India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote: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.
This is a stupid rhetoric. Every ounce this and every ounce that.

First
1) Nuclear over its entire life cycle is no cleaner is it merely a alternate
2) A few % points is not going to make any difference what so ever in effect of C02. (if there is a real effect in the first place even that is not clear)

So this shrill "one gm of CO2 has been saved by nuclear" is both false and also meaningless.

You really as so green that you want to save CO2 invest in clean coal, nuclear aint going to cut it.

Rest of the rant is similarly meaningless.

And that is the fact, period, you can argue for the sake of it but that is just noise making.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:First
1) Nuclear over its entire life cycle is no cleaner is it merely a alternate
This statement is borne out of ignorance and a lack of understanding. Can you prove that over its entire life cycle nuclear is no cleaner than CO2 spewing coal? If you can't back your claims with third party sources, as far as I'm concerned its just unadulterated bullsh!t
So this shrill "one gm of CO2 has been saved by nuclear" is both false and also meaningless.
That quote was from a Yale University publication. The author is David Biello who is the Associate Editor of Scientific American. But of course what does he know compared to your vast knawledge of the subject and what stupid university is Yale? Perhaps you should write to Yale and tell them to stop posting yellow matter in their publications? That would be a good public service. Go for it Sanku Sir!
You really as so green that you want to save CO2 invest in clean coal, ...
Like I said, can you kindly point me to a commercially viable "clean coal" plant anywhere in this solar system? Incidentally I know of an even cleaner technology. In one of his books Arthur C Clarke talked about tapping the Sun's energy with a massive solar umbrella like device kept at the Lagrange point and the power beamed to Earth. With that kind of tech available who needs stupid backward technology nuclear power plants, right? India can wait till the technology matures and then tackle its energy deficit, don't you agree? Let's have a moratorium on building any new power plants till then.
... that is just noise making.
And I suppose you are rendering Beethoven's Fifth Symphony with your science fiction mumbo jumbo? Even Marvin, the perpetually depressed Android, would cheer up reading your posts!

:rotfl: :rotfl:
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:First
1) Nuclear over its entire life cycle is no cleaner is it merely a alternate
This statement is borne out of ignorance and a lack of understanding. Can you prove that over its entire life cycle nuclear is no cleaner than CO2 spewing coal? If can't back your claims with third party sources, as far as I'm concerned its just unadulterated bullsh!t
I have already provided references. And yet you do not learn, because you do not want to learn when papers are given, you mock papers and say, big deal papers.

Let me try again, but you will ignore all facts and keep parroting the same untruths.

Let me try once
http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploa ... udiver.pdf
From the perspective of greenhouse gas emissions, this paper suggests that nuclear power may indeed be an attractive alternative to fossil fuel-burning power
production—but not as attractive as renewable sources, such as wind, solar and
hydro. However, this conclusion about nuclear power should be qualified by
the significant uncertainties surrounding the nuclear lifecycle. These include
the quality of future uranium ore, the energetic costs of decommissioning and
long-term waste disposal, government policy decisions, and reactor efficiencies,
among other factors.
In study after study, depending oh who is doing the study the Carbon foot print over the period varies from 20% of gas fired stations to 120% of gas fired stations.

This when most of the time the methodology of extraction of ore, processing, type of reactor (heavy water or light) etc etc are heavily varying and all have themselves have cost.

In short -- while NPP as some where between Gas and Coal in terms of carbon footprint,

1) It is highly uncertain whether they are really so, depending on the issues in cleanup
2) The difference is not really a big differentiation from a Co2 perspective.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote:India can wait till the technology matures and then tackle its energy deficit, don't you agree? Let's have a moratorium on building any new power plants till then.
:
As always since you are bankrupt of any meaningful argument you resort to putting words in others mouth.

What I said, which can be seen by any one with a iota of intelligence and honesty is that

"India will build what ever plants it needs to to meet its energy need -- right now (which includes dirty coal, renewables, and INDIAN NUCLEAR plants)"

So sad that you have to repeatedly keep DELIBERATELY MISQUOTING others.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:I have already provided references. And yet you do not learn, because you do not want to learn when papers are given, you mock papers and say, big deal papers.

Let me try again, but you will ignore all facts and keep parroting the same untruths.

