India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

[chaanakya]

Instead of foul mouthing members as is wont of few members why not just read WEO 2011 esp page 3 and 9 of Key graphs.
http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2011/key_graphs.pdf

Nuclear power capacity drops by 15% between 2010 & 2035 as a result of a bigger wave of retirements outweighing a slower rate of new construction than in the New Policies Scenario

This was pre fukushima.

And those conscious of CO2 abatement
http://www.iea.org/speech/2010/Tanaka/J ... eo2010.pdf

page 24



talk of skewed priorities ,duhh..

[amit]

^^^^
Chaanakya ji,

Not everybody is as cerebral, perceptive and well read as you are. In consideration of these unfortunate people, why don't you take the discussion away from papers and graphs to something more simple and easier to measure?

Things such as how many economically viable CCS or as you like to call it "clean coal" plants are coming up around the world? How they stack up in terms of cost per MW, cost of construction, TCO etc with nuclear power plants.

You could also share your knowledge by estimating how much it could cost to set up such a plants in India and by what timeframe the technology would be mature enough for UMPPs using this technology to be set up in India?

And in the meantime, what India should do to meet the energy deficit apart from following the Chinese example of opening one polluting thermal power plant every month?

PS: In that chart which you posted from the second link, it's curious how you omitted what was written on the bottom of the chart but on the same slide, especially considering the fact that you took pains to download the graph and then again upload on imageshack:

In the 450 Scenario, compared with the Current Policies Scenario, efficiency measures
provide 53% of the necessary abatement, but renewables, CCS & nuclear are also crucial

For those interested this is what the 450 Scenario is about.

Disclaimer: I'm engaging in a discussion on the subject with you, Sanku and others because I am assuming that all of you, like me want to see India grow and are concerned at the way the energy deficit is growing and are worried that at some point soon that's going to impinge on our ability to grow. However, if my assumptions are wrong then my apologies and good day to you Sirs, I will not pester you any more.

[chaanakya]

Thanks but no thanks, don't want mud in my eyes.
And SO you mean Co2 is only Indian problem?? Why do you want to get anecdotal instead of data points given in World Energy Outlook. Do you dispute them? May be you can write a letter to them telling how flawed their arguments are.

[amit]

Thanks but no thanks, don't want mud in my eyes.
And SO you mean Co2 is only Indian problem?? Why do you want to get anecdotal instead of data points given in World Energy Outlook. Do you dispute them? May be you can write a letter to them telling how flawed their arguments are.

I'm not saying they are flawed. Instead of jumping up and down, look at the context.

Sanku mentioned "clean coal" as an alternative to nuclear. What I'm saying is "clean coal" is still a theoretical concept and no commercially viable plants have come up, apart from some testbeds. And this is despite efforts going on since the early 2000s. Last year UK abandoned plans to build commercial plant because it was not economically viable, in fact prohibitively expensive.

Also CCS has its own set of environmental problems. Given India's precarious water table, I'd be very concerned if CO2 was pumped by the thousands of tons into underground aquifers. In short CCS is not an alternative to nuclear as of today or even the next decade. Normal polluting coal-fired plants are an alternative. For every MW of nuclear not built we'll have an extra MW of thermal power generation added. Is that so difficult to understand?

And hey did you look at your own graph? It talks about nuclear and CCS together playing a crucial role in CO2 abatement, I wonder why you left that part out? Did it spoil the pretty picture?

[chaanakya]

^^^^
Chaanakya ji,
PS: In that chart which you posted from the second link, it's curious how you omitted what was written on the bottom of the chart but on the same slide, especially considering the fact that you took pains to download the graph and then again upload on imageshack:( it helps to keep images rather than getting blank link.)

In the 450 Scenario, compared with the Current Policies Scenario, efficiency measures
provide 53% of the necessary abatement, but renewables, CCS & nuclear are also crucial

For those interested this is what the 450 Scenario is about.

No , not omitted.That is there for everyone to read. If you see it projects Nuclear Energy % as I have been telling. But you see it says NE would decline by 15% due to various factors.
Now these are projections that should be understood.
Apart from concerns about NE I hold that it would not have major impact as against other measures. And abatement is projected at 9% only. But then every bit helps, so to say.

[chaanakya]

I'm not saying they are flawed. Instead of jumping up and down, look at the context.

Well , probably I feel like monkey among you worthies.

