India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

[Amber G.]

Thanks Amber G ji for your links and posts on H viability.

You are welcome. Thanks to you because you took time to give thanks in all this noise and I found it refreshing to see a positive feedback.

[negi]

Negi ji,
< snip>
.

Dada point taken .

[amit]

Negi ji,
< snip>
.

Dada point taken .

At the end of the day, Negi Saar, we play for the same team: India.

[amit]

The basic fact that the verbose obfuscation still can not hide, and all the verbal diaherro was let loose by the takleef or irritation caused by the data point Sanantanan Sir said.

The "no nuclear fuel OMG OMG" canard is now dead.

Yet another "false reason" for 123 stands nailed. Crossly.

Verbal diaherro is very apt coinage.

I think this brouhaha about all of India's uranium shortage gone with the opening of Tummalapalle needs to be re-examined. See the link once more.

Yes Dr Banerjee did say that the reserves could be the biggest in the world. Yet the same report mentions it's low grade uranium at 0.2 per cent concentration. More importantly it says that once it is fully operational it could meet only 25 per cent uranium requirements of nuclear power plants in the country. Assuming we stop importing uranium we'd need a lot of diaherro to fill up the 75 per cent.

The Hindu report has more details.

Dr Banerjee said this as per Hindu:

Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, and Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Srikumar Banerjee said: “Studies have already shown that the area had a confirmed reserve of 49,000 tonnes and recent surveys indicated that this figure could go up even three folds.”

However, Dr Banerjee also said this as per Hindu:

Terming the new findings a major development, Dr. Banerjee, however, pointed out that the indigenous reserves would still not be sufficient to meet the entire demand of the country's nuclear programme. “The new findings would only augment the indigenous supply of uranium. There would still be a significant gap. We would still have to import.”

And addressing the specific point raised by Santhanam ji, he says this:

Dr. Banerjee sought to allay any misapprehension that the government was keener on importing nuclear technology than promoting indigenously developed technology and said the Centre was seeking to import nuclear technology only to ensure faster development of nuclear power. He asserted that setting up of plants based on indigenous and imported technologies would proceed alongside.

“Nuclear power is absolutely essential to meet the growing energy needs of the country. If the economy has to grow by 9 per cent per annum, we need a 10 per cent growth in electricity production. We cannot do without nuclear power.”

Of course one can question Dr Banerjee patriotism and commitment to India. After all in comparison to Homi Bhabha he's a mere pipsqueak.

I can understand Sanku ji going hyper after reading this piece of news, it's par for the course. What I can't understand is how Santhanam ji could base his impassioned plea to scrap the deal based on one report which says Tummalapalle could have the largest uranium deposits (I'm sure he understands the difference between tonnage of deposits and extractable yellow cake for use in power plants.). I would certainly welcome any clarification from him. Even though I do not agree with him in this area, I look forward to reading his POV.

[amit]

Amit,

You are kidding yourself by trying to take on Coal. Essentially waving a ‘thundu beedi’ at the true 800lb Gorilla in the room. A gorilla that eats the nuclear industries lunch and essentially sustains the entire Indian economy. You don’t make fun of a industry that does so much for the nation by backing an industry that provides so little power.

Theo,

I'm sorry to say this but the tone and tenor of your whole post shows that you've become too emotionally invested in this topic to understand the nuances of what other posters are trying to say.

I know coal is going to be the major fuel on which the Indian economy will run for the foreseeable future. My objection is to the idea being propagated here that just because nuclear is small it need not be considered and we can ignore it for renewables. I'm afraid that's not possible. Nuclear is just as much needed in the energy mix as renewables. It's pretty simple if you cut the chase and try to understand.

[amit]

Amit CCS and CCT are two different things.

Thank God you pointed it out. I may have walked the Earth without knowing such a simple thing!

This is what Policy prepared by GOI ( whom you eulogise along with Amber but don't bother to read

I see that you can't seem to get over you habit of slipping in a personal attack in your posts in the hope that nobody would notice. However, in the interests of S/N ratio of this thread I'll ignore it.

I find it very interesting that you lay a lot of store with concepts about more efficient coal power plants with super critical boilers. (I also note with satisfaction that you have laid to rest the great theory behind carbon capture and sequestering). All that is well and dandy but you seem to have big problems with the idea that latest generation nuclear power plants are much more safer and can produce high base load generation of 1000 MW and above at costs comparable to the best coal and gas power plants in the world. I wonder why.

Like I wrote in my previous post addressed to Theo, I know coal and gas will be around for the foreseeable future and more efficient and less polluting technologies are always welcome. However, at the same time I know even with the best possible technologies, coal power plants will always be gazillion polluters when compared to modern nuclear power plants. I've previously pointed to research which shows this holds true even if we take lifecycle costs and not just generation.

You've made this point about DSM and energy efficient solutions like LED lights for streets and buildings etc. I fully agree with you and I think power savings of up to 20 per cent can be done this way. However, I fail to see how that has anything to do with nuclear power generation. If you consider a hypothetical situation where the only available source is nuclear power, it would still be desirable to get 20 per cent savings through DSM, na?

