India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 20 Jun 2012 21:42

^^^ Using most elementary methods and less than 4 mouse clicks will give this -

(For example see http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html)

Combined Construction and Operating Licenses have been filed for fourteen AP1000 reactors in the United States, two each at...

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant in North Carolina,
William States Lee III Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina.
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia.
Levy County Nuclear Power Plant in Florida,
Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station in Florida
Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station in Alabama.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 20 Jun 2012 22:06

BTW ..Arnab/Neelaji - As you may know
China has officially adopted the AP1000 as a standard for inland nuclear projects.

China wants to have 100 units under construction and operating by 2020,

Per this: http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/WestNuc.html

(And the two you mentioned in China - scheduled to go online something like in a few years - I believe, each of them has 6 units)

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 21 Jun 2012 05:13

vishvak wrote: So now it comes to NaMo to protest when the hardware is 'international western'?

If you had been following the news saar - you would have realised that Mamata di has been a pioneer in these protests by rejecting the proposed Haripur Nuclear power plant in WB (even though it would have been imported from Russia and not the evil west). NaMo could have merely traveled down that path - but then as I said he is a true bharat rakshak

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 21 Jun 2012 06:55

NM does not have a credible opposition like the third front to deal with. If he did he too would be singing a different tune. Mamata is playing the hand voters have dealt her, there was hope she would rise above it but seems unlikely now.
------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile for those claiming nuclear will slay the coal dragon....

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/busi ... 293049.cms

Aided by a jump in output from thermal and nuclear power plants, power generation is expected to grow 13.2% in 2012-13. Power generation increased 8.1% in 2011-12. Thermal power generation, which moved up by 6.6%, is estimated to grow 14.4% in 2012-13, according to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE).

This will largely be on account of the jump in power generated by coal-based plants. Coal-based power generation would increase by around 19200 mw, according to CMIE estimates. Since thermal power accounts for 80-85% of the power generated in the country, it is the biggest factor in any increase in power generation.

Nuclear power generation is likely to grow by 17.1% in the current financial year due to improved availability of uranium and rise in installed capacity. Nuclear power generation would increase by 2000 mw in 2012-13 as the Nuclear Power Corporation of India's Kudankulam atomic power projected would be commissioned this year.

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

BTW the MOU with Westinghouse does not include the fuel core design and almost no technology transfer undertakings. One waits to see the price tag attached.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 21 Jun 2012 07:08

Theo_Fidel wrote:NM does not have a credible opposition like the third front to deal with. If he did he too would be singing a different tune. Mamata is playing the hand voters have dealt her, there was hope she would rise above it but seems unlikely now.

Mamata doesn't have a credible opposition either. It is a matter of their differing worldviews I think (progressive vs regressive). The issue is should we fear a hypothetical nuclear reactor calamity compared to an actual calamity with over 70,000 lives per year lost in India due to coal pollution (and woo hoo - they don't get compensation from GOI either)?

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Jun 2012 12:34

Amber G. wrote:Levy County Nuclear Power Plant in Florida,
Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station in Florida

Turkey Point, like in one of the most hurricane prone areas in the world with winds upwards of 250km/h and storm surges that go into lots of meters . Don't you know what happened in Fukushima ?

Oh. I forget, it is only when a storm surge happens due to a Tsunami it is bad, but when it happens due to a hurricane, it is okay and the generators wont drown in the hurricane surge!

And .. Isn't that Turkey point, somewhere very close to Miami and Key Largo .Don't you know what happened in Fukushima and how Tokya had to be cleared out. Now it is a conspiracy that they are pushing an "Untested" reactor right at the door step of Miami and Key Largo (can you even think of the economic impact of a Chernobyl/Fukushima like blow out?) . What happens to all the Alligators and other wildlife in the everglades and all those nice touristy places in Florida. Wont they get cooked by the heat from the waste water from the Nukes ?. Do you know that even a few deg temp change largely determines whether an Alligator is male or female. You will make all the alligators become extinct by making all the young alligator hatch-lings unisex!

Why aren't the Miami folks up in arms on this. Why aren't the Florida Keys folks out protesting against this and not demanding gas fueled plants from the Gulf of Mexico right at the doorstep or coal shipped in from somewhere else. Don't they have wind blowing at Florida at all. They should put in a million wind mills in all the Keys (oh, tourists love windmills.. don't they flock to Netherlands to see them in millions).. Kind of killing multiple birds (literally) with the windmill thing. Drives out Nukes, protects, keeps Miami and Keys safe, draws in millions of tourists away from Netherlands and it's tulips to Florida. ! So what is the catch in this ?

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Jun 2012 13:23

Cheap Coal is Dead - part 2
World's Poor Deserve Green Energy Too

The World’s Poor Deserve Greener Energy, Too
By Carl Pope - Jun 20, 2012

With oil costing close to $100 a barrel, and most imported Asian coal about $120 a ton, fossil energy costs are crippling emerging economies in Asia and Africa. Although renewable alternatives are far less costly than they were even two years ago, they still can’t match the cheap coal and oil that Asia and Africa had counted on.

Fortunately, if Asia and Africa embrace bottom-up renewable strategies, they can restrain energy costs, while leapfrogging dirty energy into the emerging post-fossil global economy. What are bottom-up strategies? They vary based on markets and geography. What they share is a realization that not all electrons are equal; some are worth far more than others, depending, in part, on their proximity to markets. To make a renewable revolution low-cost, countries should roll out solar and wind projects, investing first in those locales where fossil fuels are most expensive (thanks in India that would mean nowhere, because fossil fuels are made equal in price, whether you live in Himalyan mountains or right outside the LNG import terminal!) .

There are 1.4 billion people without electricity, most of whom aren’t expected to have it for decades. These are the world’s poorest. Counterintuitively, they can best afford the most sophisticated lighting -- LED lights powered by off-grid solar panels. (WTF is this guy smoking. What they CAN afford is to lobby with their politico and ask the govt to give them 30 or whatever units free for their basic needs of lighting) . It is far more sensible to do that, rather than go out and by off grid panels and LED lights.

Costly Lighting

The poor already pay a lot for light, mostly from burning kerosene and candles (the poor don't WE DO, in India). The bottom 20 percent of the global income pyramid pays from 9 percent to 18 percent of the world’s lighting bill while receiving only 0.1 percent of the benefits. Over a decade, a poor family may spend $1,500 or more on kerosene; meanwhile, a decent home solar system would cost just $300, providing not only light, but mobile-phone charging, fans, computers, televisions -- all while saving more than $1,000. (err. Again, this guy is confused on WHO does the paying)

Obviously, the economics are compelling . Access to cheap electricity can increase incomes among the poor by 50 percent, while improving health and educational outcomes (ok. fair point) . Increasingly, cheap electricity will come from renewables : Global coal prices tripled from 2005 to 2011, and the price of copper more than doubled.

