small task with present equipment availability, right now imported reactors are running at $6 Billion per 1000 MW. If we scale up we will end up paying the marginal rate, say about $8 Billion per 1000 MW. Even this is very low BTW. So 63x8 = $ 504 Billion. Roughly double our entire foreign debt. Say we pay a 8% interest rate including rupee depreciation, that would mean an outflow of $40 Billion every year just for interest. All this for 10% of our electricity needs. Capital repayment is up in the air mind you.

But wait there is more. Uranium needs to be imported Naa. All enriched. Right now it is cheap because imports are limited. Once people start importing on the 63,000 MW scale the same thing as coal will happen. The world supply will pinch shut. So say 4% enriched uranium is available at roughly $10,000 per pound conservatively in 10 years. We need roughly 25 tonnes of enriched uranium per 1000 MW generated from 250 tonnes of un-enriched stuff. So 50,000 pounds x 10,000 = $500 Million every year. But wait we need 63,000 mw worth every year so 63x$0.5Bil = $36.5 Billion every year in costs for importing Uranium fuel rods.

But wait there is more. Lets assume a maintenance cost of 4% of which half is imported equipment replacement annually. This would mean another $20 Billion in import every year.

So lets see. 40+36.5+20 = 96.5 Billion dollars. Annual import bill. Assuming zero inflation. For 10% of our electricity. Not counting safety/disposal/testing/operations costs.

This is why scientist should not make economic policy. The bean counters always give a thumbs down to Nuclear power for a reason.

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Mar 2012 12:57

Theo,

Presuming that all that electricity is needed for economic growth, could you kindly do the same math of coal imports required, given current pithead prices - in case we opt out of nuclear power - for the same amount of electricity generation? What's the dollar figure you get and how does it compare with the number you arrive at for nuclear.

I don't think the scientists said nuclear would be cheap. The point is it would be/will be cheaper than coal. There's a big difference here.

And you talk of rounding error. That would be renewables since the tech does not exit to scale up to the levels we need.

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Mar 2012 13:06

And yes Theo, since you were quoting from that report, I'm surprised you did not find this para important:

Shinde's task is to bring India's power system to the level required for its huge population to enjoy the benefits of electricity. Currently some 40% of the country's 1.2 billion citizens have no access to electricity, and 40% of those who are serviced enjoy it for only a few hours each day. A significant portion of generated power is lost through an inefficient and leaky transmission network.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 03 Mar 2012 13:51

Fact is India needs a massive energy mix. One cannot predominate one by neglecting another. Some posts remind me of a GOI report of 2004. They concluded India would reach the 500 m mark in mobile phones by 2030!. They couldn't foresee it would happen by 2010!. We are 38 years away from 2050. What a Billion US was a decade and half back is different from what it is today. I doubt that sort of math would work and projections could be very misleading, as figures we are awed with today, would be nothing big a decade down the line.

There will be breakthrough technologies emerging in fuel utilization, shale gas production and use for power, renewables, thorium and 3 stage technology maturation, disposal and reprocessing of nuclear waste, even economies of scale could emerge in hurling several tons of materials into deep space..all which could upset any or most predictive calculations made as of today. Thus the guiding factor for us mere mortals 38 years prior to 2050, is not rigidizing our priorities, but developing a healthy, productive and non disruptive energy mix and nuclear no doubt is one of them.

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Mar 2012 14:22

+100

Thanks for pointing that out Harbans ji.

Another point 63000 MW is the target by 2035, while population stabilization will occur after 2050. Theo's calculations should be viewed with this on mind. India will be a different power in 2035 than it is today. But more importantly it will a totally different beast in 2050 than it would be in 2035. When doing projections these things

need to be taken into account.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 03 Mar 2012 15:33

Absolutely Amit Ji, we all remember 80's how many predictions with very sound looking math behind showed oil will be finished in 50 years time etc. As for Fukushima Gen 1 reactor fears, this is really what killed people in Japan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceym2c18 ... re=related

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 03 Mar 2012 16:41

There is no need to get into Carbon Crap argument popped up by western interests and lapped up by intelligentsia etc. for the time being. We may not reach emissions levels to the level accumulated by Industrialized western world in terms of historical emissions. Western Countries themselves are finding it difficult to abide by the Carbon argument. For example USA never ratified Kyoto. Canada opted out. Europe is already in trouble and devising different ways and means to reduce its commitment. India is already doing more than its required commitment and we need our energy need met irrespective of carbon crap.

India certainly needs massive energy and our policy projections indicate that.

Unfortunately , we have never met our target. So it might be open to test if we meet whatever projections for 2032 or 2050 or 2100 is given.

On the other hand Energy mix would always comprise of different sources of energy and that would include Coal, Renewables and Nuclear too. But at any given time Nuclear would be small percentage of 5-10 % of the mix. I don't think that even by 2050 we would cross that limit.