Again I must stress IMO, India needs to pursue all available sources of power generation in order to maintain a 9 per cent + power generation. We cannot afford to ignore nuclear just because we consider it too small a percentage. Read what Dr Banerjee (I request you to do so even though you think the 123 deal fashioned by him and his colleagues is a "scam") said a couple of post above this one. I agree 400 per cent with his assessment.

[chaanakya]

Amit CCS and CCT are two different things.

Thank God you pointed it out. I may have walked the Earth without knowing such a simple thing!

Almost all your posts mentioning CCS indicates you confusion. Hence the need to Clarify.

[amit]

^^^^

Aha I can see the great konphusion.

Perhaps you didn't realise I was all along actually talking about CCS and not about CCT because I don't think the latter is Sci Fi technology? I have a partiality for Sci-Fi which is why I'm very sad I couldn't convince Sanku ji about the immense possibility of solving our energy problem by putting in orbit a giant solar panel at the Lagrange Point. That would be even better solution than "carbon-free coal" for power generation.

[chaanakya]

I see that you can't seem to get over you habit of slipping in a personal attack in your posts in the hope that nobody would notice. However, in the interests of S/N ratio of this thread I'll ignore it.

I find it very interesting that you lay a lot of store with concepts about more efficient coal power plants with super critical boilers. (I also note with satisfaction that you have laid to rest the great theory behind carbon capture and sequestering). All that is well and dandy but you seem to have big problems with the idea that latest generation nuclear power plants are much more safer and can produce high base load generation of 1000 MW and above at costs comparable to the best coal and gas power plants in the world. I wonder why.

Like I wrote in my previous post addressed to Theo, I know coal and gas will be around for the foreseeable future and more efficient and less polluting technologies are always welcome. (Glad that you agree) However, at the same time I know even with the best possible technologies, coal power plants will always be gazillion polluters when compared to modern nuclear power plants. I've previously pointed to research which shows this holds true even if we take lifecycle costs and not just generation.(I doubt this very much.)

You've made this point about DSM and energy efficient solutions like LED lights for streets and buildings etc. I fully agree with you and I think power savings of up to 20 per cent can be done this way. However, I fail to see how that has anything to do with nuclear power generation. If you consider a hypothetical situation where the only available source is nuclear power, it would still be desirable to get 20 per cent savings through DSM, na? (Very true, the problem is if we do it now , we don't have gap to meet by NE))

Again I must stress IMO, India needs to pursue all available sources of power generation in order to maintain a 9 per cent + power generation. ( with that growth target India has fixed 6-10% by 2050, do you agree with what GOI thinks possible even after import of LWR)We cannot afford to ignore nuclear just because we consider it too small a percentage. ( do you think by stating GOI policy of 6-10% means ignoring NE?? But your CO2 argument I don't subscribe to at all in Indian context. And I also think NE should be at best marginal unless we have indegenous tech for complete tech inclusing repro and storage etc. Perhaps you and Amber would volunteer to store in your backyard. Yet to see informed consent from Locals)Read what Dr Banerjee (I request you to do so even though you think the 123 deal fashioned by him and his colleagues is a "scam") said a couple of post above this one. I agree 400 per cent with his assessment.

Probably that is your wishlist. You may want 100% NE but have to contend with 6-10%. I do have issues with Safety and variety of other issues as already raised in this forum. Energy Independence does not lie is NE unless we have our own Closed Cycle notwithstanding safety issues etc.

[chaanakya]

^^^^

Aha I can see the great konphusion.

Perhaps you didn't realise I was all along actually talking about CCS and not about CCT because I don't think the latter is Sci Fi technology? I have a partiality for Sci-Fi which is why I'm very sad I couldn't convince Sanku ji about the immense possibility of solving our energy problem by putting in orbit a giant solar panel at the Lagrange Point. That would be even better solution than "carbon-free coal" for power generation.

Well in the context of power I am always talking about CCT. but in the context of CCT talk of CCS is nothing but red herring just like pollution free NE.

[amit]

Energy Independence does not lie is NE unless we have our own Closed Cycle notwithstanding safety issues etc.

I'm ignoring the rest of your post as useless banter and scaremongering. I consider the whole of India my backyard so I'd be free to store used U right in front of your house.

However, can you explain how importing LWRs and fuel for purely commercial electricity generation and ramp up N-power prevents us from running a parallel program to iron out the technical problems to get to our thorium nirvana? Every single GoI official from Dr Banerjee (a few posts above) downwards and erstwhile folks like Kakodkar have indicated that 123 and LWRs are meant to speed up commercial power generation and solve Uraninum supply constraints to ensure 10 per cent per annum growth in power generation. Meanwhile the thorium cycle would be pursued in parallel and without any constraints.

A few years down the road from the deal that's exactly what's happening. As Gerard has earlier pointed out, according to doomsday predictions when the deal was signed, by now IAEA inspectors with magnifying glasses were supposed to be all over our nuclear programme, has that happened or is there any chance of happening?

I'm afraid you're just indulging in useless fear mongering.