Let me try once
http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploa ... udiver.pdf
From the perspective of greenhouse gas emissions, this paper suggests that nuclear power may indeed be an attractive alternative to fossil fuel-burning power
production—but not as attractive as renewable sources, such as wind, solar and
hydro. However, this conclusion about nuclear power should be qualified by
the significant uncertainties surrounding the nuclear lifecycle. These include
the quality of future uranium ore, the energetic costs of decommissioning and
long-term waste disposal, government policy decisions, and reactor efficiencies,
among other factors.
In study after study, depending oh who is doing the study the Carbon foot print over the period varies from 20% of gas fired stations to 120% of gas fired stations.

This when most of the time the methodology of extraction of ore, processing, type of reactor (heavy water or light) etc etc are heavily varying and all have themselves have cost.

In short -- while NPP as some where between Gas and Coal in terms of carbon footprint,
Aha I see you are resorting to the nice little parlour trick of comparing nuclear to renewables. You're assertion was that over the lifecycle nuclear is as polluting as coal. Have you forgotten so fast?

Questions about uranium availability, cost etc are separate issues (we can discuss those if you wish) they are not the same as what your wrote:
So this shrill "one gm of CO2 has been saved by nuclear" is both false and also meaningless.
The fact that you are doing such downhill skiing just goes to show that you were indeed sprouting bullsh!t and you know it.
1) It is highly uncertain whether they are really so, depending on the issues in cleanup
2) The difference is not really a big differentiation from a Co2 perspective.
This last bit is your assertion. I think its bakwash.

I won't embarrass you any more by pursuing this any further.

PS: Just in case you didn't notice, this is what the first sentence in your quote says:
From the perspective of greenhouse gas emissions, this paper suggests that nuclear power may indeed be an attractive alternative to fossil fuel-burning power
Last edited by amit on 30 Mar 2012 13:34, edited 2 times in total.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:
India can wait till the technology matures and then tackle its energy deficit, don't you agree? Let's have a moratorium on building any new power plants till then.
:
As always since you are bankrupt of any meaningful argument you resort to putting words in others mouth.
Sanku,

I'm disappointed. I thought the engineer in you would be fascinated by the idea of tapping solar energy at the Lagrange point and then beaming it to Earth as a source of clean energy. Just imagine the limitless possibilities. Stopping power plant construction for a few decades - at the most a century - is small price to pay for unravelling such an engineering marvel. Next to it "clean coal" via CCS and other methodologies is crump change. Even Marvin would approve.

How sad you don't get it!
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote:[
I'm disappointed. I thought the engineer in you would be fascinated by the idea of tapping solar energy at the Lagrange point and then beaming it to Earth as a source of limitless clean energy. Just imagine the limitless possibilities. Stopping power plant construction for a few decades - at the most a century - is small price to pay for unravelling such an engineering marvel. Next to it "clean coal" via CCS and other methodologies is crump change.

How sad you don't get it!
I am an engineer, not a economist who makes up numbers as they go along. I am talking of reality, but I see you have been discussing science fiction all along.

Pity if you were doing it in the right thread, I would have taught you a few things there too. Unfortunately in middle of serious discussions about nuclear engineering and its strengths and weakness, you keep bringing in delusional ideas.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote: I won't embarrass you any more by pursuing this any further.]
Yeah sure, I know who has been embrassing himself.

Renewables (49%) + nuclear (1%) == 50% of all new energy anyone. To show nuclear is growing.
:rotfl:

Go and make up numbers somewhere else please
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:
amit wrote: I won't embarrass you any more by pursuing this any further.]
Yeah sure, I know who has been embrassing himself.

Renewables (49%) + nuclear (1%) == 50% of all new energy anyone. To show nuclear is growing.
:rotfl:

Go and make up numbers somewhere else please
Perhaps you didn't see, which is understandable given the fact that you are too busy posting to read what others post. This is what the World Energy Report actually said wrt to nuclear power as opposed to fluffy quoting out of context to prove one's POV. If you don't agree you could always write a protest letter.
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.
I can point things/resources out to you. However, it's beyond my power to make you comprehend.

Also I'm deeply disappointed that a champion of solar power like you reacted so indifferently to Arthur Clarke's brilliant idea of tapping solar power (btw does this qualify as "pouring venom" over solar power?).

Finally, all good things come to an end and so we've come to that point where I allow you to have the last word as I've had all my entertainment quota. So go ahead.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

Yeah right more projections about 2020 and 2050 and 20XX when the past data over last 10 years shows a different trend.

