India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 13 Apr 2012 01:41

^^^ Looks like sarcasm of mentioning NY times (eg my use of "grudgingly") was lost to some.
For those who do not know, NYtimes's ayatollah's oped is at par...In 1974 NYtimes oped was ..someone wondering why starving people will work on nuclear energy (or defense ).. all they have to do is to rein in hindu fundamentalists and give up cashemer, and stop burning brides.... (no I am not making this up)..Remember, even Diwali terrorists attack in Delhi was described as "religious riots". ..(NY times was one of the biggest critic of US-India Nuke deal)

Post Fukushima, when one sensible article appeared in NYtimes, and I praised it in Brf, GuruPrabhu commented something to the effect "so so choohe kha ke, billi chali haj ko.."

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 13 Apr 2012 02:06

disha wrote: Coming back to the limitations of the liquid metal design, they have been mastered already., the challenge is to scale it up in to several hundered megawatts and gigawatts range. Before I go on further, the liquid metal design were first adapted for nuclear submarines. In fact several Gen IV reactors are liquid metal (some form of it - either Na, NaK or lead-bismuth) based.

...FYI Russia is planning to have first demonstration model based of lead-bismuth.. around 2017.
See for example:
Russian plans first SVBR-100 lead bismuth modular fast reactor for 2017

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 13 Apr 2012 03:05

chaanakya wrote:...indian sidekicks of great scientists supporting loudly and explaining this to their Amirkhan students....
.....How the phrase "Meltdowns" have become so common place while describing FUK-D, once derided upon.

Chanaakya,

I'm not sure said sidekick is Indian citizen. Maybe Indian origin person advocating for foreign paycheck. I have never seen any great love for India or concern for its future, just a sales opportunity. Aim is to stiff India and scoot back to safe massa suburb. No skin in the game. If you have property near a nuclear plant as I do you will be more concerned.

And yes there was a organized demand to ban anyone mentioning 'meltdown' at one point. Talk about Jihadism.
------------------------------------------------------

That said it is interesting that the argument has turned towards efficiency.

Annual per capita consumption for India 2012 ~ 1000 kwhr / year
Annual per capita consumption for USA ~ 1300 kwhr / year

I have done some preliminary numbers to boost India standard of living.

Refrigerator (No auto defrost) Energystar : 250 kw/year
A/C single window type in R-25 insulated bedroom alone 1/6 ton : 300 kw/year
TV LCD : 200 kw/year
60 watt scroll fan 4x as efficient as Khaitan : 150 kw/year
LPG Stove.
Lighting (2) 13 watt (60 watt eq) CFL : 30 kw/year
laptop : 40 kw/year

Total of 980 KW per person per year. There is plenty of lee way as I have counted everyone as having a fridge & A/C.

If say 50% of consumption goes to Industrial/retail/etc We will need about 980x2 = 1960 kw per person per year. With a decent lifestyle. We can do this because we mostly don't need heating and our dry climate allows us to live well without central A/C.

This would work out to a total capacity needed in the range of 400,000-500,000 MW.

This is doable as a nation. I'm dubious about 2000 GWH of capacity or even 4000 GWH. Failure to get there would mean the fat cats hoard all the electricity. We must force efficiency on everone in our resource starved situation to make sure everyone has access.

Optionals

Clothes dryer : 1000 kw/year
Washer : 200 kw/year
Electric stove/oven : 400 kw/yr
Electric heat : 1,500 kw/year (not needed?)

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Apr 2012 07:41

@ THEO household electricity consumption only accounts for 14% of the American electricity production.. Most electricity consumption is by industries and other things.Your calculationg annual household requirements and saying that only 980KW/person is needed is lahori logic.. Because households will constitute at most 10-15% of consumption.

.India has USD 3 trillion/ANNUM worth of manufacturing in the waiting , 1000s of hospitals /schools /colleges about to be constructed etc...We ll need a lot of electricity for these..

http://www.eia.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us.html

U.S. HOUSEHOLD ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN 2001

Electricity consumption by 107 million U.S. households in 2001 totaled 1,140 billion kWh. The most significant end uses were central air-conditioning and refrigerators, each of which accounted for about 14 percent of the U.S. total.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Apr 2012 07:55

chaanakya wrote:
So you agree that 25% could be saved. That's about 45GW load savings at current generation.

Your point about 5-6 Times increase in capacity would make sense if you provide timeline.

For your information India plans about 1300-1700 GW of which Coal would be about >900 GW capacity by 2032.

Now if we are efficient economy though not bothering about CO2 Lobby here and there we would save 25% of it in avoided capacity addition i.e. 325 GW at lower end. To put things in perspective , much to the chagrin of Nuclear jehadis and bookish sidekick of great scientists , under forced Nuclear only 89 GW or so would be planned.

