India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

[Philip]

The hypocrisy and logic of the anti-nuke lobby apologists is so juvenile, that it scarcely beggars rebuttal.Abolish all nuclear power in a nation that has no large oil or gas sources of energy,unlike Germany and other European states which get their supplies from Russia,etc.It and its foreign NGO pals,forget about France's primary source of power,nuclear. WEGs and solar power plants cannot replace nuclear energy,they can only complement them,and thermal plants are great polluters.Hydel power too is another controversial subject,as large dams worldwide have been found to be massively destructive for the environment and in the displacement of well-established settlements and their inhabitants .Nuclear power plants in India have come to stay,we cannot do without them.

A nation like India therefore has to rely upon a holistic approach,using all forms of power production,in the hope that in the fullness of time,the least polluting method,renewable energy,will be the mainstay.Since we have the world's largest reserves of thorium,etc.,using this as indigenous fuel for our desi-designed N-plants as envisioned by our nuclear pioneers,is a must. Locating the N-plants in future in "safe areas" is another issue.The point about plant safety,etc, in the light of Fukushima has been well made.It is time for our scientists to educate the nation as to the safety of nuclear power,its benefits,etc., and upto the state govts. in collaboration with the centre to rehabilitate the affected if any.

[Theo_Fidel]

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 ?

My point is the Nuclear establishment should not project that Nuclear power will solve our problems, esp. anything like replace coal or even be cost competitive. We certainly should not import plants at these outrageous uncompetitive prices.

[negi]

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 ?

My point is the Nuclear establishment should not project that Nuclear power will solve our problems, esp. anything like replace coal or even be cost competitive.

Fair enough , what about the other question ?

We certainly should not import plants at these outrageous uncompetitive prices.

Where is the competition ? The demand exceeds what a single vendor can handle at one time hence point about competitive deal is not valid.

[amit]

Aha, Theo if only the world was so simple, then your meme about evil nuclear scientists and their nefarious plans would have been so easy to swallow.

You do a simplistic calculation about coal pricing over a 38 year period (remember the original point made by the AEC chairman was for 2050) and don't take into consideration things like:

1) Where is the finance going to come from?

2) Where is the coal supply is going to come from?

3) How does the supply operate - that is coal from the pitheads to the power plants?

4) What to do with the fly ash generated?

5) How about the small problem of Co2 emissions?

Here's some things that need to be considered:

Link 1

The projects in the pipeline are likely to have a severe social and environmental impact. In 2009, the MoEF identified several areas as “Critically Polluted.” A large number of proposed plants, with a total capacity of 88,000 MW, are located within the same districts where eight of these critically polluted areas have been identified. The geographic concentration and location within critically polluted areas is likely to exacerbate the pollution impact of these thermal projects.

Close to 85 per cent of the projects in the pipeline are coal-based. While coal resources are said to be abundant, such a massive expansion raises questions about the adequacy of fuel supply for these TPPs, the report says. As noted in the Mid Term Appraisal of the 11th Plan, coal production is falling short of projections, and there is a need to import a quantity larger than what was planned for.

In addition, coal-based plants need massive amounts of water, for both cooling and ash disposal. Out of the 1,92,804 MW plants that have got environmental clearance, about 138,000 MW or 72 per cent are inland. Of these, close to 50 per cent are concentrated in four river basins — Ganga (33,255 MW), Godavari (16,235 MW), Mahanadi (14,595 MW) and Brahmani (6,534 MW). This will impinge on water use for drinking and irrigation.

Link 2

You are worried about environmental impact of KNPP right? But are you aware of these? Or don't these count because they are not sexy enough and occur over many years?

Disadvantages of Coal

1) Greenhouse Gas Emissions - One of the biggest cons of Coal Energy is that it releases Carbon Dioxide which has been sequestered for millions of years in the dead bodies of plant and animals.This transfer the Carbon from the Earth to the Environment leading to the Global Warming Effect.Global Treaties have failed in putting a Cost on this,though individual countries are tying to account for this through Carbon Taxes and Cap and Trade.

2) Coal Mining Deaths - Coal Mining has resulted in thousands of deaths each year ever since man discovered coal.Note Coal Deaths happen not only in countries which don’t have good safety regulations like China but also in developed countries like USA and New Zealand.

3) Devastation of Earth and Scenery Near Coal Mines – Open Cast Mining of Coal has resulted in destruction of the habitat and destruction of the scenery.It leads to removal of trees and pollution of air and water in areas surrounding the mines.Coal Mine Fires have burned for hundreds of year underground and make living in those areas hazardous.Those burning underground can be difficult to locate and many cannot be extinguished. Fires can cause the ground above to subside, their combustion gases are dangerous to life, and breaking out to the surface can initiate surface fires as well.

4) Displacement of Humans due to Mining Destruction - In West Bengal,India people are being displaced in huge numbers as the hollowing of the earth due to underground coal mining has made those places unsafe as the Land Caves in without warning.

5) Emission of Harmful Substances like Sulfur Dioxide,Carbon Monoxide,Mercury,Selenium, Arsenic ,Acid Rain - Thermal Plants emit harmful substances such as Mercury and Sulfur Dioxide which cause health hazards among the surrounding population and Acid Rain.While modern equipment has reduced the emission of these harmful substances,it is still very harmful to humans.

Link 3

We all know that India has one of the largest reserves of coal. But...
What about the high flyash content? You want to just blow it away?
Or coming back to more prosaic matters, what is the actual supply situation?