[amit]

No , not omitted.That is there for everyone to read. If you see it projects Nuclear Energy % as I have been telling. But you see it says NE would decline by 15% due to various factors.
Now these are projections that should be understood.
Apart from concerns about NE I hold that it would not have major impact as against other measures. And abatement is projected at 9% only. But then every bit helps, so to say.

Then why did you go ballistic? Was it something you ate?

I've taken pains to explain earlier that there's not much difference in our thinking. I also think that every bit helps. And every viable generation method has to be in India's energy mix. My objection is to the crowd which shouts that nuclear can be excluded from India's energy mix.

That should be simple to understand.

[amit]

From the World Energy Outlook Report Channakya ji kindly linked.



Please note the caption:

Renewables and nuclear power account for more than half
of all the new capacity added worldwide through to 2035

So much for Nuclear industry being dead. RIP.

[Sanku]

Renewables and nuclear power account for more than half
of all the new capacity added worldwide through to 2035

So much for Nuclear industry being dead. RIP.

Amit Ji can you read graphs? Can you see how much renewable give and how much nuclear?

After spending most of your time bad mouthing all sources of energy which are non nuclear in your "nuke or end of world" pitch, you are now trying to hide behind the numbers of renewable by stealthily trying to include nuclear and renewable in one bucket?

With Renewable being 90% of Renewable + nuclear bucket.



You incredibly high standards of intellectual honesty never cease to continually surprise me.

[chaanakya]

Please note the caption:

Renewables and nuclear power account for more than half
of all the new capacity added worldwide through to 2035

So much for Nuclear industry being dead. RIP.

I used magnifying glass to see that Yellow band in the graph.

[chaanakya]

And please wait for 2012 report. It has some more interesting data point post fukushima. I don't want everyone to jump up and down before its actual release. These are IEA outlook reports FWIW.

[Sanku]

Renewables and nuclear power account for more than half
of all the new capacity added worldwide through to 2035

I used magnifying glass to see that Yellow band in the graph.

I have one more caption

Bike peddle generators AND Coal are going to account for 60% of all world power.

[chaanakya]

^^ yes , more apt.

However Amit ji what's your observation on "9% abatement by Nuclear energy" would be? That is lynchpin in your whole argument.

[amit]

why all that is moot Channakya ji. All oz well. We will soon see "clean coal" plants by the thousands.

[amit]

A very humble observation for the gentle readers of this thread.

Don't fall for the very sophisticated attempts by the coal lobby to fashion the debate as a renewals vs nuclear slugfest.

The real one is renewals + nuclear vs coal.

Presenting the debate as the former one very conveniently takes the limelight off a technology which has already resulted in the deaths of many Indians and has done considerable harm to the environment as opposed to the theoretical harm that nuclear can cause.

JMT

[Sanku]

The real one is renewals + nuclear vs coal.

I would advocate the gentle readers go back and read amit's copious venom against renewables on this thread itself for a long time before the nuclear bubble burst to an extent that nuclear needs to hide behind renewables now

There is no renewable + nuclear.

There is coal, there is renewable and after these two make up for most of the energy mix in future. (see graph above)

After that there is also some nuclear, and currently in a very shaky state.

The nuclear+renewable is a desperate attempt to bandwagon on emerging renewable industry in sheer desperation as all else has failed.

[chaanakya]

CO2 argument seems to have fallen flat.

If we see the capacity addition by India vis a vis others India would not contribute much to it compared to current or additional CO2 or historical emissions.

Baseload argument had crumbled long back. Now this is gone. So we become Coal Lobby or rather CCS Lobby. It seems to reduce more CO2 given that Coal would continue to be 60% or so in energy mix. Another point , the energy outlook does not look at power alone. Nuclear is for power sector. It looks at primary energy supply mix ( which contributes greatly to CO2) and here it predicts COAL & GAS. Also please note that If you invest in energy savings 35% CO2 is saved. Less investment and more outcome. It is called avoided capacity addition.

Funny. How people characterize rather than debate.

[Theo_Fidel]

Clean coal by western standards means CCS. It is doubtful if India will ever do this as we not even focused on Global warming. As Sanku says all the coal is getting burnt one way or another. There is simply no way to stop burning coal and support 1.5 Billion Indians on this land. Without coal/gas the carrying capacity of the land is maybe 100 Million tops.