One needs realworld solutions not some wet dream of farticle fyzicysts.

Energy Mix and place of Nuclear option is one issue, safety concerns are another issue, local population consent is another, fuel availability is also important, indegenous technology is important issue. To discuss all these and point out deficiencies does not make one against Nuclear or Coal or Renewables or Lobbyist for one or other form of energy. Policy planners does not have such luxury as afforded by farticle fyzicysts.

First thing- You ant-nuclear folks keep trying to bring t&d loses in every discussion..Its almost as if NPP is creating those loses ..and that by using solar/wind/ t&d loses would magically improve..Lahori logic.. our t&d has to improve whether the power source is nuclear,thermal or hamster running on a treadmill..

Second thing- Nuclear investment is for beyond 2030 .. Everyone here knows that by a huge fraction of our energy production will be thermal till 2030..But research in nuclear energy is the only way we can sustain a future beyond that.. Whether India invests in nuclear or not other countries will do so. At present we have much better capabilities than other countries. We have to cash in on our man power and technical skills and keep developing our nuclear technology..

Third thing - You use of polemics rivals uday kumar.. By opposing Indian nuclear program , you are supporting china and pakistan..

Let me summarise the events in the past 12 months from the political perspective ..

Approximate timeline..

June 11-- noises against knpp start..
july 11 - murder of the entire top leadership of the russian atomic agency..
july-december -protest continue with possible LTTE supporters entering the protest
January- finally the government acts against the protestors
March - Karunanidhi pressurises MMS to vote against sl
April - SL begins making noises against KNPP..

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 13 Apr 2012 08:37

Here is electrical energy flow from production to consumption for 2010 in us. Almost 1/3rd of gross production and consumption is for residential sector.
http://205.254.135.7/totalenergy/data/a ... agram5.cfm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... w_2009.png

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Apr 2012 08:42

JwalaMukhi wrote:Here is electrical energy flow from production to consumption for 2010 in us. Almost 1/3rd of gross production and consumption is for residential sector.
http://205.254.135.7/totalenergy/data/a ... agram5.cfm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... w_2009.png

this is energy , not electricity ... energy = electricity + fuel used in cars + gas used in cooking/heating ...

the link I gave was from the US govt website which deals with electricity onlee. since..

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 13 Apr 2012 08:46

Saar, it is electicity only purely. If for some reason, the first link is not working here is the pdf that would help.
http://205.254.135.7/totalenergy/data/a ... sec8_3.pdf

BTW: If one follows the electricity generation even in the wikipedia graph from livermore labs, one can easily trace electricity only. Oh well..

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 13 Apr 2012 08:49

Further more, here is how the residential would break up. Lot of it will be used in space heating even in commercial setup. Almost 1/3rd in just space heating for both residential and commercial.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_pie

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Apr 2012 08:54

JwalaMukhi wrote:Saar, it is electicity only purely. If for some reason, the first link is not working here is the pdf that would help.
http://205.254.135.7/totalenergy/data/a ... sec8_3.pdf

both links are working...wiki link is total energy which includes everything including ..

here is the pdf..

http://205.254.135.7/totalenergy/data/m ... sec2_3.pdf

even here the total household energy consumption is onlee 20%..

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Apr 2012 08:56

JwalaMukhi wrote:Further more, here is how the residential would break up. Lot of it will be used in space heating even in commercial setup. Almost 1/3rd in just space heating for both residential and commercial.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_pie

most of the heating in amreeka is by gas and not by electricity..our discussion is only of electricity.. gas for India is onlee cooking..

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Apr 2012 09:04

20% of the american energy requirements go to households ... Most energy is for commercial, industrial and transport purpose..so again household is minority..

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 13 Apr 2012 09:04

gakakkad wrote:both links are working...wiki link is total energy which includes everything including ..

Well, wiki link graph is very explicit in just following electricity only, if one is interested, if one can follow the color code. However it is for 2009.

most of the heating in amreeka is by gas and not by electricity

Will grant you that. Still electricity is used very substantially to regulate space temperature (heating/cooling) and is not trivial.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 13 Apr 2012 09:06

gakakkad wrote:20% of the american energy requirements go to households ... Most energy is for commercial, industrial and transport purpose..so again household is minority..

Yep, but let's stick only to electrical energy.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Apr 2012 09:09

Well, wiki link graph is very explicit in just following electricity only, if one is interested, if one can follow the color code. However it is for 2009.

even if it is 30% , most of the electricity goes towards commercial and industrial segment...so theos argument about using household figures only falls apart since , you need most electricity for commercial and industrial segment..