... supply constraints for domestic coal remain and are expected to continue going forward. Consequently, public and private sector entities have embarked upon imported coal as a means to bridge the deficit. This has led to some Indian entities to take upon the task of purchasing, developing and operating coal mines in international geographies. While this is expected to secure coal supplies it has again thrown upon further challenges. For example, the main international market for coal supply to India – Indonesia, poses significant political and legal risks in the form of changing regulatory framework
towards foreign companies. Similarly, coal evacuation from mines in South Africa is constrained by their limited railway
capacity and the capacity at ports is controlled by a group of existing users making it difficult for a new entrant to ensure
reliable evacuation. In this case it is essential to manage the risk of supply disruption by different options like –
diversification of supply, due diligence on suppliers, unambiguous contracting and strict monitoring among others.
The failure to achieve the planned target from the captive coal blocks presents itself as a major challenge to the power
sector, as only 24 blocks have become operational out of the total 210. Experts believe that the non-operational status
of majority of these blocks is attributed to land acquisition (R&R) issues, permit delays and infrastructure problems10.
In addition, the developers who have been given the charge of captive blocks are not putting diligent efforts to expedite
the mining operations due to their lack of experience in coalmine development.

And...

Coal is the mainstay of the power production in India and is expected to remain so in the future. Additional power
generation is likely to require incremental amount of coal transportation by Indian Railways within the country and
increasing unloading at ports in India for imported coal. In both cases India currently faces capacity shortage. Hence, a
project developer has to account for and manage its logistics chain in a manner that minimizes disruption to its
fuel supply. In many cases this is likely to involve self development of relevant supply infrastructure which poses
additional project execution complexity for the developer.
For example, some imported coal based power plants are also forced to set up an unloading jetty for coal carrying
shipping vessels. This has to be ensured before the commissioning of a power plant which requires an alternate
set of project execution skills in the port sector.

Do you think all the above doesn't add to project cost?

Link 4

In 2007, India set itself up a plan to get electric power to 100% of its population.
By itself, a great and noble task. From a planning and logistics standpoint, it is a humungous task! Especially, given that 75% of this electricity would be generated by coal.

To meet this ambitious target involves more that just setting up a Power Plant. It involves the logistics of getting coal from the mines to the Power Plants or in the case of imported coal, the logistics of getting coal from the Ports to the Power Plants.

Current situation:

78459 MW x 80% Plant Load Factor x 2450 kCal/kWhr Heat Rate x 24hours x 365 days / 3300kCal Gross Calorific Value of coal= 408million MT per annum1

1 Have assumed no losses and wastage

Coal required per day

408 million MT per annum / 365 days = 1118397 MT/day

Trains to be loaded per day

Assuming that 90% of this coal moves on the Indian Railways network; the balance moves on private Merry-Go-Round network or by road.

90% x 118397 MT/3750 2 MT / rake=268 rakes (train loads)/day

2 Assumes carrying capacity +6 loading

FUTURE PLANS

India plans to add 78557MW of electric power generation capacity in the 11th 5 Year Plan (2007-2012) by year 2012.

Out of this 78557MW that would be added, 75%, 58644MW would be generated by coal.

Coal required per year

58644 MW x 80% Plant Load Factor x 2450 kCal/kWhr Heat Rate x 24hours x 365 days / 3300kCal Gross Calorific Value = 305million MT per annum

Coal required per day

305 million MT per annum / 365 days = 835616 MT/day

Trains to be loaded per day

Using the same assumption as above,[10% of this coal moves on private Merry-Go-Round network or by road]

90% x 835616 MT/3750 MT / rake=200 rakes (train loads)/day

200 rakes x 3 days average turnaround3 = 600 rakes = 600 x 59 wagons = 35400 wagons + 5% maintenance = 37170 wagons

This calls for an investment of Rs 4000 Crs @ Rs 20Crs ( 1 Cr = 10 million) per rake

Link 5

This deterioration in India's ability to extract its considerable domestic coal reserves is reflected in policy as well. The newest coal fuel supply agreements (FSA) by the Ministry of Coal guarantee at most 75 per cent of a power plant's fuel requirement; the balance must be procured privately.

Even if an FSA is obtained, which itself is a major uncertainty given the complications of the linkage approval process, the method of evacuation from source to destination — typically some mix of rail and road — and logistical management is often poorly coordinated by the agencies concerned, leading to further losses and delays.

Not surprisingly, many large coal consumers are resorting to higher quality imported coal instead, where the contractual and logistical obligations are more predictable. In response, coal exporting countries — most recently Indonesia — have begun responding to the global upsurge in coal demand by increasing prices and changing regulations.

India is expected to import upwards of one hundred million tonnes of coal in the next few years. Why has domestic coal production failed to keep up with demand? This is the question that has been perhaps the most difficult to answer, while various explanations have been put forward.

Some say that environmental clearance and land acquisition issues have been the main bottleneck. Others have blamed the inability of the state-owned coal companies to effectively integrate modern mining practices and technology into their operations.

I could go on...

the bottomline is that despite all these problems coal will still remain a major source for energy till at least 2040. However, to say that nuclear is far for costly than coal is - what shall I say? - playing with facts. Plenty of studies have shown that nuclear is comparable and in some cases cheaper than coal - many of them have been posted on this thread.

We need to pursue both with equal vigour. To say we can ignore nuclear completely and go with renewables and coal is just sheer stupid.

PS: I did let it pass before, but... Can you show us a link on which basis you estimated the uranium prices in your first post?

[amit]

**** oops sorry, duplicate post ****

[amit]

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.

CommodityOnline

Even though it’s a bit dated, this is what the 2010 report says about prices:

Uranium-oxide concentrate for immediate delivery remained at $48 a pound for a third week. Prices are up 19 percent from this year’s low in March.

Hedge funds also were in the uranium market six years ago. At that time, prices of the radioactive element were starting a surge in which they would jump more than fivefold in the three years through 2006. Uranium almost doubled again in 2007, reaching a record $136 a pound in June of that year.

This chart shows uranium price at $52 per pound in Feb 27 2012.