Two outmoded ideas stand in the way of lighting the world. One is the grid myth -- the idea that electrification requires extending a costly grid to every home on the planet. Grid power requires big, remote power plants, typically fired by coal, and miles upon miles of copper wire. (there is a logic in centralization.. reliability, back up, economies of scale, efficiency..and note, putting up millions of panels will be more expensive, costly and use more materials, including "miles upon miles" of copper wire!)

The United Nations estimates that at least half of households lacking electricity will need to be served by off- grid, bottom-up solutions. The government of India says the comparable figure for Indians is two-thirds. (When did they say that and where , infact, most of India , leaving out BIMARU is nearly fully electrified with grid power ?) Most of the proposed emerging-market investment in renewable energy is nonetheless devoted to big central solar or wind farms -- where renewables are least competitive. (ah.. the cat is out of the bag. finally)

The second myth is that renewable electrons are expensive and that the poor need subsidies to pay for them. The two major ingredients in home solar -- LED lights and solar panels -- have declined in cost even more rapidly than coal and copper have surged.

A huge fraction of the power pumped into the grid never reaches a customer in India or Africa. As much as 40 percent can be lost in transmission (ah. the basic point of confusion between "loss" and "theft" and subsidies") . Wiring a remote village in India adds $0.02 a kilowatt-hour for each kilometer, making local solar electrons significantly cheaper than those fired by distant coal plants and transmitted by copper wire . True if you are talking of supplying power to ONE house. But if you are talking of a village, it works the other way around. The marginal cost of hooking up an additional house/business /factory to the line , once it is built is next to nothing! It is precisely for that reason, distros like ConEd in highly dense areas like NYC are very profitable , just like landlines historically were. The economies of scale start kicking in very soon,even if you are supplying a small dwelling with 20 families. It is better to get those folks on the grid and you can get control on the subsidies and supply

Financing Options

For the poor, affordability has three dimensions: total cost, upfront price and payment flexibility. That’s why they favor kerosene; they can buy a single day’s supply in a bottle. Solar power comes in a panel that will give 10, even 20, years of light and power. But many cannot afford a 10-year investment or qualify for financing, which requires fixed payments regardless of season. (Of course, the global middle class does not pay for its electricity upfront, either. When I bought my house, I did not get a bill for the power plants and grid that serve it. I pay for power monthly, based on how many kilowatt- hours I use (obviously hasn't heard of a country called India. Here when you buy a plot of land, YOU pay "development" charges for road, power, sewer and everything and wait for 20 years, you MAY get it for your "sanctioned" plot.) . The developer paid for all that when the house you bought in USA was built and that is included in the price of the house you bought

Remote villages are not the only locations suited to low- carbon alternatives. In African and Indian cities, power companies routinely “load shed” -- shutting down power to entire neighborhoods on hot, sunny afternoons when air conditioners overwhelm the local grid ( (the grid gets overwhelmed due to agricultural pumpset load in summers historically, this guy doesn't have a clue). To protect themselves, businesses and the middle class rely on dirty, expensive diesel generators, storing the power in batteries and wasting as much as 25 percent of the energy in the process.

Rooftop solar panels would generate power reliably -- even when demand peaks (ah.. the sun shines magically when demand peaks.. Moreover, solar power would pay for itself with savings that would otherwise be squandered on diesel fuel and a leaky grid. Rooftop solar could end the curse of load- shedding throughout Asia and Africa -- and be profitable (is this guy even for real!) . The customers are waiting. What’s needed are suppliers and permission from power authorities for consumers to sell their excess electricity back to the local grid.

Or take irrigation pumping. Farmers lucky (or politically connected) enough to have access to the grid get cheap, or even free, power. They just don’t know when. Consequently, they buy big, cheap, inefficient pumps to flood their fields. Most of the electricity they use is wasted, along with much of the water they pump. Water tables are drained.

Reliable, efficient solar pumps, combined with drip irrigation, can improve crop yields and reduce wasted water and electricity at a fraction of the cost of forcing remote megawatts through an inefficient grid. In much of Africa, the lack of reliable electricity has led to hugely wasteful irrigation technologies -- or to no irrigation at all.
Solar Solution (okay lets put some numbers here. A 2hp / 1.5kw solar panel will set you back you around $5000! Drip irrigation by another $5000!. Just the capital costs are mind boggling, and this is for a piddly 2 HP pump. Multiply that by millions and you see why there is no economic logic in this. it is just a another way to leach subsidies and that too wastefully on a monumental scale. No farmer is going to put up that kind of capital and hope to recover that capital with a decent return if ever)

Diesel imports are a huge burden in Africa and Asia, with rural mobile-phone towers among the biggest gluttons. By 2015, there will be 1.9 million off-grid towers worldwide, all needing electricity. Replacing diesel with solar, wind or micro-hydro power would save huge amounts on imported fuel and make phone service cheaper and more reliable (another total blurb.. streams will magically start flowing near a tower, wind will always be blowing and so will the sun be shining, and all that will be "cheaper". If it were, Airtel, Vodafone and Reliance would have done exactly this long ago, rather than spend on diesel and generators) . For smaller towers, this is an obvious solution. As Joe Madden, principal analyst at Mobile Experts LLC, wrote, “In the end, a 500 W solar array and a set of deep-cycle batteries to last for several days can be roughly the same cost as a diesel generator, allowing for almost instant return on investment.”

The end of cheap coal and oil does not eliminate affordable energy options for emerging economies. It does require them to revamp their strategies and solve a variety of institutional and financing challenges they had not previously grappled with. Bottom-up strategies can be cheap. They can transform living standards in entire villages Nope, they can't. But they are rarely simple. (nope, devilishly complex)

Exactly as expected a hare brained "Kool Aid" of "simple, cheap solution" that is right there for the asking, "if only" someone would listen to us! Nothing backed by hard numbers, doesn't fit well known experience, and a total mis targeting of who/where/what.

Renewables don't work too well with the grid (they are too erratic for that) and are too expensive , except when you are targeting very small isolated hamlets ( 2 to 3 households in a remote mountain) and not very smart as a one size fits all solution to the energy problem . The grid came into being for very sane and sensible reasons, or the world wouldn't have gone to the grid in the first place, especially since the beginning of time, it was"distributed power" harvested locally (wood, animal dung, twigs , a nearby stream, windmill etc) that provided power.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2012 13:55

Sanku wrote:
Neela wrote: Hmm the 'untested' nuclear power plant (Westinghouse AP1000) is alreadying coming up in 7 locations in the US
Could you please list them Neela ji? Serious question, not kite flying.

AmberG wrote: ^^ Using most elementary methods and less than 4 mouse clicks will give this -

(For example see http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html)

Combined Construction and Operating Licenses have been filed for fourteen AP1000 reactors in the United States, two each at...

Oh boy this is truly understanding English in the best of SCM tradition, no wonder I flunked.

I am sorry, AmberG, I must be one of those who does not understand English well enough to know that "licences filed for == already coming up"

Must be my poor SDRE thinking where license filed for != actual project on the ground.