RE is already significant if we take large Hydro into account , as is done by most nations, excl India. NE would remain on margins notwithstanding all gyrations. The Indigenous technology and fuels need to be developed to keep away from experience of sanctions.

Nuclear and Renewable Energy , both are being given policy thrusts by GOI and all these seminars and workshops and symposia etc are part of that exercise. Technological breakthrough in all sectors ( coal, RE or Nuclear) would change the energy landscape substantially in years to come.
btw I am yet to see exploding solar panels or toxic wind mills if anyone cares to remember.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 03 Mar 2012 17:54

I remember reading that an NRI wanted to start a business in Mysore and his company purchased some plots to start the factory. Just before construction began a local goon came and warned that the businessmen were encroaching the land and thus affecting the poor in the area. Another tout came over and offered to negotiate with the goons and close the matter for 10 lakhs. The businessmen refused and they won in the court. When I read that I was reminded of the Koodankulam plant agitation.

Local converts headed by their Italian-kissing fathers appear to be wanting to stall the project for "ransom" citing "safety" concerns. Who are they fooling? All of a sudden they are a "community", convert and overnight you become a new "community".

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 04 Mar 2012 00:53

It is not just a question of economics. There are real physical limits WRT Nuclear power. Many ways worse than the importing coal option ran into. Also time. What I'm pointing out is that Nuclear power can only contribute at the margins. We are not going to get rich by 2035 by leaning on Nuclear. Keep in mind that 63,000 MW is wildly optimistic number. The real number is likely to be 25,000 MW. Even that is wildly optimistic as not a single MW has actually been started or even contracted. 25,000 MW is about 2 years of capacity addition over the next 25-35 years. So what is the capacity add in the rest of the years? Over the past 15 years we have added roughly 100,000 MW of capacity. Nuclear contribution was essentially zero.

Even more the tone of the article is that coal is limited and Nuclear can replace this. My numbers show why this is completely false and the exact opposite is actually true. Without coal we are and will be nothing. By focusing on Nuclear we guarantee that 90% of power addition will come from coal. No resource for anything else. In fact we would be better off diverting that import funds into the coal sector. The economy would benefit far more. The question is why the scientific establishment pushes this false line. Look at the headline, "..Nuclear the fuel for energetic growth"??? Really. The math shows this is patently false and the scientists know this as well.
-------------------------------------------

WRT coal we have about 250 Billion tonnes. Not going to run out in our lifetimes. If we want to get rich more focus should be paid to that sector. And I can assure you even on present trajectory every single gram of it will be burnt. Nuclear power is not the solution to anything.

MMS should go and threaten the NGO's in Orissa and Jharkhand with his spy network if he is really serious about energy security. All our power flows from there. All else is maya.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is an option for a country that is pathetically poor in options. Commit fully to Solar and deprioritize other dead end technologies. As the only fast growing sub-tropical country ours is an unique advantage. This is something Mr Kakodar needs to focus more on as he is no longer part of our Nuclear power complex. He should be focusing more on his actual job promoting Solar power. Something he has singularly declined to do so far, thereby ignoring his real job.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Harbans,

Have you looked at the price of Oil lately. An end is coming. And it will be in our lifetimes. The argument is you are falling uncontrolled from a 100 storey building and everything is fine till the First storey. The question is do you pierce through the floor or do you end up as a bloody spot on the floor.
---------------------------------------------------

Since some seem so math challenged

let me do the math for coal.
Say coal import costs $150 per ton conservatively. double present price.

63,000 MW

Say we burn coal at 6 kw/hr per kg conservatively. Say our new power plants have a efficiency of 45% (super critical). A 1000 MW plant needs (1000x365x24x.8/0.006)x2.1 ~ 2.5 Million tonnes annually. So total cost ~ $375 Million. 63x375 = $23,780 Billion per annum. Straight away cheaper than enriched Uranium fuel rod imports.

Present capital cost is running at just under $1 Billion per 1000 MW per UMPP. Much of the equipment is domestic and can be produced domestically unlike Nuclear. So Capital cost is ~ $63 Billion, even if all of this is foreign financed, which is unlikely at the same 8% interest annual outgo is ~ $5 Billion annually. Most repair will be domestically sourced.

So total outgo is ~ 24+5 = $29 Billion annually. The math says we are not even in the same ball park!! So should abandon all Nuclear and go for coal exclusively, right. By my calc coal will have to soar beyond $750 per tonne before the costs converge.

How exactly is Nuclear cheaper again? The thing is the scientists know all this when they make such comments. People who refuse to do math are easily misled.
------------------------------------------------------

Lets take the other line. Say the 63,000 MW is powered by domestic coal. 63x3 ~ 200 million tonnes, say 300 million as our energy content is low. It would be 40% increase in present output. Domestic price of coal is about $30-$50 per ton. So 300x50 = $15,000. Or the cost of a single 2000 MW nuclear power plant. Again how is nuclear cheaper.