You are right, we might as well discuss AC Clarke, that is more likely to be true than the rest of number making, at least there no one will claim fiction as fact. (I hope)
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:Yeah right more projections about 2020 and 2050 and 20XX when the past data over last 10 years shows a different trend.

You are right, we might as well discuss AC Clarke, that is more likely to be true than the rest of number making, at least there no one will claim fiction as fact. (I hope)

Aha I simply couldn't resist. Sanku you outdo yourself. :rotfl: :rotfl:

Just in your previous post you used purported numbers from the World Energy Report to state that "I'm embarrassing myself".

And then when I point out what the report actually said, the report becomes just more projections which are not worth the paper it's printed on!

My God, you are an asset to BRF, what would the board do without you.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

Amit, I understand that everything is a grand joke to you, and nothing has any sanctity. But give it a break and dont keep attributing random things to me.

Honesty is an option you know.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by chaanakya »

amit wrote:
chaanakya wrote: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.
chaanakya wrote: 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
chaanakya wrote:talk of skewed priorities ,duhh..

Did you really understand the contribution of energy types in New policies scenario or 450 and what would be contribution of Nuclear and that of others. Also what would be the abatement of CO2 even if New policies are followed?

2011 report had not fully factored Fukushima but still does not paint a very rosy scenario (even in 450) for a Nuclear future.
Theo_Fidel

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Amit,

For your reference. All the way to 2011. Yes sunset is 2050. For all. The recent 5 year construction blip does not even register.

Image
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3894
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Kakkaji »

Jaya wants entire power from KNPP for TN
After giving green signal to the Kudankulam nuclear power plant, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa today demanded that the entire 2000 MW power to be generated by its two units be given to the state in view of the "severe power shortage."

In a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, she said it would be "proper and justifiable that the entire power to be generated from the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant is made available to Tamil Nadu."
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Philip »

Media reports say that its business as usual ,with the protesters going back to fishing and schookids back to school. The moolah must be running out fast with the GOI clamping down upon the suspected NGO's finances ."Feeding the 5000" without a miracle ain't an easy job! Signs of "retreat and defeat"! Anna H is now desperately being brought into the picture,to try and revive the dying patient,as the local champions have been disgraced.
gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4983
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by gakakkad »

India to export a nuclear reactor to pakistan

In view of the recent power cuts , Pakistani government expressed a keen interest in importing nuclear plants from abroad
These sICKOOLAR UPA people are waging a war against nation .. When are we going to surrender the whole country to the pigistani govt ?
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Satya_anveshi »

Kakkaji wrote:Jaya wants entire power from KNPP for TN
Will she be OK if other states also demand the entire power generated within their states? And may be on moral grounds, she will stop using all power flowing from other states. Also, hope she is willing to bear the entire capital cost of KNPP to be born by the state of TN. People who are making such demands, insuniating such ideas or sympathezing with such ideas should find the above idea justifyable also.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34918
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by chetak »

Satya_anveshi wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:Jaya wants entire power from KNPP for TN
Will she be OK if other states also demand the entire power generated within their states? And may be on moral grounds, she will stop using all power flowing from other states. Also, hope she is willing to bear the entire capital cost of KNPP to be born by the state of TN. People who are making such demands, insuniating such ideas or sympathezing with such ideas should find the above idea justifyable also.

What's the problem with this POV? Specially when some neighboring states don't want NPPs in their state but want only the power. All profit and no risk??
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by PratikDas »

chetak wrote: -----
What's the problem with this POV? Specially when some neighboring states don't want NPPs in their state but want only the power. All profit and no risk??
At first glance, what you say is interesting. Allowing states to have total access to a nuclear plant's production could be a great motivator for adoption of more nuclear power plants across the country and improve energy security.

However, in TN's case, it is still unclear to me what role the state government played in the agitations: constructive, destructive or none at all. Two of those three options are unacceptable and cannot be rewarded by total access to the power plant's production.
svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4727
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by svenkat »

del
Last edited by svenkat on 01 Apr 2012 13:57, edited 1 time in total.
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4112
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by suryag »

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by vishvak »

Theo_Fidel wrote:Amit,

For your reference. All the way to 2011. Yes sunset is 2050. For all. The recent 5 year construction blip does not even register.