So between 2010 and 2012 – that is two years - there was a $4 increase in price.

So the question is, how can a $10,000 per pound by 2022 be a conservative estimate?

It’s obvious a massive price inflator has been applied to the prices of uranium in 10 years. So when comparing coal and uranium, then shouldn’t the same price inflator be put to coal in order to do a mathematically “unchallenged” comparison?

[amit]

Here's another link about projected prices and supply of uranium.

Looking back at our supply forecasts from mid-2006 to present, we have observed a very clear pattern: The expected supply from 2006 through 2010 has dropped dramatically. Looking at our current forecast compared to the third quarter of 2006,we see supply reductions of 10 million to 20 million pounds for 2006 through 2011. Most of these shortfalls have been driven by either problems with existing operations or delays in new mine production, with an emphasis on the latter.

Looking to the future, the pattern is reversed; our supply forecast for 2012 to 2015 is much higher today than it was in 2006. Most of the increase in forecast supply is due to new or expanded projects, in particular Kazakh projects. However, we think caution is warranted. We do not see any reason why the problems that plagued new supply between 2006 and 2009 should disappear completely; rather, we think there is a good chance that future supply forecasts will again disappoint. We think this fact needs to be reflected in the current uranium price and, in our view, it is not.

Caution is right, but even with caution, IMO, $10,000 assumption is way over the top.

[amit]

Here's a link on uranium imports:

Uranium imports

By December 2008, Russia's Rosatom and Areva from France had contracted to supply uranium for power generation, while Kazakhstan, Brazil and South Africa were preparing to do so. The Russian agreement was to provide fuel for PHWRs as well as the two small Tarapur reactors, the Areva agreement was to supply 300 tU.

In February 2009 the actual Russian contract was signed with TVEL to supply 2000 tonnes of natural uranium fuel pellets for PHWRs over ten years, costing $780 million, and 58 tonnes of low-enriched fuel pellets for the Tarapur reactors. The Areva shipment arrived in June 2009. RAPS-2 became the first PHWR to be fuelled with imported uranium, followed by units 5 & 6 there.

In January 2009 NPCIL signed a memorandum of understanding with Kazatomprom for supply of 2100 tonnes of uranium concentrate over six years and a feasibility study on building Indian PHWR reactors in Kazakhstan. NPCIL said that it represented "a mutual commitment to begin thorough discussions on long-term strategic relationship." Under this agreement, 300 tonnes of natural uranium will come from Kazakhstan in the 2010-11 year. Another 210 t will come from Russia. A further agreement in April 2011 covered 2100 tonnes by 2014.

In September 2009 India signed uranium supply and nuclear cooperation agreements with Namibia and Mongolia. In March 2010 Russia offered India a stake in the Elkon uranium mining development in its Sakha Republic, and agreed on a joint venture with ARMZ Uranium Holding Co.

In July 2010 the Minister for Science & Technology reported that India had received 868 tU from France, Russia & Kazakhstan in the year to date: 300 tU natural uranium concentrate from Areva, 58 tU as enriched UO2 pellets from Areva, 210 tU as natural uranium oxide pellets from TVEL and 300 tU as natural uranium from Kazatomprom.

As of August 2010 the DAE said that seven reactors (1400 MWe) were using imported fuel and working at full power, nine reactors (2630 MWe) used domestic uranium.

The point is uranium supply agreements are long-term, and usually the prices - including escalation - is fixed and predictable. India is not going to buy uranium for its reactors at spot prices. So again, pricing?

[arnab]

This chart shows uranium price at $52 per pound in Feb 27 2012.

So between 2010 and 2012 – that is two years - there was a $4 increase in price.

So the question is, how can a $10,000 per pound by 2022 be a conservative estimate?

It’s obvious a massive price inflator has been applied to the prices of uranium in 10 years. So when comparing coal and uranium, then shouldn’t the same price inflator be put to coal in order to do a mathematically “unchallenged” comparison?

And add to it the fact that 1 kg (around 2 pounds) of Uranium will produce the same level of energy as 1,500,000 kg of coal and the issue becomes a no brainer. I think Theo saar has some sort of a messianic zeal with this particular topic, odd considering his sterling performance in other threads.

Incidentally, has this been discussed on the future of coal prices?


Sierra Club India: Coal is Cheap? World's Largest Coal Plants Bankrupted by Skyrocketing Prices


http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2 ... cheap.html

The first victim of the Indonesian price rise was the gargantuan four-gigawatt Krishnapatnam plant in Andhra Pradesh. The effect of the price rise was so great it stopped construction of the plant in its tracks. This is welcome news for the local movement struggling to oppose a plant that has been at the heart of a people's resistance. This resistance is opposing 56-gigawatts of proposed new coal fired power in Andhra Pradesh's coal rush.

The next domino to fall was the scandal-plagued, IFC-funded, four-gigawatt Tata Mundra plant in Gujarat. There, the price rise forced Tata to seek a government bailout that would allow it to double the price it charges for power. So great is the effect however, that it faces a whopping 270% in annual losses. Even with the requested price revision the project will not be financially viable over the next five years.

As if to add insult to injury the security of their coal supplies was further strained when a shipment of 60,000 tons of coal sunk off the coast of Mumbai the same week.

[amit]

Wowa! Thanks for the link Arnab.

More juicy bits:

With a whopping eight gigawatts of coal-fired power now directly affected, and a coal crunch threatening 42 gigawatts more, lenders are hitting the panic button. The Central Bank of India has an exposure of ~$6 billion to new coal projects. While M V Nair, the chairman of public sector Union Bank of India, has warned, "This could turn some of them (coal plants) into non-performing assets" (otherwise known as financial boondoggles or money pits).