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 13 Apr 2012 09:22

^correct. If one were to match the pace of industrialization and commericialization on par with either china or US., nearly 2/3rd (not 85%) would have to be for that. Although the caveat is, there is far less requirement for regulating space temperature (heating/cooling).

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Apr 2012 09:32

finally , how did the discussion end here ? From nuclear energy to do we need electricity at all ? Argumentative Indians ?

If we look at the electricity consumption of the Indian middle class , it mirrors that of the americans minus the heating..

The per capita figure is low because poor are not yet able to afford the appliances.. But that is changing fast.. 10 years from now 5-6 times more households will have tv/refrigerator than today... internet consumption is growing at 25% CAGR ,must faster than world average, so more households will have computers ..

Shortage of electricity for industry has made India a less competititve place for industries. Many factories need massive generators to continue work during power cut.. If that is the situation now with a maufacturing output of $ 500-600 billion what will be the situation 10 years from now when output is 2-3 trillion dollars..Either manufacturing may never rise to that level due to the constraints imposed by socialist mafia + expensive electricity ... or they might all have to invest in on site generators which is far more expensive ,polluting and inefficient .

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 13 Apr 2012 09:41

gakakkad wrote:finally , how did the discussion end here ? From nuclear energy to do we need electricity at all ? Argumentative Indians ?
.

The discussion came to an end way before here. Just getting the semantics and numbers right, that's all. will quote your own post that capped the debate.

Second thing- Nuclear investment is for beyond 2030 .. Everyone here knows that by a huge fraction of our energy production will be thermal till 2030..But research in nuclear energy is the only way we can sustain a future beyond that.. Whether India invests in nuclear or not other countries will do so. At present we have much better capabilities than other countries. We have to cash in on our man power and technical skills and keep developing our nuclear technology..

But we are not done yet, because debate is: is really our indigenous development of nuclear technology achieved by the pathwork laid by lobbying for exports based on dazzling power point presentations from world-bank?
also never advisable to say only way (maybe only way for the present in opinion of those that matter), but there is no guarantee things will not change for better/worse.
Getting the number rights is very crucial for not being dazzled by sooted booted snake oil salesman who will decry things will go to vedic way if one doesn't buy the oil that they peddle.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 13 Apr 2012 09:57

Yes it is electricity only. Not total energy which is a another total ball game. Gakakkad missed the memo on that one.

My numbers allow a efficient use of electricity. Not the splurging USA does. Again, we are not USA and should not pretend to live like that. Greece tried to live like Germans recently FWIW and are paying the price big time. There is such a thing as living within your means. If the number is bogus lets look at the bogus number the DAE put out as 4000 GWhr of capacity.

Say 1/2 comes from coal and 1/2 comes from imported U-235.

So that would mean @2.5 million tonnes per 1 gwhr annually to feed 2000 GWhr we need 2000x2.5 = 5 Billion tonnes of coal annually. Just electricity mind you.
At 250 tonnes of Uranium per 1 GWhr capacity, to feed 2000 GWhr we need 250x2000 = 500,000 tonnes of Uranium annually. No wonder the latest proposal is to get Uranium from ocean. Just running the numbers trough my head tells me some people should stick to their books and not look at reality on that one.

Neither is a likely scenario. We need to be the most efficient country in the world with our electricity supply. Only then can 1.2 Billion people get rich. Should not kid our selves on this. BTW even in massa land factories constantly complain about cost of energy. Esp. Oil and HT electric power. Every election cheap power for factory is reason to beat every politician around. Even in China there are constant complaints about availability of coal and electricity. While we bring in new supply we should demand that manufacturing improve efficiency as GOI is doing. It should not be our ethic to be wasteful as promoted by Nuclear shills.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 Apr 2012 14:04

Also wanted to add that in today's age, most forms of energy can be converted from one to other, i.e. gas can be either for direct heating or electricity generation. Ditto for diesel.

Similarly electricity can power car instead of petrol.

These two way linkages too are important in considering the overall energy requirements.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 Apr 2012 16:32

gakakkad wrote:
chaanakya wrote:
So you agree that 25% could be saved. That's about 45GW load savings at current generation.

Your point about 5-6 Times increase in capacity would make sense if you provide timeline.

For your information India plans about 1300-1700 GW of which Coal would be about >900 GW capacity by 2032.

Now if we are efficient economy though not bothering about CO2 Lobby here and there we would save 25% of it in avoided capacity addition i.e. 325 GW at lower end. To put things in perspective , much to the chagrin of Nuclear jehadis and bookish sidekick of great scientists , under forced Nuclear only 89 GW or so would be planned.