Image
What it does not show is how India could not progress in nuclear field because of embargo and build more, which could have been possible otherwise in absence of embargo . Now that India is building more and here comes the model, thereby completely ignoring effects of lack of progress due to embargo.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Satya_anveshi »

chetak wrote:What's the problem with this POV? Specially when some neighboring states don't want NPPs in their state but want only the power. All profit and no risk??
Hmm..I am sure you agree that such should be the case with all old/new NPPs and why NPPs alone..we should extend such terms to Thermal/Hydro as well.....If such terms were known in advance, other states might have bid differently and if not they can create such ruckus even now and extort their way out as JJ might be doing. It sets quite a nice precedent. And by the way, if the spend is coming from everyone there may be a little matter answering their question as to why they need to bear the spend if no benefit goes to them.

Matter is about the policy that was prior to the current ruckus and if changes are needed, the methodology to manage and execute those changes.
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by JwalaMukhi »

With the "first right to resources" singh being very generous and talking about supplying power to pakis, JJ has caught up and trying to extract as much as possible from this dispensation. Alternately, it could be a hint to build more capacity at the site to supply to all.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11168
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

Amit et al -

I recently posted major news items about UK which is very important in India's context too as our energy solution.

(For example: UK and France sign nuclear energy agreement
and UK's PM Cameron is backing NEW NPP builds in UK

One reason all this makes sense is the following report from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in UK. This also shows effects of different forms of energy on environment. These are based on actual data points of 2011.

Link: DECC: STATISTICAL RELEASE: 2011 UK

The pdf document at the bottom is worth reading. Some key points:

An 8% drop in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the UK in 2011 was helped by an 11% increase in electricity output from the country's nuclear power plants,

(UK CO2 emissions in 2011 totalled an estimated 456.3 million tonnes, compared with 495.8 million tonnes in 2010. This decrease "resulted primarily from a decrease in residential gas use, combined with a reduction in demand for electricity accompanied by lower use of gas and greater use of nuclear power for electricity generation)
The decrease in emissions from this sector since 2010 can almost entirely be attributed to power stations ...A 17% drop in gas use for generation together with an 11% increase in the use of nuclear power led to a fall of about 7% in emissions from electricity generation.
.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Philip »

The fossil fuel/coal power plants in the ultimate analysis cause far more pollution than N-power.Until massive amounts of power are obtained from alternative energy sources like solar and wind power,on a fairly regular basis,a difficult task,a holistic system of power plants involving all existing forms of producing power is inevitable.The shape and form will differ from nation to nation depending upon its resources of fuel ,fossil,coal,nuclear,hydel,etc.How many decades it will take for technology to mature further in alternative systems is debatable,but as long as nations continue to maintain and further develop their N-arsenals and delivery systems,N- plants will be built.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11168
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

gakakkad wrote:and what the heck is "carbon free coal." ..coal by definition is an amorphous allotrope of carbon.. so coal==carbon..
Saw somewhere ... this is similar to:
- content FREE post
or - data FREE estimate
or - logic FREE argument
or oil FREE oil of olay.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

Amber,

After becoming PM, Cameron, has woken up and smelled the coffee and so he's become more realistic. However, UK's nuclear plans have suffered a setback due to the fact that Merkel is still sleeping soundly. The Horizon joint venture, co-owned by German utilities, RWE and E.ON, has collapsed due to the financial difficulties faced by these utilities following the German decision to put the squeeze on nuclear power.

The interesting point about the German decision to close nuclear power plants by 2022 is that by that point of time renewables will have to contribute an incredible 42 per cent of German electricity demand. That's unlikely to happen so German will happily buy more coal from Poland, import more gas from Russia and horror of horrors, import more nuclear power from France. So we could have the very interesting situation of the Germans having more coal plants - and more electricity generated by coal - in Germany by 2022, all in the name of having a more healthier and purer climate. However, this winter the Germans had to reopen one of their nuclear power pants due to energy shortage. Let's see what happens if the Russian Bear plays hardball with Gas.

Another issue that has direct relevance to India.

Folks here talk pithily about renewables as if it's just a question of choosing which type of generation plants we are happy with. I suspect many of them fail to realise what kind of sophisticated ecosystem is required in the form of support infrastructure in order to have a situation whereby solar and wind power can contribute a significant chunk of total energy requirement.

A highly developed country like Germany which has a stable demand (in that it does not go up exponentially every year as it does in India) for electricity, is relative small and homogenous (in comparison to India) also requires to get it just right in order to make renewables a mainstream electricity generation option.