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

Neela-ji; if you have useful information to add, please do, the question was intended for you, and probably you will be able to add more useful information that that can be obtained by four clicks on internet.

I am still looking for reasonable assessments of real work on NPPs in US. (not slideware)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2012 14:11

vina wrote:
Why aren't the Miami folks up in arms on this. Why aren't the Florida Keys folks out protesting against this

Actually Vina, since you are so intrested in Turkey point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Poi ... ng_Station

Including the two nuclear plants, Turkey Point operates five power-generating units. It comprises two 400-megawatt oil/natural gas-fired generation units (Units 1 and 2) and two nuclear Westinghouse pressurized water reactors (Units 3 and 4), each supplying steam to one high pressure and two low-pressure turbines with a power output rated at 693 MWe for each unit. In 2007, it added the 1,150 MW combined-cycle gas-fired Unit 5.[1]

So Turkey point has in reality added a Thermal power plant while the new NPPs are "planned"

Also the older NPPs are from 1967 and are around end of their life (50 year life cycle) -- this is Fuk-D reactor generation.

And Turkey point has had its share

On February 26, 2008, both reactors were shut down due to the loss of off-site power during a widespread power outage in South Florida, affecting 700,000 customers.[12]

Funny loss of off-site power, leading to shut-down. Sounds a little too much like Fuk-D doesnt it. Only that in case of Fuk-D they managed to shut it down, unlike at Fuk-D.

Hoffman countersued, claiming he was pressured to restart the reactors while they were in a condition which in his judgement made it unsafe to do so. Upper management wanted the reactors restarted during xenon dead time, which would have caused the operators at the controls to continuously step control rods to safely manage reactor output.[/quote]

But that was due to one man, if the NPP owners had their way, they would probably have a Fuk-D type situation there as well.

Ynjoy madi.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2012 14:12

arnab wrote:
Mamata doesn't have a credible opposition either.

Its amazing how much make believe is needed when facts are thin.

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Jun 2012 14:21

Sanku wrote:So Turkey point has in reality added a Thermal power plant while the new NPPs are "planned"

So, pliss to answer this kweschun Maharaj Ji. If there are already some 11xx odd MW of gas based thermal power, why not leverage that gas handling infra and put 5 * 11xx more gas based power ? You don't need to "plan" to put any NPPs at all, tested or 'untested' .

Zimble no ?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2012 14:52

vina wrote:
Sanku wrote:So Turkey point has in reality added a Thermal power plant while the new NPPs are "planned"
So, pliss to answer this kweschun Maharaj Ji. If there are already some 11xx odd MW of gas based thermal power, why not leverage that gas handling infra and put 5 * 11xx more gas based power ? You don't need to "plan" to put any NPPs at all, tested or 'untested' .

Zimble no ?

IFF Florida needs more power, that is what will happen. However since US energy needs are saturated I don't see too much happening other than planning.

However as and when the NPPs start going offline, if that creates a energy shortage in US (highly unlikely I think, given the overall contraction in Industrial activity, and the economy being slightly stagnant to declining) we are likely to see newer option.

I would think that at that time Gas plants would come up, that too in a jiffy, without needing a 10 year planning, public hearing etc etc cycle.

But I personally really wonder if US needs to construct any other power plant for some time to come.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 21 Jun 2012 15:28

Sanku wrote:
Neela-ji; if you have useful information to add, please do, the question was intended for you, and probably you will be able to add more useful information that that can be obtained by four clicks on internet.
I am still looking for reasonable assessments of real work on NPPs in US. (not slideware)

Sanku,
My wording was wrong - they are not coming up already - that would mean that all the 7 nuclear plants are coming up at the same time.
Instead it should have read ( taking hint from AmberG) licenses have been issued and they are in various stages of development INCLUDING "COMING UP"

1. The 2 Bellafonte units have been cancelled but still might get 1 unit- and this has nothing to do with safety ! Falling prices is cited. And if you note my reply to Arnab, I responsed to the safety issue.

2. Georgia plant using WH AP1000 is already coming up:

3. Shearon Harris equipment ordering and manufacturing orders initiated
Scroll to section Long-lead equipment orders:

3. Virgil summer South Carolina

All approvals, including construction approval, are done

ALL AP1000
Now,now,now Sanku, useful information has been added from my side. And I have not even delved into the China plants where 2x6 units I think are IN CONSTRUCTION STAGE - ALL AP1000

Please dont entwine me with other posts and replies. At the same time, I do not see what is wrong with Amber's posts. There were informative and authentic sources.
You, Sanku, need to think twice before posting melodramatic stuff.

Your crystal ball gazing and inferences that planned != construction have been proven wrong!

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Jun 2012 15:35

Sanku wrote:IFF Florida needs more power, that is what will happen. However since US energy needs are saturated I don't see too much happening other than planning.

Ah. But Chote Sarkar, I ask zimble kewschun and you give a wugga-wugga mumble. So I ask again, if gas based power is already there, why even plan for a Nuke , when you can put up equivalent gas based power with very little gestation period before you can even utter the word combinedcycleat55%efficiency!

But I personally really wonder if US needs to construct any other power plant for some time to come.

Well, no one cares about what you wonder, unfortunately. Fortunately, they listen to official projections like Here and Executive Summaries Here which show, US electricity growing at a small rate over the next 25 years , partly because of greater efficiency and an extended recovery.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 21 Jun 2012 15:47

IAEA website should also have details about proposed plants and those in construction.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2012 16:25

Neela wrote: Your crystal ball gazing and inferences that planned != construction have been proven wrong!

Neela-ji, thanks so much for the reply, it was a useful and knowledge post.

However; saying planned != construction is NOT crystal ball gazing. It is common sense and basic English.

The value part of the question was that it has clarified the statement (thanks to your hard work)

Neela wrote:Hmm the 'untested' nuclear power plant (Westinghouse AP1000) is alreadying coming up in 7 locations in the US

to a level where we now know that

1. Reactor site construction -- 1
2. Reactor in approval complete stage -- 1
3. Reactors in sourcing stage -- 1
4. Reactors cancelled -- 1
5. In planning/unknown stage -- rest (not necessarily license issued/ only lic applied for)

I would personally think the above data is useful and very different from your initial statement, which you have agreed with here

Neela wrote:My wording was wrong - they are not coming up already - that would mean that all the 7 nuclear plants are coming up at the same time.

Also I personally think that AmberG's information was exactly as described by her

^^ Using most elementary methods and less than 4 mouse clicks will give this -

So in my book, not really useful (to compare it would be like discussions on high school physics during discussion on reliability engineering)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2012 16:37

vina wrote: Ah. But Chote Sarkar, I ask zimble kewschun and you give a wugga-wugga mumble. So I ask again, if gas based power is already there, why even plan for a Nuke , when you can put up equivalent gas based power with very little gestation period before you can even utter the word combinedcycleat55%efficiency!
.