One needs realworld solutions not some wet dream of farticle fyzicysts.

Energy Mix and place of Nuclear option is one issue, safety concerns are another issue, local population consent is another, fuel availability is also important, indegenous technology is important issue. To discuss all these and point out deficiencies does not make one against Nuclear or Coal or Renewables or Lobbyist for one or other form of energy. Policy planners does not have such luxury as afforded by farticle fyzicysts.

First thing- You ant-nuclear folks keep trying to bring t&d loses in every discussion..Its almost as if NPP is creating those loses ..and that by using solar/wind/ t&d loses would magically improve..Lahori logic.. our t&d has to improve whether the power source is nuclear,thermal or hamster running on a treadmill..

Second thing- Nuclear investment is for beyond 2030 .. Everyone here knows that by a huge fraction of our energy production will be thermal till 2030..But research in nuclear energy is the only way we can sustain a future beyond that.. Whether India invests in nuclear or not other countries will do so. At present we have much better capabilities than other countries. We have to cash in on our man power and technical skills and keep developing our nuclear technology..

Third thing - You use of polemics rivals uday kumar.. By opposing Indian nuclear program , you are supporting china and pakistan..

Let me summarise the events in the past 12 months from the political perspective ..

Approximate timeline..

June 11-- noises against knpp start..
july 11 - murder of the entire top leadership of the russian atomic agency..
july-december -protest continue with possible LTTE supporters entering the protest
January- finally the government acts against the protestors
March - Karunanidhi pressurises MMS to vote against sl
April - SL begins making noises against KNPP..

G

Since when talk about Energy Policy , energy efficiency and relatively low targets fixed by GOI and countries world over became anti nuclear?? Talk of safety issues , local consent are anti nuclear. You are just trying to avoid issues like many a sidekicks do.
You dont want to discuss but you are fixated in your ideas . No issues.

If Nuclear is beyond 2030, let it be so. Meanwhile let us try to achieve 89 GW by 2032.

Your use of Lahori logic eludes me. When confronted with facts and data you talk of polemics and udaya kuamr and characterises one as supporting Pakistan and China. What kind of idiotic logic is this if not lahori??

Well you see CT and no one can prevent you from seeing. You need to be away from brf for sometime to restore balance in your thinking and just read Integrated energy policy which is being followed by GOI currently. It would answer most of your doubts.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 Apr 2012 16:48

gakakkad wrote:20% of the american energy requirements go to households ... Most energy is for commercial, industrial and transport purpose..so again household is minority..

If you dont have Indian data, I can post graphs for pattern of electricity usage for both residential and commercial sector and share of industries in electricity. When we talk of Energy , it is primary energy and expressed in MTOE. Electricity is but one component of it and it is a derived product.
As Sanku said most of the energy has got two way linkages. And Theo's numbers would tell you how much of raw material is needed to get certain amount of electricity. Nuclear energy can be used only when it is converted as electricity. So two way linkage is absent.Nonetheless, it has its role in Energy mix.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 Apr 2012 16:58

Just heard from someone that in 20 years Hydrogen could become choice of fuel for electricity and energy . Its clean. Could provide storage solution, though explosive. And abundantly available. In fact some have been working on hydrogen storage technology . If tamed, it would offer great alternative to most options being discussed here.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 13 Apr 2012 19:14

Hydrogen is available abundantly

{here on earth?}
I remember Guruji mentioning that H economy is fundamentally against 2nd law of T (yes capital T, if someone racalls).

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 Apr 2012 19:36

Satya_anveshi wrote:Hydrogen is available abundantly {here on earth?}
I remember Guruji mentioning that H economy is fundamentally against 2nd law of T (yes capital T, if someone racalls).

DHMO??

You could elaborate on bolded part.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Apr 2012 19:39

H economy is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Because we need to electrolyse water to obtain hydrogen..And the fuel cell converts it back to water..As no system is 100% efficient , there is a net loss of energy in this scheme...

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Apr 2012 19:42

Sanku wrote:Also wanted to add that in today's age, most forms of energy can be converted from one to other, i.e. gas can be either for direct heating or electricity generation. Ditto for diesel.

Similarly electricity can power car instead of petrol.

These two way linkages too are important in considering the overall energy requirements.

unkil jee , you stated something which resembles a corollary of the 1st laa of thermodynamics .. energy can be converted from one form to another...But I am interested in knowing the context you quoted..

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Apr 2012 19:51

Total energy consumption of a nation includes fuels used for cooking , and heating .. It also includes fuels used in motor vehicles. That is why it is for the purpose of comparison important to demarcate the fact. Since distances in India are not as large as the US , No one needs to drive 40 miles to get the kids diaper. So Indians need to drive much less and hence use a lot lesser fuel and energy. We don't need gas for heating purpose too..