According to this article, headlined, Germany’s new energy policy a complex puzzle, this is the kind of set up Germany will need:
Renewable resources are best exploited where they are plentiful – wind on the high seas and sun in warm regions. With power superhighways such as high-voltage direct-current (HVDC) transmission lines, energy can be transported to consumers without substantial loss. For example, a Siemens HVDC system in China is proving how 5 000 MW of electricity can be transported over a distance of 1 400 km with a loss of only about 5%. Had conventional alternating current power lines been used, the loss would be two to three times as high.
All this is fine. Now apply this to the Indian situation. Will electricity produced, by say wind energy on the high seas, be allowed to move wholesale from one coastal state to say a state like Karnataka which has no access to the sea? Keep in mind Jayalalitha's latests demand that all power generated by KNPP should be reserved for Tamil Nadu as a typical example of the mindset.
And yet another challenge: as weather conditions change, so does the output of wind and solar systems. That is why facilities that can store excess energy for hours, days and, if necessary, even weeks, are indispensible. To expand pumped-storage power plants in Germany would be very difficult. However, excess electricity can also be used in electrolytic plants to generate ecofriendly hydrogen, which can then be fed into the natural gas grid, stored in underground caverns, reconverted into electricity and used in fuel-cell vehicles. Batteries in buildings and electric cars can also serve as intermediate storage facilities. Siemens is conducting research in all these fields. {This reads like a PR piece for Siemens but let's ignore that bit and concentrate on the processes involved.}
When the wind suddenly drops or clouds move across the sun, fluctuations in power output have to be quickly offset. This is where quick-start gas power plants are particularly effective. Combined with steam turbines, they are also extremely efficient. Working with German energy giant EON, Siemens has built the world’s most efficient power plant in Irsching, Bavaria. The plant, which can convert natural gas into electricity at an efficiency of 60.75%, consumes a third less fuel per kilowatt hour than the average gas power plant worldwide. Substantially cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the facility, which can reach its full capacity from standstill in less than 30 minutes, generates 578 MW of electricity – enough to meet the energy needs of a city the size of Berlin.
Fifteen years ago, there were only a few hundred energy producers supplying electricity to Germany’s power grids. In the future, there will be millions – generating power from solar, wind and biomass systems and from small basement cogeneration units. Today’s energy consumers will increasingly be ‘prosumers’ – both producers and consumers of electricity. This fact – coupled with the increased use of renewable-energy sources that cause strong fluctuations in electricity prices – will make smart grids indispensable. With partners in Germany, Siemens is already demon- strating how these grids will function. Local energy producers in Wilpoldsried, a municipality in the country’s Allgäu region, are generating twice as much electricity with photovoltaic, biomass and wind power systems as they consume themselves. They are also using electric cars. {OK now I get it, we need to sell the Tata Pixel and MegaPixel in India's villages} Smart grids are ensuring network stability while balancing production and consumption.

Yet even after going through all these hooplas what do we have:
The cleanest energy is always the energy that is not consumed. And here, there is still considerable potential for savings – in industry, for example. Electric motors currently consume nearly two-thirds of the power used in industrial applications – in drives and pumps, for instance. Energy-saving motors and intelligent controls from Siemens consume up to 60% less power than their conventional counter- parts. As a result, investments in this area pay for themselves in less than two years.
^^^

Admirable sentiments. However, what happens in societies which suffer from an existing energy deficit and which is seeing a soaring rise in the total demand for electricity as it attempts to catch up with developed countries such as Germany?

I tell you what happens. In the absence of nuclear power, they go on to build coal fired power plants while paying lip service to "renewable forms of energy" in order to feel nice with a box kool aid at their side. And then the next stage is to talk about stuff like "clean coal" and of course "carbon-free" coal.

I find it ironic that folks who lose sleep at night worrying for the environment when nuclear power is involved, are totally cool with coal-fired thermal power plants. Standard refrain: "Coal is there, will be there, so learn to live with it and don't try to do anything about it by suggesting that every MW produced by nuclear power is one less produced by sulphur and CO2 spewing coal plants!"

Jai Ho!
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by amit »

Theo_Fidel wrote:Amit,

For your reference. All the way to 2011. Yes sunset is 2050. For all. The recent 5 year construction blip does not even register.

Image
Theo,

That chart is taken from the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010-2011 by Schneider, Froggatt and Thomas. It's an in-depth report and is important no doubt but its hardly the last word on this. The problem IMO is the report (read the Forward) as well as the authors of the 84- page report make no bones of the fact that they already decided nuclear is bad and then went about collating facts to fit the premise. I also don't like the way the report is fashioned: a nuclear vs renewables debate while coal, as usual gets a free pass. So it's business as usually with CO2.