If you look to history the main reason we are up this hell-hole is the complete failure of the Nuclear industry to live up to its promises. Some of us remember the projections when we were in school, was that Nuclear would be providing about 100,000 MW of power by 2000 leave alone 2012. Keep in mind even today the DAE’s budget is about 250 Billion Rupees excluding the bomb budget which is secret. And we have been spending that amount as a proportion of GDP for 60 years+ !!, with not much to show for it relative to the scale of the problem. If one does the math, about Rs 5 Trillion has been spent on the DAE over 60 years. Something like Rs 15 Trillion in inflation adjusted dollar. Yet here we stand with no power. Compare that to say Wind power in India which produced 16.2 TWH of power last year compared to the 15.3 TWH Nuclear produced after 123. What was the Government budget for Wind? Zero.

The only just barely commercially viable Nuclear power is once through U-235 cycle. Yet we don’t have U-235. The long term sustainable cycle is some form of Breeder, but we don’t know how to make any of them commercially viable, including the 3-stage which is NOT commercially viable BTW. This is the simple reason why Nuclear has turned into such a Cricket ball, wacked from one end of the field to the other. Despite 80 years of focused frantic research it is still not a mature technology. Serious flaws are discovered all the time, requiring yet another generation of radically re-designed reactors that then reveal even more serious flaws that require yet another re-design. For most other power technologies the focus has shifted long ago to standardization and cost reduction and mass production and efficiency/capacity increases. Recently it all came together spectacularly for PV where the manufacturing costs are now at 70 Cents per Watt and continuing to decline to 30-40 cents per watt in future.

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

Sanku, You can take it further. There is Coal, then Gas, then Renewable, then some Nuclear. Of these the only one declining and set to go extinct in 30 years is Nuclear, this is despite the 34 commercial reactors under construction right now. The sad fact is there are 440 commercial nuclear reactors in the world and ALL are set to sunset by 2050. There is simply no hope of replacing them by that time.

[chaanakya]

Clean coal by western standards means CCS. It is doubtful if India will ever do this as we not even focused on Global warming. As Sanku says all the coal is getting burnt one way or another. There is simply no way to stop burning coal and support 1.5 Billion Indians on this land. Without coal/gas the carrying capacity of the land is maybe 100 Million tops.

If you look to history the main reason we are up this hell-hole is the complete failure of the Nuclear industry to live up to its promises. Some of us remember the projections when we were in school, was that Nuclear would be providing about 100,000 MW of power by 2000 leave alone 2012. Keep in mind even today the DAE’s budget is about 250 Billion Rupees excluding the bomb budget which is secret. And we have been spending that amount as a proportion of GDP for 60 years+ !!, with not much to show for it relative to the scale of the problem. If one does the math, about Rs 5 Trillion has been spent on the DAE over 60 years. Something like Rs 15 Trillion in inflation adjusted dollar. Yet here we stand with no power. Compare that to say Wind power in India which produced 16.2 TWH of power last year compared to the 15.3 TWH Nuclear produced after 123. What was the Government budget for Wind? Zero.

The only just barely commercially viable Nuclear power is once through U-235 cycle. Yet we don’t have U-235. The long term sustainable cycle is some form of Breeder, but we don’t know how to make any of them commercially viable, including the 3-stage which is NOT commercially viable BTW. This is the simple reason why Nuclear has turned into such a Cricket ball, wacked from one end of the field to the other. Despite 80 years of focused frantic research it is still not a mature technology. Serious flaws are discovered all the time, requiring yet another generation of radically re-designed reactors that then reveal even more serious flaws that require yet another re-design. For most other power technologies the focus has shifted long ago to standardization and cost reduction and mass production and efficiency/capacity increases. Recently it all came together spectacularly for PV where the manufacturing costs are now at 70 Cents per Watt and continuing to decline to 30-40 cents per watt in future.

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

Sanku, You can take it further. There is Coal, then Gas, then Renewable, then some Nuclear. Of these the only one declining and set to go extinct in 30 years is Nuclear, this is despite the 34 commercial reactors under construction right now. The sad fact is there are 440 commercial nuclear reactors in the world and ALL are set to sunset by 2050. There is simply no hope of replacing them by that time.

of course some nuclear, no doubt about that.

[amit]

So we become Coal Lobby or rather CCS Lobby. e.

Don't flatter yourself. The coal lobby has bigger fish to fry than spend energy on "experts" of BRF.

When I talk about the coal lobby I'm referring to the real world.