Regarding electricity a more direct comparison can be made.. Since Americans and Indians do pretty much the same thing with electricity. Watch TV , store things in a refrigerator and use the computer and electric lighting. These requirements don't differ much country to country.

Second reason why I chose to demarcate electricity over energy is because , nuclear power cannot be used to drive a car . And we don't have nuclear power chulas as well. So all the useful energy from nuclear power is in the form of electricity..

I recommended brazil or malaysia levels of per capita consumption of electricity. Not unkil level ..Unkil model of consumption cannot be sustained by unkil too in the long run..Even per capita consumption in switzerland or france is half that of unkil..

Some of the brfites debating against aam yindoos consuming electricity have 2 60 inch flat panels in their home , besides a 5000 watt stereo in the bathroom and 2 x 1000l refridgerator and an excellent wine cellar. Yet they teach dharmic ways to aam yindoos.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Apr 2012 19:54

BTW even in massa land factories constantly complain about cost of energy. Esp. Oil and HT electric power.

In India power is not only expensive , but also unreliable (except for Guj).. Unpredictable power cuts have forced industry to by generators..

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 13 Apr 2012 20:16

chaanakya wrote:You could elaborate on bolded part.

as gakakkad ji mentioned, getting to H take more energy than it serves the purpose and hence it is NOT a source but a carrier of energy.

If Unkil creates it their land and supplies to us in huge enough scale so we can reduce our carbon foot print..then we can use it for specific purposes. After all they owe it to the world for messing the planet so big.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 13 Apr 2012 22:18

That argument can be used against all human powered energy systems.

For instance you can not use Nuclear power directly so you convert heat to boiling water to spinning turbine to electricity back to spinning motor to doing work. Does this mean this is against 2nd law of (T) Capital. No it is not a 100% efficient system, as no human equipment ever is. that is all. That said my issue with Hydrogen from water is the loss of energy WRT O2 release. One half of the cracked fuel is released unused. But Hydrogen does not have to come from electrolysis alone.

Lets keep in mind that once the Hydrogen is created as Fuel, the cell is 80% efficient at creating electricity and the electric drive to the wheels is then 90% plus efficient. Not only that a simple regenerative brake system will give you another 30% back, instead of wasted brake pad heat. Compare that with the typical ICE vehicle that ranges from 15%-18% efficiency. So overall the Hydrogen car has been shown to be more efficient. It is just that we are used to the horrific inefficiency of ICE vehicles that we fail to see how inefficient it is. Esp. when book learned people drop big words like Law of Capital (T). The only way to compare them would be on cost of fuel, here a kg of Hydrogen from NG costs ~ $3.50 and gives about 75 miles per kg in a SUV type vehicle due to superior efficiency of the powerplant/drive system. So much for Law of capital (T).

BTW the universe to can be seen as a machine and is 100% efficient always. Not only is it 100% efficient it is 100% accurate as well. So there are such non-human systems possible.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 13 Apr 2012 22:56

Assuming hydrogen is obtained through electrolysis , the energy spent at obtaining hydrogen is exactly the same as energy generated by hydrogen burning.. So effectively you creating hydrogen applying a particular amount of energy and recovering the same amount by burning it.. So why not directly use the energy to run the car , rather than using it create hydrogen and running the car on hydrogen...Even in a hypothetical 100% efficient system , there would be a zero gain of energy. In practise some energy will be lost in electrolysis and some lost the fuel cell.. so there is a net loss of energy..

If free hydrogen was abundantly available , then fuel cell would have been the next big thing.. but that is not the case.. if it is to be obtained through electrolysis than it ll only be mainstream once we run out of oil...or cost of obtaining free hydrogen become less than cost of drilling and refining crude oil... for that to happen you need cheap electricity ... since your aim of using hydrogen is to replace fossil fuel , you cannot use electricity generated from fossil fuel to obtain hydrogen.. You need to use renewable ..or you need to use ..nukular... so even in a hydrogen economy nuclear plays a central role.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 13 Apr 2012 23:21

Theo_Fidel wrote:That argument can be used against all human powered energy systems.

For instance you can not use Nuclear power directly so you convert heat to boiling water to spinning turbine to electricity back to spinning motor to doing work. Does this mean this is against 2nd law of (T) Capital. No it is not a 100% efficient system, as no human equipment ever is. that is all. That said my issue with Hydrogen from water is the loss of energy WRT O2 release. One half of the cracked fuel is released unused. But Hydrogen does not have to come from electrolysis alone.