Oh thats simple, why does China plan for more steel mills in the current environment?

Actually they are worse they actually make.

Because there is a existing industry with legacy behind it which although fading, has not completely faded yet. Therefore they will make a pitch, and plan and try and take a share of replacement requirements etc. There are needs to ensure that all the personnel trained for old NPPs are reused etc.

However projections and all are fine, what will be the proof of pudding will be action -- i.e. real work on the ground, new NPPs vs NPPs EoLed.

Quote:
But I personally really wonder if US needs to construct any other power plant for some time to come.

Well, no one cares about what you wonder, unfortunately. Fortunately, they listen to official projections like Here and Executive Summaries Here which show, US electricity growing at a small rate over the next 25 years , partly because of greater efficiency and an extended recovery.

Vina ji I must say that I am pained here; I know I am poor SDRE not possessing sufficient skills in English as SCM and such like but surely my statement was not so poorly framed?

How please is
Need for new plant construction == electricity growing at small rate?

Especially when you yourself agree that it is partly because of greater efficiency and an extended recovery

i.e. USE OF EXISTING PLANTS BETTER?

Anyway looky this the their massive new demand in best case projections

Projected transportation energy demand grows at an annual rate of 0.2 percent from 2010 through 2035 in the Reference case, and electricity demand grows by 0.8 percent per year.

I am thrilled. Thank you for working so hard to provide numbers to my statements.

Mean while your own posted chart shows

Why are you getting angry at me for saying that any new needs (if any) will come from gas?

The US EIA says the same!!

Thanks for support Vina -- very helpful of you to post those.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 21 Jun 2012 17:35

Sanku
I stand corrected - quite evident in my earlier post.
But I am not sure what your point is now. You jumped into a discussion where I mentioned that safety mechanisms would have been looked into by 3 different entities - US, India , China and approvals for so many plants would not have happened without reviews. What are you getting at?

However you wrote:

However since US energy needs are saturated I don't see too much happening other than planning.

You clearly are wrong there any which way you look at it. More plants are joining the grid.

Tell me, why would US energy planners go for Nuclear when gas, solar - all are substitutes? I am all ears!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2012 17:59

Neela wrote: You clearly are wrong there any which way you look at it. More plants are joining the grid.

I am not sure Neela, what I said was

sanku wrote:However since US energy needs are saturated I don't see too much happening other than planning.

there are two things there, saturation of needs, new plants.

So it can be, one of two
1) more plants are joining the grid

2) newer plants are replacing the ones being phased out. A large number of phase outs are expected in NPPs (50?) This would be replacement in my book rather than new. Even there I really wonder if they really will replace (current best case projections are bleak as it stands -- and I will not go with there assumptions of economic recovery)

So it is entirely possible that a few new plants come in without impacting the overall energy number since old ones drop out. In fact it is not only possible, thanks to the report that Vina posted, I can now share GoTUS numbers, viz a projection of 0.8% per year based on strong economic recovery. That is if recovery happens they "grow" at 0.8% need. Something which in my book is flat.

Tell me, why would US energy planners go for Nuclear when gas, solar - all are substitutes? I am all ears!

My take was that overall, they are not really going for Nuclear. At a maximum level, they are only trying to stablize the current mix.

Again thanks to Vina I can answer the above with greater confidence. Note the table posted above, the electricity mix table, clearly shows nuclear marginally declining from 20% to 18%, and renewable + gas growing.

So part of my assertion is shown to be correct. The fuel mix is shifting. They are indeed not going for nuclear in greater net amount of generation. (since demand in flat and mix decreasing)

However I will challenge myself a little more -- I have claimed that a lot NPPs are going offline (end of life) -- so in fact -- you could question shouldn't Nuclear fall even more steeply (we have seen a small fall) -- and why are ANY nuclear plants being made.

So the new question is Why is US replacing NPPs with NPPs? Should they not walk away from it totally.

Now here is the answer that I gave Vina comes in -- in short
1) Legacy of existing Nuclear infra that needs reusing (man power, old fuel (dismantled bums), fuel creation plants etc etc)
2) Entrenched vested interests of NPP lobby (not unlike any other lobby) nothing particular of NPPs here.
3) Need to keep at least some Nuclear in fuel mix -- long term strategic reasons -- keeping the industry alive etc etc.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 21 Jun 2012 19:37

Sanku wrote: I am not sure Neela, what I said was
sanku wrote:However since US energy needs are saturated I don't see too much happening other than planning.

Temporary spatial blindness ? Never mind - I am a nice person and I will help by highlighting it for you. Can you see now?
Pictures of construction still planning Sanku?

Sanku wrote: 2) newer plants are replacing the ones being phased out. A large number of phase outs are expected in NPPs (50?) This would be replacement in my book rather than

Show the numbers Sanku!
Where are the plants being phased out?
What capacity do these have? Most importantly why are licenses being renewed?

Sanku wrote: My take was that overall, they are not reallygoing for Nuclear. At a maximum level, they are only trying to stablize the current mix.

Out of curiosity, did someone mention US is going to rely heavily on nuclear?

Now here is the answer that I gave Vina comes in -- in short
1) Legacy of existing Nuclear infra that needs reusing (man power, old fuel (dismantled bums), fuel creation plants etc etc)
2) Entrenched vested interests of NPP lobby (not unlike any other lobby) nothing particular of NPPs here.
3) Need to keep at least some Nuclear in fuel mix -- long term strategic reasons -- keeping the industry alive etc etc.

Grow a pair Sanku. Show me 1s and 2s. You sound like a Paki here with conspiracy theories like vested interests.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 21 Jun 2012 20:19

Nuclear is planned in the USA because a large chunk of Government money was allocated to finance it at essentially 0% interest. Nuclear industry has campaigned to have a special exemption requiring rate payers to pay for the planning costs? Utilities are forking in money and so must pretend to plan. I would not link planned to constructed in USA. Privately many executive have said that with the new Shale gas/renewables coming in Nuclear is essentially dead in the water.

The future mix atleast in USA is going to be Renewables+Gas+Hydel+residual coal. No ones planing on Nuclear being anything more than bit player.

BTW the USA has 104 commercial reactors right now and ALL will be shut down by 2050. About half by 2030.

In fact right now the fate of one reactor, the San Onofre hangs in the balance after all kinds of snafu's and mismanagement shenanigans.
-------------------------------------------------------------

BTW since this is India thread it should be pointed out that 2/3's of India is underlain with shale as well. Just the Cuddapah shale bed is roughly the size of massive Marcellus Shale bed of USA in total volume even if it is completely un-explored.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 21 Jun 2012 21:50

Theo_Fidel wrote:The future mix atleast in USA is going to be Renewables+Gas+Hydel+residual coal. No ones planing on Nuclear being anything more than bit player.

.....
BTW since this is India thread it should be pointed out that 2/3's of India is underlain with shale as well. Just the Cuddapah shale bed is roughly the size of massive Marcellus Shale bed of USA in total volume even if it is completely un-explored.