[amit]

I would advocate the gentle readers go back and read amit's copious venom against renewables on this thread itself for a long time

Unless you can prove I poured copious venom on renewables, you know what that would make you.

Not that it would come as a surprise.

A true hacktoo moment

[chaanakya]

So we become Coal Lobby or rather CCS Lobby. e.

Don't flatter yourself. The coal lobby has bigger fish to fry than spend energy on "experts" of BRF.

When I talk about the coal lobby I'm referring to the real world.

Glad that I am off the hook.

[Sanku]

I would advocate the gentle readers go back and read amit's copious venom against renewables on this thread itself for a long time

Unless you can prove I poured copious venom on renewables, you know what that would make you.

Not that it would come as a surprise.

A true hacktoo moment

This is a rare tribute. If one such as yourself calls me names, then I know that I must be doing something quite right.

Smarting after getting caught are we. No worries, I will tell you. BRF posts after 24 hours can not be edited. Any one can search for amit on this thread and read the posts.

Its quite simple, anyone with a iota of intelligence and honesty can do it.

[amit]

Its quite simple, anyone with a iota of intelligence and honesty can do it.

Figures, which is why you don't want to do it yourself. However, till you do and actually prove yourself I can assume you are being economical with the truth - as usual.

However there can be a more charitable explanation. Lack of comprehension can lead to false conclusions.

[krisna]

I am putting my thoughts on this issue. I am not a person with irrefutably upper hand in the above weighty issues tearing hairs out of some of the posters here.
Bear with me my thoughts---

Currently all the sources which give energy are required particularly for India which is growing economically. energy is an important component to lift our nation to higher level amongst countries. Everyone agrees to that effect.
The question is which type of energy to be used to get to improve the lot of the country.

we already have plants with
1) fossil fuels - oil gas and coal based
2) Nuclear
3) Renewables - wind solar etc

currently fossil fuels has and will continue to have the largest share. however there are problems associated with it-
ditto with nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy will not die away despite many a eggsperts saying it. It may not amount to massive %ages as fossil fuels but will not die in forseeable future.
renewables will definitely get a fillip in terms of renewed interest and funding research etc to make it more economically viable for future.

Unless a breakthrough occurs in renewables , fossil fuels will have disproportinate %age of energy contribution.
Nuclear energy will be there but enough and not insignificant.

My position currently--
Continue with all whatever is available including nuclear plants. No stopping of KKPL etc .
put all those instigators behind bars if they have been taking foreign money to instigate fights.
there should be dispassionate discussion regarding the fossil fuels and nuclear ones also by real experts and not the jholawallahs.
NGOs should be shut down for misleading people.

There is no source of energy which is risk free to environment or to population.
JMTs.

[krisna]

eggsperts in nook dhaga claim clean coal.
wtf is clean coal.
it is always black and will remain black, will always emit co2.
coal is coal. there is no clean coal. it is just play with words trying to make it appear less polluting.

[amit]

eggsperts in nook dhaga claim clean coal.
wtf is clean coal.
it is always black and will remain black, will always emit co2.
coal is coal. there is no clean coal. it is just play with words trying to make it appear less polluting.

Krisna,

+100 plus +100.

The first is for pointing out the 800lb gorilla in the room, ie: There no such thing is clean coal.

The second is for the term eggsperts.

Regarding clean coal, read this

Clean coal: Never was there an oxymoron more insidious, or more dangerous to our public health. Invoked as often by the Democratic presidential candidates as by the Republicans and by liberals and conservatives alike, this slogan has blindsided any meaningful progress toward a sustainable energy policy.

Orwellian language has led to Orwellian politics. With the imaginary vocabulary of "clean coal," too many Democrats and Republicans, as well as a surprising number of environmentalists, have forgotten the dirty realities of extracting coal from the earth. Pummeled by warnings that global warming is triggering the apocalypse, Americans have fallen for the ruse of futuristic science that is clean coal. And in the meantime, swaths of the country are being destroyed before our eyes.

More than 104,000 miners in America have died in coal mines since 1900. Twice as many have died from black lung disease. Dangerous pollutants, including mercury, filter into our air and water. The injuries and deaths caused by overburdened coal trucks are innumerable.

How much more death and destruction will it take to strip coal of this bright, shining "clean" lie?

What really amazes me is that folks who lose sleep at night imaging the environmental impact of nuclear power have no problem swallowing the lie of "clean coal".

Another point: You know what clean coal is really about?