Lets keep in mind that once the Hydrogen is created as Fuel, the cell is 80% efficient at creating electricity and the electric drive to the wheels is then 90% plus efficient. Not only that a simple regenerative brake system will give you another 30% back, instead of wasted brake pad heat. Compare that with the typical ICE vehicle that ranges from 15%-18% efficiency. So overall the Hydrogen car has been shown to be more efficient. It is just that we are used to the horrific inefficiency of ICE vehicles that we fail to see how inefficient it is. Esp. when book learned people drop big words like Law of Capital (T). The only way to compare them would be on cost of fuel, here a kg of Hydrogen from NG costs ~ $3.50 and gives about 75 miles per kg in a SUV type vehicle due to superior efficiency of the powerplant/drive system. So much for Law of capital (T).

BTW the universe to can be seen as a machine and is 100% efficient always. Not only is it 100% efficient it is 100% accurate as well. So there are such non-human systems possible.

Theo ji,

I am a big fan of your back of the envelope calculations. I mean seriously ..I also take inspiration from your passion on this debate and your have figured out most common pitfalls.

I also like your emphasis on solar and wind in the mix as they connect very well with the basic lifestyle/thinking/nature of desis…I consider this approach is totally dharmic. My concerns are on the scale at which those can be exploited.

That said, can you pl work on some back of the envelope for H and see if it really make sense?

I point you to this (as this is not my area of subject and obviously am learning from you all gurus. it is bit dated and not sure if science went past 2nd law): The Myth of the Hydrogen Economy

All free hydrogen generated today is derived from natural gas. So right off the bat we have not managed to escape our dependency on nonrenewable hydrocarbons. This feedstock is steam-treated to strip the hydrogen from the methane molecules. And the steam is produced by boiling water with natural gas. Overall, there is about a 60% energy loss in this process. And, as it is dependent on the availability of natural gas, the price of hydrogen generated in this method will always be a multiple of the price of natural gas.

Ah, but there is an inexhaustible supply of water from which we could derive our hydrogen. However, splitting hydrogen from water requires an even higher energy investment per unit of water (286kJ per mole). All processes of splitting water molecules, including foremost electrolysis and thermal decomposition, require major energy investments, rendering them unprofitable.

Hydrogen advocates like to point out that the development of solar cells or wind farms would provide renewable energy that could be used to derive hydrogen. The energy required to produce 1 billion kWh (kilowatt hours) of hydrogen is 1.3 billion kWh of electricity. Even with recent advances in photovoltaic technology, the solar cell arrays would be enormous, and would have to be placed in areas with adequate sunlight.

We must also consider the water from which we derive this hydrogen. To meet our present transportation needs, we would have to divert 5% of the flow of the Mississippi River. This would require yet more energy, further reducing the profits of hydrogen. This water would then have to be delivered to a photovoltaic array the size of the Great Plains. So much for agriculture.

The only way that hydrogen production even approaches practicality is through the use of nuclear plants. To generate the amount of energy used presently by the United States, we would require an additional 900 nuclear reactors, at a cost of roughly $1 billion per reactor. Currently, there are only 440 nuclear reactors operating worldwide. Unless we perfect fast breeder reactors very quickly, we will have a shortage of uranium long before we have finished our reactor building program.

Even hydrogen fuel derived from nuclear power would be expensive. To fill a car up with enough hydrogen to be equivalent to a 15 gallon gas tank could cost as much as $400. If the hydrogen was in gaseous form, this tank would have to be big enough to accommodate 178,500 liters. Compressed hydrogen would reduce the storage tank to one tenth of this size. And liquefied hydrogen would require a fuel tank of only four times the size of a gasoline tank. In other words, a 15 gallon tank of gasoline would be equivalent to a 60 gallon tank of hydrogen. And, oh yes, to transport an equivalent energy amount of hydrogen to the fueling station would require 21 times more trucks than for gasoline.

Compressed and liquefied hydrogen present problems of their own. Both techniques require energy and so further reduce the net energy ratio of the hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen is cold enough to freeze air, leading to problems with pressure build-ups due to clogged valves. Both forms of hydrogen storage are prone to leaks. In fact, all forms of pure hydrogen are difficult to store.

Hydrogen is the smallest element and, as such, it can leak from any container, no matter how well sealed it is. Hydrogen in storage will evaporate at a rate of at least 1.7% per day. We will not be able to store hydrogen vehicles in buildings. Nor can we allow them to sit in the sun. And as hydrogen passes through metal, it causes a chemical reaction that makes the metal brittle. Leaking hydrogen could also have an adverse effect on both global warming and the ozone layer.