True that the US will be shifting towards shale gas. A few issues still need to be resolved. The fracking process requires *large amounts of water, and the resulting "waste"/recycle water is contaminated with a number of chemicals. Fracking also *may* contaminate groundwater. These issues are barely understood in a scientific manner even though fracking has been carried out for a long time now. A little data is available but there is a question of "conflict of interest" with the data sources. Energy companies are not divulging the composition of the water streams for obvious reasons. Alternative fracking media like supercritical CO2/supercritical propane are being explored, but it may be years for those to come online.

All in all, shale gas fracking *may* be an energy option for India on the large scale. The thing is, it is not worth doing as a "supplemental energy source". If we are going to do it, better go all out. Hence it is presently better wait and watch to understand what the true long-term costs are in the Indian context. Reliance has invested in US shale fracking operations and is probably clued in on the true economic and environmental costs.

It would be a good idea to do some exploratory fracking of Indian shale. It's on the cards:

http://www.theindiaexpert.com/fracking- ... tions-soon

Nuclear power is absolutely necessary for India. No question about that. It's presently the only non-fossil energy source that can crank out grid-ready power on a large scale. We don't need to worry about what the US situation is. The risks and costs of nuclear power are now well understood and we will be only wasting time arguing about it all over again.

Best Regards,

KL

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 21 Jun 2012 22:58

KLP Dubey wrote: The risks and costs of nuclear power are now well understood...

This is breath takingly untrue.

Simple question do you know what the Mithivirdi reactors will cost?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2012 23:16

Neela wrote:
Sanku wrote: I am not sure Neela, what I said was
"sanku">> However since US energy needs are saturated I don't see too much happening other than planning.
Temporary spatial blindness ? Never mind - I am a nice person and I will help by highlighting it for you. Can you see now?
Pictures of construction still planning Sanku?

One off picture of one plant? I would strongly recommend expanding not only the font but the frame of reference.

I am also a very nice person, here let me help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_po ... ted_States

As of 2010, demand for nuclear power softened in America, and some companies withdrew their applications for licenses to build.[2][3] Ground has been broken on two new nuclear plants with a total of four reactors. A reactor currently under construction at Watts Bar, Tennessee was begun in 1973 and may be completed in 2012. Of the 104 reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1974 or earlier.[2][3] In September 2010, Matthew Wald from the New York Times reported that "the nuclear renaissance is looking small and slow at the moment".[4]

Nuclear power is not happening in US, one off ground breaking (not construction) apart. Fact.

What to do, this is what the reality is.

Sanku wrote: Show the numbers Sanku!
Where are the plants being phased out?
What capacity do these have? Most importantly why are licenses being renewed?

Well I thought it was common knowledge for most folks on this thread like most of the stuff we are rehashing, this was discussed many times before.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/15/news/ec ... /index.htm

40 years was the design life. Now at last moment some of them have managed to use TEPCO type tactics to increase the life auto-magically by 20 years.

in the last few years.

Never the less 62 plants get 20 years more.

20 have not yet.

So In next 20 year we have 62+20 = 80 plants up for decommissing.

So 82 plants with 20 years life as opposed to 2 plants with 4 reactors best case.

There, since you consider the large fonts helpful, probably the maths will figure now, what?

Sanku wrote: Out of curiosity, did someone mention US is going to rely heavily on nuclear?

No, but that the question is not whether US will rely heavily on nuclear, that question was answered in 1970s.

The question is that whether the nuclear industry has any hope in US or not -- with 4 ground breaking and 82 reactors up for decommissioning.

The answer is quite difficult to get away from.

Neela wrote: Grow a pair Sanku. Show me 1s and 2s. You sound like a Paki here with conspiracy theories like vested interests.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2012 23:34

KLP Dubey wrote: Nuclear power is absolutely necessary for India. No question about that. It's presently the only non-fossil energy source that can crank out grid-ready power on a large scale. We don't need to worry about what the US situation is.

Dubey-ji, the above is true IF AND ONLY IF we use a Indian solution, using all Indian tech and Indian costs.

That is if we can get the 3-cycles + PWHR + robust institutional mechanism for overwatch and safety.

Only then -- unfortunately, today we are

1) Junking Indian solutions in favor of imports, with reactors not even test and tried in their home country (US has been scraping the mud at some locations for some time but that is all)

2) No credible and independent organization overlooking the sector (the retired heads of these organizations themselves are crying hoarse for the need)

3) A sheer lack of transparency by the current regime in these matter.

Worked fine as long as nuclear energy was as "also" <5% option. WONT WORK if we need to scale it.

To have nuclear energy in India, Indian way is needed if we dont want to end up like US and Japan.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 22 Jun 2012 00:11

Theo_Fidel wrote:
KLP Dubey wrote: The risks and costs of nuclear power are now well understood...
This is breath takingly untrue.

Simple question do you know what the Mithivirdi reactors will cost?

Let me explain. By "risks and costs of nuclear power are well understood", I mean the technoeconomic, environmental, and life cycle analysis of nuclear power is well established and mature. So are the regulatory frameworks which have been in place for decades in many countries. Of course, the results in each specific case will be different depending on the type of reactor, the site chosen, the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) disposal/reprocessing routes, etc.

The current "objections"/"delays" in setting up NPPs have essentially nothing to do with these issues, but rather (unfortunately) with politics, opportunism, and sheer ignorance. These issues have no scientific foundation or rationale. Sme people are not willing to listen to reason from the experts.

Quoting an example of a specific power plant project can be quite misleading. Again, at this point successful awards of any specific NPP licence is NOT constrained by a lack of technoenviroeconomic knowledge. It is constrained either by: (1) a poorly-prepared proposal (bad selection of site, insufficient information to satisfy the regulations) OR (2) factors completely unrelated to the technology.

Nuclear power as such is safe and economically viable for India. Now we may argue over which nuclear power route is the "best". The point is: that question can be answered rigorously beyond reasonable doubt. It may be that all current options are almost equally viable. Or one of them may be the "best" for India in short term or longer term.

As for shale fracking, the regulatory framework even in the US is still immature and there is a gap in rigorous technoenviroeconomic and life cycle analysis. It may turn to be perfectly fine and a good regulatory framework may be put in place, but it does not exist now.

To answer your specific question: I don't know the cost of the proposed Mithivirdi NPP because I am not involved in its development or assessment. It is quite conceivable that people will start objecting to installation of fracking sites too, based upon similar kinds of fears as in the case of NPPs. It is already happening in Texas and other places.

Namaskar,

Kishen Lal

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 22 Jun 2012 00:16

Sanku wrote:To have nuclear energy in India, Indian way is needed if we dont want to end up like US and Japan.

A 100% agreement. No self-respecting country should be developing their energy sector "somebody else's way". Again, the delay in NPP surge in Bharat is due to institutional incompetence and policy inertia, and not due to economic or environmental shortcomings of the technology or lack of technology options. But then, that is just a microcosm of the factors delaying resurgence of Bharatvarsh as a whole.