Their concern extends to the 50% of outstanding loans that have been drawn from banks for new coal plants but unable to secure coal supplies at affordable rates. Given the incredibly risky situation, banks are seeking stringent assurances of coal supplies and other forms of loan guarantees to ensure that these capital intensive projects don’t go belly up.

It is highly likely that the fallout from this crisis will rapidly spread as the government is planning to get up to 57% of its coal supply from overseas. {So much for India has one of the world's largests reserves, yada, yada...}However, just like the roadrunner cartoons, many private power producers and Indian State Agencies have yet to realize that the rug has been pulled out from under them. They continue to seek international mines to shore up supplies despite skyrocketing costs that are increasingly exacerbated by political risks.

The panicked state the Indonesia law has created is best summed by the desperate statement of India's largest power plant operator National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC): "Our first priority is not to acquire coal mines and make money, our first priority is to secure fuel."{but, but, isn't that exactly the same thing we're doing with uranium with a bit more success - remember that all the NPPs planned come with lifetime fuel gurantees?

Despite their mad scramble, more and more large coal mine deals are falling through due to increasing prices and political risk. This has not deterred India from looking to South Africa, however, despite threats of nationalization of the country's mines - a situation that, were it to occur, would threaten a far worse crisis than the Indonesia debacle.

And yes the energy per pound between uranium and coal!

No wonder such a massive price inflater was required!

[Sanku]

The debate about Nuclear is meaningless, since no plants are going to come up. Man mohan is not going to be around forever, and India is not bound to fulfill the promises he has made.

Let is first see them start the reactors at KKNP which are already made before we even discuss other mythical projections.

[Sanku]

We certainly should not import plants at these outrageous uncompetitive prices.

Where is the competition ? The demand exceeds what a single vendor can handle at one time hence point about competitive deal is not valid.

I think the issue is

"let us first decide apriori that we need imported reactors 1 from each country and then figure prices"

approach vs

"let us first look at economics to determine which energy generation solution is most cost effective"

If we apriori chose a route, then ofcourse there will be no alternative.

However there was no need to constraint ourselves to A route.

[Theo_Fidel]

Guys before you jump to conclusions go back and read my calculation carefully. My $10,000 a pound is for the enriched fuel rod. Imported from massaland. At commercial prices. Oh! yes. There will be a fat profit for Westinghouse with whom our contract will be remember. About 25 tonnes versus 250 tonnes of un-enriched. Even this is extraordinarily generous.

It is sign of how little data the DAE has released WRT price that even the 'experts' on this dhagga have trouble understanding these things....

BTW the more enriched the fuel the costs rise exponentially. My reference was 4% enriched. The EPR for instance needs 5% enriched.

[amit]

Theo, check the link I gave. In 2010 radioactive uranium was $48 a pound. That link is from a online commodity trading site. Please, please don't sell a lemon. Back up your data with references.

And what makes you think we'll get yellow cake from massaland? Heck we haven't even signed a frigging deal massa.

[Theo_Fidel]

Amit,

Again. Find the price of enriched Uranium. And you will find your lemon. Look for something called SWU (Standard/Separative Work Units) and all will be revealed. Only Massa & Russia have adequate enrichment for imported reactors. France has some but it already capacity limited. Fuel rods are very design specific and extremely high technology and must be sourced from the patent holding supplier. Can't be reverse engineered without dramatically impacting safety and performance.

[amit]

Why don't you provide a link?

So are you trying to say if we.by a reactor from the French, we will get the rods from massa?

[Theo_Fidel]

I have before. Go look in the thread. It is obvious no one is learning unless they discover reality for themselves. I went over this entire series with GP and yet here we are again.

Areva has a enrichment/fuel rod manufacturing in USA. So very likely, yes.

[amit]

Sorry Theo it doesn't fly with me. There's no way uranium will cost even a fraction of the number you ate touting.

Before things get unpleasant, let's agree to disagree on this.

[Theo_Fidel]

Yeah, Sigh! That's how it ended with GP too.... Have a nice week...
--------------------------------------

For others who still maybe interested, here is the Math involved.

http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/RothwellBr ... chment.pdf

1 pound unenriched $100. It takes about 10 pounds unenriched to get 1 pound enriched. So lets start with 10 pounds.
Enriching to 2.5% is roughly 0.8-1.5 SWU - Cost roughly $60-$150 per SWU. Say $110.
Enriching to 4% takes more. about 1.5-2 SWU.

So total costs (100+110x2)x10 = $3,200.

Add fuel fabrication costs. Say 20%.
Add shipping, insurance, transportation, security. Say 10%.
Add Profit. Say 10%.

So 3200+3200x.4 = $4,480.

Which I doubled by 2020. Post Russian weapons cheap Uranium for the $10,000 per pound.
Electricity is going to get more expensive and is large chunk of the costs. 1 SWU often requires from 50-100 kw of power. Gas diffusion about 2.5 MW. Yes Megawatts.

Note that the price of Uranium itself is < 1/3 the cost of a fuel rod.
-------------------------------------------------

Still I will say this. If you have domestic Uranium and cheap domestic enrichment the cost of Uranium fuel is not devastating. It not zero cost however. The key for India is we don't have either and will to import at great cost, locked in for life of the plant.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Also for those confused I'm not advocating coal either. Just challenging the claim that New Nuclear Imported Reactor power can work out cheaper than coal.
----------------------------------------------------

My suggestion is we transition right away to Solar. And work like crazy to use it for all our peaking and intermediate load needs. We have enough coal for baseload, typically 30% of capacity. which means we already have most of the baseload we need built out. It is not an accident that daytime see's the worst power cuts.

[amit]

Theo,

First off you're way off in your assumption of $100 per pound for mined uranium. That was at its peak in 2007-08 (it figures since the report you cite is from circa 2008). Right now it has come back to historical range of around $50 per pound with it being at the moment around $52 per pound.