[amit]

but in the context of CCT talk of CCT is nothing but red herring just like pollution free NE.

Now you really sound konphused.

BTW talk is cheap. Can you show any studies which show that CCT is comparable in pollution terms with NE (the real red herring is slipping in the term pollution-free in front of NE, I did not say pollution free just less polluting)? If not I'll stick to my point that even with CCT in terms of pollution coal is a dirty polluter when compared to nuclear. Nuclear is the cleanest form of cheap base load generation at the present level of technology (in all forms of generation).

[amit]

X-posting from the International dhaga because the debate here is also coal vs nuclear:


More on the rosy future of coal in nuclear-free Germany.

Coal's future suddenly looks brighter in Germany

The public debate over an accelerated phase-out of Germany's nuclear energy program has pushed the nation's domestic coal industry back into the spotlight. Nuclear energy provides over 23 percent of Germany's electricity, and if nuclear plants go offline soon, renewable energy sources are not going to be able to completely cover the shortfall.{this is something I've been saying all along and, till recently, this POV was ridiculed. Sigh!}

"In the short run, we cannot do without conventional energy generation," said Franz-Josef Wodopia, managing director of the German Hard Coal Association (GVSt). "Both in terms of the power supply itself as well as far as its role in stabilizing the power grid."

He said coal will now have to play the "bridge function" that nuclear technology was once meant to as the country transitions to renewable energies.

A few years ago, Wodopia said, imported coal in the harbors of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp cost 40 euros per ton. "Now we pay over 100 per ton," he added. "A lot has happened."

In addition, Germany is rich in coal types that are much desired on the world market, that Wodopia says could be competitively mined even today. Private investors have already shown interest in a deposit of more than 100 million tons of coking coal located near the city of Hamm in North Rhine-Westphalia. High-quality coking coal is in high demand among steel manufacturers and is not often found in such large quantities.

So while there is light at the end of the tunnel for the German coal industry, much remains to be done, especially in the area of emissions and the modernization of coal-fired power plants.

Beginning in 2013, emissions trading schemes are set to get tougher and any return to coal will have to take environmental concerns into account.

The last part in bold nicely links up with the next piece of news:

Germany to fund new coal plants with climate change cash

The German government wants to encourage the construction of new coal and gas power plants with millions of euros from a fund for promoting clean energy and combating climate change.

Finally a follow up to a report I linked here a few days earlier:

Germany Building 17 New Coal, 29 New Gas-Fired Power Stations

It’s a real paradox: As a result of Germany’s green energy transition, nuclear power is on its way out, but coal, Germany’s dirtiest resource, has become the most important energy source again. Brown coal (lignite) in experiencing a renaissance in Germany. Last year, about a quarter of the electricity generated used this most environmentally adverse resource. Its consumption grew by 3.3 percent. This has made lignite the number one energy supplier. The Government’s planned energy transition was supposed to, among other things, produce environmentally friendly electricity. It turns out, however, that the power gap, which was created by the shutdown of eight nuclear power stations, will be largely filled by brown coal.

Until recently we thought that conventional gas was going to run out and the most plentiful supplies of the stuff were in Russia or the Gulf. Now that we realise the rocks under our feet may hold supplies that would last for generations, the world has changed and the greens haven’t caught up. I detect something else behind the “shale rage” of the European greens. They got too close to the present renewables industries and let governments hand out subsidies without enough competition over price. They thought gas would get so expensive that renewables would look cheap by comparison. They were wrong. Instead of getting angry with the frackers, they should adapt their thinking to a world in which gas prices could fall, and persuade governments to spend some of the money we will save on a generation of renewables that might actually solve our problems.

The EU member states’ energy ministers remain opposed to binding energy efficiency targets and a freeze on CO2 emissions allowances. The debate at an informal Energy Council, on 19 April in Horsens, Denmark, gave them the opportunity to confirm their positions on this issue. Without going back over all the different points of the directive, the ministers reiterated their total opposition to the inclusion of binding targets in the text, as demanded by Parliament. They could nevertheless agree to an indicative target of 1.5% energy savings, to be achieved gradually by 2020.

[chaanakya]

I'm ignoring the rest of your post as useless banter and scaremongering. I consider the whole of India my backyard so I'd be free to store used U right in front of your house.

However, can you explain how importing LWRs and fuel for purely commercial electricity generation and ramp up N-power prevents us from running a parallel program to iron out the technical problems to get to our thorium nirvana? Every single GoI official from Dr Banerjee (a few posts above) downwards and erstwhile folks like Kakodkar have indicated that 123 and LWRs are meant to speed up commercial power generation and solve Uraninum supply constraints to ensure 10 per cent per annum growth in power generation. Meanwhile the thorium cycle would be pursued in parallel and without any constraints.

A few years down the road from the deal that's exactly what's happening. As Gerard has earlier pointed out, according to doomsday predictions when the deal was signed, by now IAEA inspectors with magnifying glasses were supposed to be all over our nuclear programme, has that happened or is there any chance of happening?

I'm afraid you're just indulging in useless fear mongering.