KL

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 22 Jun 2012 00:50

Sanku wrote: Well I thought it was common knowledge for most folks on this thread like most of the stuff we are rehashing, this was discussed many times before.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/15/news/ec ... /index.htm

BUt in the same link, lotsa lotsa beebuls have applied for extenjun Saar?

40 years was the design life. Now at last moment some of them have managed to use TEPCO type tactics to increase the life auto-magically by 20 years. in the last few years.

Awwww!!! Why the whine now under ROTFL!? Mate , reliability engineering and QA is a field in itself. What do you have to refute safety claims? Nyet right?
No scientific backing=>No opinion. Simples!

Never the less 62 plants get 20 years more.

20 have not yet.

So In next 20 year we have 62+20 = 80 plants up for decommissing.

So 82 plants with 20 years life as opposed to 2 plants with 4 reactors best case.

There, since you consider the large fonts helpful, probably the maths will figure now, what?

Good work Sanku. Well done. Now can you get the dates and I mean firm ones? Gooood luck with that!
Oh and BTW just as reactor decommissioning is difficult to predict, new NPPs planned for 2020-2030 are too early to predict, it does not mean they wont come up.
Think Sanku .

Sanku wrote: No,~~but that the question is not whether US will rely heavily on nuclear, that question was answered in 1970s.~~

Leave it that then ! You come across as a total weirdo taking off on tangents and arguing on points no one is even discussing.

The question is that whether the nuclear industry has any hope in US or not -- with 4 ground breaking and 82 reactors up for decommissioning.
The answer is quite difficult to get away from.
?

Yep, apparently the answer quite difficult for you. You ask a question and you answer it yourself despite conflicting reports. Dissonance is setting in. Your admission that extensions are being applied for is proof and you resort to "TEPCO style tactics" arguments.

Calm down Sanku. Relax.
Lots of things have been said here on this forum and this ain#t new or shocking.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 22 Jun 2012 02:36

KLP Dubey wrote:To answer your specific question: I don't know the cost of the proposed Mithivirdi NPP because I am not involved in its development or assessment. It is quite conceivable that people will start objecting to installation of fracking sites too, based upon similar kinds of fears as in the case of NPPs. It is already happening in Texas and other places.

Saab,

How can you say some thing is economically viable without knowing even the costs of the project. Even the experts don't know the costs or if these things are viable.

I put it to you that even the cost of KKNPP is unknown to you. Esp. when you factor in the cost of the DAE itself, to whom the nation forks over 40% of its research funds annually and has done so for 50+ years. The reason India is so energy poor is we have not made even a fraction of return on our crippling investments.

Now the same agency that you called out for

institutional incompetence and policy inertia

is now in charge of this $40 Billion program. Not only that it also gets to tell itself that everything is safe and it is doing a bloody good job. Even more we recently had a worthy gentleman leader, retiring, claim that in effect nuclear projects in India should be above the law and free of all liability other than some crumbs the GOI decides to toss to people. We are not supposed to ask questions of the 'experts'. It betrays the 'we are experts don't question us' mindset that pervades these organization. It is the same mind set that sends mental health folks to 're-educate' people who are opposed to such power on their land.

Ultimately it comes down to land and who gets to tell people what can be done with their land. Nuclear folks think they are not answerable to a tough crowd, locals think this is their land and folks should take them seriously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

WRT Fracking if it proves un-profitable janab there be no more fracking, simple as that. And yes I too worry about the water issue but then by your standard since nothing bad has happened in India we should simple ignore the concerned folks, no.

The problem we face is that folks have been brain washed since childhood text books to repeat that nuclear power folks are our hero's and they are going to deliver a bright shiny future. We are loath to face reality.

One final question what percentage of India's electric supply is Nuclear?

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 22 Jun 2012 03:36

Theo_Fidel wrote:How can you say some thing is economically viable without knowing even the costs of the project. Even the experts don't know the costs or if these things are viable.

I put it to you that even the cost of KKNPP is unknown to you.

Please read carefully: I am not talking about the installation cost of any specific power plant (nuclear or not). Neither you nor I know the exact "cost" of building and operating any particular plant. I am saying - backed up by decades of well known experience - that the technoeconomic, environmental, and life cycle analysis of nuclear power is mature and is not a question of random interpretation.

Esp. when you factor in the cost of the DAE itself, to whom the nation forks over 40% of its research funds annually and has done so for 50+ years. The reason India is so energy poor is we have not made even a fraction of return on our crippling investments.

This is a very poor-quality assessment of the DAE. They have done fairly well considering the constraints that India's atomic program has been operating under. I am not going to bother replying to it. Suffice it to say the DAE is hardly the prime party responsible for policy inertia and incompetence regarding nuclear power.

Ultimately it comes down to land and who gets to tell people what can be done with their land. Nuclear folks think they are not answerable to a tough crowd, locals think this is their land and folks should take them seriously.

This is almost a medieval attitude towards sound science and sound technology. Much effort has been made to reassure people that nuclear power is safe and viable. Now if it is expected to show people that night is night and day is day, then that becomes a hark back to the Middle Ages. Your entire argument is spurious and circular - you first refuse to consider that the main uncertainty in Indian NPP project costs is the completely non-technological issues surrounding opportunism on land prices and political games spurred on by external interests. And then you complain that the prices of NPPs are "unknown"!

WRT Fracking if it proves un-profitable janab there be no more fracking, simple as that. And yes I too worry about the water issue but then by your standard since nothing bad has happened in India we should simple ignore the concerned folks, no.

We understand that, thanks for the tutorial. In the US it is currently profitable to frack and sell the gas, and there is reason to expect it may be profitable in India as well if there is sufficient gas down there. However - please read again - the picture can change drastically once life cycle analyses and environmental analyses are completed. That is when regulations are imposed which may impact profitability in addition to high upfront investment costs. In the case of nuclear power, such analyses and regulations are already well in place, and they have not changed the inescapable fact that nuclear power is still very much a viable and profitable proposition in India and China, whereas it may not be so in the US. The two cases are completely different - the cost of building an NPP in the US is very different from building one in India or China. In India's case, it is a story of restrictive international regulations having been *lifted* recently.

Your entire argument is very vicious - you attack India's track record of operating nuclear power reactors, knowing full well that they were operating under extreme constraints, and then you are using such logic to say that they should be regulated even more tightly and shut down (when in fact they are on the verge of take-off after the easing of the NSG restrictions)! Such an attitude is not in the national interest.

The problem we face is that folks have been brain washed since childhood text books to repeat that nuclear power folks are our hero's and they are going to deliver a bright shiny future. We are loath to face reality.

Please do not hurl such accusations randomly. There is no such brain-washing that has gone on. The real problem seems to be a lack of education and scientific attitude among the population. That can be changed, but some people's attitude towards nuclear power is so viciously negative that reason no longer influences them.