Now look at this calculation. It is always good to have more than one source for answers.

Mined uranium (U3O8) prices peaked in 2007 at $136/lb U3O8. Currently (August 2011) prices have slipped back to the long term average <$50/lb U3O8 (but are again climbing). {please note my link which showed that Uranium price on Feb 27 was $52 per pound}

In Euro terms, natural (meaning as mined) uranium, once converted chemically into the UF6 form required for enrichment (at a current conversion cost of $7.5/KgU) is about €101/KgU at 1.4USD/Euro. Current SWU costs are €102/SWU. The current relatively cheap UF6 feed means that the utilities and enrichers opt to enrich with a higher feed factor, thereby expending less SWU to separate the required U-235. To produce 4 weight % U-235, 9 KgU as UF6 would be fed to the plant using 5.3 SWU. This would give 1 KgU of 4 w% plus 8 KgU at 0.3 w% tails assay. The mass balance is the same we have merely concentrated or 'enriched' the U-235 level in the desired product stream.

So, finally, the total enriched uranium investment cost in 1KgU 4w/% U-235 in this current example can be calculated as 9 times €101, plus 5.3 times €102, or €1,449.6 /KgU as enriched UF6.

This is the starting point for the fuel fabricator who will reconvert the UF6 again to sinterable UO2, press, sinter and grind individual 7gm pellets, stack load them into sealed tubes or rods, then assemble typically 1 Km of rods (250 x 4m rods) into a finished fuel assembly able to be inserted and managed in the reactor as a unit. The fabrication cost varies with the design and service offered but typically represents an additional €400/KgU. A fuel assembly contains around 462 KgU from which we derive a total static inventory cost of €670,000 uranium plus €185,000 fabrication per fuel assembly.

Now note that €1,449.6 is equivalent to $1,916 at current rates. But the important point is that dollar number is for one kg not one pound. I'm sure you know that there's considerable difference in that.

Here's a second source - an online calculator - which gives similar numbers: EUP= 2,240.11 $/kgU [EUP is Enriched Uranium Product].

Again note that the figure is per kg.

Now please refer to the first link once more:

With associated transport costs, tails management/disposal and core and cycle design services this amounts to ~ €1m investment per fuel assembly.

A 1000 MWe reactor will have 157 fuel assemblies. Sizewell B, a 1,300 MWe reactor has 192 fuel assemblies. To maximise the return on their investment, the utilities are pushing for more and more energy release from each fuel assembly, accepting the higher enrichment penalty. In the 1970's each 3% fuel assembly was finally discharged having produced on average 15,000 MW days. Now each 4.5% fuel assembly, though at higher inventory cost, may reach 25,000 MW days. Each fuel assembly constantly produces 18MW thermal heat while the core is critical at full power. It used to do this impressively typically over some 870 effective days before its final discharge, now it's an awesome 1,390 days. Elapsed residence time is some 20 % higher since the reactor load factors in practice cut down EFPD.

And please note this point:

Just as a last point, if this fuel investment seems high, typically now at €1m for 25,000 MW thermal days production compare it to the generation selling price derived for electricity which in the UK is currently €40-50/MWhe. To compare apples with apples (since only 32% of the thermal power is turned into electricity) the nuclear fuel cost component can be readily seen as £5.2/MWhe or about 16% of the total cost of running a UK nuclear power station 2.7p/unit or €31/MWh. The rest is capital investment recovery. Nuclear stations are very costly to build and rarely make any money until 12 years from start-up. However, unlike coal stations their fuel is relatively cheap.

In addition to the above bolded portion you have to also factor in the fact that most modern nuclear plants will have a 80 year life as opposed to 50 year for GenI type reactors.

Also, to repeat what I've already said before, all the NPPs that we may build will come with lifetime fuel guarantees with built in escalation clauses as regard prices.

And sorry boss I still think your $10,000 per pound for 4% enriched uranium by 2022 is totally way off the charts.

As regards to your comment about solar, I'm all for it and I see it as the generation tech for the future. But the technology is not there yet whereby it can replace thermal or nuclear for high base load generation which is a must for any half decent grid. Till such time we get there we'll have to bet on coal and nuclear. I'd say the latter is a better longer term option on account of pollution factors and demand-supply issues.

[amit]

Areva has a enrichment/fuel rod manufacturing in USA. So very likely, yes.

Doesn't matter a whit. As I said before the agreement with the French comes with lifetime fuel guarantees with fixed price escalation clauses. So if the French want to supply from the US let them.

But in this respect do remember that India has signed deals with Kazakhstan and others who don't have anything save for uranium under the ground. Have you wondered why? I mean there's a possibility that despite being stupid our nuclear scientific establishment knows a few things and hence has asked the GoI to sign these deals to lock up supply of imported uranium?

[Theo_Fidel]

Amit,

I don't think you realize it but our numbers are not so far off. Even if it is from random Wiki article.

$1 million per fuel assembly x 157 fuel elements per 1000 mw = $157 million. This without taking on margins often in the 20%-30% range. Then there is the liability insurance part that needs to be tacked on. We still havn't mentioned storage and disposal costs.

For 63,000 MW this is 157x63 = $9.891 Billion. Add 20% profit margin, 10% liability insurance and it becomes ~ $13.00 Billion. Double the price for 2020 conservatively as I have always done and it becomes ~ $25 Billion. Not that far from my $40 Billion. Which was far far more conservative and more beady eyed about the future. Esp. price of Uranium.

I skewed my numbers far more conservatively because Weapons program Uranium from Russia will end in 2013. Cheap Uranium with essentially free SWU's will stop coming in. The Fukushima effect will stop suppressing Uranium prices when India & China scale up. Uranium will easily spike from $50 to $150 and beyond per pound. That is why my numbers were so conservative. But I was just as conservative with Coal for that matter. Doubled prices. Or even Solar.