Nevertheless I'd say it's a report that should be read by folks interested in the subject. However, as you very well know there are other equally "authoritative" reports which give a totally contarian POV. So bottomline it's not clinching evidence to hang nuclear with! :-)

JMT

PS: Here's the World Energy Council report which gives a different perspective.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34918
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by chetak »

amit wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote:Amit,

For your reference. All the way to 2011. Yes sunset is 2050. For all. The recent 5 year construction blip does not even register.

Image
Theo,

That chart is taken from the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010-2011 by Schneider, Froggatt and Thomas. It's an in-depth report and is important no doubt but its hardly the last word on this. The problem IMO is the report (read the Forward) as well as the authors of the 84- page report make no bones of the fact that they already decided nuclear is bad and then went about collating facts to fit the premise. I also don't like the way the report is fashioned: a nuclear vs renewables debate while coal, as usual gets a free pass. So it's business as usually with CO2.

Nevertheless I'd say it's a report that should be read by folks interested in the subject. However, as you very well know there are other equally "authoritative" reports which give a totally contarian POV. So bottomline it's not clinching evidence to hang nuclear with! :-)

JMT
amitji,

It's just been posted to dazzzle us natives with colorful charts, the modern equivalent of colored beads that the early americans swindled the poor red indians with. The frocks no doubt provided the firewater at koodankulam. Cheers


You are absolutely right. It's meaningless.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60276
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by ramana »

Threats To Nuclear Security
In addition to accidents, the threat from Al Qaeda and its affiliates and the dangers of their acquiring a nuclear capability have to be factored into in any security planning for nuclear establishments and personnel
B. RAMAN
http://www.outlooki ndia.com/ article.aspx? 280363
The second Nuclear Security Summit currently being held in Seoul, South Korea, would make a fresh evaluation , inter alia, of the security of nuclear materials in the possession of many countries.

Threats to nuclear security arise from two factors— accidents in nuclear establishments arising from natural or man-made causes and illegal acquisitions of nuclear materials and technology by state as well as non-state actors.

While there is a laid down and frequently tested drill for coping with nuclear accidents, preventive and protective measures to prevent the illegal acquisition of nuclear materials and know-how by state and non-state actors have not been satisfactory.

While Pakistan and North Korea are two instances of state actors illegally acquiring nuclear capability, Iran is threatening to join their ranks as a result of past complicity of Pakistan and North Korea.

Fears of non-state actors clandestinely acquiring nuclear materials and technology acquired a new dimension in the late 1990s after the famous interviews given by Osama bin Laden to US journalists from Kandahar, where he was then based, justifying the right of Muslims to acquire a nuclear weapon and to use it, if necessary, to protect Islam.

Since then fears of Pakistan‘s Islamic bomb, as it is referred to by Pakistani Islamic fundamentalist organisations, being transformed into a jihadi bomb in the hands of Al Qaeda and its affiliates have been preoccupying the minds of nuclear security experts. These fears were aggravated after the US troops which defeated the Taliban after 9/11 unearthed evidence to show that Sultan Bashiruddin and Abdul Majid, two retired nuclear scientists of Pakistan, were in touch with OBL and had visited him in Kandahar. The two were arrested by the Pakistanis and interrogated by the Americans.

The interrogation did not unearth any incriminating evidence against them. Despite this, the fact that two Pakistani nuclear scientists, who had occupied important positions in its nuclear establishments, were in contact with OBL, showed that jihadi and other terrorist organisations might be able acquire a nuclear capability not only through theft or other illegal means, but also by the complicity of the personnel of Pakistan’s nuclear establishments. This fear would now extend to the personnel of Iran’s nuclear establishments. In the case of North Korea, the dangers of non-state actors getting hold of its capability are not rated high.

The death of OBL on May 2 last year has not removed or diluted the threat of jihadi terrorist organisations acquiring a nuclear capability. True, there has been no statement from Al Qaeda or its associates or their leaders after the initial statements of OBL in the 1990s, about the right of the Muslims to acquire a nuclear capability.

The absence of statements on this subject by jihadi leaders and their organisations cannot and should not be interpreted as indicating that these organisations and their present leaders did not attach the same priority to this jihadi task as OBL did.

Al Qaeda has definitely suffered a set-back as a result of the death of OBL and other leaders in the Af-Pak region and Yemen due to special operations undertaken by the US. Despite the decimation of its leadership, its GenNext continues to show a high level of motivation as was seen by the recent terrorist incidents in France. There has been a geographic spread of its activities.