Namaskar,

KL

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 22 Jun 2012 08:05

KLP Dubey wrote:Please read carefully: I am not talking about the installation cost of any specific power plant (nuclear or not). Neither you nor I know the exact "cost" of building and operating any particular plant. I am saying - backed up by decades of well known experience - that the technoeconomic, environmental, and life cycle analysis of nuclear power is mature and is not a question of random interpretation.

This is simply an opinion, you havn't read back through the pages and pages of data on this very forum to be more cautious. Don't use big words when you run out of data. Even BARC does not claim these things and is a lot more cautious. The truth is no one knows. Only one of the fuel cycles is even economic, that is the once through U-235 cycle. More on this later. All other breeder cycles and Thorium cycles have been tried many many many times by different teams and all have been disappointed and have turned away. India is essentially all alone in pursuing Thorium still. Even in India BARC does not fully know how to pull this of. After 50 years of research. The 3-stage is still up in the air. Decades of well known experience in all the pioneer countries says that Nuclear is too complex, too brittle and too expensive to be worthwhile. Yet India's experience is somehow going to be swarag on earth. What! you ask. They are building the second stage as we speak at Kalpakkam. Ah! But you havn't read the fine print. That is no second stage reactor they are building. It doesn't even have Thorium in it. For that matter it does not even have Uranium in it. It is a RG-Pu reactor designed to give the impression the DAE is making progress. Not only that it is Liquid Sodium reactor, a design that has caused grief from Japan to Russia to USA.

Is this the techno-economic feasibility you were talking about.

Since you seem averse to finding facts let me do a little math for you. Right now the Georgia AP-1000 reactors are coming in at $14 Billion and have announced yet another $1 Billion cost overrun. It is hard to believe they are still moving dirt and have spent $2 Billion already. Anyway say that the Mithivirdi ones come in at $6 Billion for 1000 MW. This is a huge ask as just about everything will be imported but I'll give even that to you. Right now the commercial borrowing interest rate is 13% But say MithiVirdi manages with 10%. Every year the reactor needs $500 Million just to pay interest. Say the reactor has a PLF-parasitic load of 70. So in a year the 1000MW reactor will generate 1000x.7x365x24 ~ 6 Million MW's of power. Say the actual billing number is less due to 20% line losses, stealing, etc and allow for 5 million MW to be billed. Remember that interest cost of $500 Million? So 500 Million$/5 Million MW = $100 per MW just in interest cost. This works out to 10 cents per kw or Rs 5.50 just in interest charges.

Is this the techno-economic feasibility you were talking about.

Now the nation could supply 0% loans as it has at KKNPP and then pretend that everything is hunky dory. But someone else is picking up the interest tab. Most likely the poor suckers stuck with 13% interest loans which probably means you. This is why I say people are brain washed. They are being taken for a ride and ridden quite hard at that and instead of asking questions they encourage more mistreatment.

Let me take it from another angle, remember that Tummalapalle mine that was discovered recently. 150,000 tonnes of Uranium. Huge find. Huge! But remember I told you that only U-235 once through is feasible. So lets do a quick calculation on how much power we get from that massive massive find shall we. We need roughly 250 tons of Uranium (unenriched) per 1000 MW reactor per year. So we can power 150,000/250 = 600 of those 1000MW reactors per year. Now a typical 1000 MW coal plant uses about 2.5 Million tons of coal per year. So 600x2.5 = 1.5 Billion tons of coal. That massive Uranium deposit is the equivalent of 1.5 Billion ton coal deposit.

Lets take this to the next level. Total world reserves are 800,000 Tons of Uranium. It is speculated that about 5 million tons could be extracted. I will give you that as well. I won't even challenge it even though my fingers are twitching.

So that 5 Million tons of Uranium is equivalent 1.5x5/.15 ~ 50 Billion tons of coal. Yes really this is the entire world wet dreamiest quantum of Uranium available, the equivalent of 50 Billion tons of coal. I stress again entire planet. Even TN has more lignite under its fields.

Is this the techno-economic feasibility you were talking about.

I don't blame you for feeling punked or if you need to sit down. You have been sold a bill of goods. When the Nuclear complex takes about power what they are talking about is breeder technology. Under breeder technology yes indeedy we would have plenty of reserves, but what we get instead is U-235 once through and lot of hand waving and shell games to brain wash folks on techno-economic feasibility. It is a simple bait and switch and the complex has perfected this. It is all a shell game where outdated technology is being dumped on India for a kings ransom.

It is not for nothing that we had wild trumpeted claims on this forum that Uranium availability is unlimited because you know the sea is full of it and some Japanese guy soaked up a few micrograms of it with a couple of acres of chaddi's. Really this was defended as techno-economically feasible despite pages of math demonstrating how crazy and impossible it all was.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 22 Jun 2012 08:37

Sanku wrote:

Its amazing how much make believe is needed when facts are thin.

Nah - I can always rely on wikipedia and ROFLs as a substitute for knawlidge

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 22 Jun 2012 08:49

Theo_Fidel wrote: ^^

BTW Theo - here are the levelized costs of electricity generation by Coal and Nuclear and other sectors. Check Table 1 and compare advanced coal with nuclear.

http://205.254.135.7/oiaf/aeo/pdf/2016l ... eo2011.pdf

You have argued in the past of course that you don't 'support' coal either - however that is a copout. You are then relegating us to the paki alternative - No electricity!

Of course other clowns have been advocating that since coal and LNG will continue to be the largest share (over what time frame I wonder?) then why go for nuclear at all?

One should ask the IAF that if manned aircrafts are going to be the mainstay of the IAF in the near future - why invest in unmanned technology at all?

(all high school physics onlee)

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 22 Jun 2012 09:10

Saab,

In west monee for free onlee. India is 13%. DOE LCOE can go take hike and find male deer.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 22 Jun 2012 09:14

Theo_Fidel wrote:Saab,

In west monee for free onlee. India is 13%. DOE LCOE can go take hike and find male deer.

No saar - crony capitalism is alive and well in India too. Tatas were getting singur land loan at a nominal interest rate of 0.5 per cent per annum fixed for a period of 30 years. Same sort of arrangements for prime hospitals in WB. I'm sure similar advantages are offered to industry in all states. Even with such terms - Tatas are finding the UMPP unviable.

Added later: incidentally the DOE calculations are across sectors (not across nations). So free monee would be equally applicable to coal and nuclear. Even taking that into account the coal costs are higher.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 22 Jun 2012 09:29

Theo_Fidel wrote:This is simply an opinion, you havn't read back through the pages and pages of data on this very forum to be more cautious. Don't use big words when you run out of data.

OK - there is no point to this discussion, so this may well be my last post on the matter for now. Not only have I been following the exchanges here for years, but I have also worked in a "nukular" establishment and can throw in 200 pages of hard data from my own study files of "comparative [XYZ] energy future in country Y and country Z". Not the fake estimates you are reeling off (which, upon reading them, I find have already been debunked here). I speak in generalities, not because of a lack of knowledge/data, but because adding more data and reasoning will not deter you from your conviction. In addition, I could get in trouble.