Well it is your widle dream and even DAE officials don't indulge in such fantacies. LWR import is just to see that DAE target of less than 10% is somehow met and nothing more than that. They also think that they might be able to absorb the LWR technology. But then you talk hot air and nothing beyong that.

IAEA inspectors point is brought as a diversion tactic by you while discussion is on NE in energy mix. Better to discuss in appropriate Dhaaga. That point is not made me so address to those who made it.

[chaanakya]

Now you really sound konphused.

BTW talk is cheap. Can you show any studies which show that CCT is comparable in pollution terms with NE (the real red herring is slipping in the term pollution-free in front of NE, I did not say pollution free just less polluting)? If not I'll stick to my point that even with CCT in terms of pollution coal is a dirty polluter when compared to nuclear. Nuclear is the cleanest form of cheap base load generation at the present level of technology (in all forms of generation).

Who better than you to know what is cheapness. BTW if you have 60% power from Coal then talk of CCT is neither cheap nor useless. CCS is certainly useless in Indian context just as your CO2 argument. Green in disguise, are you?

[amit]

^^^^
Ah I see tons of rhetoric and zero substance. I'm not going to dignify your posts with a response.

[Theo_Fidel]

Amit,

Letting your personal attacks slide....

I don't think anyone here is mandating that Nuclear not be part of the mix. I don't recall a single person demanding even KKNPP be shut down on this board. These are paranoid thinking amongst the nuclear jihadi crowd. And quite revealing in its own way...

What the nuclear sellout crowd wants is for India to fork over $150 Billion public money pronto, no questions asked. MMS appears to be weak enough to go along with this financial foolery. It is easy for him, it is not his money or land or risk capital. What are a few million poor fishermen anyway. Discussions or protests are dealt with summarily. You can see that even here with the organized lobby trying to get members banned and shut down the conversation any which way possible. All of these things are part of a whole. I hesitate to use such terms but it is a limited fascist approach to nuclear power. You are unable to get the people on board so you bulldoze them. A couple of dilli tea/bisqut sessions with 'planners' decide which village to evict for the foreign supplier.

The claim then is that coal can be displaced, the planet saved, nuclear plants have the foot print of a postage stamp, power is too cheap, 4000gwh, walk-away safe, ocean has billions of tons of U-235, radiation good for you only, Banana, Banana, Banana, No deaths from radiation, blah, blah, blah.

When we point out that the track record is quite dismal, Such claims have been made for 80year+ and there are issues and true howlers with every one of those claims, the discussion immediately shifts to nuclear potential. Look at the potential. Oh! My! God! Loooook at the potential.

Head scratching moment.....

Nuclear should stand on its performance record. The West has decided they have had enough. So now tech dumping is going on. If we go by potential alone then Coal has its 'potential' CCS or CCT options as well, No!!

[vina]

The claim then is that coal can be displaced, ....

When we point out that the track record is quite dismal,.....
Head scratching moment.....

Nuclear should stand on its performance record...

Fair points. Firstly, displacing coal is a very long drawn process and will happen over the next 100 years. It is not going to happen in 25 to 30 years from now. For that to happen ,avg price of fossil fuels have to rise (due to declining supply.. rate at which Panda is consuming is simply unsustainable to replicate and it will run out) , oil has already risen , coal is rising, so that alternates like Nuke and Renewables become economically viable.

Track Record .. Two things here.

1) Energy prices until after 2002 were at a record low after the oil shock in the mid 70s. During Bill Clinton's term (2nd one I think), oil at one point went to less than $18 a barrel! That was one of the key reasons why the US boomed (in addition to other things of course), but the Kool Aid that was passed around was that the US was no longer dependent so much on oil prices as in the 70s/80s and was largely insulated. Yeah, true, but only partly! One of the key drags on current growth is high commodity prices! With energy prices at such lows and pollution basically @ zero cost (emissions are not charged, you can pollute the atmosphere/dump CO2 as much as you want), Nuke and indeed any other altnerate was simply unviable. It is only when prices rose above $60 to $70 a barrel and stayed there, people started talking about it again

2) For a long time, for close to 40 years since 60s due to low energy prices and also , lets face it, the Gen 1 nuke plants were/are crude rudimentary plants that was at the beginning of the learning curve . There was no improvement and R&d and nukes were basically comatose, nearly dead. Now with the accumulated experience , just like any engineering initiative, and investment in R&D, nukes will start exponentially increasing in reliability and up time and all stuff ...just like probably automobiles did from 1896 carl benz to what it is today.

Performance Record ..
Fair enough. But then the same should apply to renewables as well. Here except for Hydel, a track record hardly exists and if oil falls below $60 per barrel or so (quite possible), it is unviable! That feature is common with Nuke. The only saviour here is Panda's wasteful and voracious slash and burnn of fossil fuel.

That said, I do think the track record,performance record and SAFETY record of the next Gen nukes will be far better the earlier Gen1 types because of engineering improvements and learning curve.

[ShauryaT]

Gas will be the new coal. Do not understand this fetish for Nuclear. Economics, regulations and perceived level of difficulty will dominate the decisions. India is surplus in Gas. Our neighborhood both east and west is rich in these deposits. I have not even included shale in this picture yet.