Let me point out another thing coal plants don't have to be written off after 60 years either.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 04 Mar 2012 18:33

The agitations are now trying to get into version 2.0 as well a bit farcical. Lets see if they are able to take the turn or it is a case of bolting the stable after horse has left.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/dmk- ... 76260.html

Viswamitra to take on nuke plant

In order to dispel the perception that it is the Church which is behind the anti-nuke campaign, the leaders spearheading the protest have decided to perform a mass- ritual in the Viswamitra temple at nearby Vijayapathy.

With Karunanidhi, the main opposition leader coming publicly for the plant, Jaya has now nothing to lose in terms of ceding opposition space as well on this issue.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 04 Mar 2012 20:28

Say coal import costs $150 per ton conservatively. double present price.

Hmm, lets look at this "magnaminous" concession shall we:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/ ... 2O20120302

Its nowhere near $75, its more like near $100. And that is *now*. Can anyone guess what happens were GoI to decide to buy in huge quantities?

Say we burn coal at 6 kw/hr per kg conservatively. Say our new power plants have a efficiency of 45% (super critical). A 1000 MW plant needs (1000x365x24x.8/0.006)x2.1 ~ 2.5 Million tonnes annually. So total cost ~ $375 Million. 63x375 = $23,780 Billion per annum. Straight away cheaper than enriched Uranium fuel rod imports.

Where does this "45%" number come from? To date, most coal plants have an efficiency of 33%. There is "research" going on to boost this to 50% but that is nowhere near ready.

Moreover the above calculation is overtly simplistic. Coal prices are linked to oil prices invariably since petrol/diesel is required to haul it to the plant. That is not factored into the price. Theo himself says in the earlier post that "an end is coming in our lifetimes". How does he propose to haul this coal from where it is mined to the power plant if there is no oil (or is at prohibitive cost, which is the same thing)?

The second thing is environmental impact: we can get out of Co2 caps right now claiming that we have not polluted as much as the other nations, but there is a limit to how long this excuse can hold. Add to the fact that building coal power stations will dump huge amounts of Co2 and you can guess what will happen.

Lets take the other line. Say the 63,000 MW is powered by domestic coal. 63x3 ~ 200 million tonnes, say 300 million as our energy content is low. It would be 40% increase in present output. Domestic price of coal is about $30-$50 per ton. So 300x50 = $15,000. Or the cost of a single 2000 MW nuclear power plant. Again how is nuclear cheaper.

Are you serious? Here is some homework for you: please look at the capacity of Indian railways currently and then calculate if they can carry the amount you are saying on a regular basis. If not, new tracks and stock has to be put in. If we add that in, does it come cheap?

Why are you using suspect numbers and "math" (as you call it) to deliberately mislead?

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 04 Mar 2012 21:28

Tanaji,

I'm sure it seems that way to you but I always took the number that was flattering to Nuclear in my calculations. I left out entire chunks and large demonstrated recurring expenses and just did the math for what imported plants work out to.

WRT coal I took the unfaltering number and still ended at the present position. Let me point out that the real heat value of cleaned coal export from say Indonesia is on the order of 10 kw/kg. Yet I took 6 kw/kg value. I doubled the price of Coal and you are still not happy. WRT coal price, when ever it exceeds $100 the USA with 5,000 Billion tonnes of coal immediately comes into play. Right behind it is Russia with even more coal. Right now USA is exporting about 100 million tonnes and rapidly rising as it builds new export ports in the West. Domestic cost of coal in USA is $30 per ton. Medium term, the price of coal will not get much above $100 if the USA has anything to say about it.

You need to read up on efficiency of Super critical plants India is now building.

There are such things as pithead plants, which is what most of the domestic coal UMPP's are. We used to ship coal as high-voltage DC low loss line technology was not available. It is now and the Grid is being upgraded to ship electricity directly. Really is this the best you can do. Coal is more expensive because it needs Railways!

With respect to CO2 emissions, all I can do is scratch my head. Did you read any of the numbers. Every single gram of coal available will be burnt! Nuclear power will not avoid this. Not even a rounding error. At heroic scale.

I await your homework and demonstration of your Math. Show me how....

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 05 Mar 2012 00:10

westinghouse ap1000 wallahs cost china $8billion - for _4x1000_ Mw.

Over the last three months , i have seen it alL -from shifting goalposts to outright lies. Today it all became clear- I saw the ~~Matrix~~ headless chicken.

.
I love the way the unbelievers twist and turn and jump thru loops to find ............stupid arguments.

negi · Post by **negi** » 05 Mar 2012 01:58

So Theo sir what is your point ? We should not build nuclear power plants ? And if we should then why this Kolaveri di ?
Btw given a choice would you have a nuclear power plant in your town or a coal powered thermal power plant ?