Free hydrogen is extremely reactive. It is ten times more flammable than gasoline, and twenty times more explosive. And the flame of a hydrogen fire is invisible. This makes it very dangerous to work with, particularly in fueling stations and transportation vehicles. Traffic accidents would have a tendency to be catastrophic. And there is the possibility that aging vehicles could explode even without a collision.

On top of this, we must consider the terrific expense of converting from gasoline to hydrogen. The infrastructure would have to be built virtually from scratch, at a cost of billions. Our oil and natural gas based infrastructure evolved over the course of the past century, but this transition must be pulled off in twenty years or less.

Automobile engineers and others within the industry do not believe we will ever have a hydrogen economy. Daimler-Chrysler has admitted as much. Rather than developing a hydrogen economy, it makes more sense—and will always make more sense—to buy a more efficient car, ride public transport, bicycle or walk.
.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 13 Apr 2012 23:51

Satya_anveshi wrote: but a carrier of energy.

If Unkil .......... owe it to the world for messing the planet so big.

Well I think that's possible. If you read what I wrote about Hydrogen i.e. as a Storage Solution.
In any case if you get Hydrogen you can use it as fuel for generating electricity.

I understand there is a big debate on Hydrogen Economy in Unkil but to my surprise it is not being discussed as a possible contenders for clean source of energy by pretending sidekicks in massaland who profess to solve India's Energy needs. I think DHMO is also CO2 free. And it could provide clean drinking water as well.

In TN Wind mills are asked to go offline due to many factors even when they could generate power. If one can produce hydrogen from this wasted power and use it later when needed, it could solve some critical issues. Batteries are too expensive and polluting ( esp Pb) to serve as a storage. This is a solution like Pumped storage.

For information, in Purulia a project on Pumped storage system is under consideration. USA and Canada seems to have such systems.

Incidently while we are still at Efficiency and conservation of energy and electricity , I am informed that USA is most inefficient user of energy and electricity despite the fact that it instituted Energy Star programme long back.

However, nobody seems interested in data from Indian sources indicating patter of usage of power in India. May be it might not support their conclusions err presumptions.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 14 Apr 2012 00:03

gakakkad wrote:Assuming hydrogen is obtained through electrolysis , the energy spent at obtaining hydrogen is exactly the same as energy generated by hydrogen burning.. So effectively you creating hydrogen applying a particular amount of energy and recovering the same amount by burning it.. So why not directly use the energy to run the car , rather than using it create hydrogen and running the car on hydrogen...Even in a hypothetical 100% efficient system , there would be a zero gain of energy. In practise some energy will be lost in electrolysis and some lost the fuel cell.. so there is a net loss of energy..

If free hydrogen was abundantly available , then fuel cell would have been the next big thing.. but that is not the case.. if it is to be obtained through electrolysis than it ll only be mainstream once we run out of oil...or cost of obtaining free hydrogen become less than cost of drilling and refining crude oil... for that to happen you need cheap electricity ... since your aim of using hydrogen is to replace fossil fuel , you cannot use electricity generated from fossil fuel to obtain hydrogen.. You need to use renewable ..or you need to use ..nukular... so even in a hydrogen economy nuclear plays a central role.

Yes. but I was told to watch out for Hydrogen argument as they may be either Renewable Lobby or Nuclear Lobby in disguise. Looks like Hydrogen economy is dependent on other form of energy.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 14 Apr 2012 02:29

Gakakkad,

You are needlessly getting confused between the electricity, total energy and the liquid fuels challenges. These are (3) separate yet related things.

The Hydrogen cycle is a potential solution to the liquid fuels challenge. It does not say anything about electricity. The liquid fuels problem is the most devastating problem the west faces WRT its lifestyle. The liquid fuels challenge problem is one of energy storage. When you put 50-60 liters of petrol into your car you are loading it up with ~ to 1 MWhr of energy. Think about it this way, 1 ton of TNT contains roughly 1 MWhr of energy so your 60 liters of petrol contains as much energy as one ton of TNT. Of course the reaction pathways are different as TNT can release its energy more instantaneously. Next time you are stuck in a traffic jam with ~ Petrol vehicles around you are surrounded by 1000 tons of TNT worth of energy.

This is what is it takes to move your car around. There is nothing else like it in the world in terms of density and convenience. In 5 minutes you can fill your car with as much energy as 1 ton of TNT has or 1 MWHR. A 1000 MWhr nuclear power plant would only fill 1000 cars an hour at perfect conversion. Your local QuikTrip probably does considerably better. Despite improvement Battery technology and Vehicles does not come even close. First they need 8 hours of charging and even then they can only go 50 kms or so. That is because electricity doe not like being concentrated. After 8 hours of charging we only get about 10 KWhr worth into a modern electric car while we can get 1000 KWhr worth into a liquid fuel car (Petrol/Hydrogen/Ethanol) in 5 minutes.