If it were upto me, I would ask DAE to simply produce weapons first and continue their research on thorium. We will easily get our next 100 GW from Gas, until these babus at DAE can deliver an economically viable thorium based power. Till then, good bye nuclear.

[chaanakya]

Gas will be the new coal. .

Surething. N.Gas will be major source for Power replacing coal to some extent. If it is 20% as planned , mostly it would be at the expence of Coal. That is after using gas for Fertilisers and other products. To reteirate earlier post

to base the demand estimate on: (i) the assumption that 20% of power would be generated using gas by 2031-32; (ii) the projected fertiliser (urea) capacity by 2031-32 would be all gas based; and (iii) remaining end uses of gas will continue to grow at 7% or 8% per annum depending upon GDP growth. This committee considered this a realistic upper hand on the use of gas.

And for Nuclear

Though nuclear energy can make only a modest contribution over the next 25 years, longer term consideration of even a modest degree of energy self-sufficiency suggests the need to pursue the development of nuclear power using Thorium.
Despite the many delays and disappointments in achieving set targets of nuclear energy development in the past, this is an
option we cannot afford not to pursue. Today the PHWR is economically competitive with coal-based plants.

I think that is what you are also saying.

[krisna]

intercative nuclear map

Interesting in this map is when you check out Indian reactors (at least to me as a common aam junta type)-

1) India has only 1 boiling reactor type and 19 others type of reactors.
2) Only russia has this others reactors- none in france japan or usa.


3) uranium consumption--India does not come in top 10 at all despite being the highest in other reactor types.
usa, russia, china france japan and uk are way ahead of India.


Pressurised reactors-
world--269
India-0

Boiling reactors-
world--81
India-01 built at Tarapur with uncle assistance.

others (PHWR/VVER etc)
world--81
India--19.

Somewhat better understanding of why India has pwhr type reactors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%27s_ ... _programme

A Stage III reactor or an Advanced nuclear power system involves a self-sustaining series of thorium-232-uranium-233 fuelled reactors. This would be a thermal breeder reactor, which in principle can be refueled - after its initial fuel charge - using only naturally occurring thorium. According to the three stage programme, Indian nuclear energy could grow to about 10 GW through PHWRs fueled by domestic uranium, and the growth above that would have to come from FBRs till about 50GW. The third stage is to be deployed only after this capacity has been achieved. According to replies given in Q&A in the Indian Parliament on two separate occasions, 19 August 2010 and 21 March 2012, large scale thorium deployment is only to be expected “3 - 4 decades after the commercial operation of fast breeder reactors with short doubling time”. Full exploitation of India’s domestic thorium reserves will likely not occur until after the year 2050.

All the plans in India wrt noo clear energy is as per Dr Bhabha's plan of 3 stage cycle involving thorium.
with all the noo clear protests etc it will have an impact on it. Some foreign anal-ysts also want the 3 stage thorium cycle capped.
At least from what info I can collect , only India seems to be actively pursuing this type of noo clear energy.

[Amber G.]

At least from what info I can collect , only India seems to be actively pursuing this type of noo clear energy.

If you mean Thorium as a nuclear fuel, a few other countries are also looking into it (less interest than India) UK even has an advocacy group (thorium Weinberg foundation).. among others.. there is a start-up company in Virginia, USA which is developing the Radkowsky Thorium Reactor in collaboration with Russians ... per reports Areva (French) is working with this company assessing the use of thorium EPR reactors in Finland and France. Then in Qinshan, China (Chinese + Canadians ?) may have thorium based fuel.

( USA, Canada, Germany, India, UK all have used thorium as a fuel in experimental/research reactors in past)

(An anecdote - in late 60's/early 70's when I was a young graduate student , I had a conversation with one quite knowledgeable Indian physicist about why we don't build Thorium reactors, his answer was, you ( us /India) have to do all the technology/design/research because none existed at that time and no one else will do it. USA simply did not need it (had plenty of U and plenty of working nuclear reactors based on U).. relatively speaking, only India had/has lot of thorium ) In nutshell USA has very little incentive to develop new technology when it can get cheap U for its existing power reactors.

[Amber G.]

Slightly OT but speaking of Thorium .. xpost from physics dhaga .. most accurate thorium watch...

PRL (most respected journal in physics - Physical Review letters) is going to have an article about very accurate "nuclear" clock (100x precise than current atomic clocks) using Thorium nucleus...

Here is a link from Phys.org
Researchers develop blueprint for nuclear clock accurate over billions of years

A clock accurate to within a tenth of a second over 14 billion years – the age of the universe – is the goal of research being reported this week by scientists from three different institutions. To be published in the journal Physical Review Letters, the research provides the blueprint for a nuclear clock that would get its extreme accuracy from the nucleus of a single thorium ion.

<snip>

[Theo_Fidel]

2) For a long time, for close to 40 years since 60s due to low energy prices and also , lets face it, the Gen 1 nuke plants were/are crude rudimentary plants that was at the beginning of the learning curve . There was no improvement and R&d and nukes were basically comatose, nearly dead. Now with the accumulated experience , just like any engineering initiative, and investment in R&D, nukes will start exponentially increasing in reliability and up time and all stuff ...just like probably automobiles did from 1896 carl benz to what it is today.