WRT France the contract is not signed yet but the best that has been offered is 25 years. And the prices charged have been very stiff. Big Part of the reason why NPCIL still has not signed. Sticker shock.

Your Claim of 80 year life, only a claim, makes the calculations worse. 80x157 = $12.56 Billlion per 1000 MW plant over its life. Not including inflation. 12.56x63 = $791 Billion. Or similar to a transfer of $ 1 Trillion from India to the wealthy west for some marginally present electric power.

Also importing yellow cake is fine but without enrichment we can only use it in domestic plants. Which we have minimized remember in favor of imports at MMS fancy. Our enriched fuel rods will all be imported to the end of plant life.

[amit]

Theo,

The numbers I provided already have margins built into them. And you seem to ingore the pound vs kg differential between your numbers and the ones I provided. Need I remind you that a 2.2 multiplier can have quite a difference in calculations of the nature you're attempting?

But these number crunching exercises only serves to distract us from the central issue, which is whichever way you look at it, a MW from nuclear power generation is comparable in cost to a MW generated from coal. And with the global supply bottlenecks in coal cost of MW generated from coal will only go up. And that's the reason why all the UMPPs planned in India have run into trouble and the RBI has placed a moratorium on further lending to UMPPs for fear of NPAs being formed.

The hike in coal prices and the fact that it's not always available even when folks are willing to pay good money for it is an issue that should concern everyone and also show why the Nuke deal is/was so damn important.

Finally some more data from the International Energy Agency in this paper:

The overall objective of the study is to provide reliable information on key factors affecting the
economics of electricity generation using a range of technologies. The report can serve as a resource for
policy makers and industry professionals seeking to better understand generation costs of these
technologies

Coal-fired generating technologies

At 5% discount rate, levelised generation costs range between 25 and 50 USD/MWh for most coal-fired
power plants. Generally, investment costs represent slightly more than a third of the total, while O&M
costs account for some 20% and fuel for some 45%.
At 10% discount rate, the levelised generation costs of nearly all coal-fired power plants range between
35 and 60 USD/MWh. Investment costs represent around 50% in most cases. O&M cost account for some
15% or the total and fuel costs for some 35%.

Gas-fired generating technologies

At a 5% discount rate, the levelised costs of generating electricity from gas-fired power plants vary
between 37 and 60 USD/MWh but in most cases it is lower than 55 USD/MWh.
<
<
At a 10% discount rate, levelised costs of gas-fired plants range between 40 and 63 USD/MWh. They
are barely higher than at the 5% discount rate owing to their low overnight investment costs and very short
construction periods. Fuel cost remains the major contributor representing 73% of total levelised
generation cost, while investment and O&M shares are around 20% and 7% respectively

Nuclear generating technologies

At a 5% discount rate, the levelised costs of nuclear electricity generation ranges between 21 and
31 USD/MWh except in two cases. Investment costs represent the largest share of total levelised costs,
around 50% on average, while O&M costs represent around 30% and fuel cycle costs around 20%.
At a 10% discount rate, the levelised costs of nuclear electricity generation are in the range between 30
and 50 USD/MWh except in two cases. The share of investment in total levelised generation cost is
around 70% while the other cost elements, O&M and fuel cycle, represent in average 20% and 10%
respectively.

Wind generating technologies

At a 5% discount rate, levelised costs for wind power plants considered in the study range between 35
and 95 USD/MWh, but for a large number of plants the costs are below 60 USD/MWh. The share of
O&M in total costs ranges between 13% and nearly 40% in one case.
At a 10% discount rate, the levelised costs of wind generated electricity range between 45 and more
than 140 USD/MWh.

Solar generating technologies

For solar plants the availability/capacity factors reported vary from 9% to 24%. At the higher
capacity/availability factor the levelised costs of solar-generated electricity are reaching around
150 USD/MWh at a 5% discount rate and more than 200 USD/MWh at a 10% discount rate. With
the lower availability/capacity factors the levelised costs of solar-generated electricity are approaching or
well above 300 USD/MWh.

Conclusions

The lowest levelised costs of generating electricity from the traditional main generation technologies
are within the range of 25-45 USD/MWh in most countries. The levelised costs and the ranking of
technologies in each country are sensitive to the discount rate and the projected prices of natural gas and
coal.
<
<
<
Financial risks are perceived and assessed differently. The markets for natural gas are undergoing substantial changes on many levels. Also the coal markets are under influence from new factors.
Environmental policy is also playing a more and more important role that is likely to significantly
influence fossil fuel prices in the future.
<
<
<
Within this framework and limitations, the study suggests that none of the traditional electricity
generating technologies can be expected to be the cheapest in all situations. The preferred generating
technology will depend on the specific circumstances of each project. The study indeed supports that on
a global scale there is room and opportunity for all efficient generating technologies.

The colored portion is what I've been trying to say over a multitude of posts. And I suspect everyone else who's been supporting nuclear in this debate are saying the same thing.

I'm sorry but IMO your point that nuclear power generation would be several orders of magnitude more costlier than other generating technologies is not tenable. The data doesn't support this contention. Which leads, again IMO, to the conclusion that the Nuke deal was and is good for India.

[RajeshA]

Published on Mar 06, 2012
By Shishir Gupta
4 NGOs behind N-plant stir got Rs 36 crore from abroad: Hindustan Times

The four non-governmental organisations (NGOs) being probed for links with the protests against the Kundankulam nuclear plant received no less than Rs 36.37 crore as foreign donations from 2006 to 2011 even as 16 other NGOs have come under the scanner of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, or FCRA.