Like I said Hydrogen is the convenience fuel the west has cottoned to, along with Ethanol and CNG. Hydrogen & Ethanol can be potentially renewable and hence is pushed strongly. If we could use electricity with the convenience of Petrol we would.

I personally am not thrilled about Hydrogen because it does nothing about wasteful release of Oxygen from electrolysis.
------------------------------------------

That said let us do a quick analysis of what a best case petrol combustive sequence efficiency for Hydrogen can be. I'm choosing Petrol because it is the ICE that the Hydrogen cycle is being compared to.

On a Brayton cycle turbine, already used for CCG power plants, efficiency approaches 55%, but I'll use 50% after generator losses. So 50% of the energy in Gasoline is converted to Electricity. So 60 liters of petrol is = 60x12kwhrx.5 = 360 kwhr. A modern electrolysis machine requires roughly 70 kwhr @ 95% efficiency to produce 1 kg of Hydrogen. The remaining 7 kg's of oxygen are thrown away. So the yield is 360x.95/70= 4.88 kg of hydrogen. A modern fuel cell car gets 75 Mile per kg so 4.88x75 = 366 Milles. This works out to 366/60 ~ 6 miles per liter of petrol ~ 9.6 km per liter or ~ 22 miles per gallon so about the same mileage as conventional ICE.

Now if we do the math WRT electricity. The 60 liters of petrol ~ 1 MWhr of electricity. And costs about $120 per MWhr after taxes. Similar to cost of the petrol. So we convert the 1 MWhr to Hydrogen at 1000x.95/70 = 13.57 kg of Hydrogen. 13.57x75 = 1017.5 Miles. So we get 3 times the miles for equivalent investment.

As always it is a choice. Of course fuel cells are super dooper expensive so....

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 14 Apr 2012 08:34

Recent statistics of 2011 from IAEA was a little surprising to me. Even after virtually all NPP's being shutdown in Japan and Germany.. total nuclear power generated, world wide, was only about 4% lower in 2011 than 2010 figure (2518 TWh, vs 2630 TWh)

Here is historic graph for reference:

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 14 Apr 2012 11:01

I wonder how much energy is spent per unit mass in extracting crude oil from earth and then refining it to a petroleum product that is used in automobiles and compare the same with the energy that can be obtained from it (that is, from the refinded petroleum product) through combustion in an automobile as the input to the thermodynamic cycle.

I suspect that while the energy requirement (expressed in terms of say, energy spent per kg) for making a Nat U fuel rod would be greater than for a similar parameter applicable to automotive petrol, the obtainable thermal energy in a PHWR from a kg of Nat U fuel rod (even at a low burn-up of about 7000 MWd per tonne of U, that is, no reprocessing and recycling assumed) would be greater than the thermal energy obtained through combustion in an automobile from a kg of petrol {in both cases, consideration of thermodynamic cycle efficiency is thereby avoided}. So, I believe, the ratio would be favourable for Nat U.

And of late, use of nuclear energy is being proposed (particularly by Canada) for extraction of oil from sand! (Link 1, Link 2)

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 14 Apr 2012 13:27

Nuclear energy can be used only when it is converted as electricity

Nuclear propulsion is already a reality. In Nuclear marine propulsion, both steam-turbine as well as turbo-electric propulsions are already in use.

I think Nuclear (steam trubine) propelled heavy railroad transport (goods train) used to be a hot topic some time ago. At that stage of nuclear technology development, reduction in effective pay-load due to the large weight of shielding required around the nuclear reactor, plus the likely consequences of an accident, retarded development of this technology. With modern highly compact nuclear reactors this idea may be reborn again. On the flip side, highly compact nuclear reactors are likely to have a greater damage potential in the event of an accident, as a result of greater energy content per unit volume in the core. This issue still needs to be overcome through development of damage-proof nuclear reactor core designs.

If I may do a little bit of star gazing, I think the day when underground, contained, silo-based nuclear explosions are used to place space craft out of earth's atmosphere, on their way towards inter-planetary travel (or to launch ballistic missiles) may not be very far off!! Fission-boosted - Fusion-boosted - Fission-boosted rocket /missile launch!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Apr 2012 18:54

gakakkad wrote: unkil jee , you stated something which resembles a corollary of the 1st laa of thermodynamics .. energy can be converted from one form to another...But I am interested in knowing the context you quoted..

That just considering electricity demand while looking at future projections is not valid. A full energy use picture should be considered.