The technology involves sucking up the CO2 and sending into either underground oil fields or aquifers and in rare cases hollow caverns if they can be found. Now the fact remains that the CO2 will be buried near where the power plant is situated. Now given the fact that India doesn't have too many underground oil fields and discovered hollow caverns, guess where most of the CO2 will go? Into underground aquifers. Given India's rapidly decreasing water table, I wonder if that's a good idea.

Testifying on behalf of AWWA, Don Broussard urged caution in instituting geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide because of the potential for contamination of groundwater used as sources for drinking water.

“AWWA is particularly concerned about the potential for contamination of sole-source aquifers and suggests these aquifers be provided with special protective measures,” the water operations manager for Lafayette (La.) Utilities Systems told the House Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials July 24.

Because underground water chemistry is complex and changes could increase the release of iron, manganese, arsenic, and other inorganics into the groundwater, AWWA asked that commercial-scale geologic carbon sequestration be deferred until the results of large-scale pilot projects by the US Department of Energy are reported. The review of those results would provide DOE, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the water supply community with a better understanding of the effects of sequestration on drinking water sources, Broussard told the committee.

Link

[gakakkad]

and what the heck is "carbon free coal." ..coal by definition is an amorphous allotrope of carbon.. so coal==carbon..

[disha]

Sanku, You can take it further. There is Coal, then Gas, then Renewable, then some Nuclear. Of these the only one declining and set to go extinct in 30 years is Nuclear, this is despite the 34 commercial reactors under construction right now. The sad fact is there are 440 commercial nuclear reactors in the world and ALL are set to sunset by 2050. There is simply no hope of replacing them by that time.

Do you know Theo, the "Renewable" that the western press is croaking about? That "Renewable" is primarily Hydro-electric.

Here is http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... er/255139/

What you should be asking for is "clean energy" and not "renewables". Now coming to "clean energy", you know that Nuclear is the cleanest. Not withstanding scums like Udhayakumar, May His Fast Be Successful.

Also asking Sanku to carry on further is asking for the fox to guard the proverbial hen house.

I am sure lot of people will cite the "recent" study that C02 will not cause global warming., again that is a misword. There is *no global warming* but there is definitely ocean warming and this will have serious repercussions. Of course that is another debate., coming back to Bharat (or India)

* India does not have "clean coal" and the pseudo-technology behind it.
* Neither India has carbon sequestering technology (or the pseudo-science behind it)
* What India has Thorium reserves that will last @400 years if used in 3-stage nuclear energy cycle and that is what it has to follow. Period.

So India's choice is stark and two fold - get into Nuclear energy and soon and generate loads of it and use that to empower more clean energy (create more solar cells) and become truly energy independent.

There are other choices like bio-fuels, but their success has been like the much vaunted gobar gas.

BTW, very saddened to hear that Udhayakumar called off the fast. I wanted his and his cohorts to succeed in their fast - that would have been a true testament to their "fast unto death" principle.

PS: What is this penchant of some Indian christians to twist their name? Udaykumar becomes Udhayakumar for instance. Do you know that in some languages, Udhay(a) means termites? So apt.

[disha]

and what the heck is "carbon free coal." ..coal by definition is an amorphous allotrope of carbon.. so coal==carbon..

If you can sell me carbon-free coal, I have a Taj Mahal to sell.

[amit]

The sad fact is there are 440 commercial nuclear reactors in the world and ALL are set to sunset by 2050. There is simply no hope of replacing them by that time.

I know it's pointless but, pray could you point to a source which backs the claim? There are 440 commercial reactors and many of them have been commissioned within the last decade. Plus 60 more are being built. And plant life is 50 years and is likely to be extended to 80 years. In such a situation how do you come to the conclusion that all are set to sunset by 2050?

[krisna]

It is such a silly game played out here for non sensical reasons.

No facts only tugging at one's emotions to play the spoiler--

1) No energy source is clean.
2) No type of energy is going to be extinct.
3) India is and will be going to use all available forms of energy source to propel its socio economic progress.

Yes, some eggsperts/jholawallahs along with furriners will try to thwart this progress thru NGOs funding and paid media.

make no mistake, nook clear and dirty coal will not go away from India.
India will progress. Enjoy the ride folks. be a part of the journey. enough sulking and breast beating.

[amit]

And please wait for 2012 report. It has some more interesting data point post fukushima. I don't want everyone to jump up and down before its actual release. These are IEA outlook reports FWIW.