Performance Record ..
Fair enough. But then the same should apply to renewables as well. Here except for Hydel, a track record hardly exists and if oil falls below $60 per barrel or so (quite possible), it is unviable! That feature is common with Nuke. The only saviour here is Panda's wasteful and voracious slash and burnn of fossil fuel.

That said, I do think the track record,performance record and SAFETY record of the next Gen nukes will be far better the earlier Gen1 types because of engineering improvements and learning curve.

BTW I think you are actually referring to Gen II reactors. All enriched U reactors are Gen II. The latest generation is Gen III. Like the VVER-1000 & AHWR. Gen-IV is fast reactors and other types still to be designed. While there is some system evolution the actual operations are so different that I don't think incremental iterative improvements apply.

Also, can I point out that you have succumbed to the same logic again. The past record is dismal yet somehow the future will be new, improved and TFTA. I don't see it that way at all. We have taken the same hard to control instability and slapped even more complex safety systems on it. Adding more complexity does not make a system safer. I think a comparison to automobiles is most unfortunate. We also had the Ford Pinto remember and the Paki Sitara. What happens to a failed nuke design that becomes obvious only later. There have been several doozy's amongst the nuke design pack. My pick has to be Windscale even if it was not a power reactor. Still really, what a horrifying design... Amongst the Gen III designs there is likely to be another doozy. And there is no real fixed understanding of the cost.

Still AFAIK the reliability and up time of Nuke power has never been questioned. Nuke plants have failed in all sorts of unplanned situations.

Your criticism of RE is quite fair. I would say that we have invested no money or effort on RE and system integration. The systems are raw because we have not prepared for them. Time to start is now.

[vishvak]

Gas will be the new coal. Do not understand this fetish for Nuclear.

My 2 cents. An example would be - in Mumbai, nuclear reactors play major role in providing electricity, to say, running trains etc however BEST buses do not consume such nuclear power.

The effect of trains in Mumbai is profound in that it carries a lot of load off other transport. Primarily though it is the most important long distance transport within BMC or greater BMC. For such mega city transport, nuclear power could be very important. However it may not be efficient for longer distance, say Mumbai to Pune etc depending upon location (of power source plant) which is usually outside growth of city, being nuclear.

[Amber G.]

Moderator note:

Let us bring this thread back on topic. Trolling has resulted in a warning issued and a 1 month ban for one member.

Thanks for the note. We all should work hard to keep this thread on topic.

I have to add the following.

With all due respect, in my opinion, it will be helpful if we get a little more clarity on what is considered "on topic" and what is considered "trolling" on this thread and possibly intervene/comment if people starts to wander off.

I say this because quite often, even a post containing a simple news item (see for example), with no comments, results into accusations of trolling and worse... while clear off-topic posts, if not personal attacks, (see opening para of this ) seems to be considered halal here. (Please do note, that the outburst was apparently because someone pointed out the ridiculous error, even in the basic units of energy, and the same error has been pointed out more than once before)

In my humble opinion, guruprabhu's query in the beginning of this thread (if the point of this dhaga is simply to find new gaalis for Indian scientists) needs to be answered by the brf admins and senior members here.


As it is, some valuable contributors have been driven away because of lack of such clarity and many find the environment too hostile to share perspective and information here.

There is a real danger that this forum may get reduce to posts containing only absurd calculations, ignorant posts, and wild conspiracy theories as more and more sane perspectives are driven away by actions (or willful non-actions) of the forum-leaders.

Thanks for listening. I think I am not alone in these views. Regards.

[harbans]

many find the environment too hostile to share perspective and information here.

Quite true..but i wouldn't hold all posters with an opposing POV guilty of that. I miss Somnath Ji's analysis on this and the Economy threads too. However you should take heart at what the polls on the Kundakulam poll show up..folks indeed are aware which side is more convincing in their analysis of these issues. Anyways good work from you Amitji, Kakkad ji should continue. Request you to not take unintended or even intended slights to heart. Views on both sides of the spectrum are indeed important to these discussions. I do feel at times without a massive opposition to the US-India nuke deal we wouldn't have got what we got.

[Amber G.]

Statements like below have been repeated many times
here

And yes there was a organized demand to ban anyone mentioning 'meltdown' at one point. Talk about Jihadism.
<Insults and absurd math omitted >

Let me just mention, one of the first (if not the first, based on data) mention of core meltdown regard to Fukushima came in this post of March 12, 2011

to answer ..

..
Thanks for your updates on the nuclear reactor related situation. From the looks of it there is no good news so far. Could any of you explain how and when the core will be cooled down enough to ensure that the containment vessel is not breached?

It depends on the half life, and amount of fission products, which are radioactive (how long the reactor was in operation before shutdown, and the reactor type etc..) for this one the time period is measured in days (or a week).. when the cooling is done with full power.

Another not so good news is that there is report of Cs radioactivity which, if true and if significant, is bad news.. (means there was a little melt down of the core..).