In brief:

1) Your estimate of the Mithivirdi reactors cost is already way overstated, and moreover the cost of reactors/NPPs will continue to *decline* as economies of scale are achieved, and not escalate (unless vested interests find ways to stall them). If you can pull numbers so skilfully right out of the wazoo, you may as well convert some of that TN coal to diamond while you are at it.

2) Nobody in any position of merit in the nuclear establishments of any of the "pioneer countries" (such as USA, Russia, France) - thinks nuclear is "not worthwhile". In the US, nuclear has been artificially "capped". Still, it is a top priority for DOE R&D funds.

3) In comparing nuclear versus coal, your thinking is entirely biased towards fossil fuels, for which you do not account for the same kinds of costs that you are tacking on to nuclear. For example, your arbitrary assumption that nobody is going to do CO2 capture in India is prime folly of a high order. You do not know what plans are afoot. One does not require CO2 capture commitments by the Indian government to force Indian energy producers (AND USERS) to either start capturing CO2 (or shift temporarily to gas and then on to something else). That something else has to be nuclear. There is nothing else on the horizon. Some Indian companies have already caught on to that fact.

4) You have little idea (beyond regurgitating internet data from Wikipedia etc) where the Indian program is, and what its stature is in the nuclear engineering community. There are enough external interests trying to undermine it on top of the assistance from misguided Indians. Your insistence that "nobody knows" about the life cycle costs, SNF reprocessing costs, and decommissioning costs is pure bunkum. On top of that, claiming that coal is more "economical" and we could just gouge out more of that $hit from Tamil Nadu, is truly a Middle Ages solution to a 21st century problem.

5) Believe me, I don't need to sit down. Rather, you need to sit up and take that wake-up call before continuing this misguided track of thinking. Wait and watch the game, and I can guarantee you will have a lot more "unpleasant surprises" happening on the way if you are not going to listen to reason now. Stop this anti-nuclear propaganda.

Namaskar,

KL

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 22 Jun 2012 11:13

KL Sir,
Here is a small summary and checklist of the arguments made in this thread.

Throw doomsday scenarios - check.
Accuse scientists of not understanding the science - check
Throw doubt on costs - check
Throw more doubts on full cost - check
Throw even more doubts on people who understand finance and nuclear industry - check
Self-pity and "aam-junta" exploitation by GoI/TN government - check
"No one except DAE wants KKNPP" - check
Driving wedges [ "TN is even power surplus so KKNPP is only for non-TNs" ] - Check

And believe me , that is some of the least cringe-worthy stuff here.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 22 Jun 2012 11:20

BTW what is the status of the PFBR? When is it slated to complete and generate power?

And what is the status of the AHWR? When is it slated to start construction? IIRC, "independent" design reviews were going on. Any progress on this front? Have they identified where its going to come up?

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 22 Jun 2012 11:22

Before you fling insults, wherefore went your high funda rational thinking. You went and perched yourself in first slip with out going through the perspiration of learning the position. Now ball comes at you hard and fast and you duck cry uncle and swear at bowler. So much for scientific process. Usually when folks here say something here, their stuff has been through fire many many times. Without knowing your stuff don't come and accuse people of being stupid and skeptical of Nuclear because they are too dumb to know what is good for them. Bring knowledge to the table saab and then speak. People are willing to listen. You bring no data and yet you claim my simple numbers are debunked. How so, where is your scientific temperament. Why don't you run the numbers yourself. Let me tell you the DAE very much knows these numbers and has acknowledged them quietly. They just can't say it publicly or they will be out of job tomorrow.

You have admitted that you have zero data on Mithivirdi yet now my estimate taken from the only AP-1000's we have some cost numbers on as being an overestimate. How so.

No one said Nuclear is not worthwhile.The risks vs rewards are not good right now. And studies show it is getting worse with time not better. After Fukushima the cost of insurance in the West has made it likely no new reactor will ever be financed and built privately. Period. This is what killed American Nuclear power not some imagined foolishness, hard nosed economic calculation.

Also no one is thrilled about coal but before you go up against the 800 lb Gorilla in the room folks need to swallow their pride and have some attachment to reality. Tell me again how Nuclear can take on coal then you tilt at that windmill. I say Nuclear power needs to get off life support before it speaks disparagingly of the industry that really keeps the fires of the nation lit. At some point we have to get off coal as well but Nuclear is not going to be any help. Many moons ago one of old posters her and I had a long series of posts about what the numbers were telling us, and in the end both of us agreed that India would run out of electricity long before we got rich, esp. if we depend on Nuclear.

vina · Post by **vina** » 22 Jun 2012 12:32

end both of us agreed that India would run out of electricity long before we got rich

That will happen immediately if you do the cringe worthy stuff like the Sierra Club dude wants to do, like put up $10,000 worth 1.5KW solar panels to run the millions of agricultural pump sets of a measly 2 hp rating.

And oh, those pumps will deliver 1.5kw between only 10:00 am to 3:00 pm at best, think of the massive unused capacity and waste when it is lying idle and cannot be used to do anything else, unless the 100000000000 * 1.5kw panels were on the grid , which even the Sierra Club fellow says doesn't make sense!

Lets face it. The grid is incredibly efficient ,has massive economies of scale in overwhelming majority of cases over distributed power (remember, you can put up a 2.5MW wind turbine, but that serves close to 1500 European homes, put a 3000 KW wind turbine per home and the costs shoot up) and for grid based power, when you consider coal and the investments you need to make in railway and mining and stuff to get it out of the ground, and get it to the power plant (okay, you can have pit head plants and have HVDC lines instead, but the Sierra Club guy doesn't talk of that, because it will blow his calculations of $12 per ton coal at Wyomig and $75 at Ohio due to shipping out of the water .. funny innit?) , nuclear is very very competitive in the Indian context.

Coal works only when you use existing rail and transport infra and also put no costs on pollution.

And oh, a very very very important point I forgot to add. When you centralize generation into a grid, you gain enormously. How so ? If you put small distributed plants locally, you will have to size the plant for MAX power demand locally. So , either you have to ration the available power or limit the no folks you supply power to.

For eg, if the peak demand is 2kw per household and demand is normally distributed, for 1000 households ,

In totally 100% distributed power case, you will need to set up 2KW * 1000 = 2 MW of installed capacity will be needed.

However, if you centralize, the capacity you will need will be 1000 * sqrt(2) = 1.414 MW only, or if you install 2 MW, you will be able to service 2000 / sqrt(2) = 1414 households, or some 414 (close to 42%) households MORE than distributed power.

That is due to very simply math that variance is additive, and so here sqrt(a^2 +b^2) (grid demand) < a+b (distributed demand) .

Drinking the Sierra Club guys Kool Aid will be a monumental monumental disaster that will surely bankrupt the country forever.