I used magnifying glass to see that Yellow band in the graph.

Chaanakya ji,

I'm assuming you went through the World Energy Outlook before posting your conclusions. And I hope you made good use of your magnifying glass.

For me earlier I was in a rush and so I did not have the time to do so, so I took what you wrote at face value. However...

This is what the report says in its executive summary. You'll find that they factor in Fukushima Daiichi so no need for you to do a round of callisthenics.

Second thoughts on nuclear would have far-reaching
consequences

Events at Fukushima Daiichi have raised questions about the future role of nuclear power,
although it has not changed policies in countries such as China, India, Russia and Korea
that are driving its expansion. In the New Policies Scenario, nuclear output rises by more
than 70% over the period to 2035, only slightly less than projected last year.

However, we also examine the possible implications of a more substantial shift away from nuclear power
in a Low Nuclear Case, which assumes that no new OECD reactors are built, that non-OECD
countries build only half of the additions projected in our New Policies Scenario and that the
operating lifespan of existing nuclear plants is shortened. While creating opportunities for
renewables, such a low-nuclear future would also boost demand for fossil fuels: the increase
in global coal demand is equal to twice the level of Australia’s current steam coal exports and
the rise in gas demand is equivalent to two-thirds of Russia’s current natural gas exports.

The net result would be to put additional upward pressure on energy prices, raise additional
concerns about energy security and make it harder and more expensive to combat climate
change. The consequences would be particularly severe for those countries with limited
indigenous energy resources which have been planning to rely relatively heavily on nuclear
power. It would also make it considerably more challenging for emerging economies to
satisfy their rapidly growing demand for electricity.

The last para in colored bold, can you think of a country which fits that description?

This is what it says about Renewables:

Renewables are pushed towards centre stage

The share of non-hydro renewables in power generation increases from 3% in 2009 to
15% in 2035, underpinned by annual subsidies to renewables that rise almost five-times
to $180 billion. China and the European Union drive this expansion, providing nearly half
of the growth.

Even though the subsidy cost per unit of output is expected to decline, most
renewable-energy sources need continued support throughout the projection period in order
to compete in electricity markets. {In the Indian context who is going to pay for all this?}
While this will be costly, it is expected to bring lasting benefits
in terms of energy security and environmental protection. Accommodating more electricity
from renewable sources, sometimes in remote locations, will require additional investment
in transmission networks amounting to 10% of total transmission investment: in the
European Union, 25% of the investment in transmission networks is needed for this purpose.
The contribution of hydropower to global power generation remains at around 15%, with
China, India and Brazil accounting for almost half of the 680 gigawatts of new capacity.

Link

talk of skewed priorities ,duhh..

[amit]

and what the heck is "carbon free coal." ..coal by definition is an amorphous allotrope of carbon.. so coal==carbon..

This is the latest lemon being sold by the coal lobby - all the way from the US to India. Just to clarify before chaankya ji and others take offense, I'm not implying any BRF poster is a part of the lobby, I'm talking about those who are shaping the discussion in the real world with ideas like "clean coal".

[Sanku]

To those who do not know what the terms clean coal mean I would advocate going through the basics here

http://www.idfc.com/pdf/report/Chapter-13.pdf

I would humbly request that either ignorant or smart alec remarks are not made unless people have familiarized themselves. That just serves to degrade the discussion. We already have a few jokers around.

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

BTW >> Nuclear energy is dead, is a statement seen in context of overall shrinkage of % of Nuclear energy in the world energy mix, one which is expected to continue dropping over next few years.

So starting from a low base a abatement is expected.

It does not mean that the amount of nuclear energy will be zero, just that it will cease to be significant. Already two of its strongest bastions have fallen. (Japan/Germany) -- US has walked away from it long time back. Russia and France are the only two users of Nuclear energy.

The chinese are supposed to be trying to increase Nuclear in the mix, but like with everything else in China, the reality does not seem to reflect the supposed numbers from comitern.

[Sanku]

nook clear and dirty coal will not go away from India.
India will progress. Enjoy the ride folks. be a part of the journey. enough sulking and breast beating.

I actually claim that India is the ONLY country which has the potential of using Nuclear effectively. Note I say ONLY with significant stress and care.

Actually had the country not been shafted by Man mohan's policies around Nuclear sector, we might have seen better days with more of 3-cycle program being proven much earlier.