The People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy is not on the list of NGOs being investigated for alleged FCRA violations but its coordinator SP Udayakumar is part of a resource network of one of the NGOs having received funds from Sweden.

Home ministry officials said the four NGOs which have been stopped from receiving foreign contributions are the Tuticorin Diocesan Association, Rural Uplift Center, Good Vision Charitable Trust and Trust for Rural Uplift and Education. The chief functionaries of these NGOs have been identified as Father Yvon Ambrose, Maria James, Manoj Thangaraj and J Napolean, respectively.

[amit]

Published on Mar 06, 2012
By Shishir Gupta
4 NGOs behind N-plant stir got Rs 36 crore from abroad: Hindustan Times

The four non-governmental organisations (NGOs) being probed for links with the protests against the Kundankulam nuclear plant received no less than Rs 36.37 crore as foreign donations from 2006 to 2011 even as 16 other NGOs have come under the scanner of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, or FCRA.

The People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy is not on the list of NGOs being investigated for alleged FCRA violations but its coordinator SP Udayakumar is part of a resource network of one of the NGOs having received funds from Sweden.

Home ministry officials said the four NGOs which have been stopped from receiving foreign contributions are the Tuticorin Diocesan Association, Rural Uplift Center, Good Vision Charitable Trust and Trust for Rural Uplift and Education. The chief functionaries of these NGOs have been identified as Father Yvon Ambrose, Maria James, Manoj Thangaraj and J Napolean, respectively.

Thanks for posting.

OK now we've got the name of the four NGOs. No surprises there I'm afraid. What I find interesting, however, is that the money came from Sweden and not the US as suspected.

Does this lend credence to that newspaper report that the GoI was alerted by a top US nuclear equipment maker that I seemed to recall reading? (Apologies in advance if my memory is tricking me on this; I don't want to be accused of trying to spin this information. Such a recourse would only add to the S/N ratio).

[marimuthu]

The People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy is not on the list of NGOs being investigated for alleged FCRA violations but its coordinator SP Udayakumar is part of a resource network of one of the NGOs having received funds from Sweden.

Also there is one photo, posted 3 pages before, where Mr.Udaykumar is attending some meeting/conference in Sweden.

[vishvak]

The People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy is not on the list of NGOs being investigated for alleged FCRA violations but its coordinator SP Udayakumar is part of a resource network of one of the NGOs having received funds from Sweden.

Also there is one photo, posted 3 pages before, where Mr.Udaykumar is attending some meeting/conference in Sweden.

So how are the Swede not funding protests in next door neighbor France that gets 80% of power from nuclear as also exports? (Nuclear power in France)

What has Sweden got to do with this that it has not got to do in France? Is it religion?

[RajeshA]

vishvak ji,

response is here!

[Philip]

The WEEK mag has a cover feature ,"Koodamkulam Dollars",with details of how TN NGOs recd. 1,600+ crores from abroad in just one year.Details of the 4 suspected diverters of funds to the agitations are given.That TN receives the most money from abroad and has simmering ethnic tensions below the surface (SL),is no coincidence."Church" entities are being liberally loaded with funds for the goals of foreign vested interests.

[Theo_Fidel]

Amit,

The DOE has those numbers in chart form. It is projected out into the future though they haven't been updated post Fukushima. It has also not been updated for the collapse in cost of PV. The argument is over the DAE claim that Nuclear is cheaper than coal. This is separate from the availability issue. Availability of fuel has crippled DAE for its entire existence. It claim that it is coal that is limited is perplexing.



Again it is no ones case that Coal is the way to go. Simply a matter of fact that coal is far far more important and will be more important no matter what the DAE does or claims.

Why do you think coal has supply issues but Nuclear does not. History tells us Nuclear has a lot more baggage and is far more easily cut off.

[sudeepj]

Has this been posted here before?
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2060518

The link details the passive safety features of the VVER-1000s at Kudankulam. To my untrained eyes, these reactors appear one of the safest reactor plants in the whole world.

Double containment with inter-containment cavity at negative pressurization, passive heat removal using overhead water tanks, passive filterization of the inter-containment cavity..

Combined with the low seismicity of the Tamilnadu coast, I feel there is little to fear.

[nachiket]

^^Ah but but these days the usual response to such cogent arguments about safety features on reactors is to drown them out by one loud cry of "Fukushima!!". The fact that no one actually died from radiation exposure because of the Fukushima accident is of course an irrelevant little detail.

[amit]

Why do you think coal has supply issues but Nuclear does not. History tells us Nuclear has a lot more baggage and is far more easily cut off.

Theo,

When considering fuel supply the one thing you need to consider is the amount of fuel required to produce an equivalent amount of electricity.

According to this paper:

Roughly, one gram of U-235 can produce a thermal energy of 1 MW for 24 hrs

For coal, see link

Since coal has a heat value of 20,000 kJ/kg, for producing one kw.hr we require (10765 / 20000) 0.538 kg of coal. This translates to (0.538 x 100 x 1,000) 53800 kg/hr (53.8 T/hr) of coal for an output of 100 MW.

Obviously this translates to having to use much less fuel in NPPs and hence less headache about the fuel supply chain, especially if you sign fuel supply guarantees. You talk about 25 year agreements, well if you look at the time line for our three stage dream, then that fits in very nicely, thank you!

I know you are a sceptic as regards the three-stage, which is perfectly fine with me. However, there are many others who believe in that including our nuclear establishment as well as GoI. Since they formulate policy, then I think you can see how the shapes fit into place vis a vis our energy needs over the next two decades, the nuclear deal and our ultimate goal of the three stage.

Another point. I know you were a bit sceptical about the SWU calculations I posted since they were a WiKi article. Well I had a far more credible one stored in my cloud account, it's just that I forgot about it.

Here it is, from the World Nuclear Association. However, you'd find that they come to much the same conclusion as the article I posted.