The threat from Al Qaeda and its affiliates and the dangers of their acquiring a nuclear capability have to be factored into in any security planning for nuclear establishments and personnel. The discussions in conferences such as the first Nuclear Security Summit in Washington and the present one in Seoul focus on physical security measures to prevent acquisitions through thefts and other illegal means.

With countries such as Pakistan participating in their deliberations, it would not be possible for them to have any meaningful discussions to prevent acquisition of nuclear capability by terrorist organisations through the complicity of personnel in nuclear establishments. This is a matter that has to be discussed in more restricted meetings of experts of intelligence agencies from India, the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Russia and the EU countries. This would require a high level of HUMINT and TECHINT capability, joint operations to collect intelligence and arrangements for sharing and analysing the collected intelligence. India should take the leadership in working for such a mechanism if it has not already done so.
____________ _________ _________ __

B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Philip »

Diehard Quisling Udaykumar has refused to hand over his passport as demanded by the GOI.One supposes that under the IPC a clear case can be made out to put him firmly behind bars.A long spell in the "cooler" will be beneficial to him before he
further spreads his mischief.
Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2449
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Yogi_G »

Philip wrote:Diehard Quisling Udaykumar has refused to hand over his passport as demanded by the GOI.One supposes that under the IPC a clear case can be made out to put him firmly behind bars.A long spell in the "cooler" will be beneficial to him before he
further spreads his mischief.
We have to be careful with him or we will end up paying up another 500 crores bribe to his EJ led convert goons!
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11168
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

chetak wrote:
amit wrote:Amit,
>>> Theo's quote..
For your reference. All the way to 2011. Yes sunset is 2050. For all. The recent 5 year construction blip does not even register.

chart image
<<<

Theo,

That chart is taken from the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010-2011 ..... However, as you very well know there are other equally "authoritative" reports which give a totally contarian POV. So bottomline it's not clinching evidence to hang nuclear with! :-)

JMT
amitji,

It's just been posted to dazzzle us natives with colorful charts, the modern equivalent of colored beads that the early americans swindled the poor red indians with. The frocks no doubt provided the firewater at koodankulam. Cheers


You are absolutely right. It's meaningless.
Yes, without context it is meaningless.

There are 64 reactors under construction at the end of 2011 according to document prepared by IAEA's 35-nation board last week ... (link

(The UN report says: Global use of nuclear energy could increase by as much as 100 percent in the next two decades ..)
Last edited by Amber G. on 02 Apr 2012 22:43, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

UN wrote: (The UN report says: Global use of nuclear energy could increase by as much as 100 percent in the next two decades ..)
What was their last predication which they got right? 8)
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11168
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

As our shastras say ..
भो भद्र कृतं मौनं कोकिलैर्जलदागमे,
वक्तारो दर्दुरा यत्र तत्र मौनं हि शोभनम् .


Also:
शैले शैले न माणिक्यं मौक्तिकं न गजे गजे,
साधवो न हि सर्वत्र चन्दनं न वने वने ...
Very apt, don't you think?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Sanku »

^^^
If sanskrit sholkas are used as a rhetorical device, an excuse to hide behind, when one gets a hiding (pun fully intended) on discussions of science and engineering, it merely degrades them.

Many issues of nuclear science and engineering have already been demeaned to the level of joke by the mismatch between "scientific" predication and the reality, consistently -- It would be sad if other scholarship is also similarly made a joke.

JMT and IMVHO etc.
Theo_Fidel

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Theo_Fidel »

The question is how many of those reactors are commercial reactors?

The PFBR inexplicably finds itself on the list. And KKNPP finds itself there as well despite it being technically complete. As does Kakrapar 3&4 and RAPS 7&8, even though these are all a completely new design and technically not a commercial design yet. Both of Japans under construction stand canceled yet are on the list. That great Nuclear hawker France has all of 1 reactor under construction. Yes one. The Russian research reactors including the BN-800 find themselves on the list.