This was when the data was just coming in, later quite a few mention that term..without any hint of a jhihad to ban it.. Of course, I have used that term even before Fukushima.

****
BTW, For the jingos, if you want to sound like an expert - let me you in a small "secret". Though it is used informally, most technically knowledgeable people generally do not use the term 'meltdown' in isolation ... (more technically correct is 'meltdown of the core' or 'core meltdown' )..(IAEA or other standards sources make it a point to mention it, and the term meltdown, is not in its official glossary
(Added later: check out :http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publicatio ... 90_web.pdf
or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary.html#M

[Amber G.]

^^^^
.... solving our energy problem by putting in orbit a giant solar panel at the Lagrange Point.

Aren't L1,l2,L3 a little wobbly , while L4 and L5 are too far? Why not a Dyson sphere?

Seriously, you may know this but the following solar panels (1995, SOHO) shown below, do operate at the L1 Lagrange Point.
(No I am not making it up, check it out)


Added later: click on the link below:

[gakakkad]

The new AEC chief is Ratan Kumar Sinha .. Incidentally he is in charge of the Compact high temp. reactor that we have been discussing with reference to Hydrogen production..

News Item

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/n ... 91516.html

Brief resume'

http://www.iitk.ac.in/net/npe2008/CV_sinha.pdf

[gakakkad]

Kakodkar is a potential presidential candidate.. I am not sure he would accept the post , however..I hope he accepts it..

http://zeenews.india.com/news/goa/goa-w ... 72165.html

[Yogi_G]

Something tells me that the India - Sri Lanka submarine power line project will again get the Kudankulam treatment. We will become power surplus (Southern grid) by 2013 and thats when the project is to be completed and we may sell the excess power to SL. Expect that to be put down the Kudankulam way by citing "human rights record" of Sri Lanka.

[Amber G.]

Kakodkar is a potential presidential candidate.. I am not sure he would accept the post , however..I hope he accepts it..

http://zeenews.india.com/news/goa/goa-w ... 72165.html

Wrt to AK some tidbits..

-AK has been much maligned by some in BRF, being called Traitor, Liar, snake-oil-peddler, and , of course, MWWOW (Men Who Walks on Water - BTW, AK was quite amused to hear that acronym)

(OTOH, he is also admired and he is , for example, honored by Padma Vibhushan award too)

Any one who has met him, or knows him, is impressed by his unassuming and modest personality. ... He is very approachable considering all the classified information he has where he has to be careful what can be shared widely.

- It seems (:) ) some one did listen to my comparison of safety record of Indian nuclear program (which is known to have killed no one) vs Indian Railways, and per news report he heads Rail safety committee
(Of course his report on Railways does become a little controversial --
Eg : this )
- (Of course he was also a member of entities like INSAG ( International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group) too)

- This pro-nuclear dharm-yuddhi (more than once maligned for anti, anything_but_nuclear) is also asked to help solar power ...
Kakodkar to lead all Indian solar projects

He, of course, was the member of the team who fabricated the Pu core in 1974 with primitive machine tools...(most I know will not even go close to, or ready to work with Pu and in a workshop). (BTW the device in 1974 did go boom even though some in BRF endlessly criticized him for "worst possible design " of a core which was not spherically symmetric and had "singularities" and "discontinuities" ...

[negi]

Amber maharaj seriously the guy who you are alluding to has long stopped posting on BRF as for design being not symmetric and having 'singularities' and what not again I don't think anyone else made that claim here (I for one don't even understand such stuff); not sure what is that you are trying to achieve by making repeated references to an old episode .

Come to think of it I won't be surprised if it is your posts where one would find the term 'MWWOW' repeated more than anyone else's on BRF.

[Amber G.]

Negiji we may wish so, but to put it mildly, what you say, unfortunately is not true.
First, these type of posts were by quite a few people ( AK was called these and worst openly by quite a few people - Honestly I felt like I was a minority to think otherwise).. None of the statements have been retracted, absurd math, and base less insults to our scientists still continue by a few posters. ..one just has to look at our archives (even recent ones) to see that.

To blame me for "making repeated references to an old episode" is absolutely dishonest. The term 'MWWOW' is not coined by me, it is an acronym made famous (not by me) only after the term 'men who walks on water' has been repeated so many times (not by me) with regard to AK that it acquired the acronym.

To shoot the messenger, and blame and focus on me is not helpful.

Let us get back to topic. The fact remains that AK is in the news, he has been, and continues to be discussed in brf .
(Interesting to see, that from the whole post about AK, only thing you found to comment was to criticize me)
(Hopefully this is my last post needed to defend me )
Meanwhile it may be more helpful to discuss...
Anil Kakodkar to get 'Maharashtra Bhushan' award

[Amber G.]

Civil N-deal my proudest moment: Condoleezza Rice

[Gerard]

AK was called these and worst openly by quite a few people

Indeed. Quite a low moment for the forum. Folk who have never even seen a nuclear weapon or handled plutonium pretending to be expert in their design and criticizing AK.