This report also says this:

Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. It is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradeable commodity.

As regards your point about PV, the prices have come down due to dumping by China. While from our perspective that is certainly a good thing, the fact remains that the technology is not there yet to allow for solar to actually replace high base load generating tech like coal, nuclear and gas.

The final point remains regarding Co2 emissions. This US Energy Administration report is worth a read.

Coal has the highest carbon intensity among fossil fuels, resulting in coal-fired plants having the highest output rate of CO2 per kilowatthour. The national average output rate for coal-fired electricity generation was 2.095 pounds CO2 per kilowatthour in 1999.

This is just one nugget, the report has a wealth of information. I suggest folks who are interested should have a look. IMO nuclear is important not because it's sexy to play around with atoms to produce energy. It's because it's a non-polluting alternative to the toxic gases which are being put into the atmosphere by coal-burning plants.

Having said that, I'd again add the caveat that that does not mean we can abandon coal and go whole hog for nuclear. Due to the necessities of demand and supply coal will continue to remain our major source for energy. However, every MW produced by nuclear is one MW less produced by coal - less Co2 for us to have to breathe.

JMT

[amit]

The fact that no one actually died from radiation exposure because of the Fukushima accident is of course an irrelevant little detail.

Yes.

There are some other irrelevant facts guaranteed to get anti nuclear jihadis into a tizzy, as we've seen in previous avatars of this thread. For fun let me list out a few:

1) Despite being a Gen 1 plant built in the early 1960s, the plants survived an earthquake that was seven time more powerful than what its design tolerance limits were supposed to be. The accident occurred due to the Black Swan event of a tsunami hitting simultaneously and washing away the back up generators.

2) Fukushima was a costly financial disaster but pales in comparison to the overall financial loss suffered by Japan on account of the Black Swan event - heck more than 20,000 people died. But none of them from radiation poisoning.

3) Due to the earthquake a dam burst in the Fukushima prefecture and washed away 4,000 homes. The number of dead was not clearly established since they were subsumed in the overall casualty figures from the disaster. However, given the time when the disaster occurred is it conceivable nobody died when so many homes were washed away?

Folks may wonder why I'm raking all this up. Well we're at the one-year anniversary point of that great disaster. It's useful to do a check on all the doomsday predictions and how many of them came true.

Oh yes, lest I forget, another strident howl which we heard during the great Fukushima debate is that Japan had irrevocably turned away from nuclear power. Well what do you know? One year on Japan is still deciding what to do...

[Sanku]

^^Ah but but these days the usual response to such cogent arguments about safety features on reactors is to drown them out by one loud cry of "Fukushima!!". The fact that no one actually died from radiation exposure because of the Fukushima accident is of course an irrelevant little detail.

Nachiket, you are mixing two things, impact of Fukushima in Japan, and that of applicability of Fukushima in cases of reactors in India.

The only reason the impact of Fukushima is not being discussed is because the news kept turning so bad that the grief it caused led to administrative action. Let us not revisit that, it is good that people did not die, but that in no way reduces the gravity of Fukushima.

Having said that, the lessons from Fukushima are not one-is-one translatable to India, esp KKNP, that much is clear (thank god) -- however there are plenty of generic lessons from Fukushima that we can all learn from and apply to India as well.

There are multiple things which are simultaneous true, just taking one and assuming that is the only correct data point will not do.

[member_22286]

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html

[Sanku]

The fact that no one actually died from radiation exposure because of the Fukushima accident is of course an irrelevant little detail.

Yes.

There are some other irrelevant facts guaranteed to get anti nuclear jihadis into a tizzy, as we've seen in previous avatars of this thread. For fun let me list out a few:

Most of the facts are of the same quality as an argument based on the above line -- a person who can not make points in a civil manner without resorting to low name calling characterization of those who offer different points of view -- is clearly weak on data and facts.

[Sanku]

It's because it's a non-polluting alternative to the toxic gases which are being put into the atmosphere by coal-burning plants.

Having said that, I'd again add the caveat that that does not mean we can abandon coal and go whole hog for nuclear.

First the statement that Nuclear produces less green house gases than goal itself is untrue if full lifecycle analysis is done.

So that is a bit of slight of hand argument (such as ONLY comparing operating costs and not taking care of different capital investments in cost calculations)

Due to the necessities of demand and supply coal will continue to remain our major source for energy. However, every MW produced by nuclear is one MW less produced by coal - less Co2 for us to have to breathe.

JMT

This is plain rhetoric without any value, a 0.000001% reduction in co2 reduction (assuming for a moment that green house gas lobby pov is right, which is not) does not really change the picture of pollution.

So the above is a catchy phrase, nice for electonireeing type of stuff, but quite devoid of meaningful impact.

The impact of hydo-carbon/coal is so overwhelming in all energy mix, and nuclear such a minuscule component, that the absence or presence of it is completely irrelevant in terms of pollution.

[chaanakya]

The impact of hydo-carbon/coal is so overwhelming in all energy mix, and nuclear such a minuscule component, that the absence or presence of it is completely irrelevant in terms of pollution.

+1
This simple formulation tells it all. But difficult to get it into thick heads.

[amit]

Sanku

Instead of resorting to useless rhetoric, why don't you back up your claims with some data, studies, links etc?

Alternatively why don't you read the US Energy Authority report I linked and do a point by point refutal of what it says?

Otherwise...

Well in London they have a Flat Earth Society where I've heard they give impassioned speeches to prove the earth is flat.

Now one can choose to believe the rhetoric, or one can do research and look up the data.

It's my belief that what course of action one takes in such situations depends on the openness to new ideas and the level of intellectual laziness. In other words more the laziness the more the rhetoric.

So like I said at the start, back your rhetoric with data and I'll take them seriously.