Also what is not mentioned is that fully 26 of those reactors are being built in China, that paragon of virtue and leading example for the world. And all started after 2009. All of them new designs from the CPR-1000 onwards. By not mentioning that, you would think that the entire world was all into constructing these things. Almost all of them are in 3-4 countries. Russia + China + India is fully 2/3's of all reactors. So much for the 'World'.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Philip »

Well Theo,the entire western world (Britain here) apparently has faith in N-power,as can be seen from this latest report!
So perhaps you and your anti-Nuclear power NGO pals should start demonstrating and protesting closer at home then instead of messing about in India! Here is a wonderful quote,equally applicable to India,but where the PMANE goondas disrupted meetings held by the most distinguished scientists to educate the populace.
It is believed that Professor David MacKay, chief scientist at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, has been persuaded of the merits of building a fast-reactor at Sellafield.

“The more people we’ve educated on this, the more support we’re seeing,” Mr Roderick said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 08840.html

Plans to build a nuclear fast reactor at Sellafield come a step closer
Steve Connor: The Independent can reveal that a radical plan to deal with Britain’s plutonium waste – the biggest civil deposit in the world – has come a step closer with a legal contract to test the feasibility of building an American nuclear fast reactor on the Sellafield site in Cumbria.
A radical plan to deal with Britain’s plutonium waste – the biggest civil deposit in the world – has come a step closer with a legal contract to test the feasibility of building an American nuclear fast reactor on the Sellafield site in Cumbria.

Britain’s own fast-reactor programme was abandoned two decades ago and yesterday it was announced that the fast-reactor site at Dounreay in Scotland will be dismantled by 2025 at a cost of £2.7bn.

However, The Independent can reveal that nuclear officials have signed a feasibility study to investigate the possibility of building an American-designed fast reactor to “burn” the plutonium waste on-site at Sellafield.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which has overall responsibility for Sellafield and its 100-tonne plutonium-waste problem, has signed the deal with GE-Hitachi to see whether its Prism fast reactor can directly eliminate the plutonium waste rather than the alternative method of converting it into mixed oxide (Mox) fuel for conventional nuclear reactors.

The deal represents a remarkable U-turn on the part of the NDA which has consistently said that its preferred option to deal with the plutonium waste at Sellafield is to build a second Mox fuel plant at Sellafield – the first Mox fuel plant was closed last year after a catalogue of failures costing £1.34bn.

It is also ironic given that the reason why Britain has such a large amount of civil plutonium waste is because the UK nuclear industry wanted to burn it in fast reactors at Dounreay in Scotland, which had to be abandoned two decades ago, again because of technical failures.

Yesterday, the NDA announced that it would now cost nearly £3bn to decommission the heavily-contaminated site at Dounreay, although it attempted to sweeten the pill by claiming that this was £1bn less than originally planned.

In a statement to The Independent, the NDA said that it had originally ruled out fast reactors as a “credible option” for disposing of the plutonium because the technology was immature and such reactors would not be commercially available for several decades.

“GE Hitachi subsequently approached NDA to suggest their technology was at a more advanced stage of development. Discussions are now ongoing and a contract has been signed between NDA and GE Hitachi for a feasibility study which will be delivered over the next 3-4 months and, after review of the outputs, NDA will consider the credibility, or otherwise, of the proposal,” the NDA said.

“At this stage, evidence has not been provided which changes the NDA position that fast reactors are not credible,” it added.

The GE-Hitachi Prism reactor has come out of the US Department of Energy’s integral fast reactor programme, which was itself abandoned by President Bill Clinton in 1994, just before Britain abandoned its own fast-reactor programme.

However, GE-Hitachi has convinced the NDA that there are grounds for believing that it may be possible to build a pair of fast-reactors at Sellafield that can deal directly with the waste plutonium, rather than the more elaborate method of converting it first into Mox fuel that would then be burned in conventional nuclear reactors.

Daniel Roderick, senior vice president of GE Hitachi, said that if given the go-ahead the company will form a consortium that will build and operate the plant at no up-front cost to the UK taxpayer.

“We will only charge for each kilogram or tonne of plutonium we dispose of. We’re not going to build a several billion pound plant that doesn’t work,” Mr Roderick said.

The Prism fast reactor would be licensed and built within 10 years of given the go-ahead and it could deal with all the plutonium on a “once-through” basis within five years, he said.

A Mox plant would by comparison be subsidised by the UK taxpayer and would take far longer to build and will almost certainly not be built to budget, given the example of the French-built Mox plant in the US which is nearly ten times over budget and many years over schedule, Mr Roderick said.

It is believed that Professor David MacKay, chief scientist at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, has been persuaded of the merits of building a fast-reactor at Sellafield.

“The more people we’ve educated on this, the more support we’re seeing,” Mr Roderick said.
Post Reply