This govt has essentially taken a "go-slow" on the same (along with go slow on many other security fronts)

[Sanku]

Disha-ji; I would request that instead of making unfounded allegations, you put forth specific points that I said that you disagree with. The personal attack and tomtomming ignorance as a discussion device is best left to other ones.

[amit]

To those who do not know what the terms clean coal mean I would advocate going through the basics here

The basics, which matters at the end of the day is how many commercial viable "clean coal" plants are up and running in world (I'm not even considering India) and how many are likely to be running within the next decade. Electricity from fusion is also a great concept and a lot of papers, studies and experiments are going on. And so where are the plants?

India needs power plant today, now, right away. Do we wait till the technology matures to build plants? And plants which come up today will be spewing CO2 into the atmosphere for the next 50 years.

Papers published by IDCF are nice reads when one has nothing much to do. However, at the end of day they contribute zlich to CO2 abatement until and unless the actual plants are up and running.

By the way, Sir, is this the right thread to discuss this?

[Sanku]

To those who do not know what the terms clean coal mean I would advocate going through the basics here

The basics, which matters at the end of the day is how many commercial viable "clean coal" plants are up and running in world (I'm not even considering India) and how many are likely to be running within the next decade. Electricity from fusion is also a great concept and a lot of papers, studies and experiments are going on. And so where are the plants?

That is not basics, at least not by normal definition in English language. That is future projection of application. Here clearly many including you do not even know what clean coal is (you also do not know the basics of Nuclear power so clearly lack of knowledge has not stopped you from talking though)

India needs power plant today, now, right away. Do we wait till the technology matures to build plants? And plants which come up today will be spewing CO2 into the atmosphere for the next 50 years.

For today the ONLY option is thermal stations coupled with reduction of losses in the grid. Period.

And yes, they will spew CO2, just like the plants in US, most of Europe, China and now Japan too.

Get used to it, thats how the real world is.

Papers published by IDCF are nice reads when one has nothing much to do

Clearly some people want to speak without knowledge and are proud of it. I however prefer that people make a modicum of sense when speaking, for that one has to read.

Not all are similarly obliged to make sense when speaking.

. However, at the end of day they contribute zlich to CO2 abatement until and unless the actual plants are up and running.

CO2 abatement is a nice to have and will come when it comes. No one is advocating that no plants be made till clean coal comes.

By the way, Sir, is this the right thread to discuss this?

No it is not, but you just wont learn, so unless the mods wield the broom, might as well do my bit of clearing the FUD that you are putting out.

[amit]

For today the ONLY option is thermal stations coupled with reduction of losses in the grid. Period.

Exactly! And every MW of nuclear generation that can be prevented by false assertions about how polluting nuclear power is, is an extra MW produced by dirty coal. The environment be damned.

PS: Sanku, this, "Oh you don't know anything", appendage that you add to every post of yours addressed to me is getting a bit tiresome because too much repetition is making the entertainment quotient stale. So either come up with something new, that I'd find humorous or presume beforehand that I don't know anything and you are the repository of all knawledge and then proceed to write your post? You also have the option of ignoring me. Poor me I don't, who can ignore a gyani?

Added later: Let me requote from a post I made earlier:

Nuclear power is one of the few resources that can allow China to burn less coal. China now combusts 3 billion metric tons of coal each year, overtaking the U.S. as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Several thousand miners die each year digging up the dirty black rock and the choking air pollution caused by coal burning costs the country $100 billion a year in medical care, according to the World Bank. “Any nuclear power plant going up is actually displacing fossil fuels,” Candris says.

That also explains the interest in nuclear power in places like the UK and U.S. For example, the UK hopes to build as many as eight new nuclear power plants to supplement the nine existing ones, all part of its bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But building a nuclear reactor in the UK or U.S. is a slow process, taking years if not decades. In fact, the newest nuclear reactor in the U.S. — Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee — is simply the completion of a reactor that began construction more than 30 years ago.

This is why nuclear is so important and that's why it will prevail despite all manner of obfuscation and political skulduggery orchestrated by the coal lobby, their minions and "useful idiots" who get taken in by the propaganda - things like "clean coal", and Oh India doesn't produce much CO2 emission - duh, India doesn't produce much emissions because India produces very little electricity and that's why it has a massive energy deficit. The day we try to bridge the gap, if nuclear and renewables are not in the mix, then CO2 production will go up geometrically.

That's why I said the debate is actually this: nuclear + renewables vs coal (er should that be "clean coal"?)