[amit]

Since there seems to be a lull on the thread for the moment, please let me post an article I read recently. A bit dated but it gives a good sense of perspective.

Why we need nuclear power

I was once an anti-nuclear activist. I have researched this in detail.

One can only say a promising and refreshingly honest start to an op-ed piece!

First, coal, right now, puts 5 times the tonnage of raw uranium ore into the air than is mined each year worldwide. Think about where Marie Curie got her radium, uranium isn't the only radioactive in coal. (I can supply the calculations based on citation of coal ash extraction studies done for China.) We have been putting tons of uranium (including the highly radioactive fraction) into the air for hundreds of years.

Second, the hot spots in cities today are not nuclear power plants, but hospitals. If you want radioactives, that is where you are exposed to them. Three Mile Island was nothing compared to the radiation released every year by hospitals. But this is therapeutic use.

[^^ This one's for you Amber_G! Please take a bow! ]

Third, even after accidents of the worst kind of reactors, the impact is low.{This was written before Fukushima and do note that this has held even after the "second worst" nuclear accident. Says something doesn't it?} The number of deaths from Chernobyl is less than deaths by drowning each year in the USA. The major study that looked at it showed that there were more deaths attributed to forced relocation than to the accident. There is a lot of misinformation about the dangers of radioactivity. It isn't even true that as radiation levels rise cancers rise; although they do at higher levels, at lower levels it is not necessarily so. (This has been often repeated as a reason not to use nuclear power.) There was a poor scientist in Japan who studied this, and his career was basically destroyed by reaction when he showed that mortality rates actually went down in the areas around Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It actually makes sense. Think about cancer therapy using radiation.

Fourth, people think that solar power is some kind of panacea, but it's not. Solar panels take about 7 years to return the amount of energy used to make them, and their useful life is about 30 years. {This is something that's left very conveniently in the microscopic footnotes by solar champions} They have a huge environmental impact when installed in quantities large enough to matter. For example, there is a proposal to cover half the desert in the Southwest with solar panels. Ignoring that doing so would require huge amounts of energy to accomplish, it would change the climate and habitat there forever, and only last for 30 years or so (if we are lucky). Does anyone really think we would go in there and remove it afterward? It would remain, like some high-tech stonehenge the size of Connecticut for eons.

If we have enough energy, we can mitigate that, we can care for our environment by moving water around. Nuclear power can provide us with whatever we need to do that. Nothing else except orbiting solar satellites can, and those aren't even on the table.

I see my proposal for a solar farm at the Lagrange point was not an original idea!

[amit]

And here's another very long article, again very dated (2005) but still IMO worth a read.

Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power

[gakakkad]

Kudankulam plant fuelling may get nod by next week...

Chennai: Atomic power reactor operator Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) hopes to get the regulatory nod to fuel the first unit of Kudankulam nuclear power plant in a week's time, a top official said here on Saturday.

The NPCIL had sought the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board's permission on April 18 for loading the fuel in the nuclear project in Tirunelveli district, around 650 km from here.

"We are hopeful of getting the board's nod in a week's time. We will then remove the dummy fuel (similar to the real fuel in terms of specifications but without enriched uranium) and start loading the real nuclear fuel," SK Jain, chairman and managing director of NPCIL, said.



"If everything goes well, the fuel loading process will be completed by May or June," Jain said. He cited Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa's April 25 letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the reactor "will be fuelled in the next few days" and it will attain criticality in 20 days' time.

"We have been able to mobilise necessary workforce within three weeks following the state government's nod to go ahead with the project. The hot run of the reactor (trial run without real fuel) was 200 percent success," said Jain while speaking about the status of the first unit of the reactor.

He said the reactor's life expectancy was around 60 years and the NPCIL has the in-service testing capacity for which data was to be collected after hot run.

According to Jain, pre-service inspection will be completed in a couple of days while fine tuning of data is going on.

"We have completed integrated emergency core (reactor core) cooling system simulation. This is a prerequisite for fuel loading," Jain said.

Officials at the Kundankulam plant have tested more than 600 pumps and motors, 200 control panels and the same number of electrical panels and individual systems of the reactor.

Terming reports about the presence of a spring near the reactor building as a rumour, Jain said the NPCIL spent around Rs 10 million to conduct isotope hydrology test to find water reservoir near the project site and could not find even salt water.

Speaking about the safety drills conducted prior to loading nuclear fuel, Jain said they were of three kinds: Plant emergency, site emergency and off-site emergency. The first two of these drills have been completed, Jain said.

"The plant emergency is declared if there is any system malfunctioning. Under this drill, all the plant personnel are required to assemble at a designated place if a warning is sounded. The second drill is site emergency that applies to all those present within 1.6 km radius of the plant. They too have to assemble at a designated place on hearing a warning sound in case of an emergency," Jain said.

The off-site emergency drill is conducted by district administration officials, who are trained by the NPCIL, Jain said.

"We have trained the district administration officials on safety drills such as traffic diversion and informing the people about how to react in an emergency. Training on evacuating people and handling other emergency situations will be done before the reactor goes critical," Jain said.


http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/ku ... 72162.html